5 ms·

> Spreading such misinformation can lead to people not seeking treatment and getting hurt. Misinformation? Unless you have expert knowledge in that domain - an

by ColanR 6y ago

> Spreading such misinformation can lead to people not seeking treatment and getting hurt. Misinformation? Unless you have expert knowledge in that domain - and unless the alternatives podgaj describes have been exhaustively eliminated by a body of peer-reviewed research - you have absolutely no justification to label that as misinformation.

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
> and unless the alternatives podgaj describes have been exhaustively eliminated by a body of peer-reviewed research - you have absolutely no justification to label that as misinformation. That's not how that should work. If I say that my farts cure cancer, it's not the job of peer-review research to disprove me, and until then we all just assume that the information I'm giving is good.
- ColanR 6y ago
  > until then we all just assume that the information I'm giving is good. Fallacy of the excluded middle. There's other alternatives to a) saying it's outright false and b) saying it's outright true. I'm saying it shouldn't be labeled "misinformation" without extensive evidence to back it up, just as you're saying it shouldn't be labeled "truth" without the same level of evidence. Instead, it's actually possible that we could discuss the theory as if it might be true, or false, until there's sufficient evidence to rule out one or the other. It's Pelic4n's refusal to do this that I take issue with.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    Ok, so misinformation may be too strong a word - really it's just unfounded, so that labeling IS wrong. I still think we need to treat it as false until we have evidence it works. I'm sure you wouldn't treat my farts as curing cancer if I made the claim unless there was proof.
    - ColanR 6y ago
      Glad we agree on the essentials. There was anecdotal evidence to back up the claim, however; it's not "unfounded." While that's not enough evidence to make any real claims, it is enough evidence to have a conversation. A conversation is a prelude to an exploration, and an exploration is a prelude to a hypothesis, which is the beginning of an experiment. An experiment is where we obtain the evidence to begin to say that it might be true, or false. It's entirely possible to think about something and even discuss it without labeling it as either true or false - to be simply agnostic. We don't need to jump to conclusions. If we aren't jumping to conclusions, then it would be incorrect to say that we treat it as false, just as it would be incorrect to say that we treat it as true.
Pelic4n 6y ago
Calling bipolar disorder not a disorder and saying it can be self-treated with lifestyle & diet changes absolutely is misinformation. Ask any psychiatrist. I do not need a medical degree to say that, in the same way I do not need a medical degree to say that self-treating cancer or any serious illness with diet and lifestyle change is misinformation and dangerous. These statements taken as face value are incredibly dangerous. I have family relatives that did not seek treatment for psychiatric illnesses (actually diagnosed bipolar disorder) on the basis that it can be self-managed by diet, lifestyle accomodiations and "natural medicine" such as essential oils. They posed a threat not only to themselves, but to their 12/13yo children, almost stabbing them with a kitchen knive during a manic rage episode. Bipolar disorder is not a difference in executive function, it is a debilitating, life altering illness which can makes the subject a danger to themselves and others if left unchecked. This kind of misinformation regarding psychiatric illnesses kills.
- ColanR 6y ago
  I'm sorry about your family. But extrapolating from their uninformed use of essential oils to say that the psychiatrist's recommendation is always right is just swinging from one extreme to another. As podgaj said elsewhere, > I literally have the metabolic and genetic proof that I found out what was causing my mood disorder. We aren't talking about essential oils, or anything close. podgaj also says pretty clearly that the psychiatrist's recommendations were doing him no good at all. Don't let your personal grief harm others -- in this case, by denying that there is any alternative to using the antipsychotic medication that a psychiatrist would recommend. > Ask any psychiatrist. Only if the evidence is totally conclusive, as I mentioned elsewhere. Otherwise, asking a psychiatrist will only get you 10-20 year old data from the textbooks they read in school, and whatever they've learned to try and keep up to date since then. That's great when you have a fairly normal problem with a straightforward solution and no strange factors in play. People seem to think medicine is more or less solved, like physics or computer science (ha) -- it's not. We don't even know why people tend to get colds in the winter! Even for that, the best we have are competing theories. Here's an example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22340278/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22340278/. It's about schizophrenia, but as a psychiatric illness it's close enough to illustrate my point. There were even bipolar patients included in the group, though they didn't contribute to these conclusions. A 20 year longitudinal study of 139 psychotic patients; here's a key quote (SZ is shorthand for schizophrenia): > At the 2-year assessment there were no significant differences in severity of psychosis between SZ on antipsychotic medications and SZ not on any medications. However, starting at the 4.5-year follow-ups and continuing over the next 15 years, the SZ who were not on antipsychotic medications were significantly less psychotic than those on antipsychotics (p<0.05). > In addition (see Fig. 1), starting at the 4.5-year follow-up and continuing at each assessment over the next 15 years, a significantly larger percentage of SZ not on medications experienced a period of recovery (p<0.01), which also requires adequate work and social functioning. Dependence on experts can cause irreparable damage, too.

by ColanR 6y ago

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago

> and unless the alternatives podgaj describes have been exhaustively eliminated by a body of peer-reviewed research - you have absolutely no justification to label that as misinformation. That's not how that should work. If I say that my farts cure cancer, it's not the job of peer-review research to disprove me, and until then we all just assume that the information I'm giving is good.

ColanR 6y ago
> until then we all just assume that the information I'm giving is good. Fallacy of the excluded middle. There's other alternatives to a) saying it's outright false and b) saying it's outright true. I'm saying it shouldn't be labeled "misinformation" without extensive evidence to back it up, just as you're saying it shouldn't be labeled "truth" without the same level of evidence. Instead, it's actually possible that we could discuss the theory as if it might be true, or false, until there's sufficient evidence to rule out one or the other. It's Pelic4n's refusal to do this that I take issue with.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  Ok, so misinformation may be too strong a word - really it's just unfounded, so that labeling IS wrong. I still think we need to treat it as false until we have evidence it works. I'm sure you wouldn't treat my farts as curing cancer if I made the claim unless there was proof.
  - ColanR 6y ago
    Glad we agree on the essentials. There was anecdotal evidence to back up the claim, however; it's not "unfounded." While that's not enough evidence to make any real claims, it is enough evidence to have a conversation. A conversation is a prelude to an exploration, and an exploration is a prelude to a hypothesis, which is the beginning of an experiment. An experiment is where we obtain the evidence to begin to say that it might be true, or false. It's entirely possible to think about something and even discuss it without labeling it as either true or false - to be simply agnostic. We don't need to jump to conclusions. If we aren't jumping to conclusions, then it would be incorrect to say that we treat it as false, just as it would be incorrect to say that we treat it as true.

Pelic4n 6y ago

Calling bipolar disorder not a disorder and saying it can be self-treated with lifestyle & diet changes absolutely is misinformation. Ask any psychiatrist. I do not need a medical degree to say that, in the same way I do not need a medical degree to say that self-treating cancer or any serious illness with diet and lifestyle change is misinformation and dangerous. These statements taken as face value are incredibly dangerous. I have family relatives that did not seek treatment for psychiatric illnesses (actually diagnosed bipolar disorder) on the basis that it can be self-managed by diet, lifestyle accomodiations and "natural medicine" such as essential oils. They posed a threat not only to themselves, but to their 12/13yo children, almost stabbing them with a kitchen knive during a manic rage episode. Bipolar disorder is not a difference in executive function, it is a debilitating, life altering illness which can makes the subject a danger to themselves and others if left unchecked. This kind of misinformation regarding psychiatric illnesses kills.

ColanR 6y ago
I'm sorry about your family. But extrapolating from their uninformed use of essential oils to say that the psychiatrist's recommendation is always right is just swinging from one extreme to another. As podgaj said elsewhere, > I literally have the metabolic and genetic proof that I found out what was causing my mood disorder. We aren't talking about essential oils, or anything close. podgaj also says pretty clearly that the psychiatrist's recommendations were doing him no good at all. Don't let your personal grief harm others -- in this case, by denying that there is any alternative to using the antipsychotic medication that a psychiatrist would recommend. > Ask any psychiatrist. Only if the evidence is totally conclusive, as I mentioned elsewhere. Otherwise, asking a psychiatrist will only get you 10-20 year old data from the textbooks they read in school, and whatever they've learned to try and keep up to date since then. That's great when you have a fairly normal problem with a straightforward solution and no strange factors in play. People seem to think medicine is more or less solved, like physics or computer science (ha) -- it's not. We don't even know why people tend to get colds in the winter! Even for that, the best we have are competing theories. Here's an example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22340278/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22340278/. It's about schizophrenia, but as a psychiatric illness it's close enough to illustrate my point. There were even bipolar patients included in the group, though they didn't contribute to these conclusions. A 20 year longitudinal study of 139 psychotic patients; here's a key quote (SZ is shorthand for schizophrenia): > At the 2-year assessment there were no significant differences in severity of psychosis between SZ on antipsychotic medications and SZ not on any medications. However, starting at the 4.5-year follow-ups and continuing over the next 15 years, the SZ who were not on antipsychotic medications were significantly less psychotic than those on antipsychotics (p<0.05). > In addition (see Fig. 1), starting at the 4.5-year follow-up and continuing at each assessment over the next 15 years, a significantly larger percentage of SZ not on medications experienced a period of recovery (p<0.01), which also requires adequate work and social functioning. Dependence on experts can cause irreparable damage, too.