I didn't flag your article -- but here's some general thoughts. I've always been kind of disappointed that the curiosity-provoking thing people want to discuss

I didn't flag your article -- but here's some general thoughts. I've always been kind of disappointed that the curiosity-provoking thing people want to discuss on Hacker News is... medical information. I think we're all used to being knowledgeable and well-informed and confident in our opinions -- but I think that works against us when there's a highly detailed and specialized field of research. Wired ran an article recently that made the point that when you stumble across information on your own, you're more invested in the results of your research. I guess I have this worry that as laymen surfing the web, we're just not able to properly "weight" the things we're coming across. https://www.wired.com/story/google-search-quietly-damaging-democracy/ https://www.wired.com/story/google-search-quietly-damaging-d... Case in point... "ResearchGate" is basically a social media site -- kind of like Facebook. Saying it's a "preprint" is a nice way of saying it has the same legitimacy as a comment somebody left on a YouTube video. I've always thought it's unfortunate that it has the word "research" in its name. The one thing I've learned is if you search the web long enough, you'll find a study that proves you're right... about anything. The only real solution is to be really rigorous about where we're getting our information from. I don't know if that's why people flagged the link. And I get it -- it's frustrating when you want to share something, and then instead you're shunned from the conversation altogether. But I think the real problem is that we don't have a better place and format for having these conversations -- for getting the information, assessing it, discussing it, arriving at some kind of informed consensus.... I don't know what the answer is.