3 ms·
That doesn't really contradict the post you're responding to, does it? (they say it is not that useful for bespoke medicine, you say that people are using it fo
by dahinds 2y ago
That doesn't really contradict the post you're responding to, does it? (they say it is not that useful for bespoke medicine, you say that people are using it for research purposes, both can be true?)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> they say it is not that useful for bespoke medicine, you say that people are using it for research purposes, both can be true? They said it is “really a marketing for bespoke medicine.” That implies only (or mostly) useful to bespoke medicine as a marketing tool. Demonstrating any significant other utility falsifies that statement.
- TeMPOraL 2y agoStill both can be true. I'd say it's even a common thing in medicine. Researchers may be researching something real with well-defined range of effect/application, meanwhile many a scoundrel will pick up the same term to market their bullshit treatments or lifestyle advice, and when interrogated, they'll actually point at some of the published studies of the real thing, hoping people won't understand the difference.