Given that it's difficult to judge whether or not a specific piece of medical advice is good or bad, many people will flag anything that's 1) not solidly establ

Given that it's difficult to judge whether or not a specific piece of medical advice is good or bad, many people will flag anything that's 1) not solidly established standard of care or treatment and/or 2) not backed by a very robust reference or citation. Yes, it's likely that some potentially valid advice gets nuked in this regard, but it also captures a lot of the bad. Medical information couched as "I'm not an expert, here's my experience and some supporting references, your mileage may vary" tends to fly far better than doubling down on dissing opposing viewpoints or wildly novel and unsubstantiated information. Dang's somewhat adjacent commentary: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20078667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20078667> (in the context of someone requesting that bad medical advice be flagged). My view is that at best HN might raise potential treatments / practices which people should evaluate with a qualified medical professional. And yes, I'm aware that both access to and quality of same varies tremendously and can well be its own massive challenge. Particularly when capacity to seek out and engage with providers is itself limited.