4 ms·

What do I mean by "I am a huge believer that the immune system is at the core of many, if not all, mood disorders"? It means i think this is the direction rese

What do I mean by "I am a huge believer that the immune system is at the core of many, if not all, mood disorders"? It means i think this is the direction research should take. It means if people have mood disorders they should see an immunologist first, becasue this is how we can find out right now if it is true. (Many people with Lupus do not know they had Lupus and they were institutionalized with neuropsychiatric lupus and never got the help they needed. My mother was one of them. And see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXFX6OnSlng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXFX6OnSlng That is the suffering those of us with immune issues have to put up with. Does it mean I just want science to prove my belief correct? Of course not. What you need to do is stop being so overly dramatic. What I do believe is more and more research is pointing to Neuroimmunology as the basis for most mental illnesses. Which means I am excited. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6693968/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6693968/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cen3.12639 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cen3.12639 > No, that does not follow. You're literally describing an A -> B, A -> C situation, which does not imply that B -> C. Of course, yes, correlation is not causation until it is proven. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For eff sake, I was just excited and not I had to waste my time explaining this to you and you ruined everything. But let me tell you a story. Both times I caught COVID I had the worst psychosis of my life. And when I a sick with anything, there goes my mood as well. So if that does not tell you the immune system effects mental illness, what will? I mean, to me it seems stupid that people would disagree that the immune system causes mood changes. Who feels happy when they have the flu? And if you knew anything about the tryptophan -> Kynurenine/serotonin pathway you would be even more excited about this discovery. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-kynurenine-pathway-Tryptophan-TRP-the-precursor-for-serotonin-5-HT-can-also-be_fig5_299389444 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-kynurenine-pathway-T... If you do not get excited, what kind of scientists are you? The most boring and uncreative kind I would say.

kerkeslager 2y ago
> What do I mean by "I am a huge believer that the immune system is at the core of many, if not all, mood disorders"? > It means i think this is the direction research should take. If you meant "We should research whether mood disorders have their roots in the immune system," you should have said that instead of the absurd thing you actually said. > It means if people have mood disorders they should see an immunologist first, becasue this is how we can find out right now if it is true. Uh, no, it doesn't mean that. In fact in extreme cases, you're dangerously wrong. Someone who is on the verge of committing suicide should not see a immunologist first, because an immunologist as they are commonly educated today is not equipped to deal with a patient on the verge of suicide. Maybe immunotherapy will be a part of the long-term solution for that patient, but they'll never make it to that point if they kill themselves first. You are giving quack medical advice. Stop. > Does it mean I just want science to prove my belief correct? Of course not. What you need to do is stop being so overly dramatic. What I do believe is more and more research is pointing to Neuroimmunology as the basis for most mental illnesses. Which means I am excited. Sorry, the words "I'm a huge believer" which you actually said actually do mean that you have already come to a conclusion no matter what future science might say. If you didn't mean to say that, fine, but that is actually what the words you said mean. > For eff sake, I was just excited and not I had to waste my time explaining this to you and you ruined everything. I didn't ruin anything. You said something completely, 100% false, and being excited is not an excuse for that. > But let me tell you a story. Both times I caught COVID I had the worst psychosis of my life. And when I a sick with anything, there goes my mood as well. So if that does not tell you the immune system effects mental illness, what will? If you had said something as vague as "the immune system effects mental illness" I would not had any objection. That is not what you said. > I mean, to me it seems stupid that people would disagree that the immune system causes mood changes. Who feels happy when they have the flu? Acute emotions caused by a short-term infection are not a mood disorder. The incorrect claim you made which I disagreed with was about mood disorders. > If you do not get excited, what kind of scientists are you? The most boring and uncreative kind I would say. I am excited about new research and the potential therapies it will likely result in. What I'm not excited about is your pseudo-scientific stream of consciousness. What you said, wasn't true, it wasn't science, and it wasn't exciting. What you said was a sloppily-worded over-confident claim that is plainly not true, and only vaguely resembles a claim that might be proven true in the future.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  I am starting with your last sentence first, because it explains so much: > What you said was a sloppily-worded over-confident claim that is plainly not true, and only vaguely resembles a claim that might be proven true in the future. You are saying already, that my untested hypothesis is not true. Yet you say it my be proven true in the future? I never said was as true, I said it was my belief that it was true. But here you are saying it is defiantly not true. On now, I noticed this is of some interest to you when I found this on your website: https://files.kerkeslager.com/pdf/AntidepressantFoods.pdf https://files.kerkeslager.com/pdf/AntidepressantFoods.pdf You know, that view is well outside of the mainstream and has zero scientific evidence. If I went to my PDoc she could not prescribe me food. > If you meant "We should research whether mood disorders have their roots in the immune system," you should have said that instead of the absurd thing you actually said. FFS, I am not writing a thesis, I am commenting on HN. > Someone who is on the verge of committing suicide should not see a immunologist first Weird. I never said that. Being someone who attempted suicide twice myself I do not think that is a good idea. > You are giving quack medical advice. Stop. Where did I do that? Are immunologist quack doctors? Like the one I see? Hmm... And what is it with the "Stop."? That is odd. Really controlling and you are acting like you are the Daddy to the world. > Sorry, the words "I'm a huge believer" which you actually said actually do mean that you have already come to a conclusion no matter what future science might say. You can hold a belief, and go in a certain direction, and when that belief is proved wrong, change your belief. Again, you are making strange assumptions. For example, I could hold the belief that turning left is the way to get to my house, act on that belief, and when I do not see my house say; "Oh I was wrong". > If you had said something as vague as "the immune system effects mental illness" I would not had any objection. Seems like you have difficulty with interpreting what people say based on your own strict guidelines. > Acute emotions caused by a short-term infection are not a mood disorder. No, but what if someone has a virus, like EBV, for a long time? Suddenly the short term mood issues is now a mood disorder. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025817/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025817/ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/493868 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abst... Really, your lack of creative thought is really surprising to me. > What you said, wasn't true, Not yet. It is just a hypothesis that does not get tested because of the lack of funding and creative thinking in the field. You know, my mother was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder 60 years ago and they are still trying to treat it the same exact way, > it wasn't science Yes, you just freaked out over my word choice. I talk to researchers everyday and I also discovered my illness was caused by a partial PNP deficiency (primary immunodeficiency) that went diagnosed my whole life. But who am I to have a "belief"? > and it wasn't exciting. Who are you, Spock? If you cannot get excited by science and the possibility of curing mental illness then you are lacking in the creative thought needed to move science in a beneficial direction.

kerkeslager 2y ago

> What do I mean by "I am a huge believer that the immune system is at the core of many, if not all, mood disorders"? > It means i think this is the direction research should take. If you meant "We should research whether mood disorders have their roots in the immune system," you should have said that instead of the absurd thing you actually said. > It means if people have mood disorders they should see an immunologist first, becasue this is how we can find out right now if it is true. Uh, no, it doesn't mean that. In fact in extreme cases, you're dangerously wrong. Someone who is on the verge of committing suicide should not see a immunologist first, because an immunologist as they are commonly educated today is not equipped to deal with a patient on the verge of suicide. Maybe immunotherapy will be a part of the long-term solution for that patient, but they'll never make it to that point if they kill themselves first. You are giving quack medical advice. Stop. > Does it mean I just want science to prove my belief correct? Of course not. What you need to do is stop being so overly dramatic. What I do believe is more and more research is pointing to Neuroimmunology as the basis for most mental illnesses. Which means I am excited. Sorry, the words "I'm a huge believer" which you actually said actually do mean that you have already come to a conclusion no matter what future science might say. If you didn't mean to say that, fine, but that is actually what the words you said mean. > For eff sake, I was just excited and not I had to waste my time explaining this to you and you ruined everything. I didn't ruin anything. You said something completely, 100% false, and being excited is not an excuse for that. > But let me tell you a story. Both times I caught COVID I had the worst psychosis of my life. And when I a sick with anything, there goes my mood as well. So if that does not tell you the immune system effects mental illness, what will? If you had said something as vague as "the immune system effects mental illness" I would not had any objection. That is not what you said. > I mean, to me it seems stupid that people would disagree that the immune system causes mood changes. Who feels happy when they have the flu? Acute emotions caused by a short-term infection are not a mood disorder. The incorrect claim you made which I disagreed with was about mood disorders. > If you do not get excited, what kind of scientists are you? The most boring and uncreative kind I would say. I am excited about new research and the potential therapies it will likely result in. What I'm not excited about is your pseudo-scientific stream of consciousness. What you said, wasn't true, it wasn't science, and it wasn't exciting. What you said was a sloppily-worded over-confident claim that is plainly not true, and only vaguely resembles a claim that might be proven true in the future.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
I am starting with your last sentence first, because it explains so much: > What you said was a sloppily-worded over-confident claim that is plainly not true, and only vaguely resembles a claim that might be proven true in the future. You are saying already, that my untested hypothesis is not true. Yet you say it my be proven true in the future? I never said was as true, I said it was my belief that it was true. But here you are saying it is defiantly not true. On now, I noticed this is of some interest to you when I found this on your website: https://files.kerkeslager.com/pdf/AntidepressantFoods.pdf https://files.kerkeslager.com/pdf/AntidepressantFoods.pdf You know, that view is well outside of the mainstream and has zero scientific evidence. If I went to my PDoc she could not prescribe me food. > If you meant "We should research whether mood disorders have their roots in the immune system," you should have said that instead of the absurd thing you actually said. FFS, I am not writing a thesis, I am commenting on HN. > Someone who is on the verge of committing suicide should not see a immunologist first Weird. I never said that. Being someone who attempted suicide twice myself I do not think that is a good idea. > You are giving quack medical advice. Stop. Where did I do that? Are immunologist quack doctors? Like the one I see? Hmm... And what is it with the "Stop."? That is odd. Really controlling and you are acting like you are the Daddy to the world. > Sorry, the words "I'm a huge believer" which you actually said actually do mean that you have already come to a conclusion no matter what future science might say. You can hold a belief, and go in a certain direction, and when that belief is proved wrong, change your belief. Again, you are making strange assumptions. For example, I could hold the belief that turning left is the way to get to my house, act on that belief, and when I do not see my house say; "Oh I was wrong". > If you had said something as vague as "the immune system effects mental illness" I would not had any objection. Seems like you have difficulty with interpreting what people say based on your own strict guidelines. > Acute emotions caused by a short-term infection are not a mood disorder. No, but what if someone has a virus, like EBV, for a long time? Suddenly the short term mood issues is now a mood disorder. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025817/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025817/ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/493868 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abst... Really, your lack of creative thought is really surprising to me. > What you said, wasn't true, Not yet. It is just a hypothesis that does not get tested because of the lack of funding and creative thinking in the field. You know, my mother was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder 60 years ago and they are still trying to treat it the same exact way, > it wasn't science Yes, you just freaked out over my word choice. I talk to researchers everyday and I also discovered my illness was caused by a partial PNP deficiency (primary immunodeficiency) that went diagnosed my whole life. But who am I to have a "belief"? > and it wasn't exciting. Who are you, Spock? If you cannot get excited by science and the possibility of curing mental illness then you are lacking in the creative thought needed to move science in a beneficial direction.