5 ms·

thinking that our own judgement is better than a doctor judgement, supported by a vast community and shared knowledge, is epistemically interesting. Beware that

thinking that our own judgement is better than a doctor judgement, supported by a vast community and shared knowledge, is epistemically interesting. Beware that I'm not saying that doctors, or the scientific community, can't be wrong, everyone can be wrong, even ourselves. Personally, I'd rather have a proper doctor prescribe me said medicine than take it myself.

RamblingCTO 1y ago
I'd say it's irrelevant. Doctors typically have no exposure, interest nor knowledge about these things. So they are not the ones to have an opinion about it.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  We should fix that then. (Timothy Leary was in fact a doctor. Perhaps though his overly zealous enthusiasm for LSD makes him not the ideal example in this case though.)
  - RamblingCTO 1y ago
    Not sure tbh. This is still in its infancy and not "stable" enough for a bigger adoption rate. So while we're still researching I feel like it's ok that we don't get it out to the masses.
soulofmischief 1y ago
In an ideal world maybe, but in the real world, most doctors are conditioned by US propaganda and the War on Drugs. Their views are compromised. Furthermore, I've had mixed experiences with health professionals. It took me 10 years across multiple clinics and states to get diagnosed with gout that I've had since at least my late teens. Laughed out of multiple doctor's offices because I'm a "healthy young male" even though each day and night was filled with excruciating pain and drastically reduced mobility. "Full test panels" that specifically did not test my uric acid, because no healthy young male has gout. No mention of gout ever to me, of course. I had to self diagnose as the disease progressed due to lack of treatment. Got my diagnosis confirmed by a physician's assistant, because both doctors at that clinic were on vacation at the same time for like the third time that quarter. He ordered a uric acid test, and was surprised that I'd never been offered one. Both doctors had literally laughed me out of the office over the previous months. But I was persistent and it turns out the physician's assistant there was both more thorough and more knowledgeable than either doctor, helping me finally begin a path to treatment. I was damn near about to kill myself from a decade of extraordinary pain. From my discussions with older, typical gout sufferers, my case is extraordinarily bad and most of them only experience mild pain. It's equally as silly to place 100% trust in doctors as it is to place 0% trust in them.
- z3c0 1y ago
  When there's millions of doctors, not only are there going to be more mediocre doctors than anything, but there has to be a bottom of the barrel as well. It took me years to be diagnosed with PTSD, a problem I knew I had. Because I am not a vet, I had to go through every other diagnosis first -- schizo, bipolar, borderline -- each with a new set of pills to take. Some of the shrinks who diagnosed me wouldn't do anything but open my file, make some remarks, and fill out a prescription, with nary any eye contact. Finally got a very expensive doctor who wasn't under the thumb of insurance companies. Her first question, upon hearing my issues, was "how is your sleep?" "I don't, really" was my reply. Screened me for PTSD and I clocked 76/80 pts. She set me up with the proper therapy, and within a year, I was screening at 30/80 pts. All it took was asking me one question that wasn't loaded towards the doctors favorite diagnosis & prescription.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  Isn't every medicine a drug, since a drug with medical application in the right dose is just called medicine?
  - dekhn 1y ago
    No.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      Guess we have different definitions then. In the usage I got to know, every medicine (besides placebos and household remedies) are drugs. This was supposed to be a nitpick and a rhetorical question. Care to elaborate how your definition differs? Do you think yours is general for english/US?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
hiddencost 1y ago
Given that the current regime is bringing back measles, appeals to authority are becoming fraught.
AyyEye 1y ago
After seeing someone I love tortured for weeks at a hospital primarily because every one of the doctors was convinced they knew better than her -- I'm very much on the 'we can do just fine on our own' train. Do some research, use good sources, let docs stop you from bleeding out if it comes to that.
gwbas1c 1y ago
> thinking that our own judgement is better than a doctor judgement, supported by a vast community and shared knowledge, is epistemically interesting. The medical community is concerned with physical health, mental health, ect. The Psychedelic community is more like a religion; it is "vast" and there is a lot of "shared knowledge" if you go looking. The thing is, western medicine's purpose really isn't to do the kind of thing that psychedelics are for. It's probably better not to conflate the two communities, because they use drugs for very different purposes. A different way to say it: Don't confuse the pharmacy and the liquor store.
- esseph 1y ago
  This is absolutely /bullshit/. That medical doctor doesn't even know how most of the medications work, or why! If it was just about "health" a lot of things with our modern medical care would be different.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Isn't this what the years-long studies and rigorous state examination is for? How would they selecting medication, when they wouldn't know the mechanism of action?
    - esseph 1y ago
      Congrats, you just described mental healthcare. And a bunchhhhh of other things.
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        You have state examination for other professions? We only have them for medical professions, laywers, criminal-related professions and teachers. I think in most cases were the patient thinks he is smarter than the doctor, the latter already knows the argument, but also why it is wrong/more complicated. When something is understoodable by laymen, the doctor will be fine to understand it and better suited to judge it.
corry 1y ago
I agree with you for the most part. But the same medical establishment that pumped opioids everywhere, demonized fat instead of sugar, claimed tobacco was fine, overprescribed mental health drugs, etc is perhaps not a slam-dunk example of why we should trust the "expert consensus" on emerging treatments and techniques. Compounding the issue is the eye-rolling hypocrisy that in the so-called "Land of the Free", a healthcare system controlled by the gatekeepers of big pharma and for-profit companies gets a blind pass... but putting certain plants (that you can grow yourself) into your own body is considered a serious felony...? There's at least a sliver of daylight here that mean YMMV (which I'm sure you and I would agree on) - but if you lack the freedom to choose anyways, then it doesn't matter. And the people who decide for you are clearly part of a system that is compromised by regulatory capture, political polarization, and the insatiable greed of American healthcare.
spjt 1y ago
With things the way they are, it's not hard to be more knowledgeable about a condition than your doctor. Doctors have to know about all the possible conditions people can have, I only have to know about the one I have, so I've spent more time researching it than the doctor. If you don't know what's wrong with you, then a doctor is absolutely the way to go. But if you already have a diagnosis, you can go spend time researching it, the doctor isn't going to do that.
fedeb95 1y ago
I can't edit anymore so I'll comment. My point is that it's epistemically interesting. What makes it so is that it's hard (at least to me) to decide who's right or wrong. To do so would need an expert-level understanding of the matter at hand. That is not possible: I choose my own biased judgement, someone else potentially biased judgement, or I trust experts and a broader group of people that seems to have things sorted? Trusting others, I make the same choice (epistemically, let me stress again) as choosing my own biased judgement, after all it is my biased judgement that makes me choose that way. At some point, you have faith in something: yourself, the media, some partial knowledge of published papers (am I interpreting their relevance correctly?). My guess (but it is mine alone, going back into the loop) is that a broader group of people someone mitigates failures in having faith into the wrong stuff. This again is not true in general. All this to say, it's interesting to note how on some topics the general public seems to split into two groups, one advocating for the complete trust in the expert, the other for more or less complete self made opinions. Usually health, education, ... ? It seems to me that there isn't such a split for other topics.

RamblingCTO 1y ago

I'd say it's irrelevant. Doctors typically have no exposure, interest nor knowledge about these things. So they are not the ones to have an opinion about it.

JKCalhoun 1y ago
We should fix that then. (Timothy Leary was in fact a doctor. Perhaps though his overly zealous enthusiasm for LSD makes him not the ideal example in this case though.)
- RamblingCTO 1y ago
  Not sure tbh. This is still in its infancy and not "stable" enough for a bigger adoption rate. So while we're still researching I feel like it's ok that we don't get it out to the masses.

soulofmischief 1y ago

In an ideal world maybe, but in the real world, most doctors are conditioned by US propaganda and the War on Drugs. Their views are compromised. Furthermore, I've had mixed experiences with health professionals. It took me 10 years across multiple clinics and states to get diagnosed with gout that I've had since at least my late teens. Laughed out of multiple doctor's offices because I'm a "healthy young male" even though each day and night was filled with excruciating pain and drastically reduced mobility. "Full test panels" that specifically did not test my uric acid, because no healthy young male has gout. No mention of gout ever to me, of course. I had to self diagnose as the disease progressed due to lack of treatment. Got my diagnosis confirmed by a physician's assistant, because both doctors at that clinic were on vacation at the same time for like the third time that quarter. He ordered a uric acid test, and was surprised that I'd never been offered one. Both doctors had literally laughed me out of the office over the previous months. But I was persistent and it turns out the physician's assistant there was both more thorough and more knowledgeable than either doctor, helping me finally begin a path to treatment. I was damn near about to kill myself from a decade of extraordinary pain. From my discussions with older, typical gout sufferers, my case is extraordinarily bad and most of them only experience mild pain. It's equally as silly to place 100% trust in doctors as it is to place 0% trust in them.

z3c0 1y ago
When there's millions of doctors, not only are there going to be more mediocre doctors than anything, but there has to be a bottom of the barrel as well. It took me years to be diagnosed with PTSD, a problem I knew I had. Because I am not a vet, I had to go through every other diagnosis first -- schizo, bipolar, borderline -- each with a new set of pills to take. Some of the shrinks who diagnosed me wouldn't do anything but open my file, make some remarks, and fill out a prescription, with nary any eye contact. Finally got a very expensive doctor who wasn't under the thumb of insurance companies. Her first question, upon hearing my issues, was "how is your sleep?" "I don't, really" was my reply. Screened me for PTSD and I clocked 76/80 pts. She set me up with the proper therapy, and within a year, I was screening at 30/80 pts. All it took was asking me one question that wasn't loaded towards the doctors favorite diagnosis & prescription.
1718627440 1y ago
Isn't every medicine a drug, since a drug with medical application in the right dose is just called medicine?
- dekhn 1y ago
  No.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Guess we have different definitions then. In the usage I got to know, every medicine (besides placebos and household remedies) are drugs. This was supposed to be a nitpick and a rhetorical question. Care to elaborate how your definition differs? Do you think yours is general for english/US?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

hiddencost 1y ago

Given that the current regime is bringing back measles, appeals to authority are becoming fraught.

AyyEye 1y ago

After seeing someone I love tortured for weeks at a hospital primarily because every one of the doctors was convinced they knew better than her -- I'm very much on the 'we can do just fine on our own' train. Do some research, use good sources, let docs stop you from bleeding out if it comes to that.

gwbas1c 1y ago

> thinking that our own judgement is better than a doctor judgement, supported by a vast community and shared knowledge, is epistemically interesting. The medical community is concerned with physical health, mental health, ect. The Psychedelic community is more like a religion; it is "vast" and there is a lot of "shared knowledge" if you go looking. The thing is, western medicine's purpose really isn't to do the kind of thing that psychedelics are for. It's probably better not to conflate the two communities, because they use drugs for very different purposes. A different way to say it: Don't confuse the pharmacy and the liquor store.

esseph 1y ago
This is absolutely /bullshit/. That medical doctor doesn't even know how most of the medications work, or why! If it was just about "health" a lot of things with our modern medical care would be different.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  Isn't this what the years-long studies and rigorous state examination is for? How would they selecting medication, when they wouldn't know the mechanism of action?
  - esseph 1y ago
    Congrats, you just described mental healthcare. And a bunchhhhh of other things.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      You have state examination for other professions? We only have them for medical professions, laywers, criminal-related professions and teachers. I think in most cases were the patient thinks he is smarter than the doctor, the latter already knows the argument, but also why it is wrong/more complicated. When something is understoodable by laymen, the doctor will be fine to understand it and better suited to judge it.

corry 1y ago

I agree with you for the most part. But the same medical establishment that pumped opioids everywhere, demonized fat instead of sugar, claimed tobacco was fine, overprescribed mental health drugs, etc is perhaps not a slam-dunk example of why we should trust the "expert consensus" on emerging treatments and techniques. Compounding the issue is the eye-rolling hypocrisy that in the so-called "Land of the Free", a healthcare system controlled by the gatekeepers of big pharma and for-profit companies gets a blind pass... but putting certain plants (that you can grow yourself) into your own body is considered a serious felony...? There's at least a sliver of daylight here that mean YMMV (which I'm sure you and I would agree on) - but if you lack the freedom to choose anyways, then it doesn't matter. And the people who decide for you are clearly part of a system that is compromised by regulatory capture, political polarization, and the insatiable greed of American healthcare.

spjt 1y ago

With things the way they are, it's not hard to be more knowledgeable about a condition than your doctor. Doctors have to know about all the possible conditions people can have, I only have to know about the one I have, so I've spent more time researching it than the doctor. If you don't know what's wrong with you, then a doctor is absolutely the way to go. But if you already have a diagnosis, you can go spend time researching it, the doctor isn't going to do that.

fedeb95 1y ago

I can't edit anymore so I'll comment. My point is that it's epistemically interesting. What makes it so is that it's hard (at least to me) to decide who's right or wrong. To do so would need an expert-level understanding of the matter at hand. That is not possible: I choose my own biased judgement, someone else potentially biased judgement, or I trust experts and a broader group of people that seems to have things sorted? Trusting others, I make the same choice (epistemically, let me stress again) as choosing my own biased judgement, after all it is my biased judgement that makes me choose that way. At some point, you have faith in something: yourself, the media, some partial knowledge of published papers (am I interpreting their relevance correctly?). My guess (but it is mine alone, going back into the loop) is that a broader group of people someone mitigates failures in having faith into the wrong stuff. This again is not true in general. All this to say, it's interesting to note how on some topics the general public seems to split into two groups, one advocating for the complete trust in the expert, the other for more or less complete self made opinions. Usually health, education, ... ? It seems to me that there isn't such a split for other topics.