deltaonetwo

5 ms·

1.
by deltaonetwo 5y ago
I would say the logical thing to do for the doctor is Not to trust the patient peer until AFTER the doctor has actually read the article himself. The problem here is the doctor will likely trust the patient without ever reading the article.
2.
by deltaonetwo 5y ago
> This statement that docs consider their patients dimwits is wrong. It may be true for some docs I disagree. I feel this is true for over 50% of docs in my anecdotal experience. Of course in surveys 0% of docs will admit to this so we c
3.
by deltaonetwo 5y ago
>I think people generally underestimate how non-straightforward natural selection is, especially when epigenetics is taken into account. Living beings carry around a lot of dormant genes that can spring to life under specific conditions.
4.
by deltaonetwo 5y ago
Sure, that's a valid point. But another valid point is the causative agent for homosexuality in humans is the same causative agent for homosexuality in animals and this would invalidate your point if it were true. Anecdotally, and this
5.
by deltaonetwo 5y ago
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-fin... It's not rejected. Homosexuality is rejected as a medical "disorder" by the medical establishment. However that's entirely different f
6.
by deltaonetwo 5y ago
The point was to consider the validity of such a statement as something worth considering. What you say is technically true but you made it kind of pedantic here and steered away from the heart of my point. Let me reform it to fit with your
7.
by deltaonetwo 5y ago
I'm actually a researcher in academia in this area. I'm more well informed then medical professionals on this topic. I am sorry to say that you, like everyone else jumped to a conclusion here. Why don't you look at my other r
8.
by deltaonetwo 5y ago
This wasn't the point. The example was a device to throw people off guard and pull them back for the purpose of promoting self awareness. Personally, I have no stance on the causative origins of homosexuality; But judging from the repl
9.
by deltaonetwo 5y ago
This is ingenious and a incredible way to display how illogical a doctor (and people in general) can be. It's completely obvious that the doctor isn't going to really read the paper (he's too busy). You just present a paper a
10.
by deltaonetwo 5y ago
The problem with this is that there is zero evidence that the filtering and testing requirements correlate with actual doctoring skills. In fact there is evidence against this. Think of it this way; in Europe it is far easier to become a do
11.
by deltaonetwo 5y ago
This article is literally about patients who followed a crazy idea and the doctors who dismissed them. The crazy people here were the doctors. What the mother did here was more rational and logical then every doctor in the department of UCL