Common infections can spark psychiatric illnesses in children

> I'm aware, but the bar for a guilty mind is quite low.

Do you mean this in terms of a cross-system comparison (i.e. variation between legal systems)?

Do you mean this in terms of some philosophy that lays out a more sensible stance?

I've been digging into this somewhat; happy to learn more.

As I said in another comment,

> These are politicized by certain patient advocacy groups and associated publishing circles but the evidence is considered pretty strong in the broader medical sphere.

The “critiques” of the PACE study are mostly based around p-hacking the objectives until you get the results you want. PACE participants saw significantly fewer hospitalizations, lower mortality, and better reported questionnaire scores as a bonus.

Because there is a lot of ire against recommending CBT among patient advocacy groups (including threatening to kill the authors and their families), some researchers have critiqued PACE because they have found some metrics in post-analysis that PACE did not improve (classic p-hacking). But that does not represent the broader view of the field.

Described by other scientists: “[The critiques come from a] fairly small, but highly organized, very vocal and very damaging group of individuals who have, I would say, actually hijacked this agenda and distorted the debate so that it actually harms the overwhelming majority of patients.'

> It shall not be dismissed as “proposed mechanism”.

That is literally how the paper self described. I am linking you multiple RCTs demonstrating impact and you are linking speculative causes of a disease that do not yet meet Koch’s postulates. But even if a neurological mechanism holds up (not at all unlikely in my view), this is likely to not be the case for all populations currently diagnosed with long covid - but rather a subset. CBT will likely be helpful for both populations, given the evidence I have linked.

My proof of my claim is that I have researched alternative treatments for long covid and CFS and none of them have these effect sizes :) If you have contrary evidence, that’s on you to prove, but fwiw I am not going to keep replying.

And again, I’ve linked RCT evidence for the effectiveness of CBT in long covid, which I guess you have nothing to say about.

> Your claim seems to be that causality (governing the behavior of human thought and action) does not _necessarily_ result in rationality (in that human)? Of course -- this is obvious.

That's not my claim. Basic observation of oneself or others make this, as you say, strikingly obvious :)

My claim is rather that causality can't be a sufficient explanation for rationality. By this I mean that we can't explain rational thought by referring to the cerebral states that are associated with it. Remember your original claim that 'free will' is an illusion, because what impacts me at time T is [limited to] my state at time T-1, and my environment.[0] I take this to mean that my state at T is caused solely by my state at T-1 and envt. IF you're right about this, AND IF I'm right that causality can't be a sufficient explanation for rationality, then it implies that rationality is impossible.

Why can't causality be a sufficient explanation for reality? We can't explain rational thought by referring to the cerebral states associated with it, because the question of whether a thought is rational is indepedent of its associated cerebral state. There are cerebral states associated with 2+2=4 (rational), and cerebral states associated with 2+2=5 (irrational). But neither of these cerebral states is itself right or wrong. Only the thoughts associated with them are right or wrong.

I know that 2+2=4. It's not just that I have a series of successive, causal states that make me think this; it's that the content of the thought is correct. My mind has grasped a truth about reality. Similarly, someone who thinks 2+2=5 is wrong. It's not just that he has a series of successive, causal states that make him think thus; it's that the content of his thought is incorrect, and his mind has failed to grasp a truth about reality. When we say thought is correct or incorrect, rational or irrational, we refer to the content of the thought, not the brain state.

Thought must be about something other than the brain state to be right or wrong. But if thought is entirely generated, and sufficiently explained, by causal processes, it can only reflect the brain state, and can't be right or wrong. Since thought can be right or wrong, it follows that rational thought is something more than the product of causal processes, and is (at least partially) independent of them.

[0] I have added the words in square brackets myself, but I think that's your meaning.

It’s a front end for propaganda and publishes anonymously.

Well it's not a popular idea. Perhaps you're deeply immersed only in religion, or only in science, and sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees. I forgive you.

But it's a tale as old as time: when any community schisms, and there's a rejection of the "original traditions" the new guys limp along without 'em for a long time, and gradually, piecemeal, they realize they miss those things, or those things were essential to life, and they reinvent them and they put new names on them, but if you examine their essence then you'll see how similar they are to the "old ways".

It happens within Christianity itself! All the time! Protestants spent 500 years rejecting and reviling Catholics, but then they became Mormon, and everything old is new again.

What's happening in the world is a widespread secularization of nations. You know, disestablishmentarianism - the First Amendment. If no religions or allowed, or if all religions are promoted equally, then something will fill the vacuum and become re-established, you can bet your bottom dollar.

Nations who attempt to outlaw and persecute religion get a somewhat bad rep. Nations who legalize all of them are literally a city upon a hill!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill

The strategy of atheist states is to generally subjugate Church to control by the State. If this cannot be done, that religion must be exterminated. China's a good example, and Mexico did their part. Atheist states by no means would/could eliminate religions; they know what service is done for the masses.

The State has its own flavor of religion, its own rituals and priests, sacraments and sacramentals, liturgies and rites. Look at Old Glory, baseball games, military customs, Congress in session, look at the architecture of DC and try to tell me that that's not the New Secular Athens.

Psychiatry is the moral arm of the state, with temporal and spiritual power, authority, and jurisdiction over the citizenry in regards to our internal forum. Psychiatry is granted the rights to teach doctrine, to coerce sacraments, and to revoke rights. I won't elaborate on the whole picture, because your opinion won't change, but try to open your mind, eh?