391–400 of 431 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you confuse that set of people with people who don’t know want to inject untested vaccines into their body.
(I don’t) I’m genuinely not aware of a DIY or grey market in vaccines . Peptides, yes, but vaccines ? In the absence of this, I suspect you’re either confused or straw-manning…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I have a PhD and have published lots of papers, so I like to think I am educated lol.
And I should unquestioningly believe you? :P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a lot of people take the mediation and die is that evidence that the medication is unsafe? If they live is that evidence that the medication is safe? Either both are true or neither is true. The relative weight of evidence is dependent on priors but it is still evidence.
Your comment reads like someone with no experience in medical trials - neither pharmaceutical nor medical devices. Death is not the only negative outcome. Nor is a procedure that is commonly followed by death necessarily a bad procedure - many cancer treatments for example fall into this category.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is reason to think the differences are biotic vs. abiotic, between the two. Our digestive system is dependent on healthy microbiota. Pasteurization would be the difference here.
So it's essentially the same argument as for raw milk, but at least it's less likely to make you sick (?).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "perscription system" used to be that you'd have to go see a doctor, the doctor knew who you were, and would make decisions on what prescriptions/medications you should be given. Due to drug advertising rules, the prescription system has been turned on its head, and the patient now goes to their doctor asking for a specific prescription. Telemedicine took advantage of this and has effectively removed the middlema…
> Telemedicine took advantage of this and has effectively removed the middleman (the doctor) in many cases and you just sign-up look at a person on a camera, and get your drugs sent to you. This is only true for a handful of drugs that are basically OTC already (or that have OTC formulations). Additionally, telemedicine didn’t take advantage of drug advertising- that’s an odd assertion.
I think this enabled telemedicine to work in the way it does not. The patient says "I want wegovy" and the telemedicine platform says "ok, here you go".
Would telehealth pill-pushers exist without this mentality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand where you are going with the fundamentalist vs. empiricist holy war narrative. Medical science is very empiricist, but it is conservative. Yes they will miss rare cases or where symptoms aren't quantifiable or where no understood biological mechanism exists. Yes you can take on research and treatment yourself with the risk associated. No a bunch of anecdotal evidence on experimental treatmen…
’fundamentalist’ has religious connotations which I did not intend, I meant deduction from first principles not foundational orthodoxy. My expression was there was tension not completely discrete factions, there is clearly some empiricism used in medicine. One of the difficulties in getting published is defending a position and it’s easier to do this with a mechanism of action which I think slows things down too much…
There is always tension between objectives in real-world systems. There are essentially two frontiers in our healthcare system--a core of educated professionals that are conservative and move slowly with ample evidence behind decisions, and a wide range of laymen who are comfortable with personal risk (e.g. bodybuilding community). I have respect for both, and they work together. The core will always have too many false negatives and the horizon group will have too many false positives. Saying the balance right now slows things down too much needs more support as an argument, there will always be things on the roadmap for medicine and there will always be edge cases that can't get addressed perfectly
From what I've seen medical researchers are champing at the bit for new areas of treatment that they think are promising and they just need the smallest amount of convincing evidence to research. If they don't have it for something you think is valuable, collect the information in a systematic way and find someone to send it to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care what "slogan" you say, I'm just trying to see if you hold the opinions of an antivaxxer and for some reason you refuse to make any claim that would help avail me of that position.
Did you miss this one? > Something reasonable to say would be there are vaccines that have a net benefit, and you should take those if that applies to your situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment reads like someone with no experience in medical trials - neither pharmaceutical nor medical devices. Death is not the only negative outcome. Nor is a procedure that is commonly followed by death necessarily a bad procedure - many cancer treatments for example fall into this category.
You’re not understanding the point of the hypothetical, it was to illustrate a scenario in that most people would consider evidential and point out that by definition the opposite outcome must also be evidential even if that outcome was far more likely. It’s to highlight an unintuitive aspect of probability formalized as the bayes ratio. The strength of the evidence is dependent on the priors but it exists. Anecdotal…
But for self-use? Go right ahead.
A lot of people are left alone with their health-issues, if you live in Canada and can only see a doctor if you are about to die, people try to change their health situation outside the "regulatory" system. These aren't health worriers, they are desperate to get their lifes back in order. Are there risks? For sure, but similarly untreated pain can damage more, especially mentally.