Epistemology of a Doctor

[integral]

A doctor telling people not to go to doctors.

Paradigm: ”mental illness=chemical imbalance in the brain”.

This mindset is disastrous in practice. And he explains why the guidelines are corrupt and fail in practice.

He explains why doctors only focus on symptoms and avoid the root cause and why taking medication to mask symptoms and not treating the root cause is disastrous. Why there’s a lack of systemic thinking.

He explains why the culture in med school makes doctors follow pro drug pharmaceutical guidelines that were pushed by renowned doctors that were the best in their field, and they were given that title because they align with the drug companies. 

Edited May 16 by integral

[integral]

A psychiatrist who spent years prescribing drugs, then got sick and then started taking the drugs he prescribed, and it completely shattered everything you knew about the subject and realized he was wrong the whole time.

these doctors are all over YouTube

Edited May 16 by integral

[integral]

100 drugs that you should never actually take that doctors prescribed daily.

The guy only knows of the issues in the psychiatric space but the over prescription of every medication is happening at mass scale, and the vast majority people taking medication shouldn’t be taking them across every domain, not just psychiatric

Edited May 16 by integral

[integral]

On 2025-05-06 at 1:20 AM, zurew said:

No i havent . I was going with what you provided.

You were crticizing the system partly because you claimed that they provide  trash results and then you claimed that your approach generated good result - By appealing to results you basically appeal to empirical evidence (information gathered directly or indirectly through observation or experimentation).

So there can be a talk about what constitutes better evidence.

And there can a be a seperate talk about how you can gain knowledge/evidence without experimentation , but in both cases eventually you will have to appeal to results (empirical evidence)

Sure it would be convenient for you to claim that the main reason those things are not included is because of profit - they might be or they might not hit their epistemic standard or we can conjure up other reasons.

But again this goes back to my example of determining mind state by counting insects - doing more shit or taking into account more shit doesn't necessarily mean that your approach is automatically better.

As long as you have no clear way to weigh the things on your list , your talk will be empty, doctors have many ways to weigh things for instance evidence hierarchy.

 

The way you show their closed mindedness is by taking their own epistemic framework and showing that some of the methods that they reject , given their standards shouldnt be rejected and they should be taken seriously.

Thats how you change paradigms - you appeal to some meta norms and then given those norms you demonstrate that your stuff scores very well or you establish why the currently existing and used meta norms are trash and you intoduce new ones (but all of the things you listed seem to be compatible with the current ones and they can all be scored using the evidence hierarchy) but its very unlikely that you can pull that off, given that you dont have anything even remotely flashed out.

Running your n=1 is not gonna be persuasive and if you want to argue that it should be then again we can apply that same standard to anything else where people coming up with a random causal explanation should be immediately taken seriously.

First step for you would be to drop the arrogance bullshit and acknowledge that there is room for error. The very fact that you dont even consider the possibility that you could be wrong shows that you are not serious about any of this, you are just bitter because doctors couldnt solve your issue and now you are running a campaign against them.

Some of your valid criticisms become invisible , because you pretend to know more than what you actually know and you make a bunch of claims about doctors that you cant substantiate when pushed on it , the only thing you can do is to appeal to your personal experience which is not nothing but its extremely limited and your biases will distort a lot.

I agree for some of the parts that you said other parts there’s no way to satisfy the request.

Example:

When you go into the doctors office, they’re gonna do a basic blood test for some cases and on that basic blood test let’s say there’s a thyroid test and if they check and your thyroid hormone is low. They will then prescribe medication immediately.

Problem: 

1)The person does not have a thyroid problem

2) thyroid medication, is highly damaging long-term when a person has let’s say a gut problem that is causing their thyroid to be low. so the root cause is not addressed they just mask the symptom.

3) tyroid hormone causes major mental health problems because it doesn’t mimic the actual bodies hormonal cycles

4) There is a mass over prescription epidemic because all you have to do to get prescribed this drug is to test low on thyroid hormone once and now you’re on the drug for the rest of your life. You can generalize this to all drugs prescribed.
 

Reason this is happening:

1) They are following a flow chart system, instead of understanding or looking for the root cause of problems. That’s what they’re trained for, if you see “this” you prescribed this drug. (academics will give me proof of why this is not happening instead of actually looking at what doctors do in practice.)

2) time constraints and financial incentives to avoid taking extra time with patience. It cost money to work long-term with a patient when you could just get paid more for doing less work. (you want proof for this when what you have to do is look at what they’re doing in practice.)

—-

What you want:

$150,000 in research funding to prove what I just said was true.

Pharmaceutical companies have financially funded all the proofs into the academic field, and therefore your telling me to do the same thing when it’s completely unrealistic.

Do you want me to pull up a study that shows that thyroid hormone causes mental health problems?

Do you want me to pull up a study that says drugs are over prescribed?

Do you want me to pull up a study that says doctors education system is corrupted by pharmaceutical incentives?

—-

The real way to figure out what I just said is true or not is it just walk into the doctors office and watch them do this over and over again. That’s how you figure this out.

Edited May 16 by integral

[blackchair]

I didn't read anything except first post, I'm coral and orange doctor saved my eye. So everything is relative. Life will make you humble no matter at what stage you are in......

[integral]

6 minutes ago, blackchair said:

I didn't read anything except first post, I'm coral and orange doctor saved my eye. So everything is relative. Life will make you humble no matter at what stage you are in......

Half of what a doctor does in practice works, you can’t have a business that only has failure cases. If the problem is superficial and you put eyed drops into your eye and that saves your eye or you do surgery, which is a physical obvious external thing, then your doctor is perfectly suited for the job.

If your problem is not superficial, for example, in order to save your eye, they had to figure out that you had a fungus infection in your foot, then your doctor would not have solved the problem and you would’ve lost your eye.

It’s not relative. The orange bubble encapsulate many aspects.

It’s relative to people who can’t see the entire picture.

And how could you be coral? lmao

Edited May 16 by integral

[blackchair]

1 minute ago, integral said:

Half of what a doctor does in practice works, you can’t have a business that only has failure cases. If the problem is superficial and you put eyed drops into your eye and that saves your eye or you do surgery, which is a physical obvious external thing, then your doctor is perfectly suited for the job.

If your problem is not superficial, for example, in order to save your eye, they had to figure out that you had a fungus infection in your foot, then your doctor would not have solved the problem and you would’ve lost your eye.

It’s not relative. The orange bubble encapsulate many aspects.

It’s relative to people who can’t see the entire picture.

And how could you be coral? lmao

U r right. 

[integral]

Just now, blackchair said:

U r right. 

OK, maybe you are a coral loool

Edited May 16 by integral