Mr. Girl's critic of Dr. K. Thoughts?

[Mafortu]

Mr. Girl has every right to be pissed, he knows more about the ethics of therapy than most of us here. Both his father and grandfather are therapists and Mr.Girl himself edited his father's book on therapy.

I am thankful for what Dr. K is doing, but on the other hand he has done some awful stupid things and has taken no accountability, I myself cant stand the way he looks at chat and smiles at something funny he probably read while his interviewees are bawling their eyes out.

Dr. K is well intentioned, but he is not professional, and he is not careful. 

[Danioover9000]

@Mafortu

43 minutes ago, Mafortu said:

Mr. Girl has every right to be pissed, he knows more about the ethics of therapy than most of us here. Both his father and grandfather are therapists and Mr.Girl himself edited his father's book on therapy.

I am thankful for what Dr. K is doing, but on the other hand he has done some awful stupid things and has taken no accountability, I myself cant stand the way he looks at chat and smiles at something funny he probably read while his interviewees are bawling their eyes out.

Dr. K is well intentioned, but he is not professional, and he is not careful. 

   Exactly. I get the feeling that he is taking short cuts to his vision. Even his vision is questionable, because from what I learned his wife came up wih most of the vision plus the business side.

   Also, another great video on this topic, that even Mr. Girl and Chud Logic had to get kicked out from the panel:

 

[Danioover9000]

   And a separate issue, but Dr. K claiming that Ayurveda can predict your chances of getting Covid??? I know that Ayurvedic medicine is one of the oldest holistic medicinal practices, but it's the same modal that used to recommend consuming certain metallic pills for certain ailments, but to me it's irresponsible to suggest that such a practice is enough to handle Covid. Like really?

[Carl-Richard]

31 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

   And a separate issue, but Dr. K claiming that Ayurveda can predict your chances of getting Covid???

He gave an anecdote. What's the big deal?

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

He gave an anecdote. What's the big deal?

   Not hard to imagine the big deal. One thing to give an analogy, but another to assume thag is 100% treatment against Covid. That's one implication.

[Carl-Richard]

13 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

One thing to give an analogy, but another to assume thag is 100% treatment against Covid.

Did he really say that? I thought he said his colleges could predict something about COVID using some Ayurvedic personality typology, not anything about using Ayurveda as a treatment for COVID. It's a statement about prognosis, not treatment.

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Did he really say that? I thought he said his colleges could predict something about COVID using some Ayurvedic personality typology, not anything about using Ayurveda as a treatment for COVID. It's a statement about prognosis, not treatment.

   He did say that Ayurvedic personality typology has a likelihood of predicting your chances of getting Covid, but in saying that so happily and confidently, he gives the false impression that Ayurveda can alsk be a treatment alternative for Covid, just like Joe Rogan giving a false impression that Ivermectin can treat Covid virus, when in fact it can't because it is anti parasitic not anti viral. Ayurveda medicine is ancient holistic medicine from India, has some roots in Hinduism, but nothing about it is prescriptive of treating Covid.

   This is blatantly irresponsible to not give a follow up verbal disclaimer that this is not a prescriptive approach to handling Covid, so because of that some fans of Dr. K might think that only Ayurveda medicine. Ayurveda medicine, like all alternative medicine, has it's proper place and time of application, but not specifically for Covid. It also plays into the war between stage orange/blue western medicine and stage green alternative medicine, which further encourages dogmatic efforts.

[Leo Gura]

On 2/23/2022 at 4:27 PM, mmKay said:

It may be dumb, but if a video game is all you had in your life then it being taken away from you is no joke.

If a video game is all that's keeping you alive then you're so fragile that no one is likely to save you.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

He did say that Ayurvedic personality typology has a likelihood of predicting your chances of getting Covid, but in saying that so happily and confidently, he gives the false impression that Ayurveda can alsk be a treatment alternative for Covid, just like Joe Rogan giving a false impression that Ivermectin can treat Covid virus, when in fact it can't because it is anti parasitic not anti viral. 

   This is blatantly irresponsible to not give a follow up verbal disclaimer that this is not a prescriptive approach to handling Covid

I don't think so. It's disanalogous because Ivermectin is definitionally a treatment method (even if it has 0 effect). It's not a prognosis. It's more like you're asking him to say "don't kill yourself" after bringing up a statistic about how likely you are to commit suicide if you have x personality type.

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't think so. It's disanalogous because Ivermectin is definitionally a treatment method (even if it has 0 effect). It's not a prognosis. It's more like you're asking him to say "don't kill yourself" after bringing up a statistic about how likely you are to commit suicide if you have x personality type.

I agree, the claim Dr K made was that they seemed to have shown in clinical practice that certain dosha's would tend to have certain symptoms occur when infected with covid.

The entire idea of Ayurveda is, in the way he is framing it, is that there are certain genetic expressions of human beings that correlate to certain way the metabolism works, physical features being expressed and then that also correlating with personality/brain expression.

It's not really that absurd of a theory, it could very well be that there are clusters of genetic expressions that come together or cause each other in some way, and ayurveda being a kind of pre-scientific model for that. So maybe there is a reason why certain people have a certain metabolism, linked to something that tends to also effect the way the brain developed etc.

Infact it could even just be a genetic clustering of certain traits, the point is that the claims being made is that these models seem to be in some form functional and descriptive of some underlying reality, giving predictive power to as he mentioned the prevelance of certain symptoms among people.

 

He is basically saying that dosha's describe some underlying reality, and whatever that underlying reality is also influenced in what way a virus like Covid will affect the organism, after all, there must be some underlying reason for why some people tend to develope certain symptoms over others.

 

Either way whether or not it's true is a different question, but the way it is being framed as complete pseudoscience is really unfair. It is not really scientific yet at all, because there is not yet the data on it. That doesn't mean that there is no clinical data, that might very well be the case. Maybe some doctor discover this in his clinical practice and, much like we couldn't have made scientific claims whether exercise is good for the body before we had the research on it, it might still be the case that it indeed does help people.

[Danioover9000]

22 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If a video game is all that's keeping you alive then you're so fragile that no one is likely to save you.

@Leo Gura...What?

Edited March 1, 2022 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

   Destiny's breakdown of the Slush video:

 

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't think so. It's disanalogous because Ivermectin is definitionally a treatment method (even if it has 0 effect). It's not a prognosis. It's more like you're asking him to say "don't kill yourself" after bringing up a statistic about how likely you are to commit suicide if you have x personality type.

    It's definitionally a treatment method, for horses, less so for human beings.

   What I'm trying to say, is that Dr. K was giving a strong impression of the potential usefulness of Ayurvedic medicine, an ancient medicinal practice, to the current situation with Covid. Specifically, he was making a prognosis claim, but delivering that in such an assuring way gives the false impression that if the prognosis is accurate, is likely probabilistic, therefore the modal has some degree of validity of dealing with Covid, which is what I'm pushing back at, thinking that a likely prognosis equals also successful treatment is and can sometimes be misleading and dangerous.

   But this is an entirely sub issue detracting a bit from the key issue: Dr. K's guilt, or not, of blurring the lines of when it's officially a therapy session, to having a therapeutic like conversation with people. 

[Carl-Richard]

27 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

What I'm trying to say, is that Dr. K was giving a strong impression of the potential usefulness of Ayurvedic medicine, an ancient medicinal practice, to the current situation with Covid. Specifically, he was making a prognosis claim, but delivering that in such an assuring way gives the false impression that if the prognosis is accurate, is likely probabilistic, therefore the modal has some degree of validity of dealing with Covid, which is what I'm pushing back at, thinking that a likely prognosis equals also successful treatment is and can sometimes be misleading and dangerous.

If people are really making that leap, I guess you're making the point that no one should ever talk about the scientific validity of anything on Twitch, as the chatters are generally just too ignorant to parse out the limit and scope of such statements. Like if I'm talking about some clinical anecdotes of the slipperiness of banana peels and claim that they might hurt you, people will jump to the conclusion that there is empirical evidence that bananas are dangerous to eat 

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

59 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If people are really making that leap, I guess you're making the point that no one should ever talk about the scientific validity of anything on Twitch, as the chatters are generally just too ignorant to parse out the limit and scope of such statements. Like if I'm talking about some clinical anecdotes of the slipperiness of banana peels and claim that they might hurt you, people will jump to the conclusion that there is empirical evidence that bananas are dangerous to eat 

   I think I want  to say that, is that both the giver and receiver in that communication, should exercise careful communication, and be sensitive to the liability of the communication. Meaning that, if in the convo, I passionately talk about an alternative medicine's potential of likely predicting the likelihood of a virus, that I clarify, immediately or at the end of the convo, that that shouldn't replace proper treatment. On the reciever's end, that would mean that you should be more careful of how, given other factors like worldview, value system, cognitive patterns of thinking, moral frame works, personality type, sense making mind, the state of being/consciousness one is in, and general to specific life experiences so far, that to not jump to conclusions too quickly.

[Max_V]

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If a video game is all that's keeping you alive then you're so fragile that no one is likely to save you.

I understand what you mean by this, I think, but the I feel like you don't have the right context. 

Reckful was 16 at the time when he tried to kill himself over that video game. 10 years prior, his big brother committed suicide and since then he had to live with that abandonment and a family that was dealing with their own shit and so were not able to take care of him. To illustrate what his family was like, I'm pretty sure his dad was suicidal after his son killed himself and talked plainly about it with Reckful. Next to that while Reckful was about 30 his mom introduced the idea to him of a suicide pact where they would do it together.

So to say his circumstances were awful is an understatement. To just say "oh nothing could've saved him, doing something like that signifies he's too fragile for life" I think that's not fair and also sounds very cold. 

Finally, the end result of if Reckful would've died if Dr.K provided the right treatement is not relevant when we simply look at the fact that I think it's an ethical duty he is obligated to in that situation. Of course it's not like he has the onus to provide help for everyone he sees suffering, but they were literaly in a pseudo doctor-patient relationship. I would expect more from a doctor than to not set clear boundaries and not be the responsible one. If you don't think it was a big factor in this instance, fine, but those rules exist because of the potential harm they can cause.

[Danioover9000]

@Max_V

7 hours ago, Max_V said:

I understand what you mean by this, I think, but the I feel like you don't have the right context. 

Reckful was 16 at the time when he tried to kill himself over that video game. 10 years prior, his big brother committed suicide and since then he had to live with that abandonment and a family that was dealing with their own shit and so were not able to take care of him. To illustrate what his family was like, I'm pretty sure his dad was suicidal after his son killed himself and talked plainly about it with Reckful. Next to that while Reckful was about 30 his mom introduced the idea to him of a suicide pact where they would do it together.

So to say his circumstances were awful is an understatement. To just say "oh nothing could've saved him, doing something like that signifies he's too fragile for life" I think that's not fair and also sounds very cold. 

Finally, the end result of if Reckful would've died if Dr.K provided the right treatement is not relevant when we simply look at the fact that I think it's an ethical duty he is obligated to in that situation. Of course it's not like he has the onus to provide help for everyone he sees suffering, but they were literaly in a pseudo doctor-patient relationship. I would expect more from a doctor than to not set clear boundaries and not be the responsible one. If you don't think it was a big factor in this instance, fine, but those rules exist because of the potential harm they can cause.

   If I have to guess what @Leo Gura is really saying, is that Reckfull's vision for his life is too limited that he made his entire life about one video game he's making, which created the problem that if the game was finished, or cancelled, that there were no other available alternatives to pursue, that was what triggered the depression and suicide, the finish of that game, which was a problem because Dr. K in an earlier video woth Reckfull, gave him that framing, to stick to finishing that game. It was one of several mistakes in Dr. K's part that lead to his suicide.

[Max_V]

@Danioover9000 Ah, I don't know. I thought he was speaking about the fact that he tried to kill himself at 16 when his favourite game closed down. 

[SOUL]

There's quite a bit of legal and regulatory concerns that I know very little about so won't offer a conclusive opinion but to the layman's eyes there definitely can be things that seen happening.

The idea and practice of addressing mental health issues over the internet, live, while streaming to an audience that are compensating both participants in the event is quite a new phenomena.  Any professional that ventures into this uncharted territory will likely make some mistakes which could effect their practice but it also gives some material for regulators to build a framework of guidelines that protect the patient and allow it to happen in a productive way.

The participants who went on with DrK were doing so willingly, there wasn't any coercion but it can be argued were they fully aware of what they were getting into? I don't know. Can there be a set of guidelines created to better protect the patient, the professional and the process? Surely there can. Possibly ensuring that there is no open declarations of the doctor-patient relationship, that it's all taking place under the guise of education and the professional can not diagnose, prescribe or directly discuss any previous or current diagnoses or prescription.

I'm not saying anything for sure, it's not up to me to decide these things but I think it's beneficial that people get exposed to what has some of the appearances of therapy, see it's not threatening and can actually be helpful as well as the stigma around having therapy is eroded. I don't know that DrK in this particular circumstances should be legally or professionally held responsible, liable or have his license effected by it, it's not my decision to make. I just hope it doesn't go completely away because people need help and online is a way to get it when it was so difficult to previously.

As far as the ayurvedic stuff, there's even been some body typing that has happened in the west like with the 3 'morph' body types developed by Sheldon in the 40s. I don't know how effective that or any of these typing systems are for anything health related and I wouldn't care to guess what help or harm could happen if they are incorporated into mental health therapies. Obviously anyone getting into a convo with DrK should be aware he may talk about this stuff and they should have the choice to veto any inclusion of it if that is their choice.

Yet, people are saying he's spreading covid misinfo with it but I only saw one quick mention about predicting complications using that typology, I don't see any medical recommendations or prescriptions based on it. I wasn't aware of him saying don't take precautions or not to get the vaccine or anything like that because of it, just some vague comment that it appears he hopes would add some unspecific credibility to it. Not a good look but not necessarily dangerous unlike the misinfo coming out other places that has caused so much confusion and conflict.

This is definitely an interesting situation to watch unfold and it will be even more interesting to see how the profession sets new guidelines to regulate this. Well being is a primary focus of what I prefer to engage with online as well as in real life of course because so many are self suffering. I just don't want this to be another distraction and actually add to the likelihood that self suffering persists or increases.

[Danioover9000]

@SOUL

1 hour ago, SOUL said:

There's quite a bit of legal and regulatory concerns that I know very little about so won't offer a conclusive opinion but to the layman's eyes there definitely can be things that seen happening.

The idea and practice of addressing mental health issues over the internet, live, while streaming to an audience that are compensating both participants in the event is quite a new phenomena.  Any professional that ventures into this uncharted territory will likely make some mistakes which could effect their practice but it also gives some material for regulators to build a framework of guidelines that protect the patient and allow it to happen in a productive way.

The participants who went on with DrK were doing so willingly, there wasn't any coercion but it can be argued were they fully aware of what they were getting into? I don't know. Can there be a set of guidelines created to better protect the patient, the professional and the process? Surely there can. Possibly ensuring that there is no open declarations of the doctor-patient relationship, that it's all taking place under the guise of education and the professional can not diagnose, prescribe or directly discuss any previous or current diagnoses or prescription.

I'm not saying anything for sure, it's not up to me to decide these things but I think it's beneficial that people get exposed to what has some of the appearances of therapy, see it's not threatening and can actually be helpful as well as the stigma around having therapy is eroded. I don't know that DrK in this particular circumstances should be legally or professionally held responsible, liable or have his license effected by it, it's not my decision to make. I just hope it doesn't go completely away because people need help and online is a way to get it when it was so difficult to previously.

As far as the ayurvedic stuff, there's even been some body typing that has happened in the west like with the 3 'morph' body types developed by Sheldon in the 40s. I don't know how effective that or any of these typing systems are for anything health related and I wouldn't care to guess what help or harm could happen if they are incorporated into mental health therapies. Obviously anyone getting into a convo with DrK should be aware he may talk about this stuff and they should have the choice to veto any inclusion of it if that is their choice.

Yet, people are saying he's spreading covid misinfo with it but I only saw one quick mention about predicting complications using that typology, I don't see any medical recommendations or prescriptions based on it. I wasn't aware of him saying don't take precautions or not to get the vaccine or anything like that because of it, just some vague comment that it appears he hopes would add some unspecific credibility to it. Not a good look but not necessarily dangerous unlike the misinfo coming out other places that has caused so much confusion and conflict.

This is definitely an interesting situation to watch unfold and it will be even more interesting to see how the profession sets new guidelines to regulate this. Well being is a primary focus of what I prefer to engage with online as well as in real life of course because so many are self suffering. I just don't want this to be another distraction and actually add to the likelihood that self suffering persists or increases.

   Very good post and points. My issue with Dr. K, when he brought up the predictive Doshas and how they can predict the likelihood of one getting Covid, is that he was saying it in such an open way, without giving written and/or verbal disclaimers about this shouldn't be a substitute for Covid precautions and treatments, that it did leave it very open to the suggestion that this modal is likely useful to Covid. I wouldn't have had an issue if he used some other examples, but he had to bring up Covid, and considering the misinformation lately with anti vax and such, and the lethality of the virus, that by doing this without some warnings and disclaimers, he's really not being careful and giving false impressions. And I'm not overly negative with Ayurveda, it has a place and time, it's not pseudoscience but pre science of observations of different bodies and their reactions to various ailments that are observable, I don't like the flippant way he presented that, as if it's no big deal Covid.