The witchhunt continues...

[icehorse]

The patient has to weigh the risks. "We", whoever we are, should not appoint ourselves to weight those risks for someone else.

I might me mis-remembering, if so, I apoligize. But weren't you saying earlier that we ought to trust the professionals?

I'm not saying "we" should decide. I'm saying that if professional peer review is casting doubt on the underlying claims, everyone ought to pay attention, correct?

 

[icehorse]

icehorse: I would say that a LOT of what happens on RF is informal peer review.

That is utterly absurd.

Care to elaborate?

 

[fantome profane]

I might me mis-remembering, if so, I apoligize. But weren't you saying earlier that we ought to trust the professionals?

I'm not saying "we" should decide. I'm saying that if professional peer review is casting doubt on the underlying claims, everyone ought to pay attention, correct?

Yes, that is exactly correct. But I do not see any reasonable interpretation in which "we" are "medical professionals".

If you intended to convey the idea that we ought to trust the medical experts, you should not have said "we always have to weigh the risks against the rewards.". You should have said the patient needs to weigh the risks, with consideration of the best available professional advice. If "we" are not the patient, it is none of our business.

The only possible context I can think of in which "we always have to weigh the risks against the rewards." would make any sense is if "we" are the patient, or the legal guardians of the patient. Medical decisions are made by the patient, or in the case of a minor the legal guardians of the patient.

Care to elaborate?

Happy to. I have been on RF for a long time, and the more time I spend here the more I am convinced that "we" are idiots. And I include myself in that evaluation. The suggestion that "we" are anything at all like the professional scientific peer review process is utterly absurd. This is nothing at all like the scientific peer review process, not formal, not informal, not even business casual. If we think that, that only proves how little we understand about the peer review process, and how little we understand even out own lack of competence.

The Dunning Kruger effect is certainly in play here if "we" think we are competent enough to make assessments of the medical data.

 

[icehorse]

f you intended to convey the idea that we ought to trust the medical experts, you should not have said "we always have to weigh the risks against the rewards.". You should have said the patient needs to weigh the risks, with consideration of the best available professional advice. If "we" are not the patient, it is none of our business.

In a democracy, the collective "we" are free to weigh in on all the issues of the day. And it IS our business insofar as these situations do not occur in bubbles, they impact us all to varying degrees.

This is nothing at all like the scientific peer review process, not formal, not informal, not even business casual.

I think you're being a bit pedantic here. "We" post ideas and other RFers read them and criticize them if they find flaws. Indeed, "we" are generalists, seldom experts, but we can still learn from our debates and our peer reviews of each other's ideas.

In fact, you and I are doing that right now!

 

[fantome profane]

In fact, you and I are doing that right now!

Yes, I spend a lot of time doing that. But I am an idiot.

 

[Kenny]

What a devastating rebuttal. I guess you are at a loss for words to finish your thought. You definiately have beliefs, but you don't seem able to explain why you have them.

I've already explained.