| |
| ▲ | dugidugout 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'll take this sincerely, and ask you, is this really something you've a continuing curiosity about? I have a suspicion you understand what is taking place, but for whatever reason, are not expressing so directly. Are you asserting there is nothing more to discuss after one parses the search results for “chemical imbalance debunked”. The parent is quite clearly, at the minimum, meeting their parent's level of input, which essentially amounted to "this thing is debunked". As an onlooker and after a quick skim of the search query you suggested, I am still not exactly clear on what "neurochemistry issue [theory]" entails. What would help, is a more clear underpinning for what is being discussed, which your parent is suggesting, through question, before attempting to respond. I appreciate this personally! | |
| ▲ | robertakarobin 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ah, well-put! I think we may be reacting differently to the same articles. My understanding is that while various neurochemical theories have not been proven as the general public seems to think, they have also not necessarily been disproven or debunked. Certainly it has not been proven that neurochemistry has no role at all. | |
| ▲ | brendoelfrendo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wouldn't recommend searching for "chemical imbalance debunked" unless you intend to confirm an existing bias. The internet will show you whatever you want, and there are enough people who distrust medical professionals that any search for "debunking" will be a minefield of fringe theories and grifters. I'd recommend someone start generally, searching for information about clinical depression, and then build on that to look at root causes and how the medical understanding of those root causes has changed over time. | | |
| ▲ | GOD_Over_Djinn an hour ago | parent [-] | | One of the first search results for me was a paper published in Nature. Other top results were from respected institutions like the NIH and Harvard University. Hardly grifters or crazies. The caveat you cite applies to basically any and all internet (or even media) consumption, and is therefore a non-argument. |
| |
| ▲ | ToucanLoucan 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Probably because the commenter is not a medical professional and isn't qualified to judge the veracity of anything they find. "Do your own research" is a fucking plague on our modern world and is why the internet is like wall to wall grifters now. By all means, Google whatever you like, but if you show up to a doctors office waving WebMD sheets in a medical professionals face, you are going to be mocked and you deserve it. | | |
| ▲ | ckw 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I witnessed a pair of doctors prescribe a family member an incredibly dangerous drug for an off label use. The company had been fined $500 million dollars for various illegal schemes to convince doctors to write such prescriptions, but I’m sure the doctors in question were unaware of this. When this family member began to exhibit textbook symptoms of an extremely dangerous (life threatening) condition which could only be caused by the drug in question, the doctors failed to notice, and in fact repeatedly increased the dosage, and added more drugs on top to treat the symptoms caused by the initial drug. It was not until I accompanied my relative to a doctor’s appointment and delivered a carefully designed incantation that they made the correct diagnosis and halted the prescriptions. So should I not have done my own research? | |
| ▲ | GOD_Over_Djinn an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I both agree and disagree. The issue is not independent thinking and research - it’s the low media literacy of the average person that makes them vulnerable to frauds, grifters, and crazies. With that said, the first few search results for the query were from the journal Nature, the NIH, and Harvard university. Hardly the loony or malicious caricature that you attempt to paint. |
|
|
