> Could you tell me which source of information do you see as "perfect" (or acceptable) that you see as a good example of a threshold for what you think the public should and should not have access to?

I know it when I see it.

> I don't see how this is relevant.

It's relevant because blood testing is an imperfect tool. Laypeople lack the knowledge/experience to identify imperfections and are likely to take results at face value. Like the author of the article did when ChatGPT gave them an F for their cardiac health.

> Medical interpretations/advice from the measurements is what's restricted, in most places.

Do you agree with that restriction?

▲

nomel 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> I know it when I see it.

This isn't a reasonable answer. No action can be taken and no conclusion/thought can be made from it.

> Do you agree with that restriction?

People should be able to perform and be informed about their own blood measurements, and possibly bring something up with their doctors outside of routine exams (which they may not even be insured for in the US). I think the restriction on medical advice/conclusion, that results in treatment, is very good, otherwise you end up with "Wow, look at these results! you'll have to buy my snake oil or you'll die!".

I don't believe in reducing society to a level that completely protects the most stupid of us.

▲

ytoawwhra92 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> This isn't a reasonable answer.

Sure it is. The world runs on human judgement. If you want me to rephrase I could say that the threshold for imperfection should reflect contemporary community standards, but Stewart's words are catchier.

> I think the restriction on medical advice/conclusion, that results in treatment, is very good, otherwise you end up with "Wow, look at these results! you'll have to buy my snake oil or you'll die!".

Some people would describe this as an infringement on their free speech and bodily autonomy.

Which is to say that I think you and I agree that people in general need the government to apply some degree of restriction to medicine, we just disagree about where the line is.

But I think if I asked you to describe to me exactly where the line is you'd ultimately end up at some incarnation of "I know it when I see it".

Which is fine. Even good, I think.

> I don't believe in reducing society to a level that completely protects the most stupid of us.

This seems at odds with what you said above. A non-stupid person would seek multiple consistent opinions before accepting medical treatment, after all.

	▲	nomel an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> I know it when I see it. What's the most complex (in an information rich way) tool that you have seen?