| ▲ | Aurornis 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
> I added the HSD to the hEDS and gave my reasons for doing so. The figure for hEDS+HSD (1). I'm not the only person to do this (2). Sorry, but you’re just sharing bad information. The prevalence of hEDS is not 1:500 by any reasonable source. I know I won’t convince you because your posts have many layers of information sourced from the alternative medicine world of TikTok and TikTok-adjacent sickfluencers, but I hope I can at least convince other people reading this to pursue higher quality sources and be skeptical of HN commenters who make claims about under-diagnosis based on conspiracy theories. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 2 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
The prevalence of hEDS + HSD is widely accepted to be 1/500 in medical research, that's not controversial. The only thing slightly controversial about my position is that I think they are fundamentally they are the same thing, a distinction without a difference. The 2017 criteria used to distinguish is rather arbitrary and is itself rather controversial. You have to use this criteria if you want to get the 1/3100 to 1/5000 numbers. And remember it was 1/15K back in the 2000s, that's a half an order of magnitude right there. I did make a mistake, I forgot that it originally started at 1/150K back in the 60s, where I had it starting at 1/50K. With numbers like that you can see a clear trend. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||