I am starting with your last sentence first, because it explains so much:
> What you said was a sloppily-worded over-confident claim that is plainly not true, and only vaguely resembles a claim that might be proven true in the future.
You are saying already, that my untested hypothesis is not true. Yet you say it my be proven true in the future? I never said was as true, I said it was my belief that it was true. But here you are saying it is defiantly not true.
You know, that view is well outside of the mainstream and has zero scientific evidence. If I went to my PDoc she could not prescribe me food.
> If you meant "We should research whether mood disorders have their roots in the immune system," you should have said that instead of the absurd thing you actually said.
FFS, I am not writing a thesis, I am commenting on HN.
> Someone who is on the verge of committing suicide should not see a immunologist first
Weird. I never said that. Being someone who attempted suicide twice myself I do not think that is a good idea.
> You are giving quack medical advice. Stop.
Where did I do that? Are immunologist quack doctors? Like the one I see? Hmm...
And what is it with the "Stop."? That is odd. Really controlling and you are acting like you are the Daddy to the world.
> Sorry, the words "I'm a huge believer" which you actually said actually do mean that you have already come to a conclusion no matter what future science might say.
You can hold a belief, and go in a certain direction, and when that belief is proved wrong, change your belief. Again, you are making strange assumptions. For example, I could hold the belief that turning left is the way to get to my house, act on that belief, and when I do not see my house say; "Oh I was wrong".
> If you had said something as vague as "the immune system effects mental illness" I would not had any objection.
Seems like you have difficulty with interpreting what people say based on your own strict guidelines.
> Acute emotions caused by a short-term infection are not a mood disorder.
No, but what if someone has a virus, like EBV, for a long time? Suddenly the short term mood issues is now a mood disorder.
Really, your lack of creative thought is really surprising to me.
> What you said, wasn't true,
Not yet. It is just a hypothesis that does not get tested because of the lack of funding and creative thinking in the field. You know, my mother was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder 60 years ago and they are still trying to treat it the same exact way,
> it wasn't science
Yes, you just freaked out over my word choice. I talk to researchers everyday and I also discovered my illness was caused by a partial PNP deficiency (primary immunodeficiency) that went diagnosed my whole life. But who am I to have a "belief"?
> and it wasn't exciting.
Who are you, Spock? If you cannot get excited by science and the possibility of curing mental illness then you are lacking in the creative thought needed to move science in a beneficial direction.
> > What you said was a sloppily-worded over-confident claim that is plainly not true, and only vaguely resembles a claim that might be proven true in the future.
> You are saying already, that my untested hypothesis is not true. Yet you say it my be proven true in the future?
Your reading is as sloppy as your writing apparently. Read the bit you quoted: it does not say what you're saying it does.
> You know, that view is well outside of the mainstream and has zero scientific evidence. If I went to my PDoc she could not prescribe me food.
I have made exactly no claims about the validity of that paper. All I did was put it on my website. And I have to say, it's a bit creepy that you went and started researching me to try to win an argument. You gonna start trying to figure out where I live next?
I think that paper is interesting, and I hope it gets researched more, but I definitely do not think it should be mainstream medicine without further research. I never made that claim--that's purely your straw man hallucination. That's it. That's all I'm willing to say on this, because I'm not a doctor and I don't make up quack medical advice like you do.
> Weird. I never said that. Being someone who attempted suicide twice myself I do not think that is a good idea.
You did say that, actually. You said, "[I]f people have mood disorders they should see an immunologist first".
If you don't think it's a good idea, you should not have said it.
The rest of your post is just unhinged insults which I won't respond to--I responded to your post knowing you wouldn't like what I had to say, so it should be pretty clear that I don't care what you think of me.
> And I have to say, it's a bit creepy that you went and started researching me to try to win an argument. You gonna start trying to figure out where I live next?
David, this is weird. I went to your public website that you list in your bio to understand your world view more, because your unhinged remark about my excitement over seeing a study linking the immune system to mood disorders.
- I did not give advice to anyone. That is delusional.
- You seem to think that "people with mood disorders" and "being suicidal" has some equivalency. I think people who are suicidal need to get in a psychiatric hospital and while they are there they can see a psychiatrist and in the future, hopefully, an immunologist. Because since we do not know what causes mental illnesses we should look for every possible cause, which in some well known cases is immune related.
I get it is ok for most people to be fine with giving up on people like me and say "You have no evidence blah blah blah" while I am homeless, mentally ill, and in chronic pain. You see, somehow I keep my excitement alive during all of this, and people like you just want to kill it because "there are no studies yet" while all these people keep getting millions in grants for testing 40 year old treatments where 1/100000 of that money give to me to help me get housing would do more for my mental illness than anything else.
BTW, nutrition helped me get off all the meds that were killing me, so kudos for posting that paper on your website.
Au contraire, I am not fine on giving up on people. I wouldn't be where I am if people had given up on me.
I just want real solutions. We can say results are promising and be excited about them without being "big believers" and presenting them as more sure solutions than they are.
Nutrition has correlated with some pretty positive changes in my own mental health journey, and I think the risks of eating the foods recommended by that study are pretty low. Note how careful I am being about what I say here: speaking this carefully is what I'm encouraging you to do if you want to talk about science. All I'm asking is that you be careful that what you say is actually, specifically, true.
I'm really sorry to hear you're homeless, mentally ill, and in pain. That sucks.
Thanks. So you see, I do not have the time to be careful. Neither does anyone else like me. If I can get someone, who is currently under psychiatric care, to go see an immunologist, then that is much better.
When I tell 99% of people I meet that there is such a thing as Neuropsychiatic Lupus they are dumb founded. That has to change.
You are making it sound like I was saying people should not see psychiatrists and just see an immunologist, but that was only your interpretation. IF you asked me if I think they should see a psychiatrist as well this thread would not have happened.
> What you said was a sloppily-worded over-confident claim that is plainly not true, and only vaguely resembles a claim that might be proven true in the future.
You are saying already, that my untested hypothesis is not true. Yet you say it my be proven true in the future? I never said was as true, I said it was my belief that it was true. But here you are saying it is defiantly not true.
On now, I noticed this is of some interest to you when I found this on your website: https://files.kerkeslager.com/pdf/AntidepressantFoods.pdf
You know, that view is well outside of the mainstream and has zero scientific evidence. If I went to my PDoc she could not prescribe me food.
> If you meant "We should research whether mood disorders have their roots in the immune system," you should have said that instead of the absurd thing you actually said.
FFS, I am not writing a thesis, I am commenting on HN.
> Someone who is on the verge of committing suicide should not see a immunologist first
Weird. I never said that. Being someone who attempted suicide twice myself I do not think that is a good idea.
> You are giving quack medical advice. Stop.
Where did I do that? Are immunologist quack doctors? Like the one I see? Hmm...
And what is it with the "Stop."? That is odd. Really controlling and you are acting like you are the Daddy to the world.
> Sorry, the words "I'm a huge believer" which you actually said actually do mean that you have already come to a conclusion no matter what future science might say.
You can hold a belief, and go in a certain direction, and when that belief is proved wrong, change your belief. Again, you are making strange assumptions. For example, I could hold the belief that turning left is the way to get to my house, act on that belief, and when I do not see my house say; "Oh I was wrong".
> If you had said something as vague as "the immune system effects mental illness" I would not had any objection.
Seems like you have difficulty with interpreting what people say based on your own strict guidelines.
> Acute emotions caused by a short-term infection are not a mood disorder.
No, but what if someone has a virus, like EBV, for a long time? Suddenly the short term mood issues is now a mood disorder.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025817/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abst...
Really, your lack of creative thought is really surprising to me.
> What you said, wasn't true,
Not yet. It is just a hypothesis that does not get tested because of the lack of funding and creative thinking in the field. You know, my mother was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder 60 years ago and they are still trying to treat it the same exact way,
> it wasn't science
Yes, you just freaked out over my word choice. I talk to researchers everyday and I also discovered my illness was caused by a partial PNP deficiency (primary immunodeficiency) that went diagnosed my whole life. But who am I to have a "belief"?
> and it wasn't exciting.
Who are you, Spock? If you cannot get excited by science and the possibility of curing mental illness then you are lacking in the creative thought needed to move science in a beneficial direction.