Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

At the same time I would emphasize that people who offer any kind of advice online around life-threatening ailments do put down if they have a related degree, are currently practicing and are licensed in that or a very related field, or if they are conducting self experiments and sharing their results (with YMMV caveat to go along with it).

Reasons why should be obvious, but listening to podcasts, or reading pop-science books, connecting the dots and thinking you’re qualified to give, again, life-threatening advice, does not mean you’re actually qualified or you have an idea of how deep the rabbit hole goes (as we are learning, nobody really does).

Unfortunately, in my experience I encounter a lot of people who haven’t opened up an intro to biology book since their teenager days let alone an undergraduate biochem book, but they listen to podcasts and think they have it figured out and have the audacity to speak with confidence. I’ve been in situations where the practitioners are wincing but are too polite to call people out - it’s easier to let them just yap out what the podcast said and then change the topic. Don’t be one of these people.



> with YMMV caveat to go along with it

Isn't it suspicious to offer YMMV caveats in a situation that is obviously dripping with caveats?


I find communities that constantly add gratuitous "YMMV may vary - everyone's body is different and no one really knows anything" tend to have less groupthink and are generally more adaptable both to new research and old research. The "YMMV" should be obvious in any discussion about individual humans, but when communities don't emphasize it constantly, people start thinking that "90% of patients benefit from $INTERVENTION" somehow means that they should just shut down discussion around the other 10%.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: