My knowledge of what works for me is narrow, but deep, their knowledge of what works for everyone is broad, but shallow.
I have a life time of direct knowledge about my body/mind, they have a life time of indirect knowledge about bits and pieces from other people’s bodies/minds.
But here’s what’s really telling: when I present to you a reasonable explanation and source for why they are taking what you classify as an “experimental approach” (on a treatment that has been developed and tested for 30 years), your confirmation bias immediately filters it out or deletes it:
This is why discussion on the matter is a pointless game of whack-a-mole. All of your concerns are easily addressed with the smallest bit of reading and research, but you not only refuse to do it yourself, but then ignore the qualified rationale when it is presented to you. This is how it mirrors/parallels the evolution vs. creation debate.
Yeah I get your point bud, but living in your body doesn’t give you a detailed or accurate picture of how it operates and functions internally.
A priori, I don’t know what doctors and scientists really know.
Just because they’ve done a lot of research, doesn’t mean all or most of it was good research.
How benevolent/malevolent and reasonable/unreasonable is this corporation/institution?
Lots of people trust it, so it probably has some value, but some people don’t trust it.
As I interact with it, by doing my own research on the one hand, and employing their services on the other, I get acquainted with it.
In the areas it makes sense to and works for me, I tend to trust those areas.
In the areas it doesn’t make sense to and work for me, I tend to distrust those areas.
I may tend to trust it overall, but I don’t trust it absolutely.
This is how our relationship with government, with every other corporation and institution works.
We don’t write any of them a blank check, trust them blindly, give them 100% benefit of the doubt.
That is not an equal relationship, that is worship.
We as individuals and a democracy must continually hold every corporation and institution’s feet to the fire, especially science, or they will grow ever more corrupt, and abusive, like any organization given unwavering trust would.
This has become quite clear.
Democracy has checks and balances, MSM has checks and balances, nonetheless I think most would agree they’re very corrupt, that we can’t trust them.
Same with science, it has checks and balances, nonetheless it is not immune from massive corruption.
And then there’s the overlap between big corrupt pharma and science, big corrupt government and science (technocracy).
I’d also like to plug my thread on this topic of ‘don’t go against the experts’ as a blanket heuristic.
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 3&t=196436
And note I am not saying everyone can go against experts well or that one should generally do this, or that one can do this in an intelligent way on every issue. I am pointing out that going along with experts as a blanket heuristic is a weak approach to life
and further it is facing how tough and nuance adult life actually is.
a good somewhat dated book on the first by a physician is
Bad Pharma…
Note the part that I emphasized above. People say you are going against science on so many issues where it is not at all clear this is the case.
And they don’t know what you really know either. And that has become very clear to me.
On the contrary, I have tons of detailed and accurate info about my body/mind, after a life time of experience with them.
Doctors/scientists also have knowledge about the human body/mind in general I don’t have, and some of this may be applicable to my body/mind, and some of it may not be, because we’re all unique, and nature is dynamic.
And you don’t know that they don’t KNOW you don’t know what they know, and THAT has become very clear to me.
So you don’t think for yourself and what your body needs Doorky, but let yourself be dictated to?
Would you continue to take meds that made you fat and drowsy?
Would you eat superfoods that made you unwell, just because they’re super?
Again, if this is the foundation you eventually build your COVID arguments upon, it clearly explains why we’ve reached different conclusions.
A little from column A, a little from column B, would probably be the most accurate description.
Probably not. Also not sure this has to do with the price of tea in China.
I’m basing it on a lot of things, not just on my personal experiences with my body, but on the research I’ve done, on health in general, and on society and politics in general, and on covid in particular.
And YOU don’t know what you know or don’t know about anyone. And that has become clear to EVERYONE.
You see no correlation whatsoever? Ok… just thought I’d ask/put it out there.
I meant a priori.