Comment by nikisweeting
Comment by nikisweeting 6 days ago
> Knowledge is power. Random bullshit ideas isn't.
Every proven idea started as a random bullshit idea. No one in this thread is presenting their ideas as definitive solutions as far as I see, everyone is being pretty good about providing their confidence levels and sources.
> what they want you to do, not what you, at a fundamental level, want to do
This is a whole philosophical rabbit hole about advertising and free will in general, it's not specific to OP's case so I don't really want to get into it, that discussion is better had on Reddit or some other HN thread.
As for the rest, I think this other commenter said it better than I can: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42657251
> Every proven idea started as a random bullshit idea.
No, actually, almost no proven ideas start this way. Ideas which ultimately solve problems in a complex field, generally require a great deal of expertise to discover. Penicillin was discovered by doctors, insulin was discovered by doctors.
We all love the myth of an outsider who revolutionizes a field they were excluded from, but the reality is that someone like Florence Nightingale was excluded from medicine because of her gender, not because of her lack of subject expertise. The people who make groundbreaking discoveries in a field are almost universally experts in that field.
Sure, maybe in some new field that's in its infancy, a random person has a chance of discovering something useful, but oncology isn't that--we've got centuries of study of cancers.
Really? Let's look:
> No one in this thread is presenting their ideas as definitive solutions as far as I see, everyone is being pretty good about providing their confidence levels and sources.
Really? Let's take a look:
1. "Meanwhile, it is proven that the Zika virus does kill GBM cells in humans. This is what causes microcephaly in newborns. Inoculating the Zika virus in a controlled environment yields zero risk, and has no side effects." Poster gives sources, but the sources don't say what he claims they say, because you know, randos of the internet aren't actually capable of reading medical studies.
2. "To give you the short version of the story about how it works for HER: taking bloodroot causes the cancer to shrink too small to take a biopsy, but not go into remission, and when she stops taking it per the doctors advice, it gets very large and they start talking about surgery." Seems pretty confident that there's a causal relationship between the remission and his mom poisoning herself. Luckily another poster posted this: https://jakeseliger.com/2024/07/29/more-isnt-always-better-d...
3. "Have you looked into ivermectin and fenbendazole?" Later, when criticized, user posts: "The linked study claims it has potential." User provides two linked studies. Both links DO NOT claim it has potential, because, you know, randos on the internet are not capable of reading medical studies.
Let me be clear: the confidence level of a non-oncologist in an oncological solution is worth about as much as what I flushed down the toilet this morning. These aren't confidence levels, they're arrogance levels of people thinking they know things they don't. And contrary to your claim, there are a lot of pretty "confident" people posting here about things they should have a great deal less confidence about.
> As for the rest, I think this other commenter said it better than I can:
> I'm not sure why all the hate.
The hate has been thoroughly explained, but your linked poster isn't any more capable of reading Hacker News posts than they are of reading medical journals, apparently.