What is Something Scientific that you just don't believe in at all?
EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.
“If the car is behind Door 1, you lose. If the car is behind Door 2, Monty would have opened Door 3, so you would switch to Door 2 and win. If the car is behind Door 3, he would have opened Door 2, so you would switch to Door 3 and win. The odds of winning with the “Switch” strategy are two in three, double the odds of staying.”
Are you saying you don’t believe it? Because you explained why it works pretty well. When the host opens the door, they will always open a non-winning door, so it doesn’t affect the odds at all. There is still a 1:3 chance it’s the door you picked, and a 2:3 that it’s one of the other 2. All the host did is showed you which one it wasn’t behind, and that means the odds of that remaining door is 2:3
If one wrong door is always opened, your chance was never 1/3 to begin with, so you are thinking about this problem with the wrong premise, making it hard to grasp. You were just assuming it was 1/3 because you didn’t know one door would be taken away.
As soon as the wrong door is opened, your odds are never 1/3 nor 2/3. It’s 1/2 because there’s only two doors. What did you think the number after / stood for?
EDIT: Now I’ve tried to look through the examples in the article, and it honestly just makes it worse.
The example about picking a door at 1/1000, and then Monty removing 998 of the doors, leaving two doors, therefore making it more likely you should pick the one Monty left open, is also stupid - because it’s not comparable.
The above example is true. The likelihood of Monty being right is much higher.
But your pick is never 1/1000 when there’s only 3 doors, making the example not compatible with the other. The 1000 door example is not wrong - you just can’t compare them.
And now to explain why it’s different:
In the 3 door example, your “pick power” is 1. Means you can pick 1 door. Montys “pick power” is also 1, making you both equally strong.
This means that you picking a door gives as much intel as Monty picking a door does. No matter what, you will always be left with 1 door not being picked.
Now you look at the 2 doors. The one you picked, and the one nobody did. Now this problem suggests that Monty has given you new information because he removed a door, but he didn’t give you that, and here’s why:
The problem suggests that Monty gives you intel by removing a door in a 1/3 scenario. But he doesn’t. That’s an illusion.
From Montys perspective, he only has 2 doors to pick from, because he can NEVER remove yours, no matter what you picked.
Now Monty has made his choice, and this is where we turn the game around making it clear it was a 1/2 choice all along.
Because the thing you are picking between is not the doors anymore. It was never about the doors.
You are picking between if Monty is bluffing or not.
Let’s say you always pick door 1 as your first option. Monty will always remove 2 or 3. Either Monty removes door 2 or 3 because he helps you, or he’s doing it because he’s bluffing.
If you didn’t get any more help, this WOULD’VE been a 1/3. You’d have to choose between if Monty bluffed at door 2 or he bluffed at door 3, or he bluffed at both, because it was your door.
But then Monty goes ahead and removes a door, let’s say 3 (or 2 if you want, it doesn’t matter). He tells you it’s not that one. Now you have to choose if he’s bluffing at door 2 or he’s bluffing at your door.
The Monty Hall problem has always bothered me when considering it on the basis of 3 doors. However when the concept is extended to 100 doors, and 98 are opened, it starts to click for me that of course the odds arent 50/50. It’s much more obvious that the prize was in the field (and the odds shift to reflect that)
The singularity that supposedly lies inside black holes is more likely just a result of a huge gap in our understanding and a dead end in general relativity.
You might be misunderstanding the problem, though. “Traveling” is relative. It absolutely is not impossible to arrive somewhere faster than light traveling in “normal” 3D space would. For example, 3D space itself is a medium, not an absolute thing. A medium can always be manipulated.
It also depends on how you are measuring time. From the perspective of the light, all travel is nearly instantaneous. It’s only from our perspective that it appears to take a long time.
For everyone else, yes, but for you, no. The faster you go, the more time dilation affects your own experience of time. If you were to travel 1 light year at the speed of light, it would be instantaneous for you, but a year would pass for everyone on Earth.
The prompt is dangerous and indulgent for anti-science idiots. You don’t “believe in” science… Science is. You can choose to believe in fairy tales, conspiracy theories and other made up shit like religious dogma, don’t causally equate the two categories - ESPECIALLY not while naming science directly. Maybe say, “what’s a thing that you can’t believe it’s real?” If you need to post.
I see your edit, but it’s still a bullshit post, OP.
I don’t see the issue. Here is the truth, do you believe in it or not? Plenty of stuff I have had a hard time accepting which is another way of saying I didn’t believe it. That doesn’t mean I gave up.
Science absolutely involves belief, the idea that the scientific method is a divorced concept from belief might fly in a badly written Wikipedia article description but in terms of actual science, belief absolutely factors massively into science. So does intuition.
Science is just a meaningless constellation of data points without any belief to connect them. One has to be very careful and continually retrospective about what those beliefs are, but it is absurd on the face of it to say that science is magically outside belief.
Science isn’t a collection of facts, it is a collection of questions that arise from hypotheses that themselves arise from belief and intuition. Just because that is scary and opens up the door to conversations about how belief always shapes our thoughts and actions even when it is in the context of science doesn’t mean you can just slam the door and demand that somehow science doesn’t include these things.
What differentiates science from other things is the intentional practice of questioning one’s conscious and subconscious beliefs, not the absence of belief.
Authoritarian minded centrists always want to bludgeon people with the idea that science is just a set of facts handed down by authority, but that is a lazy and ultimately fundamentally incorrect way to understand and advocate for science. The mistake we made was letting the word “skeptic” be redefined from a lifelong practice of questioning one’s own beliefs to being what some random person who knows nothing about a subject is when they just decide not to believe in something for no good reason.
I disagree. Science is making models to explain the data and testing them. Whichever model fits best the data becomes a leading theory. There is no belief whatsoever.
This aside, I agree with you that many people tend to mistake scientific theories for reality, they are merely good models. Thinking otherwise is belief.
Let’s say the universe is a clock that we can’t open. Even if we make a perfect model that predicts the exact motion of the hands, it doesn’t tell us anything about what is inside the clock (it could be anything really). Belief is when you start believing your model IS what is inside the clock.
I understand that this is a nice way to teach kids how science works, but if you don’t think belief factors into every single thing that humans do in science you are massively off the mark.
Even if belief is very present in human nature, the scientific method is not a form of belief because it is just selectionning the model that fits best the data.
Coming up with models does not necessarily require intuition either when we can automate this process.
I agree it is not straightforward. Evolution arises from gene reproduction, flies are just one easy example because they reproduce very fast. Humans are also using genes reproduction and our evolution can be also be traced. The evidence for evolution is everywhere and it is the simplest explanation that fits all the data.
Flies are very different than humans, but they are built using the same building blocks and processes.
It is not belief it is observation: humans are composed of cells that contain chromosomes. Genetic data is mixed with errors during reproduction (both with flies and humans) resulting in different characteristics in the individuals of the next generation (observable with flies and humans)
Sexual attactiveness of individuals will depend on their genes and their environment (also based on observation), which will impact their number of offspring, effectively selecting some genes and discarding others.
All of this is based on simple observation and you sée that belief has no place in this line of reasoning.
Of course there is more to flies and humans than evolution, yet evolution is such a simple process that it applies to both! Nature is truly amazing
Where do you see belief in what I explained? I’m genuinely curious.
It can’t be the observations as you can make them for yourself, and you cannot find a model that fits the data better with less assumptions as it already fits the data perfectly and has no assumption beyond “organisms make copy of themselves with mutations”
you cannot find a model that fits the data better with less assumptions as it already fits the data perfectly and has no assumption beyond “organisms make copy of themselves with mutations”
It is just a logical statement. A theory must maximize data fitting and minimize assumption. You cannot beat a theory that fits all the data with only one assumption.
Sadly we are not having a debate as I’m giving arguments and you are not willing to criticize them on a core level. I hope other people find this one sided conversation useful.
Umm. So here’s the thing. The scientific method is the best system we have for learning things about the world around us. The problem is scientists are humans.
There are papers published in reputable journals written by lobbyists and special interests to use the trappings and gravitas of science to push their agendas. There are medicines on the market that mostly or entirely don’t work because they were in use before the FDA was a thing. There are lots of papers written by academics entirely to keep the grant money coming, or edited by university management to prevent casting the school in a bad light.
Science, as an institution, is not infallible, and should be examined and audited.
And indeed, a core principle of the scientific method is incredulity. A scientist publishes something, you’re supposed to say “That doesn’t seem right, I don’t think I believe it.” and then repeat the experiment to see if you get the same result.
It took me awhile to accept it. But apparently planting trees on the wrong area could actually contribute to global warming. E.g. Planting on areas, traditionally has no trees, while reforesting would contribute to lowering temperature.
I’m not sure there are many examples for that, since scientific journals all require peer review and there are many cases of poorly written studies costing a person their degree or credentials.
I don’t believe scientific progress is analogous with human progress or can be used to “decode” morality, ie the science vs religion dichotomy I don’t believe in. I don’t think science or “reason” guides human societies for instance. This belief is a result of studying Hume and moral philosophy. I think science tells us what is but not what ought to be, and that gap is irreconcilable through science alone, yet it can inform our sense of right and wrong. I disagree with objective morality as well, so the popularization of this science=objective morality idea that Sam Harris has attempted I disagree with entirely. I’m much more aligned with Patricia Churchland’s ideas here, and her popularization she outlines in her book “Braintrust.” I don’t think, as some do, that measuring brain activity decodes human morality, because I don’t believe such a thing exists. I don’t believe human society is controlled and determined by rational actors, I have a more Darwinian and Maxian view on that. When people profess things like “politics should be scientific” I likely agree with their sentiment but I think “science” is not the reason why, and more of a distraction/lazy way to assert being morally right about something, which science can’t actually do because it requires an appeal to human notions of morality, which science cannot determine as it has no measure of which values we ought to hold.
2 people take the same dose of heroin, they repeat the experience 5 times each on the same time line. Lets say they both has the same surgery. One person stops easily, experiencing mild withdrawal that feels like a flu and goes on with their life without ever thinking about it again. The other feels a powerful compulsion to take more, they maintain their usage say initially through extending a medical script and later the black market.
What was different between the two? Maybe you think person 2 had terrible moral character but if they had never been given heroin this would never have manifested. We call that pathological difference a disease and try and treat it. What would you call it?
So you say the difference is some moral deficiency? ok well why don’t we try and treat that. After all we need pain killers in medicine and we want to make them as safe as possible.
Let’s call junkeyism a disease and see how we can stop it happening. Maybe by understanding if some people respond better or worse to different kinds of drugs, maybe we could identify a test we could do to work out what would be safe for someone?
Like what do you think it means when a doctor calls something a disease? People can make bad decisions and still get diseases. If inject yourself with the blood of everyone you meet you’ll eventually get a few, they don’t stop being a disease just because you gave it to yourself (and also we might ask why someone felt compelled to do something so foolish and could we have helped them).
Junkeyism ALSO isn’t a disease. It’s a bad decision. Tens of thousands of children die of cancer every year. Cancer- a REAL disease. A disease they never asked for.
Their cause of death shouldn’t be categorized alongside dipshits that chose to shoot drugs into their veins.
It’s very rude to just swear at someone who hasn’t done anything to you. You don’t seem very nice.
I’m still confused though, if someone ate some mercury because they bit down on a thermometer or something should their mercury poisoning not be diagnosed as mercury poisoning? should it not be treated the same way?
So you don’t care that the majority of people who abuse drugs are doing it to self-medicate something, be that pain, depression from the state of their life, or an undiagnosed neurological condition?
(Adderall is just a dilute relative of meth, and so has similar effects on ADHD brains, i.e. makes us more functional. Also, there is research showing that cannabis has a positive effect on autistic brains, which would explain why so many autistic people I know love their greenery. Plus, anecdotes from fellow ADHDers of “I microdose weed because it helps me focus better, and it’s easier to get than legal adderall”)
No. I don’t care. A junkie is a junkie. Having a neurological condition doesn’t give you an excuse to get whacked out on meth 7 days a week. CANCER is a disease. Addiction is NOT.
I say this as someone with ADHD and ASD, and as a person who lost a friend to addiction this year.
So, unpacking your worldview here, how do you feel about cancer brought about by smoking, or by prolonged exposure to materials that you know are radioactive and/or carcinogenic? Does that change with the knowledge that processed meat and plastics, things that are impossible to avoid unless you structure your life around limiting exposure to them, are most likely mild carcinogens?
Also, please tell me, regardless of how you classify addiction, that you at least understand that the only evidence-based approach to drugs is decriminalisation. Almost all of the societal ills associated with them are entirely the fault of their possession and sale being crimes. You can’t find safe environments to use them in if they’re illegal, nor can you feel safe seeking medical aid if you’ve taken too high a dose without realising it. If you’re a dealer, you have no regulatory bodies to answer to, and pay no taxes on the money you make. If you’re running organised crime, you’re already sitting on enough of a supply to land you in jail for the rest of your life, and that makes murdering competitors seem like a much more palatable option. And then there’s the developing world. Most of the money this makes ends up back in the hands of rebels, warlords and cartels in the developing world, where they cause untold misery and suffering.
But if you legalise them, that nips most of those problems in the bud. You can publicly admit to using them, feel safe seeking medical aid when you mistakenly take too much, get help from programs designed to end your dependence. The dealers go out of business, replaced by actual stores that pay taxes and follow regulations, like not being able to sell to minors or water down your product to sell more of it. Organised crime loses one of its biggest sources of money overnight, given that their expensive material of unknown origin and purity is suddenly replaced by cheaper material of known origin and purity. The cross-border smuggling also ceases, because what else are you going to find that is illegal, compact, and high in value? Oh, and the developing world can actually benefit from drug production, since the criminal groups will be greatly weakened from the loss of profits, and developed world importers would rather deal with legitimate businesses than violent criminals and rebels.
We learnt this shit a century ago with alcohol, one of the most destructive drugs (even meth would not be as destructive if legalised), why are we still doing it?
Well, for starters, thank you for answering the prompt.
But, I mean, the barebones definition of Disease is when the organism’s functions behave outside of their evolutionary purpose. I don’t think people evolved their brain’s Sigma Receptors and Dopaminergic Systems just to be triggered by Meth, much less to form a habit based on the results of that interaction, so by definition I think that fits the terminology.
IQ score is a sham - the tests are quite fallible, and historically they were used as a justification to discriminate against people who are poorer or with worse access to education. Nowadays, I see it quite a lot in the context of eugenics, where some professors and philosophers attribute poor people being poor due to their low intelligence (low IQ score), and that they can’t be helped while rich people got where they are due to their intelligence (as in they have a high IQ score on average).
IQ testing is reification fallacy. If I told you I had an instrument that could objectively measure every human by how beautiful they are, you’d see the problem immediately.
IQ depends on their being one kind of intelligence. You only get one score and it’s the supposed measure of general intelligence. If street smarts vs. book smarts is a thing, IQ cannot be.
IQ measures racial difference that cannot be biological. Race is cultural, so since the test measures consistent difference between racial lines, it’s proof that it’s not measuring something biologically determined. It’d be like if IQ showed blondes really were dimmer than their peers, but you found out the effect carried over to bottle blondes.
I recommend the book “Mismeasure of Man” by Gould. His thesis shows the historical folly and logical impossibility of not just IQ, but biological determinism. I’ve just posted the common sense arguments against IQ, Gould brings the receipts.
But it doesn’t necessarily show if they have common sense. If you have many low complexity problems then maybe, but it can’t predict the best performers
Not only that, but a lot of developmental disabilities are only recognized as needing accommodations if the person scores low enough on an IQ test. But many score high on these tests, but do poorly in school because they are stuck in a system that only values people who learn from lecture, repetition, and regurgitation. So they are considered lazy rather than needing help.
Quantum entanglement. Having two particles latched in the same state even if separated by light years distance is something I currently cannot believe. Maybe too dumb, but my belief is that it ‘has’ to be some experiment error.
This is a good answer to the prompt, I wish people would stop downvoting the good ones like this so they could get sorted a little higher up in the comments.
It’s a great demonstration of why people are saying this prompt is indulging anti-science cranks. This person has not done any research and doesn’t understand the concept of entanglement, but they’re declaring that one of the most vigorously tested and fundamental ideas in modern science is wrong.
Yes but it’s also easier to discuss with them so long as you’re not a total asshole about it. Take for example concave brain_in_a_box’s comment insulting them and offering no insight in stark contrast to naevaTheGOAT’s comment explaining Quantum Entanglement in a concise manner.
Concave brain_in_a_box and naevaTheGOAT? Really? That’s the level you decided to go with while trying to argue that your prompt led to meaningful discussion and not lowest common denominator anti intellectualism.
Notice that they didn’t bother to reply to neava either. More to the point, it’s pretty unreasonable to have to craft long explanations to people basically saying that their ignorance is better than the entire scientific establishments knowledge. Especially when it will likely either get rejected or ignored. Just look how many times people have tried to explain dark matter in this thread.
An incomplete but better than most pop science explanations is as follows: Suppose I have 2 envelopes and 2 letters. We have a stamp that has A and B on it next to each other. Without looking we put the letters next to each other, randomly Orient the stamp and apply it. Then we fold the letters up and put them in the envelops. Now we look at the stamp as see it has A and B on it.
We know that one letter contains A and the other B but not which, you take one and fly to Siberia while I enjoy a nice holiday in Tasmania (sorry but this is the sacrifice of science). I open my letter and see a B, instantly I know that in Siberia there is a letter containing A.
Light speed etc isn’t violated here because we travelled below light speed when setting it all up, I haven’t affected your letter just gained some insight about the overall system by inspecting one part of it.
Now there are a lot of things I’ve glossed over but it’s much closer to opening letters than psychic woo particles.
edit: as to keeping them latched it’s hard. The coupling is like conservative laws (e.g. spin up and spin down so no net overall spin) but any interactions destroy the coupling (or rather extend it to whatever just might’ve swapped spin with a particle). AFAIK nobody has maintained a system over lightyears for that reason among many, but like shipping pineapples to England the barrier appears practical rather than theoretical.
Pretty sure the science is very clear that they are. Research papers about smartphones are enough to make the KGB Blush. A study not too long ago looked at the data being collected and sent by TikTok app, turned out the app’s installed data is more spyware than it is the app itself. I like using CalyxOS, which was built up from way back when Android was Open Source, personally because I can disable Microphone and Camera use with the slide-down screen.
Obesity modeled as a disease that should be treated with drugs like Ozempic. I’ll buy that it’s like that for some very small set of people, but I can’t shake the assumption that drug companies are exaggerating so they can sell more, and most of their customers are just too lazy to try proper diet and exercise.
While we’re on the topic, Gastric Bypass seems incredibly destructive and surprisingly ineffective for weight loss. One thing I could totally get into, though, is if people had access to that beta-metabolite they discovered that reduces feelings of hunger.
But isn’t it outcome based? No matter how you process information, if your conclusions lead you to a sub-optimal solution to problems, whatever they are in whatever context, isn’t that “dumber” than someone that can come up with the best or better solution?
If I decide “god will provide” instead of “if I research, think and work hard enough I can fix this problem”, which one is exhibiting intelligence?
That’s just capitalism rewarding some lucky shmuck at the right place at the right time, not someone able to solve a problem faster or more intelligently.
Right so how do IQ tests work exactly? We are told they correlate with stuff but every time we dig into it we find the correlation is poor. I can’t think of a single thing humans can measure that corresponds with real world data so badly that is still taken seriously except praying for the sick.
I think it’s more accurate to say it’s a combination of both. Some brains are equally powerful overall but differently specialized. There’s also different levels of specialization via education and experience. Two people can have similar skillsets with one being more specialized than the other.
But there’s also things like brain injuries, malfunctions, and breakdowns that can reduce overall capability. With these, it’s possible to be worse at everything without anything you’re better at.
Lol, old memory popped in my head of a classmate back in highschool. She asked “won’t the US sink if it gets over populated?” She was processing information way differently.
I think many of these classifications are caused simply by doctors refusing to say “I just don’t know” and patients refusing to accept that they really don’t and probably never will…
Take IBS. We are supposed to believe that there is a disease with no known cause, so many possible triggers and influencers that anyone can find some that fit and wildly varying symptoms… something similar could probably be said for many other “syndromes”. Of course all of those people have something else or a combination of something else but nobody wants to admit they just don’t know and everyone wants a diagnosis.
IBS is also a more generic condition with Crohns and Colitis being related conditions with identifiable physiology and treatments. The “cause” isn’t known but it’s similar with genetically susceptible individuals having environmental, bacterial, immune factors. Immunomodulators being frontline treatments.
Your take on this is interesting, I have Crohn’s disease so I’m always trying to learn as much about it and other autoimmune diseases as I can (I have zero background in medical science, everything I know is based off my pursuit of learning more). If I understand what you’re saying correctly, rather than say Lupus from your example just being “Lupus”, it should be more like diabetes where there is “Type 1” diabetes, “Type 2”, etc?
For myself, I know that my condition has a very strong physical component to it, but part of that is also influenced by psychological factors as well - when I’m more stressed, then my condition flares up even worse than it normally would for example (and is one reason I’ve been pushing heavily on trying to get things treated on the psychiatry side of things).
I don’t suppose there’s anywhere to read more up on what you’re referring to?
Crohns as well and infliximab the immunomodulator has basically had me in clinical remission after surgeries. For me it doesn’t seem to be psychologically related or even diet, given that I don’t just eat hot spicy foods constantly, but I eat all the “bad” foods and tolerate fiber etc. The microbiome thing seems to make sense in my case, I’ve had one significant flare in the last decade and it definitely had that feeling of a runaway feedback loop of inflammation. Infliximab basically binds to those inflammatory proteins and cuts that loop.
That was actually the first immunomodulator I tried and it went very well for me (I was about 14 years old when I first started it)! It led me to the closest form of remission that I have ever been in. Unfortunately, due to some bad circumstances I wasn’t able to take it for over a year (might’ve been two now that I think about it) and I’m sure you’re aware but for those who don’t know, generally after being off any immunomodulator for a certain amount of time, you’re not allowed to take it anymore due to the chances of building up antibodies that make it ineffective (and can lead to severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis).
Since then I’ve been on pretty much most of the other ones, I’m on Stelara now and while I’ve been told it’s preventing more damage from occurring, it can’t reverse the damage that has already been done (from things like scar tissue) - even after numerous resections it’s still pretty bad for me.
However, I have noticed that when my depression isn’t so active, then my symptoms aren’t as bad - it’s not a miracle cure by any means and still doesn’t bring me to that previous point of remission, it’s still enough for me to find it worth pursuing.
Of course, multiple doctors have concluded that my on-and-off depression is due to having a chronic illness, and my current psychiatrist is attempting to treat it as if I had BPD (something about the way it works chemically in my brain is probably similar to that of someone with BPD). Hopefully that gets me out of the vicious cycle of my Crohn’s triggering my depression, which triggers my Crohn’s in a catch-22 style loop.
I do find that I certainly have some bad foods (I really miss popcorn) but there are things that affect others supposedly that don’t affect me, such as soda and other carbonated drinks (oddly enough I’ve heard for some Crohn’s patients carbonated drinks can actually help them, so maybe I’m one of those?) - until I reach remission I just continue to try to push on trying as much as I can, since numerous GIs over the years just have zero clue on how to further help me sadly.
(They did make things significantly worse for me by having me on Prednisone for multiple years at a time, but that’s another long story)
Have a prednisone horror story as well, couldn’t taper off without severe withdrawal and it led to me needing emergency surgery after an ulcer rupture, which led to my resections and eventual clinical remission. Did they actually test you for antibodies against infliximab or is that just a general safety precaution they’re following? I was off it for a couple months because of coverage issues but they had no problem starting me on it again and following normal infusion protocols. I think I’ve been on it for 15 years now. My GI specialist was one of the first in the area to start with the “top-down” approach for treatment around when I had my surgeries. Etrolizumab looked promising but the Phase III failed to deliver unfortunately, was hoping for that one if I had issues with infliximab.
They did test me for antibodies and I was positive for them sadly. That’s quite a horrifying story for prednisone though, ironically I’ve always had a difficult time with the withdrawal symptoms from it during a taper-down of it, whereas with something like most opioids I pretty much have zero problem stopping them even abruptly, aside from a headache for a few days. For me I was never told about the long-term side effects from prolonged usage of prednisone, which I’m now being forced to deal with - an example of such is that it decayed most of the calcium/enamel in my teeth so this whole year I’ve had numerous root canals, fillings, and tooth extractions done and its not even over with. Honestly, I’m afraid of needing dentures before I even hit 40 (and I’m in my mid twenties)… Then there’s the high chance of bone density issues, which I’m sure I’ll end up with (if I don’t already have such issues)… and I still have yet to shed all of the extra weight that I gained from it.
Works wonders for some people on a short term basis, but I’ll never choose to be on prednisone ever again, short of some very exigent circumstances… and even then, I don’t want to fall into the problem of starting it and not being able to be pulled off of it without declining again really rapidly (which is what led to me staying on it for so long).
Even Crohn’s has different subtypes that are suspected to explain why different Crohn’s patients respond differently to the same treatments. Much like the comment about lupus. Crohn’s also is much more complicated than the general public is aware.
For example, it is well established that there is a subset of people with Crohn’s disease who go into remission while taking an antidepressant called bupropion and we have no idea why. No one believes this is because these people’s Crohn’s was caused by a psychological problem, but rather that the bupropion appears to have effects on the immune system that aren’t well understood. And this appears to only work in certain people. Do those people have a different “kind” of Crohn’s? Different underlying genetic response to bupropion? Those questions aren’t as easy to answer as you might think.
Add comment