+stellarfirefly I know in pathfinder there are a bunch of Archtypes that make other classes better at healing. The one time we had a Celestial Sorc, a Hospitaler Paladin, and a Healer Cleric... Yeah, we were set healwise.
+stellarfirefly Since RPGs are partially about getting to pretend you are something you're not, I'd guess they actually have a much harder time than the average group getting someone to play the cleric (which is often already kind of hard).
"Hopefully, HCT helps." Oh, it does. I see so many people spout off these ridiculous headlines, and this channel is an invaluable resource for dispelling the panic.
+John Harvey I know that's why I always check in here whenever a new mess of "chicken Little" headlines come out. I have a heart condition, I can't afford to just randomly go up into the boughs over nothin' ya know. lol
+John Harvey Fear sells, and people fear what they don't understand. It's not just medicine, it's science in general. Look at nuclear power. The year after the Fukushima disaster, people tried to convince me that the coolant leak was sterilizing the pacific ocean (the whole thing), and that Japan would turn into a nuclear wasteland in a decade.
***** I'm sure that's a big part of it, but it's not just fear. The headlines tend to exaggerate the good news too. Heck, it looks like there are new cures for cancer and AIDS on a weekly basis, and we'll have unlimited free energy for our 3D-printed robot servants by the end of the decade. :P
It's so hard to explain these concepts to people though. Even a few people on my college course (Biomedical Science) spurt all these things from newspapers and facebook! These are the people studying how a lot of these drugs work on a biochemical level!!
Well the rate of biomed dropout is pretty high. Those people won't last very long :/ I mean in my biomed cohort we lost nearly a third between last year and this.
+PotionsMaster007 Well we are in year 2 out of 4 and we still have a person who believes acidic diets cures cancer... I have no idea how he's passed everything so far haha
+Snowflake Panda That just goes to show that a person can have book learning (knowledge) without intelligence (wisdom). I know a number of people like that, including one 'special' RU-vid commenter who firmly believes that a person can regularly abuse prescription drugs without being or getting addicted. *facepalm*
Snowflake Panda that's quite sad. i once had the damn antibiotic resistance argument, and told my professor, and his response was 'you'll always have that argument'
+starlinguk Well, coconut oil isn't necessarily *bad for you. But I'll give you that many of the claims made about it are ludicrous. I'll believe it when they've actually studied it properly. Until then, I'll just enjoy how well it moisturizes my skin and smells wonderful doing it. (I don't use it in food because I use basically no oil/butter/whatever in cooking anyway.)
Thank you for this. What irritates me is often seeing a news article, or blog site posing as a news outlet, that cites a study that lay behind a pay wall.
Love you guys. THANK YOU! A small shout of sanity against the gale of nonsense is still better than nothing. Pretty please do a HCT on the claimed benefits of Chiropractic treatments! I've been dying to know about the efficacy of chiropractic treatments since you did your earliest shows on supplements. I know you get enough hate mail already, but PLEASE take this on!
I just had a rough day and THIS is what made me smile again. Thank you for doing your thing Dr. Carroll, Stan Muller, Mark Olsen, and Patreon supporters! :-)
You. Are. A. Hero. *rolls dice* And you scored a critical hit against the Headline Master! It turns to attack the populous! But your high wisdom and leadership prevent the foe from affecting the towns people!
Thank you for this! It always drives me nuts when you see these crazy headlines. It is amazing how many times you see "x causes y!" citing sources that don't even remotely prove any sort of causation.
I was thinking about this just earlier today. Whenever I see a headline about any kind of experiment, doesn't matter if it isn't health-related, I just think "how did they set up the experiment? What about its reproducibility?". It's pretty easy to read a headline and take it for granted, but we should start being more cautious. People get pretty freaky with health-related stuff sometimes (overall with these kind of 'not-so-true' medical researches, for some reason).
A ton of people in my family are nurses and they share these kinds of bogus medical scare headlines all the time, in addition to anti-GMO, homeopathy B.S., etc. How widespread is this kind of misinformation among healthcare professionals? Are they pressured into pandering to the fears of patients?
I remember one day someone showed me a newspaper article about a study regarding how kids who had ADHD were more likely to watch a lot of TV. A weird article, not sure how good the research was, but the real offender was the headline: "Kids hypnotized by TV: A new link between excessive watching and ADHD" So it was basically implying the reverse. This is why I hate clickbait headlines.
Question: How to manage Chronic Pain, particularly occupational pain? I am particularly interested in wrist and back pain, but I know elbows, knees, and ankles are also common points. I've been trying to use google... and magnets are mentioned. I do not trust medical magnets unless they're reading the hydrogen nuclei in my brain. Anyway... using braces while working? Using fatter pencils? Finding alternate ways (like speech-to-text instead of typing)? Are there exercises? Postures? What makes it worse? What makes it better? Quite frankly you could probably do an entire mini-series, and I know people need it.
I always share this on my facebook. Hoping to educate a few of my friends and family about believing everything you read :P thanks for another great, informative video! :)
I read a click bait article the other day that said that drinking bottled water causes cancer.... So thats something. The thing I need to survive will now kill me..
This sort of thing really pisses me off. Last October, there was a front page headline in the Daily Telegraph that said something like "Cancer is due to coincidence, not environmental risk factors". It was referring to a January 2015 paper which I happened to have been examined on in May, and had roundly criticised, so it was a pretty insulting headline! (The paper used mathematical models of the rate of cell division in different tissues, and concluded that the incidence of cancer in different tissues was related to the rate of cell division in that tissue, and therefore environmental factors have a minimal impact, because the biggest cause of mutation in those tissues was cell division. However, it didn't look at breast or prostate cancer (the main cancer in AFAB and AMAB people, respectively) or lung or skin cancer (which have proven links with smoking and exposure to UV radiation, respectively), and it's also a pretty big leap to go from mathematical model of tissue cultures to proven fact with no human trials in the middle!)
When I was a high school freshman, I actually did a science fair experiment on the effects of high-potency sweeteners on blood glucose. While my data did show a large increase in glucose levels roughly thirty minutes after consumption, I obviously couldn't do a study large enough to be taken seriously on its own. I did find out that a long-time friend of my father had diabetes, something even he didn't know about.
When people don't pay to view online content, you have to figure out how to get them to want to click on the article. That's where these headlines come from. Most people don't read articles (you know this if you've ever ventured deep into FB comments, and if you haven't, don't). So they see these headlines and run with it. I wish I had a solution (I don't, yet). There's no proof (yet) that clickbait negatively influences health literacy (or something to that effect) but I wouldn't be surprised if any relationship was found between the two. I'll get off my soapbox now....
A general rule of thumb I use when it comes to the Daily Fail is to assume all articles are factual incorrect or at least missing some important detail.
The depressed people alone might account for the increased risk of dementia. I seem to remember a increased risk of dementia in depressed people. Did they account for possibility that dementia could be caused by the depression and not the medication?
What I'm getting from this is that numerous people don't trust you, think you don't know how to do your job and are champing at the bit to prove you wrong. That's pretty sad.
No Healthcare Triage, you're not helping, at all! Thanks to you, I get into arguments with a sizable portion of my colleagues and professors all the time! They don't seem very happy about their ivory towers crumbling down.
I can tell you why cold weather makes us sick and it has nothing to do withthe effect of cold on the viruses. My theory is that when its cold we keep all doors and windows closed, keeping all the viruses in and helping us share them, we also tend to stay inside where it's warm, with more poeple inside and no way to get the viruses out they get transmited from one person to another much quicker. Just my theory, I could be wrong!
Who would have thought you're a pencil/paper gamer. Very nice. If you don't know already: tabletop hosted by will weaton is a good place to find new games
Dr. Aaron Carroll brings out all the stops this week by featuring his sexy husky voice while dispelling fear mongering news headlines. A dose of HCT every now and then can help increase rationality, reduce hysteria, and benefits your on hand knowledge!
when people say things like: "it was reported on in the daily mail" they automatically lose points in my opinion. Come to me with a more creditable source please.
Do doctors get sick more often than people who are not doctors? I'd think so, since they spend extended periods of time surrounded by people who are sick. Always wondered...
have you talked about studies on soy and phytoestrogen? I see a lot of people argue vehemently that soy causes cancer, but I have never seen any actual research that actually suggests that they're right (I also find it funny since most of these people have no problem with dairy, where there is evidence of increased cancer risk).
This same issue is creeping more and more into science reporting. A small, specific study is taken way out of context to mean something completely ridiculous. After a while IFLScience and its clones just became a cesspool of conclusions jumped to erroneously.
Eight doctors get together and play online games together... I imagine its more or less like anyone else getting together to play except more intellectually stimulating. *tear in eye* I am envious already. Though you doctors don't have to share that would make for a fun youtube channel. "Eight Doctors Play...." "Malpractice this!" *blazing machine gun*
An entire episode about click-bait would be good if it could address even a millionth of the amount of nonsense that's out there, or if the nonsense was actually the problem. There's an old saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". These days people have a lot of knowledge, and no context for any of it. Most people were educated in a system that prizes regurgitating information dictated by an authority uncritically. Is it really surprising that when a big important newspaper publishes something upsetting, people just believe the headline and don't go any deeper? I don't have time for fact checking, I have a lot of information to worry about over here!
can you do a video on the health effects of blowing your nose when you are highly congested, and whether or not you should ever blow your nose/how you should do it?
You guys need to follow Dr Carroll on twitter. It's pretty entertaining when he gets pissed at stuff. I can only imagine what a group text of doctors collectively channeling their inner Anger (of Inside Out) must be like. Nowadays I just resort to not giving a fuck when people question my decision of choosing a diet soda over a regular soda.
Intelligent discourse? I really like this channel, but with that as the premise, do you think it will last? I'm worried that green tea extract videos will collect more likes even though, you have evidence.... Please keep writing these. I'm smarter for you doing it. -a big fan
Absence of evidence.... Not evidence of absence. I have always disliked sweeteners and have since discovered they literally make my life shitty. I doubt they are safe for prolonged use...
wait, you mean that tiny studies that don't relate to the actual group of people the study it's aimed at and lab mice results don't equal the same as massive double blind studies that use the affected groups that they claim to be studying? I'm shocked, shocked I say. That implies the press is fishing for a specific outcome and selects whatever looks like it might mostly fit into the tiny box they've already written a story around...you know, with some heavy editing of course.
Does this mean that if I were a horrible person, I could email you every stupid sensationalist headline related to medicine that my friends share with me on Facebook so that your day can be just as miserable as mine? :D
This should really be a series, all too often reports come up like these. While you mention this topic, what about this "Sleeping too much could cause you to go blind": www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/sleeping-much-could-cause-you-7538237#r3z-addoor or this one, linked in the same article "Carbohydrates could cause lung cancer": www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/carbohydrates-could-cause-lung-cancer-7523498 Are there any truths to these? Or should we treat these like the ones mentioned in this video?
What I can't understand is why many of these same headlines that you rail against (rightfully so) are featured in the Well section of the New York Times! So you write for the Times often and yet they are promoting the same flawed studies you are debunking. I am a NYTimes subscriber but I am often (very often) upset by the poor quality of the health articles and regular writers in this paper. Any way you could say what you make of this obvious conflict???? (I've tried commenting on some of these bogus articles but it doesn't do any good so I try hard not to read that section any more but it makes me question whether the rest of that publication is as reliable as I've imagined it to be.)
How to become a lawyer in just do all these companies every time they make a headline like this. There are lawyers that literally just sit out there and wait for something to come along so that way they can sue. They are doing their job their upholding legalities and rights for certain things and the certain class of the law that they know I wouldn't expect anyone with today's complicated systems to know or be an expert on anything legally
+Zane Corbiere All of their Twitter usernames are in the video description. Additionally, Aaron's email should be found on the Incidental Economist website. Or you can search around the HCTriage subreddit for their username there.
If the only message you were trying to bring across was to not always believe clickbait articles, then this was a good video. However, you are clearly discrediting fundamental and important research that have yielded interesting and important results, especially that of the Nature paper, which was a well designed study. Discrediting research hurts the medical profession as well - everything doctors know comes from scientists in one way or another. I'd encourage viewers to actually take the time to review these manuscripts and understand for themselves that while they may not definitively prove what some layman journalist on the Dailymail said, they are significant.
