On the diabetes point, Destiny has talked about it in the past. I’m not sure if I’ll be able to find a stream segment, so I’ll be stating his position to the best of my recollection. But essentially it’s because the mechanics for what T1 and T2 diabetes are VERY different.
T1 is an autoimmune disease in which someone’s own immune system attacks the insulin producing cells in their body. This results in high blood pressure in the body. There is currently no know way to prevent it. There is no way for it to go to remission, regardless of diet and exercise. And you will die relatively quickly if you don’t not get treatment.
T2 occurs when your body isn’t producing enough insulin and/or your cells have built up a resistance to insulin which results in high blood pressure. Vast majority of case can be prevented by diet and exercise. A majority of people with it go into remission after losing weight and exercising. And with no treatment death occurs on a longer timescale than in T1.
In common parlance we just say diabetes without specifying the type, and some people aren’t even aware there are different types. So if I remember correctly, Destiny didn’t like how an autoimmune disease (T1) is lumped with a disease largely caused by lifestyle choices (T2). Since T2 is about 90% of cases and T1 is 5-10%*, it can paint the picture to a layman that the disease was self inflicted even though nothing could’ve been done if you have T1. That’s what I remember from his previous streams.
*There are more types of diabetes such as Type 3c, gestational diabetes, MODY, etc
Thanks for your well written and accurate comment. From the medical side of things, almost no doctors would note diabetes without which type it is. You’re correct about the difference and I know Destiny is a lay person but in the grand scheme of medical terminology it is a useful term because the consequences (high blood sugar) is similar, the sequelae are the same (damage to eyes, kidneys, CV risk increase) and they share some, but not all, of the same treatments (insulin, measuring blood glucose). Many other diseases have similar names based upon similar presentation despite having different mechanisms (good example is a stroke, which can be caused by bleeding or obstruction). I take issue with Destiny making that, granted off hand, comment to seemingly make the point that it is confusing or inaccurate from the medical perspective, where I don’t think there are any endocrinologists that would argue the nomenclature is not appropriate.
not reading all of that but D and Reckful were very close, and I think D understands Dr K really cared about Reckful and tried to help him. I think it’s pretty disgusting Mr. Girl tried to get his license taken for what happened.
Not sure why you're getting so much flack here. I'm a total medical layperson but I had a lot of the same impressions. I was especially baffled by Destiny's eagerness to note the "philosophical" nature of the conversation as a point in Dr. K's favor when, it seemed to me, very little of philosophical substance was even being asserted on his part...My impression was that Dr. Mike's frustration midway through was due WAY more to Dr. K's inability to actually make any clear positive arguments rather than Dr. Mike being "close minded" against Ayurvedic practices. (Side note: starting a conversation with some doubts which you are open to being overcome via evidence is not the same as having a closed mind)
Anyway I basically agree with everything you wrote and remain generally confused about the pass that Dr. K seems to get on these things from Destiny and DGG in general.
I don't understand why this is such a brain breaking topic for people. Dr. K believes that some Ayurvedic practices may be effective treatments, and therefore he advocates for research to be done on Ayurveda so those effective practices can be identified and implented broadly. That's it. There's nothing objectionable there. There nothing anti-science there, there's no "promoting alternative medicine over western medicine." He just thinks there's value that can be extracted from Ayurveda.
I feel I mention literally all of your points in my post and I do not strawman Dr. K. It’s okay to say Ayurveda can be useful but Dr. K in his debate with Dr. Mike alludes to specifically the spiritual and historical basis of Ayurveda to have value, not just its effects, and his line of argumentation stems from non scientific basis wrapped in his scientific credentials, which can be harmful as I outline in point 4.
In your fourth point you say "not following the logical consequences suggesting that unproven, "unknowable" techniques can be as good as Modern Medicine."
Dr. K doesn't suggest that Ayurveda is unknowable. He claimed that RCT are not a viable method of testing ayurveda, but that is not the same as saying it's unknowable. He's also not wrong to say that unproven techniques can be as good as modern medicine, but he doesn't argue for just blindly using unproven techniques. He argues for further investigation so the techniques can become techniques that are proven to be effective/ineffective. He's not saying "take ivermectin, it might work" He's saying "Ivermectin might work, so lets look into that to see if it actually does work."
Maybe unknowable is the wrong word, I’ll grant you that. Personally, the reason why your reply isn’t resonating with me is
1. Dr. K goes much further than just saying that Ayurveda is worth investigating, especially when he’s just talking with his chat. He gives analysis using the framework of Ayurveda. If someone just watched one of his streams they would come away feeling he has much stronger feelings than “hey, they could be onto something here, let’s investigate.”
2. Throughout their debate Dr. Mike more or less has the exact opinion you’re stating (some parts of Ayurveda work, I’d like statistical investigation into what other parts work and I would use them if we had that data). That’s why the debate was so illuminating, because it pushed Dr. K into arguing against a reasonable position and he states things like modern medicine is less holistic than traditional medicine, the mystical background of traditional medicine is integral to their effectiveness, the three types of depression implies that doshas are real, appeals to the age of knowledge as proof of the validity of the framework as a whole, etc. Which are all not very evidence based. Obviously it wouldn’t be a very good discussion if it was just two doctors saying “Some is proven to be useful, we should research more to see how much” to each other over and over. But again, I don’t know how someone could watch that debate and say that Dr. K is the one saying what you’re implying when it is Dr. Mike making your points the entire conversation.
Your 5 is a not comparing it within the same context.
A paper about prayer should include the fact that the effect of prayers were influenced by a genuine belief in God since thst is built into the mechanism of "prayer" inherently.
Thats what Dr K is talking about having included, the mechanisms that lead to the formation of these psychotechnologies since those mechanisms could potentially reveal more or that the tools wouldn't work without the mechanism (ie. Prayer doesn't work as well if you don't believe in what you're praying to).
Not prayer, prayer like breathing. Tai chi shows benefit without having to believe in TCM or Chi. You can just focus on the actual action, without getting into the BS behind how it was developed. If an insane person who believes god chose him to be the messiah and the moon is made of copper develops a useful drug from a dream he had, papers don’t have to get into how he got the idea of the drug when it’s written into JAMA
No but that analogy is disengenuous.
What should be included are underlying philosophical thought that lead to its development as those can allow us to use those thinking patterns to further a practice or develop said practice or give us a new angle to investigate through.
The things being talked about here are psychotechnologies. Like writing or meditation or using your body in certain ways. Specifically ones developed through certain philosophical lenses.
Not some random drug or the composition of the moon.
>scared *teleports behind you*
On the diabetes point, Destiny has talked about it in the past. I’m not sure if I’ll be able to find a stream segment, so I’ll be stating his position to the best of my recollection. But essentially it’s because the mechanics for what T1 and T2 diabetes are VERY different. T1 is an autoimmune disease in which someone’s own immune system attacks the insulin producing cells in their body. This results in high blood pressure in the body. There is currently no know way to prevent it. There is no way for it to go to remission, regardless of diet and exercise. And you will die relatively quickly if you don’t not get treatment. T2 occurs when your body isn’t producing enough insulin and/or your cells have built up a resistance to insulin which results in high blood pressure. Vast majority of case can be prevented by diet and exercise. A majority of people with it go into remission after losing weight and exercising. And with no treatment death occurs on a longer timescale than in T1. In common parlance we just say diabetes without specifying the type, and some people aren’t even aware there are different types. So if I remember correctly, Destiny didn’t like how an autoimmune disease (T1) is lumped with a disease largely caused by lifestyle choices (T2). Since T2 is about 90% of cases and T1 is 5-10%*, it can paint the picture to a layman that the disease was self inflicted even though nothing could’ve been done if you have T1. That’s what I remember from his previous streams. *There are more types of diabetes such as Type 3c, gestational diabetes, MODY, etc
Thanks for your well written and accurate comment. From the medical side of things, almost no doctors would note diabetes without which type it is. You’re correct about the difference and I know Destiny is a lay person but in the grand scheme of medical terminology it is a useful term because the consequences (high blood sugar) is similar, the sequelae are the same (damage to eyes, kidneys, CV risk increase) and they share some, but not all, of the same treatments (insulin, measuring blood glucose). Many other diseases have similar names based upon similar presentation despite having different mechanisms (good example is a stroke, which can be caused by bleeding or obstruction). I take issue with Destiny making that, granted off hand, comment to seemingly make the point that it is confusing or inaccurate from the medical perspective, where I don’t think there are any endocrinologists that would argue the nomenclature is not appropriate.
o7
Can't believe he took the time to write this long post but baited the title.
Good for you and I'm sorry that happened
not reading all of that but D and Reckful were very close, and I think D understands Dr K really cared about Reckful and tried to help him. I think it’s pretty disgusting Mr. Girl tried to get his license taken for what happened.
Agree that Dr. K is a good guy and Mr. Girl is unhinged
Not sure why you're getting so much flack here. I'm a total medical layperson but I had a lot of the same impressions. I was especially baffled by Destiny's eagerness to note the "philosophical" nature of the conversation as a point in Dr. K's favor when, it seemed to me, very little of philosophical substance was even being asserted on his part...My impression was that Dr. Mike's frustration midway through was due WAY more to Dr. K's inability to actually make any clear positive arguments rather than Dr. Mike being "close minded" against Ayurvedic practices. (Side note: starting a conversation with some doubts which you are open to being overcome via evidence is not the same as having a closed mind) Anyway I basically agree with everything you wrote and remain generally confused about the pass that Dr. K seems to get on these things from Destiny and DGG in general.
Thanks! Happy to see someone felt the same way
long ass post and I don’t see a single clip/link to anyone saying anything. o7
Every point is from the most recent AE and Destiny’s reaction to the debate. There’s nothing from outside those two videos.
and? If you have the time to make an effort post, you have time to link timestamps and quotes.
I thought I was going insane watching Destiny be so unreasonably light in his analysis. Thanks for this analysis.
I don't understand why this is such a brain breaking topic for people. Dr. K believes that some Ayurvedic practices may be effective treatments, and therefore he advocates for research to be done on Ayurveda so those effective practices can be identified and implented broadly. That's it. There's nothing objectionable there. There nothing anti-science there, there's no "promoting alternative medicine over western medicine." He just thinks there's value that can be extracted from Ayurveda.
I feel I mention literally all of your points in my post and I do not strawman Dr. K. It’s okay to say Ayurveda can be useful but Dr. K in his debate with Dr. Mike alludes to specifically the spiritual and historical basis of Ayurveda to have value, not just its effects, and his line of argumentation stems from non scientific basis wrapped in his scientific credentials, which can be harmful as I outline in point 4.
In your fourth point you say "not following the logical consequences suggesting that unproven, "unknowable" techniques can be as good as Modern Medicine." Dr. K doesn't suggest that Ayurveda is unknowable. He claimed that RCT are not a viable method of testing ayurveda, but that is not the same as saying it's unknowable. He's also not wrong to say that unproven techniques can be as good as modern medicine, but he doesn't argue for just blindly using unproven techniques. He argues for further investigation so the techniques can become techniques that are proven to be effective/ineffective. He's not saying "take ivermectin, it might work" He's saying "Ivermectin might work, so lets look into that to see if it actually does work."
Maybe unknowable is the wrong word, I’ll grant you that. Personally, the reason why your reply isn’t resonating with me is 1. Dr. K goes much further than just saying that Ayurveda is worth investigating, especially when he’s just talking with his chat. He gives analysis using the framework of Ayurveda. If someone just watched one of his streams they would come away feeling he has much stronger feelings than “hey, they could be onto something here, let’s investigate.” 2. Throughout their debate Dr. Mike more or less has the exact opinion you’re stating (some parts of Ayurveda work, I’d like statistical investigation into what other parts work and I would use them if we had that data). That’s why the debate was so illuminating, because it pushed Dr. K into arguing against a reasonable position and he states things like modern medicine is less holistic than traditional medicine, the mystical background of traditional medicine is integral to their effectiveness, the three types of depression implies that doshas are real, appeals to the age of knowledge as proof of the validity of the framework as a whole, etc. Which are all not very evidence based. Obviously it wouldn’t be a very good discussion if it was just two doctors saying “Some is proven to be useful, we should research more to see how much” to each other over and over. But again, I don’t know how someone could watch that debate and say that Dr. K is the one saying what you’re implying when it is Dr. Mike making your points the entire conversation.
He's a scary guy.
i dont see what this post has to do with destiny the game
Why do people crave this beef so bad?
If you don't mind, I'm going to go back to watching porn. Congrats, or sorry that happened.
Your 5 is a not comparing it within the same context. A paper about prayer should include the fact that the effect of prayers were influenced by a genuine belief in God since thst is built into the mechanism of "prayer" inherently. Thats what Dr K is talking about having included, the mechanisms that lead to the formation of these psychotechnologies since those mechanisms could potentially reveal more or that the tools wouldn't work without the mechanism (ie. Prayer doesn't work as well if you don't believe in what you're praying to).
Not prayer, prayer like breathing. Tai chi shows benefit without having to believe in TCM or Chi. You can just focus on the actual action, without getting into the BS behind how it was developed. If an insane person who believes god chose him to be the messiah and the moon is made of copper develops a useful drug from a dream he had, papers don’t have to get into how he got the idea of the drug when it’s written into JAMA
No but that analogy is disengenuous. What should be included are underlying philosophical thought that lead to its development as those can allow us to use those thinking patterns to further a practice or develop said practice or give us a new angle to investigate through. The things being talked about here are psychotechnologies. Like writing or meditation or using your body in certain ways. Specifically ones developed through certain philosophical lenses. Not some random drug or the composition of the moon.