by trod1234 | 2025-09-02 09:24:22+00:00
What's eminently clear to any discerning individual at this point is your opinion isn't credible.

For there to be a disagreement in real terms there needs to first be a fair common definition of what is actually being disagreed upon, you haven't bothered participating enough to form that distinctly, so everything that follows isn't really a conversation; just ambiguous dissembling, imposition of cost, and manipulation of sentiment on your part to all other participants detriment. In other words, harmful noise that violates the social contracts.

There is a nuanced difference between advice in issues that occur in a medical setting, and medical advice. The former was asked and given in my responses and was the context we were talking about. The two are different contexts but sometimes similar in subject matter, and you suddenly switching to the medical context for the purpose of silencing what was said when we're talking about the former quite purposefully conflates the two to confuse readers in structured ways, which is quite reprehensible if done with malice as some of your actions and behavioral characteristics may suggest.

You claim that the information I provided, which included that of misdiagnosis, and the related facts (i.e. misdiagnosis exists, and the diagnostic challenges involved, with concrete references to heavy metal poisoning), is in fact misinformation; without any kind of support or reference despite there being easily found academic literature touching on this same subject (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X1...).

Doctors get it wrong sometimes, and only the individual is left as their own advocate which is routinely not fully informed because of noise and channel capacity such as your activities here.

My own advice amounts to use your brain following rational scientific principles, with specific support, and that may result in people not obtaining "life-altering treatment".

The thing is that is a good thing for them to do when that "life-altering treatment", a contradictory ambiguous statement you used, directly resolves to a state where you as an individual are dead in the ground, or harmed as a result. Same exact statement, entirely different context and opposite contradictory and expected meaning. Such is the problem with doublespeak.

Ambiguities are indirect references, and one must always consider the intent of the person speaking and the direct resolution of such statements, and whether the person has shown they are earnest in their providing value with unconditional positive regard in a structured form that doesn't rely on credibility, or the alternative; malign influence which bases their activities in deception/coercion.

Rational practices don't rely upon the credibility of the person speaking. The reasoning is independently testable. You neglect much of this.

I would respectfully urge you stop your malign use of psychological priming, and other deceptive behaviors including the distorted reflected appraisal you've engineered into your responses.

If you were a rational person participating in earnest, you wouldn't be doing any of those things.