I am starting with your last sentence first, because it explains so much:

> What you said was a sloppily-worded over-confident claim that is plainly not true, and only vaguely resembles a claim that might be proven true in the future.

You are saying already, that my untested hypothesis is not true. Yet you say it my be proven true in the future? I never said was as true, I said it was my belief that it was true. But here you are saying it is defiantly not true.

On now, I noticed this is of some interest to you when I found this on your website:
https://files.kerkeslager.com/pdf/AntidepressantFoods.pdf

You know, that view is well outside of the mainstream and has zero scientific evidence. If I went to my PDoc she could not prescribe me food.

> If you meant "We should research whether mood disorders have their roots in the immune system," you should have said that instead of the absurd thing you actually said.

FFS, I am not writing a thesis, I am commenting on HN.

> Someone who is on the verge of committing suicide should not see a immunologist first

Weird. I never said that. Being someone who attempted suicide twice myself I do not think that is a good idea.

> You are giving quack medical advice. Stop.

Where did I do that? Are immunologist quack doctors? Like the one I see? Hmm...

And what is it with the "Stop."? That is odd. Really controlling and you are acting like you are the Daddy to the world.

> Sorry, the words "I'm a huge believer" which you actually said actually do mean that you have already come to a conclusion no matter what future science might say.

You can hold a belief, and go in a certain direction, and when that belief is proved wrong, change your belief. Again, you are making strange assumptions. For example, I could hold the belief that turning left is the way to get to my house, act on that belief, and when I do not see my house say; "Oh I was wrong".

> If you had said something as vague as "the immune system effects mental illness" I would not had any objection.

Seems like you have difficulty with interpreting what people say based on your own strict guidelines.

> Acute emotions caused by a short-term infection are not a mood disorder.

No, but what if someone has a virus, like EBV, for a long time? Suddenly the short term mood issues is now a mood disorder.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025817/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abst...

Really, your lack of creative thought is really surprising to me.

> What you said, wasn't true,

Not yet. It is just a hypothesis that does not get tested because of the lack of funding and creative thinking in the field. You know, my mother was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder 60 years ago and they are still trying to treat it the same exact way,

> it wasn't science

Yes, you just freaked out over my word choice. I talk to researchers everyday and I also discovered my illness was caused by a partial PNP deficiency (primary immunodeficiency) that went diagnosed my whole life. But who am I to have a "belief"?

> and it wasn't exciting.

Who are you, Spock? If you cannot get excited by science and the possibility of curing mental illness then you are lacking in the creative thought needed to move science in a beneficial direction.