hckrnws

The title of the submission is incorrect. The actual article title begins "Why we fall for fake health information" - note the "Why".

This is a HN feature meant to de-editorialise the given headline, I personally think it does more harm than good as in this case

HN always cuts off these fluff words in the beginning, like "Why" and "How". Often, it completely butchers the title. I think it's a stupid policy, but here we are.

You know, some common sense goes a long way. I wouldn’t drink bleach even after contracting an Ebola-rabies-cordyceps combination.

Trial and error also helps. I found that I will lose weight at a constant rate of 2.5 pounds a week by going extremely low carb. No drugs, fasting, or reduced volume were needed to drop 30 pounds in less than 3 months.

> I will lose weight at a constant rate of 2.5 pounds a week

Wow. That's a ~1200 calories/day deficit. With 2000 calories/day being a typical intake, that's someone cutting out more half of what they eat.

The issues are actually more pernicious, and something else, and its not a matter of common sense, which as we all know is quite uncommon.

The issue is, misinformation spreads more cheaply and rapidly, and is amplified more than true information. It has been designed and made this way through purposeful intent by not addressing the issues prior to integration for our communications channels. (i.e. doing nothing).

The noise drowns out the true information, and these are the things they aren't saying. There are also blindspots that may make us more susceptible to adopting misinformation, as well as physiological responses such as dopamine spikes that may be triggered, that make one more susceptible.

Today, we live in a world of Anathem. You need quite a rigorous approach to vetting information today and quite a lot of information can be neither proven true nor false.

Whenever you have entities seeking total control, they will reduce the availability of true information. This is because the loss of an objective reality is what they are seeking.

These issues are happening because our communications platforms have been compromised by malicious entities, and the companies involved seek to benefit themselves as well as their corporate masters to use that to manipulate those engaging with it and putting out of business any competitors that might be a competitor.

> I wouldn't drink bleach even after contracting an Ebola-rabies-cordycepts combination.

I think you misspoke here. Technically, what you do comes down to being all in the dose when it comes to safety which is the implication you seem to be making albeit indirect and non-communicative.

As a contradictory example, if you swallow by accident or drink pool water, or municipal water, you have in fact actually had a drink of bleach, as well as a number of other chemicals depending on the pool or substructure/subsystem.

It is not pure bleach which comes in various higher % concentrations, or molar concentrations, which we naturally assume as dangerous if swallowed.

The same goes for the municipal water supply which uses the Chlorine in bleach to disinfect.

The dosages differ dramatically, in orders of magnitude of ppm compared to oz to gallon ratios.

> Trial and error also helps.

Given the absence of true information with a jammed noisy communications channel, you have to generate the true information somehow (in isolation) if you have a need for that information (that others may need as well).

There are dangers in doing that though because you are doing so without a safety net. For example, if one has kidney issues or liver issues following that advice may cause injury or death, and even long-term use can lead to higher incidence of issues, like diverticulitis if you don't get sufficient fiber, or gall-bladder sludge/stones which may be formed when you are kicked out of ketosis unexpectedly from sugar poisoning (when you asked for a coffee with a sugar substitute and they didn't make it that way). The gallbladder sludge may be normally broken down when you get sufficient amounts of vitamin C, but there's very little proven true information out there.

There can be many benefits, but without knowledge, which is the seeking of truth, and rigorous approaches; its a guess, and the long-term implications and risks need to be properly informed, otherwise you end up just adding to the noise.

> The issues are actually more pernicious

Some people are just gullible and will always believe what they find to be socially qualified. Some people are just assholes who knowingly harm other people with false information for profit. People who live behind screens find this hard to accept, but people are generally predictable and follow predetermined paths according to their personalities.

In the mean time I will continue forward with common sense and guidance from licensed healthcare providers. I am not responsible for the bad decisions other people choose to inflict upon themselves or their children.

Well that's one way to live life, if you can really call that living. No person is an island.

A far fewer number of people start out gullible than you think. Ask yourself sometime why so many seem that way, the answer should be common sense and obvious.

> People are generally predictable and follow predetermined paths according to their personalities.

People are naturally unpredictable, often in a good way, except when they've first been broken by trauma or torture. It seems you've mistaken environment effects for inherent effects.

You don't seem to have a high opinion of people. I wouldn't recommend going the lone wolf route in life. That's just 5GW. You can't get anything done if its just yourself. Its important to have friends you can count on everywhere.

Also, I'd disagree with trusting guidance from an authority blindly. You should read and find out for yourself about what happened in the Tuskegee study, and about the structural flaws that allowed it to happen which have not really been restructured in any meaningful way.

It goes without saying that people are only responsible for their choices, and the consequences of such choices. The includes both the choices leading to actions, and inaction.

> seeking of truth, and rigorous approaches

Seeing someone in cognitive decline browsing the web, and repeatedly sucked down into medical nonsense, I've thought it would be nice to have an LLM chaperone to detect and distract. Edge moderation.

[dead]