Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The post discusses this at length, maybe you should review those points about how to generalize the advice before commenting on it?

Also, salt healing doesn’t involve salts touch the virus in any way know to break them down.



I didn't know there was such a thing as 'salt healing', specifically but just goes to show that if a thing exists then there is snake oil of it.

Your prior post asserted crystals might pass (b) and (c) but fail (a); my response was simply that I am not entirely convinced that it would unless a was fairly rigorous.

And what the CDC appears to be doing-- requiring a RCT-- can be seen as an extremely rigorous (a).

Sorry about the communications failure-- communication is hard. I appreciated your response, even if I apparently missed the point.


I was using "salt healing" and "crystal healing" interchangeably because you mentioned specifically sodium chloride crystals.

And I don't see a communications failure; you're communicating your idea fine, it's just based on not having read, and misunderstanding, the heuristics the author advocated for "when to require an RCT".

>And what the CDC appears to be doing-- requiring a RCT-- can be seen as an extremely rigorous (a).

And once again, it's a poor handling of evidence, for exactly the same reason it would be to "not advocate parachutes for jumping out of a plane" until the RCTs come in. That can only "be seen as rigorous" if you ignored the very considerations the author mentions.

I'll just excerpt a characteristic portion so you don't have to go to the site:

>>Goofus started with the position that masks, being a new idea, needed incontrovertible proof. When the few studies that appeared weren’t incontrovertible enough, he concluded that people shouldn’t wear masks.

>>Gallant would have recognized the uncertainty – based on the studies we can’t be 100% sure masks definitely work for this particular condition – and done a cost-benefit analysis. Common sensically, it seems like masks probably should work. The existing evidence for masks is highly suggestive, even if it’s not utter proof. Maybe 80% chance they work, something like that? If you can buy an 80% chance of stopping a deadly pandemic for the cost of having to wear some silly cloth over your face, probably that’s a good deal. Even though regular medicine has good reasons for being as conservative as it is, during a crisis you have to be able to think on your feet.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: