The person I am talking about is Dr. Palaniappan Manickam aka Dr. Pal, a board-certified gastroenterologist from Sacramento, California, who is also a YouTuber. He’s created various videos targeting Indian netizens, most of which are decent, but not without adding his own twist of misinformation, that are considered unscientific - some of them have been debunked here and here (auto-captions available).

I can’t help but think why YouTube would immediately remove videos that spread misinformation, but only when it affects the western world, but not the other part? Clearly, this guy’s video is in English, he participates in collaborations with other misinformation-peddling YouTubers - the consequences of which a few percent of the billion people in India have to face - which is still, a lot of people? Sure, you can complain that it is the responsibility of the Indian government - but they are themselves in this business of pseudo-science. When there’s no one taking responsibility, I can’t help but feel helpless about the lies people will hear.

Edit: And to why this matters, there’s an on-going case in the Supreme Court of India. Said “guru” sold Coronil kit, and mocked dying doctors. What did the kit do? It had high concentration of lead. Dr. Cyriac Abby Philips fought against it - and the system tried to punish him.

  • मुक्त@lemmy.ml
    16·
    7 months ago

    That last example is extremely bad and reeks of bad faith argument. Eating apples, as with fruits and fresh produce in general, has been tested multiples times and some of it’s benefits measured.

    You are missing the point. There are hundreds of pieces of published research on stuff that didn’t work or not work during corona virus like remdesivir, ivermectin, azithromycin, paracetamol, etc… but, where is the published research on effect of apples?

    Maybe doctors were too busy (or too pre-occupied with furthering interests of the pharma lobby) and didn’t pay attention.

    • Could the nurses have done the research on apples? Probably.
    • Is it published anywhere? No.
    • Would it be science if done with scientific method? Probably yes, though the current institutions controlling science would probably disagree.
    • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
      61·
      7 months ago

      No, not missing the point. Your comment shows I’m right on point.

      This kind of studies is not something a random person, or even a trained nurse, can do on their spare time. You couldn’t just give apples to some people and look a week later for results. You need control group, you need to account for extra factors.

      And before the experiment you need to have a reason for it. Can a drug that works for other coronavirus work here? Some compound that has the opposite effects mitigate the symptoms?

      Why would even check “apples”? They might consider a component that exists on apples, but why apple itself? Unless there’s an external event that correlates apples with a result, it’s a bit weird.

      Natural sciences without scientific method are not science. If you don’t test and validate the hypothesis, you’re just making things up. Without it, I can say apples cure baldness and blame big pharma for not letting this being published.

      • मुक्त@lemmy.ml
        17·
        7 months ago

        This kind of studies is not something a random person, or even a trained nurse, can do on their spare time. You couldn’t just give apples to some people and look a week later for results. You need control group, you need to account for extra factors.

        This reinforces my point that medicine is not a science being conducted by scientific method. It is being conducted through authority, and using terminology of the church (like good faith / bad faith) to steer clear of logical criticism.

        And before the experiment you need to have a reason for it. Can a drug that works for other coronavirus work here? Some compound that has the opposite effects mitigate the symptoms?

        Why single out known drugs, but exclude known foods?

        Why would even check “apples”? They might consider a component that exists on apples, but why apple itself? Unless there’s an external event that correlates apples with a result, it’s a bit weird.

        What you are suggesting here is reverse of what following scientific method would lead to: First check apples, and if a positive result is there, then go check for components.

        You really need to check your assumptions that were involved here.

        Natural sciences without scientific method are not science. If you don’t test and validate the hypothesis, you’re just making things up.

        Hypothesis in checking apples is trivial, and actually similar to one involved in testing any drug.

        Without it, I can say apples cure baldness and blame big pharma for not letting this being published.

        Sure you can, and you’d be as right as big pharma is in curing baldness. You’d be with less money though, and without that money, doctors who line up supporting big pharma are unlikely to line up for you.

        • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
          5·
          7 months ago

          This reinforces my point that medicine is not a science being conducted by scientific method. It is being conducted through authority, and using terminology of the church (like good faith / bad faith) to steer clear of logical criticism.

          That making a proper medical study is something too hard for a single person to do on their spare time is not appealing to authority, it just shows how complex and rigorous a proper study has to be to be usable. A study with 100 subjects is considered small, now think how long it would take to interview them, take samples, analyze them, follow up… and all that to check a random fruit?

          I know that for indian traditional medicine you can just say “it’s on an ancient book!” and “somebody who followed it lived to 100 years” but they don’t have to prove it.

          Why single out known drugs, but exclude known foods?

          I haven’t said you can’t, just that if you are going to go to the massive work that’s a proper study, you want a proper justification for it. Is there anything in apples that makes it seem useful? else, why apples? why not pears? peaches? oranges? For example, some drugs that were used in treatment of covid symptoms were identified by combining the results of thousands of patients and seeing that some that were using that drug to treat a different condition were doing better. Based on that the hypothesis that that drug was the reason was done and the experiment started, tested and validated. On the same manner a lot of drugs were shown to be useless, and even that is important information for those looking for a good one. Just like on real life, if you lose your keys at home, you make the hypothesis that they are in your coat and check that hypothesis. You don’t just say “I’m going to check on the fridge”. It’s not impossible, it’s just not the most likely scenario so it’s far from your first guess.

          What you are suggesting here is reverse of what following scientific method would lead to: First check apples, and if a positive result is there, then go check for components.

          No, not at all. First step is to make a hypothesis based on some observation. If you have made an observation that people that eat apples seem to fare better with an illness, then you can make he hypothesis that’s because of the apples and then define some measurable variable for validation the hypothesis. You don’t say at random ‘why not apples?’ and then mobilize a team. You don’t have a reason for it. If for instance, apples are rich in a component that is shown to be good, they might check giving apples for the experiment. Again, without reason, why apples and not kiwis?

          Hypothesis in checking apples is trivial, and actually similar to one involved in testing any drug.

          I haven’t said the opposite. Just that there doesn’t seem any reason to test for apples.

          Sure you can, and you’d be as right as big pharma is in curing baldness. You’d be with less money though, and without that money, doctors who line up supporting big pharma are unlikely to line up for you.

          I’m sure some quack Guru would be happy to use that to sell their services to fools like you. It’s really funny to see how much money fake medicines make and their defenders saying “big pharma bad because profit”.

          Can’t say I enjoyed the conversation, but I’m done. You either lack the skills to understand or have too much bad faith to have an honest argument.

          • मुक्त@lemmy.ml
            12·
            7 months ago

            That making a proper medical study is something too hard for a single person to do on their spare time is not appealing to authority, it just shows how complex and rigorous a proper study has to be to be usable. A study with 100 subjects is considered small, now think how long it would take to interview them, take samples, analyze them, follow up… and all that to check a random fruit?

            On what basis did you come up with sample size of 100? I have read studies with samples less than that size, including control groups.

            I know that for indian traditional medicine you can just say “it’s on an ancient book!” and “somebody who followed it lived to 100 years” but they don’t have to prove it.

            I am not aware of testing techniques involved in Indian traditional medicine and have no comments on their scientific-ness. Also, for the record, I don’t think Ramdev/Patanjali have developed their cures for modern ailments in accordance with whatever traditional testing techniques used to be.

            Why single out known drugs, but exclude known foods?

            I haven’t said you can’t, just that if you are going to go to the massive work that’s a proper study, you want a proper justification for it.

            Justification is easy : An apple offers numerous benefits over allopathic medicines and if it is found to be a replacement of any medicine, it should be replaced.

            Is there anything in apples that makes it seem useful?

            Nutritive value alone settles that question as far allopathic drugs are concerned.

            … else, why apples? why not pears? peaches? oranges?

            I haven’t ruled any of them out.

            For example, some drugs that were used in treatment of covid symptoms were identified by combining the results of thousands of patients and seeing that some that were using that drug to treat a different condition were doing better. Based on that the hypothesis that that drug was the reason was done and the experiment started, tested and validated.

            They did all of that, and other things, because they didn’t have any drug that worked, but they specifically wanted only a combination of drugs to work, so they just did whatever jugglery they could.

            For the record, there is still no drug to cure covid.

            On the same manner a lot of drugs were shown to be useless, and even that is important information for those looking for a good one. Just like on real life, if you lose your keys at home, you make the hypothesis that they are in your coat and check that hypothesis. You don’t just say “I’m going to check on the fridge”. It’s not impossible, it’s just not the most likely scenario so it’s far from your first guess.

            As far as curing covid is concerned, ALL drugs are still useless. IN REAL LIFE.

            What you are suggesting here is reverse of what following scientific method would lead to: First check apples, and if a positive result is there, then go check for components.

            No, not at all. First step is to make a hypothesis based on some observation.
            If you have made an observation that people that eat apples seem to fare better with an illness, then you can make he hypothesis that’s because of the apples and then define some measurable variable for validation the hypothesis. You don’t say at random ‘why not apples?’ and then mobilize a team. You don’t have a reason for it. If for instance, apples are rich in a component that is shown to be good, they might check giving apples for the experiment. Again, without reason, why apples and not kiwis?

            They checked the drugs at random. Four years of hit and trial and there is still no method to the madness that happened.

            Hypothesis in checking apples is trivial, and actually similar to one involved in testing any drug.

            I haven’t said the opposite. Just that there doesn’t seem any reason to test for apples.

            The only clear reason that remdesivir got tested before apples is that big pharma, or anyone else systematically funding doctors, does not see any jump in bottomline when apples are black-marketed.

            In a complex set of assumptions, reasons do not exist. They are invented to butter the side of bread that suits one.

            Sure you can, and you’d be as right as big pharma is in curing baldness. You’d be with less money though, and without that money, doctors who line up supporting big pharma are unlikely to line up for you.

            I’m sure some quack Guru would be happy to use that to sell their services to fools like you. It’s really funny to see how much money fake medicines make and their defenders saying “big pharma bad because profit”.

            I am all for profit, if made legitimately. But I have seen single dose of remdesivir (which wasn’t curing anything) sell for over $1000… in India.

            Can’t say I enjoyed the conversation, but I’m done. You either lack the skills to understand or have too much bad faith to have an honest argument.

            Unfortunately, most people mistake familiarity of ideas with their truth, and you are no different. This is why big lobbies get their way through propaganda, and people’s will is generally meaningless.

            • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
              3·
              7 months ago

              I’m not sure why you have such obsession with apples, but clearly it’s not the only unreasonable thing in your brain. After my first message I thought your answer would me something like “that’s a stupid example for the sake of argument, nobody would really think that”. In that, I was wrong, and a bit less hopeful for the sake of humanity.

              I’ll just invite you to make your research about how apples will cure COVID, or any other illness. You seem to bet highly on it, and you think medical research can be done in the side, easy peasy. You clearly have easy too much time.

              Please don’t forget to post the mandatory “haha! I won, my logic was unbeatable!”. Won’t be seeing that notification though.

              • मुक्त@lemmy.ml
                13·
                7 months ago

                I’m not sure why you have such obsession with apples,

                I do not have an obsession with apples. I took it up as a specific example and remained consistent. Do you find consistency difficult to understand?

                … but clearly it’s not the only unreasonable thing in your brain. After my first message I thought your answer would me something like “that’s a stupid example for the sake of argument, nobody would really think that”. In that, I was wrong, and a bit less hopeful for the sake of humanity.

                So you wanted me to behave in a predictable manner, but I didn’t. That should actually increase your hope from humanity. Give it some thought.

                I’ll just invite you to make your research about how apples will cure COVID, or any other illness. You seem to bet highly on it, and you think medical research can be done in the side, easy peasy. You clearly have easy too much time.

                I’d take up on your offer if you can provide an isolated sample of the virus culture. Deal?

                Please don’t forget to post the mandatory “haha! I won, my logic was unbeatable!”. Won’t be seeing that notification though.

                Lol. You are definitely not a good loser.