nsnooze t1_izncskz wrote

You're still posting on skeptic and conspiracy subs, so why won't you engage with someone who is trying to actively help improve your critical thinking skills?


nsnooze t1_izis3dp wrote

Come on dude, I really want to help you with your misunderstandings here.

You're believing conspiracy theories because you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting data and science, mixed with some poor critical thinking. We can work on that together, but you going silent when shown how you're misrepresenting things is not going to get us anywhere.


nsnooze t1_izgo2mi wrote

Do you not have an answer for the correct and valid information you've been given?

Couldn't help but look at your profile and see all the conspiracy subs you're a member of. Is the information you've given here the best you could drudge up from those subs?


nsnooze t1_izf0drs wrote

I can't leave it, your misunderstanding of data and science has really irritated me when you're being so confident in your misinterpretations.

Information sourced from https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-symptoms

Yes, there are 22 general symptoms of cancer, however that is in no way an exhaustive list. There are more symptoms, but those are the most likely to effect you. So your claim that there are only 22 different symptoms of cancer is based on a misinterpretation of information.

Please, stop spouting rubbish you clearly don't understand.

EDIT TO ADD: I've just realised you were claiming there were only 12 symptoms of cancer and I've been saying 22 as that's the list I've been looking at. Is that in any way meaningful to you, or are you going to ignore the fact that longer lists of symptoms of cancer exist?

And from the list you're referencing on the Mayo clinic:

>Some general signs and symptoms associated with, but not specific to, cancer, include:

That precedes the list of symptoms you're banging on about. What do the words some and include mean in this context?


nsnooze t1_izez670 wrote

I can also guarantee you that no disease of Long COVID exists, you know why? It's not a disease.

Long COVID is a medical condition, or to put it far more accurately a collection of conditions.

Also, have you looked at that definition of 200 symptoms? You're saying cancer only has 22 symptoms, but that's untrue, because you could easily redefine those symptoms so each current symptom was 2 or 3 different symptoms simply by being more specific in your definition of each symptom.

Once again, I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about. I'll keep asking, what are your qualifications, that allow you to assert that long COVID is pseudoscientific?


nsnooze t1_izex9aq wrote

Yeah, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you haven't seen my edit to my previous comment.

Has anyone claimed that long COVID is purely one disease/bodily reaction?

Or is it possible there could be 200 different diseases that make up post COVID syndrome?


nsnooze t1_izew8f6 wrote

Did I question the number of symptoms in my response?

Did you even read what I've written?

Edit to clarify: I'm asking where you got the inference that any disease with 200 symptoms must be pseudoscientific?

Also could you tell me who has implied that there is only one version of Long COVID?

It's entirely possible to get 200 symptoms from 200 acutely different illnesses.


nsnooze t1_izepnj5 wrote

Did you actually read the article you're quoting?

>but much evidence for organic disease is also presented

And which medical professionals think mental illness is a joke?


nsnooze t1_izeowzu wrote

Before I even start responding, I would like to know what your qualifications are to make the statement that any disease with over 200 symptoms is a pseudoscientific disease?

Or where you've got that information from?

Honestly, I think you're trying desperately to claim something you don't understand. For a start, who is claiming that all reactions (different symptoms) fall within the same immuno-response and form the exact same disease?