Some one in my immediate family has said the following things to me, which I found misinforming
You can and should dodge dehydration. They meant keeping on drinking so you never feel thirsty
Ginger and Turmeric can potentially cure cancer
Turmeric can cure arthritis and they claimed to have met someone where this happened
This is another member in my immediate family who believes a Caucasian foetus, was in the Covid vaccine. I heard something about duplication of cells but I don’t believe this. This person was an ex GP
Plus I have a partner who believes you only need to brush their teeth one a day or less and doesn’t floss (this may not be appropriate for this forum)
I disagree with all of the above but I found I didn’t have the explanation to correct them. Firstly are any of these correct? If none of them are how do you think we should approach loved ones to correct misconceptions and medical care/nutrition?
This reminded me of Dr Pete Hortez saying on democracy now that the medical community will have to fight a global anti-science movement. This was during the Covid pandemic. I don’t think the people close to me in my life are anti-science or medical care but I feel some of the things they believe above are a bit startling.
None of these are correct, though I must admit I am not as familiar with the evidence re: brushing frequency.
More importantly though, all of these are testable. If someone says any number of these things, then there should be ample evidence to support said claim. You would also expect that the per person making the claim would be familiar with the evidence, otherwise why would they make said claim?
Of course, this isn’t how it plays out in real life. People say all sorts of absurd things without any knowledge or expertise.
As far as what to do about it…that’s a personal decision. I don’t think correcting anyone is likely to go well, though it can be fun as sport
Fair enough I thought maybe there was a way to approach people close to you in real life. I understand there really isn’t now. Never been one to argue/debate online or real life but I guess no matter who the person whether loved one or stranger I would have to demonstrate evidence or point to sources and hope they are receptive.
I think your last statement re: having to demonstrate evidence or point to sources is important.
It is unlikely that individuals holding demonstrably wrong positions arrived their via a careful consideration of what you and I would call high quality evidence. Their “evidence” and sources tend to be low-quality, when present, which highlights a lack of shared epistemology.
If two people can’t agree at how a particular query can and should be answered, it is unlikely they will come to some sort of agreement or have a productive conversation.
It delves into different ways of discussing deeply-held beliefs with people in an empathetic, open, and vulnerable way so everyone (even ourselves) can all check our biases and really understand why we believe what we believe.
I have this kind of issue with a friend. I don’t get it, she is a lawyer and quite intelligent. Still she is susceptible to all kinds of quack on earth.
She gives unsolicited health advice like my mom who has cancer and is frail should fast, fasting is good for everything, or eat “basic” because cancer does not survive in this milieu. Then she recommends taking insane amounts of vitamin D and so on. And, of course, everything has to be natural and pharma is evil.
Sorry, I don’t take medical advice from someone who is getting chlorine dioxide solution injections and considers swallowing this stuff to “clean the colon”, no joke.
And then she presents all kinds of political conspiracy theories as if they were proven facts. And she sort of expects me to react on these. I don’t want to invest the time to prep myself for debunking all kinds of conspiracy theories that I’m not even interested in.
It is becoming more difficult to just avoid these topics and find “safe” topics to talk about. She is extremely convinced of all that stuff, I tend to think that’s a lost case. We are not really that close, otherwise I would probably try harder to challenge her.
I have a cousin who is like this. Thinks fluoride in toothpaste is bad (though I don’t think anyone on earth ingests it) and believes in the third eye in the human forehead. I find it hard to be close with people like that.
And bad news I just saw a thumbnail in a democracy now video of the first death from measles in 10 years. Anti vaccination and anti science caused this in my opinion.
Yes, I would agree that both political tribalism and poor scientific literacy are responsible for the measles outbreak.
What’s most surprising to me is that this loss of life is not universally viewed as a tragedy. Whether or not people believe that vaccinations and related policy would’ve prevented this specific case is besides the point (it would’ve)…it seems like some are celebrating that the virus won (??) the battle with Big Pharma, that this is a good thing.
