Wrong and unqualified
Pontificating outside one's area of expertise, while ignoring actual domain experts
In a recent interaction with Google’s Gemini unrelated to COVID, I realized the response was also generally applicable to anti-vax COVID contrarians with an MD who arrogantly attempted to position themselves above actual experts in the fields of immunology, virology, infectious diseases, and public health. This would include a rural family medicine practioner such as Dr. Scott Jensen.
Prompt: “In considering the instance of Chris Palmer, MD, I wonder whether the average psychiatrist has the kind of deep specialization required to understand complex nutritional/metabolic pathways and thus unilaterally position themselves as an expert outside their actual area of expertise, which in Palmer's case would be psychiatry?”
Response: “You raise a valid point about Dr. Palmer and the complexities involved in assessing expertise in areas outside one's core specialty. Here's a nuanced perspective on the situation:
Limitations of specialization:
While psychiatrists have extensive training in mental health diagnosis and treatment, their expertise primarily lies in brain function, behavior, and psychology. Understanding the intricacies of nutritional and metabolic pathways often falls outside their core training.
Delving deeply into specialized fields like nutritional biochemistry requires additional training and experience beyond a medical degree in psychiatry.
Nuances of Dr. Palmer's case:
Some psychiatrists argue that a basic understanding of metabolism and its connection to brain function is within their purview, as it can influence mental health. However, going beyond that into deep specialization raises concerns.
Dr. Palmer has received criticism for potentially overstepping his area of expertise and making claims beyond the current evidence base in nutritional psychiatry.
Assessing expertise:
When evaluating a "lone wolf" practitioner like Dr. Palmer, consider their level of engagement with the relevant scientific community outside their main field (psychiatry).
Look for collaborations with experts in relevant areas like nutritional biochemistry, evidence of ongoing research and publication in peer-reviewed journals, and active participation in scientific discourse.
Be wary of individuals primarily relying on self-published materials or anecdotal evidence and lacking engagement with the broader scientific community.
Ultimately:
While psychiatrists can have an interest in and contribute to the burgeoning field of nutritional psychiatry, it's crucial to acknowledge the limitations of their core training in this specific area.
Seeking information from individuals who demonstrate expertise through collaborations, publications, and engagement with the broader scientific community, both within and outside their primary field, is crucial for accurate information.
Consulting with qualified healthcare professionals who have expertise in both mental health and relevant areas like nutrition is always recommended for personalized advice and treatment plans.
Remember, critical thinking and evaluating the source and evidence behind claims are essential in navigating complex health information, especially when encountering non-mainstream theories.”
I wrote in the subheading "...while ignoring actual experts." It's worse than that. It's while showing active contempt for actual experts. We don't have to look any further than the ongoing ad hominem attacks that have been leveled at Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Peter Hotez to see this.