1
$\begingroup$

Central diabetes insipidus and antidiuretic hormone

I had a fellow user say that the question above is a better fit for Medical Sciences.

Is it a better fit for medical sciences, is there consensus among the community (does Medical Science actually believe the same).

I think the question is a better fit for Biology (nonetheless I am absolutely open to migration) and I wanted to focus on the protein the peptide in itself. I wanted to ask more of a question about ADH than about medical practice.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

It’s not a question of community consensus, but rather rational analysis of the question.

The prime concern of the question was with a clinical assay for a particular condition, and the reason certain national health bodies had discontinued its use. There need be no biological answer to this — merely the clinical observation that it was unreliable, unreproducible or gave false positives or negatives. This is the sort of information someone with medical experience or knowledge would be able to answer.

However you tacked a “why” on the question, and maintained that you wished to know the biochemical details of the reason. That’s not on. We/you don’t know what the correct answer is (otherwise you wouldn’t have asked), or indeed whether it is biochemical in nature. One of the “rules” of all SE sites is to ask one question at a time, a rule that is quite pertinent here because the two questions are quite different in nature.

It is of no great concern to me that someone answered your basic question on SE Biology, rather than SE Medical Sciences, but I regard it as unreasonable to criticize it because he didn’t provide an answer to a quite distinct question. I suggest that you consider his answer and the evidence he provides in support. If that is insufficient or unconvincing, ask for more. Then when the answer to the social medical question has been resolved, consider asking a separate question on Biology. But be warned, an answer to that may not be so easy to find.

And as a footnote, your original question was unnecessarily histrionic and demeaning to health professionals, who know far more than you about the topic. You do not endear yourself to this community by expressing yourself in that manner. I suggest you take note of my edits, provided with free goodwill. (Elsewhere you would have to pay for this advice.)

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't ask for the reason certain national health bodies had discontinued its use. They clamed that the test was not used either way. The question was about the peptide itself first and secondly about the test (the measurement). The fact that national health bodies have discontinued its use (including the purported reason they gave behind discontinuing it) were data (plural of datum the premise of the question if we so wish to call it that). $\endgroup$ Commented May 30 at 18:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .