I’m suffering from anxiety-related panic attacks and looking to have 1on1 video sessions with a therapist to relieve stress. Ideally available on demand but I’m open to try any good therapy at this point.

  • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
    0·
    7 months ago

    “You don’t need a psychotherapist, have these pseudoscientific YouTube videos instead!” lmao

    • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
      0·
      7 months ago

      Calling Huberman pseudoscientific is worse than any Reddit behaviour i have seen in my life, minus NATO/Israel support. Some Lemmy users can be beyond unhinged.

        • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
          0·
          7 months ago

          That Guardian article was written by a woman, starting off like this:

          earlier this year I got sucked deep into the “Hubersphere”, the cult-like following of Andrew Huberman

          I am getting incredibly toxic agenda vibes catering to a certain cult from this, and refuse to listen to anything this woman has to say. This is the same “manosphere” labelling nonsense they try to do to men’s rights. I cancel anyone doing this. If the podcaster was a woman, there would be no such nonsense being claimed.

          Then the NYMag article, also written by a woman, starts off like this with a strange focus on frowning on his masculine build:

          Today, Andrew Huberman is a stiff, jacked 48-year-old associate professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the Stanford University School of Medicine. He is given to delivering three-hour lectures on subjects such as “the health of our dopaminergic neurons.” His podcast is revelatory largely

          It reeks of strikingly the same agenda as before, to condemn any towering male figures, and to not let the men of society look up to a man with no woman equivalent. What the fuck is even “mechanisms of control” headline? Is it another case of labelling and witch hunting a famous man?

          Oh wait, the Guardian article is quoting NYMag trash hit piece that woman wrote. That suddenly makes a lot of sense. As someone who has gotten a share of hit pieces, I know what it feels like and means when these people do it.

          Coming to the Slate one, another woman that starts off with attacking sentences claiming “pseudoscience” and the NYMag trash hit piece? Are you sure you did not simply link me same 3 tabloid tier trash articles of no legitimacy?

          The article by McGill University site talks mainly about supplement business, and the truth is, he has way better sponsors than most usually do. Sure some may work and some may not, but it is mainly for wealthy people to try out and optimise their health. His information and protocols require almost zero cost and anyone can apply them. I only see Fadogia agrestis as a controversial one he has recommended for testosterone, which in the grand scheme of hundreds of 3 hour podcasts seems like a minor issue.

          Out of those, only the one discussing supplement sponsors has a sliver of credibility to it. All the other 3 quote the same NYMag witch hunting agenda hit piece, which belongs to the dustbin. Never quote tabloid trash as legitimate criticism to anyone again.

          I am not surprised by nobody idiots like you calling his lectures on stress, anxiety and sleep pseudoscientific, and the voting ratios catering to a certain agenda. Lemmy has a certain bias to it, just like western pro-NATO platforms do, and I am not liking it. But I will reserve my judgement and assume it is just a few people like you, rather than the whole platform for now.