TODO
<aside> ✍️ The output fails to abide by Sections 3.3.16 and 3.3.22, 3.3.23 on Material Misleading and Production Techniques. The qualification level of assessors (psychologist, nurse, pharmacist) is mentioned numerous times throughout the output (at least 6), whereas the fact that all of them are eligible under NICE guidelines is mentioned disproportionally less (no more than two, only one at 20:45 comes to mind), which jointly is clearly misleading to the audience and portrays private assessments as un-compliant, which is false.
</aside>
<aside> 🚧 TODO
</aside>
TODO
10:23 - “Olga is a psychologist not a psychiatrist”, 12:53 further emphases that Olga is a psychologist, 15:04 “been told that psychiatrist makes a diagnosis” 19:00 “been told that normally psychiatrist makes a diagnosis” 25:09 “my online assessor is a pharmacist” 20:45 - “nice guidelines psychiatrist or suitably qualified clinician. two nurses in ADHD Direct.”
TODO: try to, when summarising, credit the main contributing thoughts (where possible, some aren’t identifiable / not direct quotes but rather Mikes’ mind-melt after reading the subreddit for hours)