[jirdperson]

> However, nothing about its existence implies anything about police brutality.

As I read it, the article didn't seem to be implying that the existence of "excited delirium" itself implies something about police brutality. I took their argument to be that police departments' misapplication and/or overuse of the concept had led to increased instances police brutality. Not knowing anything else about this issue, it doesn't seem implausible to me that training police officers, who generally lack medical diagnostic skills, to constantly anticipate a human threat with superhuman strength and no sense of pain might lead to an increase in the use of excessive force.

[crooked-v]

One example is cited immediately in this article: https://www.floridatoday.com/in-depth/news/2019/10/24/excite...

> But in those deaths where there was no drug use and the toxicology came back negative, the only common denominator in virtually every case was the involvement of law enforcement, such as in the case of Gregory Lloyd Edwards.

> According to the autopsy report, Edwards died of "excited delirium and complications" due to "hyperactive and violent state with subsequent restraint."

[ve55]

Even so, people give a lot of credence to the title, which is obviously very clickbaity.

[gowld]

Which title? The HN/WaPo OP sas

WaPo: "Police keep using ‘excited delirium’ to justify brutality. It’s junk science."

HN: ‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

Both of which are accurate statements of the key point: There is a body of junk science based on the concept of ‘Excited delirium’, used to justify plice brutality.

The fact that there is something referred to as ‘Excited delirium’ that is not used for police brutality or junk science, doesn't make the title clickbait.

Astrology is junk science, despite the fact that the constellations do exist and that a person is born under a certain configuration of stars ar the location of their birth.