> Searching for articles with the keyword "hormesis" (a word I first learned in the latest book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who is not a person with medical training or experience) on the Science-Based Medicine website is instructive.
No it's not! 3 out of the 7 links relate to homeopathy, which the article explicitly states is problematic:
'Association with the problematic science of homeopathy. In the early 20th Century, people who promoted homeopathic medicine were prominent supporters of the concepts of hormesis.'
Your stance is based on an argumentum ab auctoritate. How about constructing an argument, rather than spewing meta-trash talk?
> a word I first learned in the latest book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who is not a person with medical training or experience
Ergo, hormesis does not exist? Non sequitur.
> The concept of "hormesis" is not well thought out enough or well validated enough with careful measurements to be your guide to your personal health practices. There is better health advice in some of the earlier comments here.
The only prescription of the article was to eat less & exercise more!
> Thank you to the several commenters who have already politely pointed out factual and logical mistakes in this submission.
Agreed. It's called 'discussion'.
> "Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads."
If people donate nothing towards ameliorating diseases of ageing[0], then what's to be expected?
People die. People get sick. Everyone you, and I, know is probably going to suffer and perish.
The poor soul in the blog post sounds like he got struck down in his prime; but rest assured, your time is coming in a matter of decades.
Accept death/disease or do something about it; but don't be shocked when it happens! Statistically, it's going to happen in increasing rates as you, your family, your friends, and everyone you know gets older.
Being blindsided by death is odd. A cognitive bias?: 'It won't happen to me'. But, quite frankly, it most probably will!
While more open discussion on the often taboo and reduced to euphemisms topic of death definitely needs to happen, I'm not sure that your attitude is the most sensitive to the matter.
I think it's a bit haughty to tell people they should either accept death or do something about it. You'd be a fool to think that the topic of mortality isn't on every person's mind at least monthly, especially with the media constantly reminding us of it. The issue is that it's hard to accept something so distant, especially if it doesn't fit into our current model of our future. It's only until we experience the death of those close to us that we realize it. It's only natural to be shocked, especially when these deaths are unexpected and don't afford the opportunity for reconciliation with the dying. Of course as we get older and more experienced with death we become better equipped to deal with it, but that doesn't make it any less of an uncomfortable topic.
Telling people to accept a certain view of death at a certain time is limiting. It denies the uniqueness of individuals' personal philosophies and their developmental trajectories.
As someone that is overly conscious about my own mortality, and fear of it. I can see it being much more preferable "in the moment" to be oblivious to such things awaiting us. And at times I really don't understand why people aren't afraid/concerned about their inevitable mortality.
However, I wouldn't personally choose such obliviousness. I'd rather know, and perhaps plan for it, and do my best to mitigate it as far as I can.
Upvoted because what you said was true and relevant, but the downvotes you got from other people suggest it might be an idea to work on your delivery; occasions like the current tragedy tend to be occasions when people don't appreciate comments that come across as snarky.
I downvoted it because it is ghoulish and cynical to use a personal story like this to promote some particular research agenda. Perhaps especially in the case of oncology research, where mainline work is well funded and will be pursuing an endless variety of potential treatments.
> If people donate nothing towards ameliorating diseases of ageing[0], then what's to be expected?
The unfortunate chap lauded in the OP has been afflicted with a cancer of the cerebellum, not specifically a disease of aging. Cancer research has an immense amount of funding, certainly in comparison to many other widely prevalent diseases.
Depends how strictly you classify it. Although age is an important risk factor for most types of cancer, there are many childhood cancers as well. Whereas dementias are almost always seen in adulthood, and especially prevalent in old age.
Certainly, dementia research receives considerably less funding then cancer research, so I agree with you that these prominent diseases of ageing are underfunded in terms of figuring out a cure.
Not true - its the content vs the title that's being criticized. Which strikes to the heart of what 'linkbait' means. Or is calling out linkbait considered 'ad hominem' and thus gets a free pass now?
There's obviously potential downside, but for people with serious illnesses there's potential upside.
For example: If you've got a disease that's going to kill you and unlikely helped by current medication/therapies, then dying a bit early is a small downside, not dying for however many more decades, on the other hand, is a huge upside.
In this case, the upside/downside is asymmetrical in favour of the upside! It would be logical to take 'under-tested, possibly lethal, drugs'.
> not dying for however many more decades, on the other hand, is a huge upside.
Looking at modern controversial cancer drugs we see that people get maybe six months of extra life, at very great expense, and these are the good drugs. The not so good drugs are even more expensive and provide perhaps two weeks extra life.
You missed the point that the very best newest cancer drugs are really expensive and if they're good give you an extra six months of life, and if they're not good give you perhaps an extra fortnight of low quality life.
> The ethical question is if drug use would go up and thus a legalise-drugs policy would be guilty of leading people down a bad and potentially deadly path.
Depends on the drug. Drugs can be objectively ranked based on the harm they do to users and others. For example, heroin is worst, alcohol is the second worst (so I've heard Dr David Nutt proclaim), crack third.
If less harmful drugs are used as substitutes for more harmful drugs -- cannabis in lieu of alcohol, for example -- the path will be 'good' and less deadly.
Alcohol related deaths each year are around 3 million, in the UK. Tobacco related deaths around 6 million...
I don't believe there's any amount of evidence that would move the current UK government on the legal status of cannabis et al. The only way drugs less dangerous than the current legalised drugs will be made legal is if most of the world legalises them first; thus, highlighting Britain's current draconian stance.
Alternatively, a political party such as the Liberal Democrats could come to power (unlikely!).
There's an 'interesting' logic used with drug such as cannabis, in Blighty:
* Illegal drugs are dangerous.
* Cannabis is illegal, therefore cannabis is dangerous
On marijuana legalisation, I'm looking forward to the upcoming second wave of votes in the US.
If you get a chance to vote, please do! It has consequences not just for your state, but for the rest of the world.
If you're going to correct me with statistics, please do so with more than the first couple you come across! It wouldn't have taken much to conclude that the 5 million isn't the only stat on the subject! The same goes for the 2.5 million, and alcohol.
You clearly state in your original post that your 6 million and 3 million figures are in terms of deaths in the UK. The GP was pointing out that you were wrong: they are worldwide figures, and not UK-only figures. A little less stridency in the tone of your reply would have boosted your credibility and made you seem a lot less prone to hyperbole.
> You clearly state in your original post that your 6 million and 3 million figures are in terms of deaths in the UK. The GP was pointing out that you were wrong: they are worldwide figures, and not UK-only figures.
I've said that's correct.
You're conflating the UK vs worldwide statement with the numbers given.
If there's a call for stats and sources, then would it not be fair to treat them with rigour? Or should what I said be examined in fine detail, but not the reply?
Tenobrus corrected me on two accounts:
1/ UK vs. worldwide
2/ The exact figures
I'm saying the figures are correct, and said plainly that it should have been worldwide, not the UK.
OK, fine, statistics are important, but if you're going to make statements espousing the importance of statistics, then you better have the right ones -- or at least be aware of them --, and not just copy 'n paste the first few from your search engine of choice!
It takes some knowledge to put together a commentary on the current situation with drugs. Any idiot with an AOL connection can Bing some stats -- badly.
Edit: Changed the search-engine-as-a-verb to 'Bing', from 'Google'.
Sorry for deleting the parent comment. Got down-voted.
I would say that's a reasonable course of action.
Seemed like an obvious conclusion to the study.
Perhaps people believe the opposite is true: being able to control chemicals -- within an animal -- in no way whatsoever affords any control over the animal itself!
No it's not! 3 out of the 7 links relate to homeopathy, which the article explicitly states is problematic:
'Association with the problematic science of homeopathy. In the early 20th Century, people who promoted homeopathic medicine were prominent supporters of the concepts of hormesis.'
Your stance is based on an argumentum ab auctoritate. How about constructing an argument, rather than spewing meta-trash talk?
> a word I first learned in the latest book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who is not a person with medical training or experience
Ergo, hormesis does not exist? Non sequitur.
> The concept of "hormesis" is not well thought out enough or well validated enough with careful measurements to be your guide to your personal health practices. There is better health advice in some of the earlier comments here.
The only prescription of the article was to eat less & exercise more!
> Thank you to the several commenters who have already politely pointed out factual and logical mistakes in this submission.
Agreed. It's called 'discussion'.
> "Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads."
I don't see how this quote is relevant.