Multics's comments

> 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."

I don't see how this quote is relevant.

The new location is updated on TPB Wikipedia page — for others' future reference!

Interesting looking book[0]!

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death

Diseases of ageing include cancers. Healthy ageing == dramatically reduced incidences of cancer.

You should check out longecity.org, if the subject interests you, zo1.

Edit: In particular, the forum! http://www.longecity.org/forum/

New ‘lab-on-a-chip’ could revolutionize early diagnosis of cancer[0]

[0] http://www.kurzweilai.net/new-lab-on-a-chip-could-revolution...

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!

[0] http://www.sens.org/

Cool ad hominem, bro.

I agree! Current drugs aren't very effective, and there is a lot of room for upside in future therapies.

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'.

They're just counter-reddit. Even though it's something a hacker would do. Ironic.

Bit of Office, bit of war-criminal-Dropbox. Top of HN. Awesome.

It should 'Office' -- 'office'.title() -- as it's a proper noun.

Rice probably doesn't care about software in any way. She's a name which helps DB sell product. She's a net positive for their brand.

Correction #1:

> By "3 million, in the UK" do you actually mean "2.5 million, worldwide"?

Correction #2:

> Tabacco is also only 5 million worldwide.

Note the use of the word 'also'. It means in addition to.

> It's right next to the number you intended.

Why bring it up, if the numbers are right next to each other? Who's being pedantic?

> And you keep acting like his number is wrong.

His numbers are wrong, if the point being my numbers were wrong. If he knew about both sets of figures, would he have still quoted 2.5/5 million? No!

I've not tried to make the figures out to be larger than they are. I made a mistake with where they apply.

Just because I didn't link to a set of figures (can't link to everything), doesn't mean they're not correct.

People are acting like I pulled the numbers out of my ass. And apparently I'm prone to hyperbole (see nagrom's comment).

> Tabacco is also only 5 million worldwide.

The dude can't spell 'tobacco'. That's nitpicking!

> 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'.

Worldwide, yes.

WHO estimates it to be 6 million[1], for tobacco.

And around 3 million[2] for alcohol.

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.

[1] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/

[2] http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/alcohol/en/

> 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.

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!

It's not inconsistent to say drug prohibition results in increased violence, and murder is wrong.

> Frankly it is also immoral. This guy was selling drugs without caring about the consequences on people's lives, medical and otherwise and was organizing assassinations.

Frankly, the War on Drugs is immoral. The science doesn't back it up[1]. It's done without caring about the consequences on peoples' lives, medical and otherwise.

> This is not the FBI enforcing the letter of some stupid law

Debatable! The drug laws are 'stupid', if you take into account science and economics[2].

> and was organizing assassinations.

This is unlikely to have happened under a system of legal drugs. I've never heard of Walmart -- where legal products are sold -- putting out hits on people.

The drugs laws are broken. They create perverse incentives.

---

[1] There are a number of drugs less harmful than alcohol & tobacco (I.e. less harmful than drugs already sanctioned): http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...

[2] The Economics Behind the U.S. Government's Unwinnable War on Drugs http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2013/Powelldrugs.htm...