Medications that change who we are - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200108-the-medications-that-change-who-we-are <comment><USER3> >"It turns out many ordinary medications don't just affect our bodies – they affect our brains."

I feel like perpetuating this mindset is the ultimate sin of modern psychiatry and the entire industry of psychiatric pharmaceuticals - your brain _is_ your body. It's not some special thing that sits apart from it. It is an integral part of the whole, no different than your kidneys or liver. People think they can take an antidepressant and it just "works" on their brain somehow. It affects absolutely everything.

<comment><USER4> I think the problem goes at least as far back as Plato and the allegory of the cave. Plato spread this concept that there was a difference between the body and mind or soul, and Western culture has never really recovered from the stupidity of that idea.

There's really no evidence or justification for it. Your mind and your body are the same thing.

<comment><USER5> My Python code ultimately runs on a circuit, but it feels lacking to say that my program _is_ the circuitry. The program itself only has meaning inside of my mind, and in fact could exist equally well on paper. It exists _conceptually_ even if it never manifests physically. So where do concepts like this exist, given that they don't exist as matter? What do we mean when we say that something like 1+1=2 is true - that that truth exists - and would exist even if there wasn't any matter to have 1 and 1 of?

The more you look at it, the more it looks like truths and ideas are even realer than the material world. After all, the only thing we know of the material world is what we experience of it in our mind. That was Plato's point, that the material world is a shadow of the real, immaterial world of thoughts, ideas, and truths.

Similar argument patterns permeate most ancient philosophies. The meme is that mind is the ultimate reality, of which the materialistic worldview is a surprisingly fragile inverse.

<comment><USER4> > My Python code ultimately runs on a circuit, but it feels lacking to say > that my program is the circuitry. The program itself only has meaning inside > of my mind, and in fact could exist equally well on paper. It exists > conceptually even if it never manifests physically. So where do concepts > like this exist, given that they don't exist as matter? What do we mean when > we say that something like 1+1=2 is true - that that truth exists - <USER2> > would exist even if there wasn't any matter to have 1 and 1 of?

You're claiming that these concepts don't exist as matter, but you've actually described how it exists in matter. Moving the program to paper just changes the matter from silicon and metal to paper and ink. You're saying it never manifests physically while describing its physical manifestation.

Even if the program exists only in your mind, all that means is that the physical manifestation is neurons/synapses instead of silicon/metal or paper/ink.

I won't claim to know completely how the human brain works, and I think it's unlikely that anyone completely understands everything. But it's unreasonable to claim that anything we don't completely understand the physical manifestation of must not have a physical manifestation. That's just the God of the Gaps argument[1] repackaged into a "Mind of the Gaps" argument. If you are defining the mind is every thought and mental process that we don't understand, then the mind is an ever-shrinking phenomena that slowly disappears as we apply the scientific method. In that case, I think we have a better word for that than "the mind": we typically call that "ignorance".

> Similar argument patterns permeate most ancient philosophies. The meme is > that mind is the ultimate reality, of which the materialistic worldview is a > surprisingly fragile inverse.

This is unsurprising, given that ancient philosophers lacked even basic scientific knowledge. The materialistic worldview seems fragile when you know next-to-nothing of the material world. We might draw the same conclusions as them if we only look at the evidence they had, but it would be foolish to only look at the evidence they had, when we have access to, for example, modern neuroscience. It would be extraordinarily improbable for people who believed fire came from phlogiston to come to the same conclusions about the nature of the mind, as people with access to decades of magnetic resonance imaging of the brain.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Definitely 100% true, first hand experience here.

I had mild medication prescribed for regulating blood pressure. Supposedly without psychological side effects. I found out a year later that it dramatically affected my personality. More or less like in the article, but in the opposite way.

The frightening thing is, I didn't know !!!

I found out a year later when temporarily stopping the medication, my kids started to make remarks, alluding on my changed behaviour. Only that moment I started to realize what happened.

Also affected my profesional live: I heard years later that people / collegues had noticed (but never mentioned it). I'm pretty sure it impacted my career. All without me knowing. For medication without any known psychological effects.

I took this medication for a year without realizing anything was wrong, that will probably also be the case for other people, and I'm pretty sure in many cases psychological side effects won't show up in clinical trials.

I'm pretty sure if you take anything like anti anxiety / depressants, psycho- pharmaceuticals, or just anything with known side effects, the impact must be dramatic.

When I found out, discussed it with (several) docters : one said "impossible", another "interesting, tell me more". It assume most doctors are clueless here. When you break a leg, they can set it and it heals. When you have a headache, they look in their book to see if there is a pill. But anything out of the ordinary, it may be hard to find good medical help.

<comment><USER7> > I found out a year later that it dramatically affected my personality. More > or less like in the article, but in the opposite way.

So the blood pressure medication made you more calm? You didn't specify the medication they prescribed, but that's a common effect of certain types of blood pressure medication. In fact, certain blood pressure medications are prescribed off-label for their calming properties. One blood pressure medication is even approved for also treating ADHD (Guanfacine).

If you find that your doctor doesn't acknowledge your side effects or dismisses your complaints, it's time to get a second opinion or rotate doctors. I've never had a problem with my doctors not believing me.

> I'm pretty sure if you take anything like anti anxiety / depressants, > psycho-pharmaceuticals, or just anything with known side effects, the impact > must be dramatic.

In my experience, the good doctors are well aware that all medications come with side effects. The best doctors strive to minimize medication exposure for this reason. Ironically, many patients disapprove of this because it feels like the doctors are withholding treatments, even when it may be the best choice for the patient.

The most common example is people demanding antibiotics for common colds. Doctors know antibiotics won't help and that they come with significant risks, but they also know that patients might leave a bad review if they leave empty handed.

In the case of psychiatric medications: Yes, the differences can be significant. However, the side effects are worth the tradeoff for alleviating serious psychiatric issues. Being naturally healthy is obviously preferable to being medicated with side effects, but that's not the choice that patients are making in these cases. Instead, they're choosing between continuing to be unhealthy without medication or dealing with some side effects in order to relieve some of their pain.

This is also why many people get stuck in cycles of discontinuing their psychiatric medications. Someone who achieves remission from depression with anti-depressant medication might think that they don't need the medication now that they're "better", and when all they can see are the side effects. This leads them to discontinue, which often results in relapse of the underlying disorder if not managed with the help of their doctors.

<comment><USER8> Blood pressure medicine does make you more calm and this is known anecdotally among the medical community.

I know this because I know of medical students taking it before giving a speech. Literally the medicine is well known for making you perfectly calm.

You know that magic pill that can get rid of your approach anxiety? I hear, this is it, though I never tried. I'm wondering if anyone more in the "know" can comment on it.

<comment><USER9> _> You know that magic pill that can get rid of your approach anxiety ... wondering if anyone more in the "know" can comment on it._

BLUF (bottom line up front):

Try biofeedback to regulate level of emotional arousal before an anticipated stressor or critical decision or event.

COMMENTARY

You may be referring to "Propranolol"

 _"Propranolol is occasionally used to treat performance anxiety... benefits appear similar to benzodiazepines in panic disorder with potentially less side effects such as addiction. Experimentation has been conducted in other psychiatric areas... Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and specific phobias..."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propranolol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propranolol)

It is a beta blocker:

 _"Beta blockers (beta-blockers, β-blockers, etc.) are a class of medications that are predominantly used to manage abnormal heart rhythms... also widely used to treat high blood pressure (hypertension), although they are no longer the first choice..."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_blocker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_blocker)

HYPOTHESIS

When taken before something like a Ted Talk, perhaps what's happening is pre- treatment of not anxiety but _indicative symptoms_ of anxiety, damping your biofeedback signals.

Perhaps it's not doing anything direct for your anxiety, rather damping the racing heartbeat and increased blood pressure you usually experience in anticipation of stress (PTSD style association), and without that biofeedback sensor, your metacognition of anxiety doesn't ramp up as much.

No citations, pure anecdata from 5 years in hedge fund sector.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

More than a few contra-indications:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propranolol#Contraindications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propranolol#Contraindications)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_blocker#Contraindications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_blocker#Contraindications)

ALTERNATIVE: BIO-FEEDBACK / MINDFULNESS

Bio-feedback mindfulness exercises are likely to be able to have the same effect after practice, not just in general, but in the immediate short term preceding an anticipated stress:

 _"Financial decision making : Financial traders use biofeedback as a tool for regulating their level of emotional arousal in order to make better financial decisions. The technology company Philips and the Dutch bank ABN AMRO developed a biofeedback device for retail investors based on a galvanic skin response sensor.... financial decision makers can learn how to effectively regulate their emotions using heart rate measurements."_

 _"Stress reduction : A randomized study by Sutarto et al. assessed the effect of resonant breathing biofeedback (recognize and control involuntary heart rate variability) among manufacturing operators; depression, anxiety and stress significantly decreased."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofeedback#Financial_decision...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofeedback#Financial_decision_making)

<comment><USER6> Thank you for all this detailed feedback, this actually helps a lot in understanding.

 _" I suspect it's not doing anything direct for your anxiety, rather damping the racing heartbeat and increased blood pressure you usually experience in anticipation of stress (PTSD style association), and without that biofeedback sensor, your metacognition of anxiety doesn't ramp up as much."_

That's it. Heartbeat is gone, anxiety is still there. Also the "adrenaline rush" is gone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Let's also consider the other direction -- how fresh vegetables and fruit, plus whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds, and herbs improve mood, behavior, resilience. Throw in some vigorous exercise, and for most people, drugs can't do better, without the drugs' side effects and cost.

For many people, switching from a standard American diet to largely those ingredients would register as changing who they are.

I just finished reading a chapter on it in Dr. Michael Greger's _How Not to Die_ \-- the chapter is "How Not to Die From Suicidal Depression" with plenty of footnotes to primary sources.

<comment><USER11> _Let 's also consider the other direction -- how fresh vegetables and fruit, plus whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds, and herbs improve mood, behavior, resilience. Throw in some vigorous exercise, and for most people, drugs can't do better, without the drugs' side effects and cost._

If you look at health outcomes, this is sort of obviously not true. I don't mean the health benefits of the things you mention, I mean the "for most people" part.

Of course I realize that you are engaged in advocacy. I think it probably isn't good advocacy, people should be thinking about (and talking to their doctor about) the best way to approach their current health status, not imagining that they are going to eat well and get lots of vigorous exercise.

<comment><USER12> Are you really trying to say that promoting a nutritious diet supported by physical activity doesn't work for "most people"? You call that engaged advocacy?

What he claimed is true and backed by multiple studies. Doing a healthy dose of physical activity with a healthy diet can only be beneficial, no downside whatsoever. It's quite underrated I guess. Too many humans wish for a magic pill, they delude themselves into thinking that it must be better than healthy living habits, since it's more modern. People are looking for the lazy fix.

<comment><USER13> What he said is imagining you will start eating well and exercising is rather far from eating well and exercising. I know of no intentional changes that are less successful than trying to eat healthy for the rest of life. Even smokers have better luck with quitting. (Talking long term here - eating better for six months isn't that useful).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As the article mentions, this is a complicated, not-simple type of thing to filter out.

If it were anything other than the BBC reporting it, I would probably have a raised eyebrow.

One of the things that makes it difficult to develop a causative link, is things like someone may suddenly develop symptoms of heart disease or high blood pressure, but they are also going through a personally stressful time, and have taken to exercising less, worrying, and sitting around eating popcorn.

It may seem as if some medication or practice is the cause, but exercising less, and munching salt can throw the curve. Being worried about the future (or our own health -the reason we're on the meds) can also have a fairly profound effect on things.

Animal testing will usually control for stuff, but real life is messy.

For example, alcohol is known to interact with all kinds of compounds. Rats don't drink, so, unless the researchers deliberately introduce alcohol (in realistic dosage) in their regimen, they can be quite surprised, when unanticipated things start happening in human trials.

I've heard of unanticipated results manifesting, because a symptom only appeared within a certain dosage window, and testing had used extreme dosages.

</comment><comment><USER15> I take gabapentin for a spinal issue (nerve damage in my spine) and it has a drastic and noticeable effect, I'm naturally quiet and introverted but when I take the higher prescribed dose that changes radically, I become outgoing and talkative, I have more confidence and I seem to be more creative (though that could just be the reduction in pain).

It definitely alters my mood and I can feel it happen.

<comment><USER16> That's essentially what MDMA does too.

<comment><USER17> It is quite different than MDMA in practice though I think and even despite its name it does not bind to GABA I would still more liken it to the positive/social feelings of alcohol than mdma (don't mix alcohol and gabapentin though, it can be dangerous).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've had trouble falling asleep for a long time, and at some point years ago started taking ambien for it. It took a long time to realize just how strong an impact it was having on me (could write a long blog post about it). Stopping wasn't easy, but now year+ later I'm basically back to normal, and feel like I have superpowers compared to the time when I was still on it.

<comment><USER19> a) how often and for how long, and what impact? <USER2>
b) yes, you should write a blog post on it

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is basically the story of my mother.

About 15 years ago she was suffering from a panic disorder. Instead of trying to help her, her doctor prescribed a fairly high dose of benzodiazepines and be done with it.

These 'medicine' only made matters worse and changed her behavior radically. She became very closed up, never wanting to do anything, never leaving the house and always finding excuses not having to do anything. The stuff is also terrible for her memory, so she can't really remember anything since she has been taken these pills.

The worst part is that these medicine are highly addictive, and we have now passed to point where we had to accept that my mother will be on these pills for the rest of her life.

<comment><USER21> Highly recommend not giving up on getting off it. My grandmother thought she needed it to sleep for many years. But finally, after pressure from the family (several who are health care professionals), the doctor took her off it. She became so much better, even her sleep improved! Having worked as a health care professional myself, the rule was maximum 3 weeks, only for temporary treatment, long term need to find other solutions. Always some exceptions but then everything else had (or should have) been tried.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'd be curious to hear the experiences of people who take/have taken some of these drugs such as L-dopa. With alcohol, I feel _different_ but I don't feel _like a different person._ Is it like that, or is there a larger feeing of difference?

<comment><USER23> I've took various antidepressant (SSRI/SNRI/SARI) medications over the course of my life and some minor & major tranquilizers. Some alone, some in combination. Heck, during some time I even mixed them with psychoactive instances like LSD/amphetamines.

I doubt that it changed who I am, but it changed on how I act. Well, of course it depends on definition of who we are to start with. They certainly affect on how do you feel and how do you think, but when effects wear off, you typically return to your former ways. Maybe with new thoughts or new look at your life. But that's it.

I continue to see those kind of meds as a mere tools, which you can use to alter your thinking for a period of time to get yourself a fresh look at ordinary things. I think that therapeutic effect exists here only if you get some realization about your former ways.

Some meds made me worry less about my life when I've realized that worrying doesn't actual solve anything, it just makes you feel worse.

Some made me more emphatic towards people when I've realized that everyone is exactly as same as me, just with different life story.

<comment><USER24> the experiences you have make who you are. if a drug changes the way you behave it will change how you experience things. so depending to what you are exposed to, it can definitely change who you are.

an extreme example for environmental factors radically changing people's behavior is lead poisoning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Tangentially (and anecdotally), not long ago I seem to have contracted what seems like a flu (or the like), and I remember feeling very healthy, social and unusually well—almost high—most of the day right until my brain went foggy and fever started.

In hindsight, I did not behave quite like myself that day, especially considering I felt somewhat overworked the preceding week.

This prompted me to first draw the analogy with taking and withdrawing from a substance, and then to imagine a possibility of some future human-made flu- like virus that preserves the incubation stage effects and lacks the "conventional" symptoms. Like a contagious mood boost, contractable for free by air!

<comment><USER26> > This prompted me to first draw the analogy with taking and withdrawing from > a substance

The substance has no goals.

The flu specifically wants you to be social.

<comment><USER25> The action of taking the former is probably in alignment with _some_ goals (even if potentially short-sighted), while contracting the latter alters your behavior so that it can spread more widely in accordance with the goals of its own DNA.

But yeah, I didn't think my analogy through further than surface symptoms.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Ironic that folks who work in CNS drug discovery spend much of their time worrying about how to get our molecules /into/ the brain... and less energy thinking about keeping non-CNS meds out. For what it's worth, though, these 'off-target' CNS effects have also prompted a lot of enthusiasm for repurposing existing FDA-approved drugs for new indications, since their safety is already established.

</comment><comment><USER28> I have long wondered about this. In the Asian world, traditional Systems of Medicine focus on "holistic" treatment and the general public often calls Western Medicine, "Allopathy with side-effects". I had intuitively felt that these medicines must have an overall effect on behaviour which may always not be obvious to the observer unless the difference between the before and after were stark and noticeable.

We really need a lot more research on this aspect of all commonly used medicines. A lot of our mood-swings, irritability, anger, anti-social behaviour etc. might be explained by this.

<comment><USER29> "In the Asian world, traditional Systems of Medicine focus on "holistic" treatment"

[rant on]

I believe the term you're looking for here is "fabulist bullshit".

"the general public often calls Western Medicine, "Allopathy with side- effects""

Aaaand… No, it doesn't. SCAM calls it that. Which is ironic, as "Allopathy" is a term coined by Hahnemann to mean "Everything BUT Homeopathy", and that was in a day when "Western Medicine" was itself rank quackery still laboring under Galen's "Four Humors" nonsense. Thus Chiropracty, Reiki, TCM, Acupuncture, etc are all "Allopathy" too.

Conversely, what you so casually misnomer "Western Medicine" (the term itself is borderline racist) is just "Medicine That Works†".

(†"Within Limits", as any sci fule kno.)

I mean, the only really significant difference between Traditional Chinese Medicine's explanation of disease and Galen's is that TCM believes in _five_ humors while Galenites believed in only four. [Insert Emo Philips/Picard joke here.]

Otherwise "Chinese/Eastern Medicine" is the same mix of ungrounded herbalism and bloodletting that stalled out western healthcare for 2000 years. Until the Arab/Persian world, during its all-to-brief scientific golden age, came up with the brilliant idea that one should actually _test_ one's beliefs to find out if they're bullshit or not… a process that Renaissance Europe finally distilled into modern scientific method 500 years later and determining Galen was full of it shortly after that.

..

Of course, getting the actual institutions to change took a lot longer; it wasn't until Pasteur gave us a _working_ model of disease that Galen's bollocks and its attendant "worse than doing nothing at all" so-called treatments were finally buried down a very deep hole.

Germ Theory gave us sanitation, vaccination, and surgical hygene. Untested herbalism was usurped by pharmacognosy, modern chemistry, and reliable mass manufacturing. And so on.

Alas, China was been quite so lucky. Thanks to Mao and his vast "barefoot doctor" scam (which got around the problem of not having enough real doctors or money to provide everyone else with medicine that worked), TCM/Acupuncture is still around, not least as the CPC is now selling it for export as much as for use at home.

Incidentally, Mao himself (like most wealthier Chinese nowadays) had no truck with that homegrown crap and happily availed himself of your "Western Medicine", thankyouverymuch. (You might want to take note of that.)

Incidentally #2, just as TCM was, and is, badly-tested herbalism marketing often poor-quality and fraudulent product, pre-Mao acupuncture was really just Galenic-style bloodletting sticking bloody great bamboo trocars into people. Worse, it had almost (rightly) died out until Mao reinvented it its modern form using fine steel needles, bad sterile practice, and total Qi bollox. "Distracting the patient while nature all does the work" as Voltaire used to say.

Incidentally #3—and considering that western researchers invested decades in figuring out how to reliably blind acupuncture studies before finally producing results showing it no better than placebo—every acupuncture study out of China is still positively glowing. Someone recently posted a FP link regarding China's massive ongoing medical research crisis; I'm sure you can dig it up if you want.

..

TL;DR: You can take your "holistic treatment" and "traditional Systems of Medicine" and stick 'em where the pathologist's light does shine, because that is where they all belong.

[rant off]

\--

Real medicine does in fact study and treat the whole person. Unfortunately, it's also a victim of its own and industrial nations' success. General practices and hospitals are slammed with demand, increasingly with inevitable diseases of very old age (since so few of us die young now) and diseases of sedentary urban lifestyles.

And while doctors can tell us to eat less and exercise more till they're blue in the face, they can't make any of us _do_ it; so it's not surprising things like statins get widely (over?) prescribed as a workaround for our fat lazy butts.

I've no doubt too modern medicine desperately wishes more public would understand that _all_ Medicines (that is, pharmacologically-active compounds) have _multiple_ Effects; and that the only meaningful distinction is between Effects that are _advantageous_ in treating a patient for a particular condition and Effects that are _disadvantageous_ in that same patient. We commonly call the latter "side-effects" [not counting intolerance and allergies], but that's misleading.

For instance, aspirin (descended from willow bark) is commonly used both as an NSAID _and_ as an anticoagulant; thus what is a "side-effect" in pain patients is the _therapy_ in those with blood disorders. (And vice-versa. And, of course, aspirin's other common effect of giving you stomach ulcers isn't a benefit in anyone. Although if you think aspirin is bad, just try original willow bark instead.)

Thus, we should not be surprised that modern pharmaceuticals have multiple effects across a wide range of biochemical and physiological systems; if anything, it's a minor miracle they don't have way more unwanted effects. Alas, familiarty does breed laxness, if not contempt, even in scientific and medical professionals; so it can never be re-stated enough that education, awareness, and due dilligence are essential to keeping that system operating as well as it can.

Think of it like this: Medicine [which works] is just a rolling bug-patching process of the most heinously complicated, tightly-coupled, under-documented Big Ball Of Mud known to man, and proceed accordingly. And that even that thing we call "self" is just a synthesized fiction, the product of countless biochemical and electrical interactions constantly occurring in just one[-ish] of numerous intricately interconnected organs, which together make up "Us".

\--

Dear Dog, I really need a drink now. Never been so glad I that crashed out of premed and landed up in software dev instead. :)

<comment><USER28> WTH ? That is a nice rant but one with some validity :-)

First see my other responses in this thread so i don't have to repeat myself.

>Real medicine does in fact study and treat the whole person.

In Theory; Current practice has all but forgotten this. That is why many Physicians themselves are looking at Yoga, Meditation, TCM, Ayurveda etc. to supplement their treatment.

>Medicine [which works] is just a rolling bug-patching process of the most heinously complicated, tightly-coupled, under-documented Big Ball Of Mud known to man

Somewhat True but there are also multiple models/architectures within it all of which gives us a framework to hang everything else off of i.e. there is a method within the madness.

The point is not to throw away centuries of empirical evidence on what has worked regardless of theoretical models used to explain them. Two different examples, a) The importance of quieting/calming the mind using Meditation independent of any religious connotations. b) The importance attached to Turmeric which has been validated today by identification of the Curcumin active ingredient.

<comment><USER29> "In Theory; Current practice has all but forgotten this. That is why many Physicians themselves are looking at Yoga, Meditation, TCM, Ayurveda etc. to supplement their treatment."

Eh, no. If many Physicians are looking at TCM, Ayurveda, etc†, it's because there's piles of Money and Ego in it. Shock: some <koff> physicians really do miss the Good Old Days of "Doctor-as-God" Paternalistic Medicine, and are only too delighted to bring it all back for their neurotic wealthy patients who miss it too.

"The point is not to throw away centuries of empirical evidence on what has worked regardless of theoretical models used to explain them.'

Centuries of "empirical evidence"?

Get. Tae. Fuck. And take your Appeals to Antiquity and Special Pleading bollocks, and stick them up your ass with all the other balls that Gwyneth Paltrow and Alex Jones and the CPC are flogging this week too.

Because I wasn't born yesterday.

Unlike you.

[https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=bait+and+switch&category...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=bait+and+switch&category_name=&submit=Search)

[https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearsinmo00chrigoog](https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearsinmo00chrigoog)

[https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and- families...](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and- families/health-news/woman-turmeric-injection-dies-alternative-therapy-san- diego-iv-curcumin-a7653531.html)

\--

†I exclude Yoga and Meditation here because (ignoring any woo-woo gateway bullshit) those are essentially Exercise and Relaxation, which along with Diet are standard mainstream medical advice. Only real difference being that Medicine says "Eat right and exercise, or you will Dieeeee!‡", whereas AltMed says "Eat right and exercise _and_ stick our super-magical expensive coffee up your ass, and you will have an orgasm in your pants!"

‡Okay, it doesn't really say "Die", but that's what neurotic high-maintenance muppets hear anyway; which is what makes them such suckers for the AltMed con. And I really wouldn't care about that because that's their funeral, except that they make others dead too.

<comment><USER28> Are you just an ass or are you just trying to get a rise out of people? It is hard to have a conversation when your tone is combative rather than rational.

You are trying to employ the "Gish Gallop" and throw all sorts of irrelevant noise to muddy the waters. What do Gwyneth Paltrow, Alex Jones etc. have to do with Medicine?. If you think physicians are looking at Ayurveda/TCM/Yoga etc. only for the money/ego/fad then you really don't know what you are talking about. Don't waste my time with nonsense.

You are also cherry-picking articles with sensational headlines eg. your last link about usage of Turmeric is an article which is very clearly sheer stupidity and nothing to do with the medicine itself.

Here is something for your edification;

Efficacy of Curcumin(Turmeric) - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664031/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664031/)

Read the book "Herbal Medicine: Biomolecular and Clinical Aspects" for scientific research on a variety of traditional herbs. Centuries of "Empirical Data" is what is being put to test to identify efficacy. This is the proper scientific method and not the offhand dismissal that you seem to embrace.

You are also very wrong about "Yoga and Meditation" being merely "Exercise and Relaxation". Read the following;

* A Physiological Handbook for Teachers of Yogasana

* Zen & the Brain

That should hold you for a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's a worrying thought. My dad has become much less empathetic and more bitter over the past decade. I'd assumed it might have been the pain that was at least partially responsible, now I'm wondering if its actually the painkillers

<comment><USER31> Chronic pain will chip away even the kindest person's ability to care about anything else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Wow, turns out there's a lot of studies into e.g. paracetamol out there too. e.g. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31523834](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31523834)

More here: [https://twitter.com/autismepi/status/1214388671752916992/pho...](https://twitter.com/autismepi/status/1214388671752916992/photo/1)

<comment><USER33> _There were few associations with behavioural or neurocognitive outcomes after age 7-8 years, whether reported by the mother or the teacher.

If paracetamol use in mid-to-late pregnancy has an adverse effect on child neurocognitive outcome, it appears to mainly relate to the pre-school period. It is important that these results be tested using other datasets or methodologies before assuming that they are causal._

translation: "we studied it and no, tylenol doesn't cause autism; calm your pants."

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> _The world is in the midst of a crisis of over-medication, with the US alone buying up 49,000 tonnes of paracetamol every year – equivalent to about 298 paracetamol tablets per person_

Shocking, I knew it was bad but this is madness.

<comment><USER35> I wonder how much of that paracetemol is actually consumed? Maybe a lot of it just sits on a shelf and expires?

<comment><USER7> That was my first thought. My local Costco sells 1000 tablets of Paracetamol for $8.49.

I've bought several thousand pills of OTC pain relievers in the past year to keep a bottle in my car, my office, at home, and so on. I've only taken maybe 10 pills over the course of a year.

I do agree that the country is over-medicating in general, though. The focus on customer satisfaction and patient review scores for doctors has created bad incentives for doctors to "do something" by prescribing pills instead of pushing for natural interventions (diet changes, exercise, reducing screen time, going to bed earlier)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> When I was younger, I believed that my spirit and thoughts and personality were somehow separate from my body. Like something uniquely me that was put in my body to animate it.

As I get older I began to think the opposite; that our thoughts, personalities, and everything original about us are a product of our physical composition and brain structure.

I began to really notice this after reading Principles where Ray Dalio observes that the way people think and approach and solve problems are largely fixed. I notice this in myself and the people around me.

There was a sort of inflection point for me after getting my first massage. My body was completely relaxed, resulting in my mind being completely relaxed. After the massage I went to a trader joes in columbia maryland during a saturday. This trader joes is a logistic nightmare that always stresses me out, so much so that I would usually avoid going during peak shopping. But this time I was completely unbothered, nothing about the experience was bothering, my thoughts were completely at ease. At that moment I realized that it wasn't stress making me tight, it was tightness making me stressed. The dependency was completely backwards from the way I thought. Being self centered i thought my thoughts informing my physical, but it was actually my physical causing my thoughts.

I have genetically high blood pressure, and I have to consume low sodium in order to keep it under control. While I was learning this and my blood pressure was high, I was literally angry about everything. Road rage, meltdowns at home, being short and explosive with my wife and son. I thought it was stress or affect from work I thought it was thoughts/personality -> body. As soon as I experimented with reducing sodium, getting exercise and my blood pressure dropped, my mood completely rounded out and fixed itself. IT was actually my body -> thoughts.

The same thing happens with hiking spending time outside. I used to feel like a connected, or spiritual relationship with the outdoors. I enjoyed drinking and camping, I thought that there was a spiritual relationship with the outdoors (personality -> body) when, once again, it's actually just physical -> personality, dopamine is released, my blood pressure probably dropped my thoughts became more relaxed, my body was tired and relaxed from hiking.

I think that we really are a lot less conscious than we think we are, and that the way we think, our personalities, and pretty much everything about us is largely predetermined by our physical composition. I think we're just more complicated animals and our personalities are just a response to physical input and reactions.

<comment><USER37> I think it goes both ways. The physical body affects the thoughts/emotions/personality, and the manifestations of the mind/fallacies/affects affect the physical body.

Regarding spirit, I still believe that that is somehow separate. It's one of the things though that I'm not sure can be proven in the physical realm (e.g., brain) to an undeniable degree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Everything that happens to us changes who we are. Every conversation we make. Everything we think. We are not the same person in any given moment.

Also, because we are shaped by the things that happen to us, we are literally actually not ourselves but rather "everything else".

<comment><USER24> yes and this would not be contested. the same way we are not surprised when the drugs we take have the intended effect. this goes wrong is when the side effects are unexpected or undesirable. as a society we are conditioned to be entitled and to believe everything has an easy/quick fix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> _> with the US alone buying up 49,000 tonnes of paracetamol every year – equivalent to about 298 paracetamol tablets per person_

Commonly sold as the brand Tylenol. How is it possible that the average across the US population is nearly one per day, the entire year? Max dose is 3900mg per day. Tylenol is not recommended for children with fevers as it can have bad side effects (Reye's Syndrome). More popular than aspirin perhaps as less risk of ulcers. Not as safe as Advil/ibuprofen. Even for people regularly taking pain meds, not all will be on paracetamol. Those taking it every day (perhaps 5% of the population?) must be taking 10-20 tablets a day?

 _> – and the average American consuming $1,200 worth of prescription medications over the same period._

I know there are people taking pills that cost tens or hundreds of thousands, but this is still a pretty amazing average number across the population. This year I spent just over $100 on meds and that was probably one of the most med- intensive years of my life. Most years I have spent perhaps $10 for one round of antibiotics and $2 on advil, which I buy a $6 bottle every 3 years or so. So under $20. I wonder if the numbers are significantly less for most other countries.

<comment><USER40> Wonder at what rate that stuff gets bought and not used, either by institutions or consumers, but it's probably only a small part.

<comment><USER39> Hey that's actually a really good point. First aid kits, hospitals, etc. Could half of it simply be trashed?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I am very curious about how transgender HRT affects personality. In a sense, HRT is _supposed_ to change who one is, but the personality changes people undergo on it seem underappreciated and not really understood or studied clinically. At least I have not been able to find a published study specifically about about how HRT changes personality. I think not all of it can be attributed to decreased gender dysphoria or people "coming out of their shell" and being able to live and socialize as who they want to be after transition.

If I had to make a $100 bet today on what future research will find, I would wager that

1\. FtM HRT reduces Big Five neuroticism despite _increasing_ aggression. The effect is permanent and persists after the person's "second puberty" induced by HRT is over. It affects beliefs about how society should function. To a degree of approximation, it makes transmen more conservative or right-wing than they were before the treatment.

2\. MtF HRT does _not_ have the opposite effect to the above (but it may, and probably does, have other effects). Edit: The opposite effect on neuroticism and sociopolitical beliefs. It decreases aggression.

<comment><USER17> It could be but I used to look at studies about roid rage and found back then that there was not that much support for increased aggression, at least not when using testosterone and in moderate dosages for bodybuilding (which are very large dosages compared to replacement therapy).

On the other hand I'm pretty sure when we are talking really strong AAS such trendbolone there is so much anecdotal evidence that people get aggressive that I have no problem buying it in that case.

Never done any AAS but been prescribed corticosteroids (prednisone) which is an anti-inflammatory and that sure as hell changes the mood for me and many others. It is on the side-effects list as well I think and personally can get more irritated on it. Not always but it is noticable.

<comment><USER42> Are you blaming Trump on the trans? That's a funny new perspective!

But joke aside, why would hormones only work in one way?

And why couldn't you say the same about, say acetaminophen? Without a RCT your guess is as good as mine!

<comment><USER17> Sorry, not following. I don't have any deep knowledge about the subject more than I historically been interested in fitness and bodybuilding and with that comes some knowledge about hormones.

Not saying "roid rage" is not impossible but the studies I saw was that the idea mainly came from people in criminal circles who often used a multitude of drugs who wanted to be bigger and more intimidating and then drank some alcohol, popped some benzo or did pcp and started fights. Thus "roid rage" became a thing.

But when they looked at people who were just in the fitness industry with normal jobs and families that used testosterone they did not find the connection. This was a time ago and maybe there are newer studies. However there are much stronger anabolic steroids than testosterone and those I suspect can cause real roid rage; some people seem to get odd rages on for example trenbolone.

Hormones do affect how you feel though and like I said I do only have experience with Prednisone for inflammatory bowel disease flares and while I get noticeable more irritated (I can control it, so I know that I'm pissed that my colleague is humming because of the medicine and I can just ignore it) but I've read in forums about the disease that one decided to stop driving when he was on high dose Prednisone just because he got such insane road rage and was afraid that he would do something stupid. That is rarely something doctors tell you.

About your other questions I don't know I'm afraid. I have very little knowledge about the subject more than these specifics.

<comment><USER42> Fair enough!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Probably all that's going through the stomach has one effect or another... Ever watched kids behaviour before and after sugary and non-sugary meals?

<comment><USER44> [https://www.livescience.com/55754-does-sugar-make-kids- hyper...](https://www.livescience.com/55754-does-sugar-make-kids-hyper.html)

There seem to be a bunch of studies indicating that it is not the sugar that affects the behavior

<comment><USER45> That link does little to disprove that sugar isn't the culprit.

And anecdotally, both my partner and I can recognize adverse psychological effects in myself after I consume too many high-glycemic carbs (ie, sugar).

<comment><USER46> I was pretty sure that the kids + sugar behavior change was debunked and all up to expectations from the parents.

Now, this is not a study but covers what I thought was the case since years back:

>The sugar-hyperactivity myth is based on a single study from the mid 1970's in which a doctor removed the sugar from one child's diet and that child's behavior improved. Since then, over a dozen larger studies have been conducted and not one of them has found that sugar causes hyperactivity. Interestingly enough, researchers have found that parents are more likely to say that their kids are overly active when they think they've consumed sugar.

[https://www.eatright.org/food/nutrition/dietary- guidelines-a...](https://www.eatright.org/food/nutrition/dietary-guidelines- and-myplate/sugar-does-it-really-cause-hyperactivity)

<comment><USER45> As someone who's been on the keto diet, the majority of the past five years, this seems blasphemous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I had never heard of this link between statins and aggression and Tylenol and lack of empathy before. Interesting. Maybe this is why Boomers act so strange now. "Former flower children lost their empathy and caring for the world and the next generation when their doctors put them all on statins and they started gobbling Tylenol" would be quite an interesting story. Both my parents are on statins, it seems every person past a certain age is, the doctors think statins are something everyone should be on. I have my doubts.

>"Should people at low risk of cardiovascular disease take a statin?"

[https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6123](https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6123)

<comment><USER48> I take statins and my best self-analysis is that it gives me nightmares. I can't count the number of times I have woken up with bad dreams. However, I think it is my brain trying to regulate heart by causing it to beat harder. When I exercise, I usually do not have these nightmares, or maybe I am too tired to notice them.

<comment><USER49> I got prescribed Rosuvastatin and got extremely vivid nightmares to the point of waking up unrested. I thought I was the only one because I could find much online. The dreams and nightmares are so intense I have stopped the statin.

Thank you for recommending me exercixe. That might be the answer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Some of these examples given in the article are actually quite known. For example, many anti-asthma drugs available today have a leaflet informing the patient about possible side-effects, such as increased anxiety, nightmares, changes of mood and behavior, and even suicidal thoughts. Knowing this is extremely helpful as it allows the patient to distance oneself from these symptoms in case they occur.

</comment><comment><USER51> Damn, this really hits home for me. My brother got prescribed statins and one day the family had found out he'd stopped because he didn't believe in it and they didn't feel like they were doing anything.

He's one of the most scientific guys I know but began giving conspiracy theory/anti vaxx sort of answers of how you can't trust medical studies all the time. When asked why he still takes his hypertension meds and trusts the literature there, he couldn't answer and he said it's just a feeling. The family was pretty astounded. Honestly felt as if someone you know suddenly started believing antivax or say flat earth ideas is the closest way I can describe it.

I was explaining how inconsistent his thinking was, bordering on delusional. If the truth was that the statins affected him psychologically, I can see why he'd chose to hide it when his wife and parents are grilling him for it.

<comment><USER52> I just want to say that there is definitely a lot of misinformation around statins. All I want to say is that the debate among statins isn't settled like the debate about whether vaccines cause autism.

If you do a dive of only published medical research papers and professional opinions, you'll find nuanced arguments about what even causes heart attacks, how effective statins are, what the very real side effects are (eg: cancer), who all should be taking them, and what alternative treatments (eg: diet, exercise) should be tried first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> There's a wee bit of me feels I need to ask the question, is this years later, the Andrew Wakefield effect rearing its head again[0]?

Very small samples of and affected medicated population being used to push an agenda? Sure I realise the brain and body are deeply interconnected, but until we invest time and money in valid studies, how can we possibly know the outcomes of prescribing statins, paracetamol etc in terms of human behaviour.

For the vast majority of the population taking these drugs are generally safe (yes I know about drug allergies, which is a different thing), but I imagine there will be in a minuscule percentage of a population, long term, there may be side effects. I think this should be researched, but this sounds like a scare story.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield)

</comment><comment><USER54> > the US alone buying up 49,000 tonnes of paracetamol every year – equivalent > to about 298 paracetamol tablets per person

I bet many of those expire and are never consumed. There is very little pricing difference based on quantity so people buy much more than needed.

</comment><comment><USER55> Yeah, if you trust our "institutions" \- still - you are in need of a serious, unsettling wake up. The 60's slogan of "Question authority" is needed more than ever. Our "institutions" are predators and we are all its prey. Your mindset is the most valued, because one they have that they can feed you anything: any foods, any drugs, any laws and any shitty orange politician they want.

I go out of my way to not take any medications, as well as maintain my body with healthy foods and regular exercise. This is a responsibility we need to respect to maintain clear heads in this psychological war period we live.

</comment><comment><USER56> Well this is our modern "moldy rye bread" situation folks so what to do? Let's not forget disruption of the basal ganglia is responsible for the formation of delusions which could be in the same ballpark here.

</comment><comment><USER57> All I can say is when I realized the only thing that prevents me from thinking negative thoughts about people and things around me, being frustrated at everything for petty reasons I end up forgetting shortly after and demolishing my productivity was whether or not I remember to take my medication, it became a major existential crisis for me. I felt powerless to actually change my situation through my own actions rather than chemical rebalancing which I can't just will into existence.

Of course I only have this crisis if I forget to take my medication.

</comment><comment><USER58> I'm interested that they did not touch on ADD medication there.

<comment><USER59> Pretty sure everyone knows speed changes your personality!

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I am happy to accept that mass prescription of drugs will have unexpected side-effects, and the cholesterol/ anger / violence link seems plausible.

My question is has anyone studied voting intentions with this as well?

<comment><USER61> You mean studied whether mass prescription of drugs has an effect on how the people taking them vote?

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> This article provides no meaningful references (but some useless ones).

This is a really interesting question, but essentially left unaddressed.

<comment><USER63> You're a cardiology fellow, so you're likely much better versed in this than me, but take a look at the paper cited here:

Sure looks like they were doing multiple comparisons until they found a happenstance significant subgroup. : |

"Several studies have supported a potential link between irritability and statins, including a randomised controlled trial – the gold-standard of scientific research – that Golomb led, involving more than 1,000 people. It found that the drug increased aggression in post-menopausal women though, oddly, not in men."

[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124451)

They adjusted for multiple comparisons, and after that even the post menopausal group wasn't significant. The bit about how that doesn't matter because testosterone mechanisms and independent chance seems very hand-wavey to me.

(Moved my broader comment on this from a reply here to it's own reply to the thread.)

<comment><USER62> Yeah that sentence is very yikes:

"Among (postmenopausal) women, a borderline aggression-increase on statins became significant with exclusion of one younger, surgically-menopausal woman (N=310) β=0.70(SE=0.34)P=0.039."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Along with other commenters -- thank you for sharing! -- I've also had psychoactive side effects.

TLDR: Self reporting simply doesn't work. We need better tools, strategies. We need before, during, and after assessments. We need to inform the people in our lives, so we can better monitor each other's mental state and keep each other accountable.

Most recently: Started bupropion after a surgery, in hopes of mitigating impact. Got caught in a rut. Took myself off (all of my meds), just to reset. I felt zero difference on or off the bupropion. The only way I knew something was different was the activity monitor on my Apple Watch. (Just to be sure, I resumed bupropion for a week, and I became lethargic again. Again, I felt zero difference mentally.)

Ages ago: I was very high dose prednisone for a long time. Completely changed my personality. I was more or less completely out of control, a human wrecking ball. I reported mania, suicidal thoughts, etc. My team of doctors completely dismissed such possibilities. Of course, none of them, nor any of their patients, had received as much prednisone as me. Even after stopping prednisone, it took years to find a new normal. I was active volunteering afterwards. I advised both patients and their families what the prednisone (and other drugs like chemo) was going to do to do. Strongly encouraged seeking professional counseling, with their eyes wide open.

</comment><comment><USER63> I suggest folks read the cited research. It's eye-opening here, in a way that's very irritiating. This does not seem like particularly good science journalism.

Because of the road rage story in the lede, a whole lot of people are going to walk away from that piece thinking Statins -> Aggression.

The author even repeats it in a troubling way by linking to Golomb's research (their main source for this article I imagine) on statins and aggression:

"Since then, more direct evidence has emerged. Several studies have supported a potential link between irritability and statins, including a randomised controlled trial – the gold-standard of scientific research – that Golomb led, involving more than 1,000 people. It found that the drug increased aggression in post-menopausal women though, oddly, not in men."

You can see right there - it's plain as day. Randomised controlled trial, gold standard. The really astute scientists now know statins make people aggressive!

Except, EXCEPT... the study that Golomb DID found that statins overall lowered aggression... in men, and did not raise it in pre-menopausal women.

Again, the paper the journalist linked to shows the OPPOSITE of what the BBC piece claims it does.

The only reason the author found a subset of people that statins increase aggression in: they sliced and dice their data a bajillion different ways. They looked at age strata, baseline aggression, sleep-status, serotonin status, until they found a group -- post meno-pausal women -- in which the statin appeared to increase aggression. And that was only significant when they excluded one participant who had medically induced menopause!

"Among (postmenopausal) women, a borderline aggression-increase on statins became significant with exclusion of one younger, surgically-menopausal woman (N=310) β=0.70(SE=0.34)P=0.039"

When you adjust for multiple comparisons done (otherwise pretty sure you're just p-hacking) the result for women becomes statistically insignificant --which, given the number of ways they sliced the data, is not at all surprising!

"The sample size for women is half that for men, calculations did not power separately for women, and significance of findings for women would not be sustained under multiple comparison adjustment."

The overall thrust of 'Be a medical conservative, it's easy to cause treatment related harms you're not aware of' is a good one - there are many pharma companies pushing product on iffy claims. And a lot of research that shows how pharma trials minimize side effects and maximize results by surreptitiously excluding unhealthy trial participants.

The research in this piece is neither brilliant, nor awful... but given that the author appears to happily be quoted in a way that takes their research out of context, and seems to be the main source in an article that makes claims that their research does not support, really concerns me that they have their own flawed biases on statins ...

</comment><comment><USER65> I've been on high-dose statins since 1995. I still feed birds and squirrels in my yard, and most of my so-called neighbors are still alive and seemingly well. I must be doing something wrong :-)

<comment><USER66> Your point being?

This is a very sad attempt at dismissing an entire study by personal anecdote, just to feel better about yourself. Truth is nobody cares, and you just made yourself another obnoxious commenter on the internet :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> "Then one day, she was chatting to a cholesterol expert about the potential link in the hallway at her work, when he brushed it off as obviously nonsense. "And I said 'how do we know that?'," she says."

These are our "experts", brushing off things about which they have no clue.

"How are all these medications affecting our brains? And should there be warnings on packets?"

Yet another warning in a list that makes people's eyes glaze over is not going to do much good. Additionally, people have a difficult time relating to just how bad these effects can really be. People also tend to overestimate their abilities to perceive the effects and endeavor to address them.

"But Golomb's most unsettling discovery isn't so much the impact that ordinary drugs can have on who we are – it's the lack of interest in uncovering it. "There's much more of an emphasis on things that doctors can easily measure," she says,"

And what is it about medications that makes people willing to connect these dots? Money and a willingness to not want to know and even to deny what is known. The chemical industry is very good at this and we've known about that for a very long time. There are numerous studies that have found these same associations with various chemical products from artificial food colorings to laundry chemicals and more, with effects that include anxiety, depression, and rage. The ubiquity of chemicals with unknown physiological and psychological is staggering. It's gotten to the point where we can barely socialize without being inundated with the 21st version of passive smoking. People and places can't exist without dousing themselves and their spaces with chemical crap that also includes air "fresheners", candles, essential oils, etc. Road rage, infertility, anxiety, depression . . . all these psychological phenomena that have risen along with the public test lab that is our world. And chemical companies are using the tobacco industry's template of doubt and denial along with decades of honing the craft.

"But in order to minimise any undesirable effects and get the most out of the staggering quantities of medications that we all take each day, Mischkowski reiterates that we need to know more. Because at the moment, he says, how they are affecting the behaviour of individuals – and even entire societies – is largely a mystery."

It's true. And if it's a problem for medications that are presumably scrutinized, what do we think is the case with the 10s of thousands of chemicals that are basically tested using the "honor system" of industry testing its own products for safety? These chemicals are not tested singly, nevermind in the near limitless combinations in which they exist in our daily lives.

"At this point it's worth pointing out that no one is arguing that people should stop taking their medication. Despite their subtle effects on the brain, antidepressants have been shown to help prevent suicides, cholesterol- lowering drugs save tens of thousands of lives every year, and paracetamol is on the World Health Organisation's list of essential drugs because of its ability to relieve pain. But it is important that people are informed about any potential psychological side-effects."

And every one of these articles will include this boilerplate rationalization that's a lot more complicated – and different – than this.

</comment><comment><USER68> You are what you eat? But this is no different than hard drugs

</comment><comment><USER69> everything else

</comment><comment><USER70> Medication is just a tool, it must be used with care and intelligence.

<comment><USER24> it is a tool. i don't believe it's a matter of care or intelligence. it's just hard to synthesize something that targets one thing we don't like (cholesterol in this case). sometimes it goes as far as not really understanding the underlying mechanism through which the drug actually works - i would say most times the full interaction of the drugs are not fully understood. if you add the desire to take a pill and just fix whatever issue you have i can see how, on a large scale, this can be problematic

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Intra-system communication and control isn't limited to the brain. The gut for example, plays a part.

What's concerning about this article is that the researchers (?) we're not open to the possibility.

<comment><USER24> i believe this is taking a little bit too far. it's about actually measuring/quantifying the effects. when this is hard/really expensive to do I'm sure the decision not to pursue it is made at several levels. in research (and especially in cutting edge research) you don't get to explore everything and you have to carefully pick and choose what you do if you want to be around more than a few years.

<comment><USER71> The tests are done to look for such things. To deny them when presented is indefensible.

<comment><USER24> i believe we are talking about different things. my point is certain markers are easier to test for and more objective than others.

<comment><USER71> Fair enough. This was the bit that caught my attention:

Alarmed, the couple turned to the study's organisers. "They were very hostile. They said that the two couldn't possibly be related, that he needed to keep taking the medication, and that he should stay in the study," says Golomb.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> An easy but not glamorous course of action to prevent this from happening on a large scale is flushing the notion that taking a pill for _everything_ _everytime_ is A-OK out of Western culture.

The average American is on ~1 prescribed pain killer and usually has access to several other over the counter opioids. People take incredibly potent whatevers against the mildest allergies to prevent having reddish eyes. A pill to take the edge off, a pill to calm down. Kids who are not firmly in the right area of every imaginable performance bell curve at age 7 get a whole palette of medicine against fictional anger issues, concentration issues, learning issues, anxiety issues.

I am glad that the topic of psychological side effects is gaining traction. Personally, I have always felt that taking any medicine is most likely going to be a trade-off against side effects we do not really understand yet. Keeping this in mind, one can make a much more sensible decision whether or not to take a pill. If we get this notion back into the head of people it would help a lot IMO.

<comment><USER73> What "other over the counter opioids"?</comment></comment>


The Future of Moving - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/future-moving-technology-6364e183-b8fb-4db8-8310-523f04f065f6.html <comment><USER2> The elephant in the room that went unmentioned by the article is scammers. Moving companies are notorious for holding your belongings hostage once they're all packed up and "renegotiating" their fee.

If someone could solve that problem - not just not being a scammer, but getting people to believe that you're not a scammer - I think they'd take over the industry.

<comment><USER3> I'm surprised that's a thing. IANAL but I naively think that if they pulled that on me I would say we had an oral agreement which is legally just as binding as a written one. If they don't honor it, then they can unload my stuff and remunerate me for the costs that arise in terms of my time and money for finding someone else.

<comment><USER4> In which country is an oral agreement legally just as binding as a written one? In Germany oral agreements mean diddly squat, only what's written down and signed holds weight in court. That's why the country is still big on still using fax and snail mail for formal agreements.

<comment><USER3> I'm from Austria. I'd be surprised if it were different in Germany. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but the way I've been told (by my brother, who is a lawyer) is that written and oral are equally binding. (I'd take it this is especially so for consumers.) Sure, you'll have a hard time proving agreement if there's no written record. But I do not think the law requires written agreement. If the mover says "I'll do it for 5k" and you say yes, then that is binding.

<comment><USER4> Funny, I lived in Austria before and I had loads of shady encounters with small and large service providers agreeing something on the phone and then not honoring that because "I don't know who you spoke to yesterday but if it's not in writing we can't honor it".

Car services are notorious for this behavior where they quote you a price on the phone and after they have your car "hostage", invoice you a much higher price. Also phone companies/ISPs where sales reps would promise you some discounts on the phone or in person if you _sign up today_ and when your first invoice arrives you have to pay everything in full with no discounts.

Seems to be the norm the norm in that country and not sure how you'd be able to argue against that in court with just words and no written proof of the contrary. God I hate Google for disabling the call recording API since Android 9.

Since then, I always ask them to send me _" what we just agreed on the phone_" in writing via e-mail. If they refuse, I know there's a high chance they won't honor it later.

Please let me know if I'm wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Not only are young people moving more often, they're also doing smaller > moves (with less stuff), says Carrigan

Another piece of evidence about the "precariat" of young workers ...

Anyway, if someone wants a multibillion-dollar idea that may require more than a billion dollars of work, the technological solution needed here is "home inventory management".

There are a few startups that will let you wave a phonecam around a room and produce a floorplan from it. There are a few things like Google Lens that will identify products one at a time. What there isn't is a good quick way of scanning a room for all the _stuff_ in it.

Once you can do that, you can inventory it all on the way onto the truck and on the way off the truck. You can assign a value to it. You could even offer the arbitrage service of "it's cheaper to sell this here and buy a new one at the destination, do you want to do that?"

<comment><USER6> >What there isn't is a good quick way of scanning a room for all the stuff in it.

This would be incredible for insurance documentation, too.

<comment><USER7> Having just gone through a family situation with a fire, the fact that there was a pretty good inventory of the house was incredibly useful. I really need to do it for myself but haven't gotten around to it; it's a big job.

I figure that, as a way better than nothing first cut, a low-effort approach may be to simply do a detailed walk through with a video camera and record commentary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The Japanese have moving down to a science. Id normally be reluctant to post any youtube links[1] here but this is an excellent overview.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynEjnebw8LA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynEjnebw8LA)

<comment><USER9> I thought of the same exact video (they got the service for free in return for the video/promo/shout-out).

I have watched most episodes of Shark Tank. I remember than when a 'pitcher' starts with the phrase "XYZ industry is a $$$$ billion business in the U.S., look like an upcoming target for disruption", the sharks start rolling their eyes. That person usually doesn't get the funding.

> As we've reported, Americans are generally moving less

We (the people not living in the USA) think that USA residents buy and sell houses 'frequently'. Buy --> wait --> price goes up --> sell --> buy the next house.

I think that a critical contribution to moving less is the financial crisis 2008-2018 it would make sense that people were stuck to the houses they bought, unable to perform the aforementioned loop, thus moving less.

<comment><USER10> It's not just people who own houses that have to move between them. Most millennials haven't even bought a house yet. But they still need to move between apartments, and that happens on more frequent time scales than someone buying/selling their home. If I had to guess, the average lease in a city for 20-30 year old tenants is between 1 and 3 years. It's not uncommon to move three times in a five year period.

<comment><USER7> Part of it is that, if you're single and renting, you're probably more likely to move closer to a new job to avoid even a relatively modest increase in commute time. Whereas, if you own a place--especially if there are other considerations like a partner or kids--you'll likely just suck up a longer commute to stay where you are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't know if it's changed but at least at one point the USA moving industry was super corrupt. There was a 60 Minutes episode on it decades ago. Here's a more modern version

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spartan-van-lines-moving- scams-...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spartan-van-lines-moving-scams- florida-crackdown-attorney-general/)

I had a TV stolen the one time I used movers instead of doing it myself.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've always wondered why containerization hasn't become a player in personal moving.

I think I looked at PODS and the like when moving, but they have non-standard containers and end up being kind of expensive.

I know it can be done, because the SO of a friend of mine moved from the US to guam and got the container I believe for $1200.

<comment><USER13> I've been kicking this idea around for a while now.

Just two weeks ago I was texting with a former associate about getting some 53 containers, cutting them up into 5, 8x8x10 cubes and welding what's needed for a few other mods.

I'm thinking to myself, if we can sell these for $1300(?) it would be a good value for some situaitons right?

I've seen some of the problems and come up with a few solutions for a few of them, so it might be viable.

His dad moved his steel shop business, and I have not gotten a chance to get out to the new one.. but think maybe next week we should try to calculate things tighter and consider further.

Might need some seed money to get some prototypes done to show off an MVP and get a real calculation for all the time plus materials.

<comment><USER7> So essentially a half-length TEU? The question that comes to my mind is "what are the use cases?" While the concept of loading up a cube and having it transported to a new location has some attractions, there are a _lot_ of situations (apartments, condos) where there really isn't any place to drop off something like that for loading or unloading. (Which would presumably be the advantage over just renting a van or small truck.)

<comment><USER13> The target market it going to be more for people who are moving into homes that have a backyard that can accept and keep a portable storage building.

The usefulness with condos / apartments is much less, and some townhomes / non-attached homes can't fit or have na HOA that would not allow for portable building in backyard - so they would mostly be out for this idea..

however they could use the unit to protect the shipment and then sell or loan to someone else in the area that could use a storage building.

With that in mind, part of my plan is to add siding and have roof options that make this look more like a regular storage building and less like a shipping container, so they fit in more places.

This way they are used for shipping, then also used for storage and can be re- used for shipping or re-sold, etc.

Pricing for regular storage buildings vary, but it seems they are in line with this maybe.. so it might catch on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> While it is painful to move, the frequency for repeat customers will doom most disruptors. An established company with a massive network like U-Haul could do it except for the fact that moving things is a skill that people consider to be "just manual labor" and avoid paying accordingly.

For apartments though, I could see a "house concierge moving" as-a-service being a possible disruption of established moving companies. E.g. they move you for "free" for appropriately long and priced lease. The "hostage holding" of your goods is a non-event here since the goal is to have a happy tenant.

</comment><comment><USER15> Moved from the East Coast to the West Coast. The moving industry seriously needs some "disruptive technology". I don't think that a gig economy is the way to go but moving should not be this absurdly stressful.

<comment><USER16> Well, the main problem that needs to be solved is, you need a reliable way of packing, storing and moving one or more person's stuff from one location to another and possibly and possibpy unpacking on arrival on a specific date.

As it is now, the solutions to these problems have varying levels of self reliance. At the bottom, most simple, with highest level of self reliance

\- Own, borrow or rent a truck, pack your own things, drive your own things to your destination, return truck if not yours. Requires packing loading and driving everything yourself. Price can vary but usually cheaper than movers.

Next you've got:

\- Random personal ad people with trucks. Not usually professional companies, varying levels of quality and reliability from, will probably smash and lose your shit to basically a professional. Vehicles come varying sizes, may not be suitable for large or high end moves. Price varies, quality tends to correspond with price.

\- Professional movers, varying levels of quality from will probably not break your stuff to will dust off and spit shine everything you own. Service can vary from simple loading transport and unloading to complete packing, loading, transport, unloading and unpacking. Cost can get high.

\- Container options. These have much of the same upsides and downsides as a truck rental, with the fun of dealing with shipping.

All of these suffer from problems with shortage of booking around common moving days, a problem that has more to do with the way moves tend to be either the end or the the middle of the month.

Anything that involves other people handling your property will have a risk of poor reliability. Movers are one of those professions, similar to landscaping and other jobs that are physically demanding, but not that difficult, so tends to be a lower paid job companies fill with unskilled and temporary labourers, the reliability of whom can be questionable.

I've probably missed some things, but after moving only a few months ago, this is kind of the summary of what I found available. I just can't really think of anything that could really do it any better under those constraints.

<comment><USER10> You can also pack your stuff into boxes and ship it via FedEx to a package pickup point near your new house.

It doesn't work for furniture, but it can go a long way.

<comment><USER7> I would assume anything small/light enough to be easily shipped via FedEx could also fit into a reasonably-sized personal vehicle. Renting a one-way van is a fairly straightforward way to move a modest amount of stuff although you do have to plan ahead if you're moving at a busy time.

<comment><USER10> Or you're moving across the country and want to fly.

<comment><USER7> Well, sure, if you don't have a car and basically just have the equivalent of a dozen suitcases of stuff or so to transport. Personally, I haven't had that small amount of things since I entered college. Perhaps I'd be more compact these days with digital media and so forth, but I doubt I'm all that unusual.

<comment><USER10> I've lost count of how many times I've moved in the last 6 years since college. For the big moves, I just sold my furniture before leaving. Other than that, I pretty much fit your description.

If you're renting you really shouldn't be spending on furniture anyway, just get rid of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I sincerely doubt moving is ripe for "disruption". Moving is _all about_ managing the humans. That doesn't scale and isn't affected by technology. The biggest problem is making sure that _NONE_ of the humans involved in the process suck.

Graebel has moved me every single time I have had to move across the US. They have moved me almost a dozen times. The packers and unpackers showed up somewhere between 30 minutes to an hour _early_. They will pack and inventory your entire house--in no more than 2 days. The truck driver will load in no more than a day, and generally about half of one. The truck driver will beat you to your destination if you dawdle at all. They will unpack at destination, and put it in your cupboards and closets if you are there to direct them. The packing will be amazing and everything will get there with no broken pieces. And, to this day, I am convinced that the _single_ box that disappeared was my fault somehow. And Graebel handled _everything_ when something went wrong-- packer missing? another guy dispatched within an hour. Big rig can't get into complex? Small relay truck dispatched immediately. Truck broke down--another one dispatched transparently to grab the load and keep it moving. Trucker got in early--truck unloaded into storage and delivered on smaller rig.

This has cost me somewhere around $5K-$6K each time--Graebel would have _definitely_ charged more if they thought they could get away with it (they should have--I would have paid it). You are talking easily 125 man-hours or more. That's about $40-$48 an hour if everything went to labor and the truck driver--and it doesn't. You have all of the people in the offices coordinating everything, you have all the fleet and logistics management as well as storage spaces. I suspect that people are probably around $20/hour or less when all is said and done.

I have had _HORDES_ of people with moving horror stories, and yet I had never had one. Apparently, Graebel was so much better than the rest of the industry that it prevented this.

And yet the old Graebel is no more--I have no idea who to call the next time I have to move. Apparently people would rather have their stuff broken and stolen rather than pay the people handling your valuables enough to avoid the problem.

This is just like the airlines. People claim to be unhappy, but when push comes to shove, they're such cheap bastards that they'll buy the $10 cheaper ticket and either get nickle and dimed to death or get treated like sardines in a tin can.

Edit: The US _HAD_ a moving company like the Japanese one below. And it went under because Americans are too fscking cheap.

(Video link courtesy of thinkingkong elsewhere in thread) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynEjnebw8LA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynEjnebw8LA)

<comment><USER18> $5-6K for a move is a pretty substantial amount of money. In addition to paying the first month's rent + deposit that is the norm in a lot of places- I doubt most people can afford that level of service. I don't think it's because "they're such cheap bastards".

<comment><USER17> > $5-6K for a move is a pretty substantial amount of money.

No argument, but that's probably the lower bound for competence. If you aren't willing to pay that, congratulations, you have decided to do everything yourself. As I pointed out, there are a _LOT_ of man-hours involved in moving and the employees involved are probably around $20/hour. That's a bit above the $15/hour wage that seems to denote above average competence (Target and Costco are both at $15/hour minimum--Costco goes up from there).

As for that $5K, you can pay it in cash; you can pay it in time; you can pay it in grief. Choose your currency.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: MVP for a professional contact exchange Android app - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=xyz.neno <comment><AUTHOR> Hello community ! This is an initial MVP of a professional contact exchange app I am working on, it is early stage but usable and I would love to hear your thoughts and criticism.</comment>


Do you obfuscate JavaScript, and how? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> For the time being I use this obfuscator: <http://www.daven.se/usefulstuff/javascript-obfuscator.html> but it seems to have bugs, and perhaps the obfucation could be better, too. Are there better alternatives (preferably open source)?

</comment><comment><USER2> Dojo's "ShrinkSafe" compresses Javascript, rendering it virtually unreadable and considerably smaller. From the documentation at <http://dojotoolkit.org/docs/shrinksafe> :

 __ _

To demo our compression system, let's build an example that we want to compress. Here's the listing for infile.js:

function MyClass(){ this.foo = function(argument1, argument2){ var addedArgs = parseInt(argument1)+parseInt(argument2); return addedArgs; }

var anonymousInnerFunction = function(){ // do stuff here! } }

function MyFunc(){ // this is a top-level function }

// we've got multiple lines of whitespace here

We run it through the compressor with this command to generate outfile.js:

java -jar custom_rhino.jar -c infile.js outfile.js 2&1

And the contents of outfile.js should now look something like:

function MyClass(){ this.foo=function(_1,_2){ var _3=parseInt(_1)+parseInt(_2); return _3; }; var _4=function(){ }; } function MyFunc(){ }

</comment><comment><USER3> Probably not what you're looking for, but GWT can obfuscate its compiled Javascript with a command-line option. Seems to be bug free to me and is nice because its totally transparent to the developer.</comment>


Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage - <AUTHOR> https://web.archive.org/web/20070813114616/http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html <comment><USER2> Great essay. The internet archives are wonderful. On the topic itself, you might like this short piece by a historian: "From 'National Socialists' to 'Nazi' | History, Politics, and the English Language"([https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=...](https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=1049))."

</comment><comment><USER3> (2001)</comment>


MLK's quote "riot is the language of the unheard" is often taken out of context - <AUTHOR> https://reason.com/video/martin-luther-king-jr-s-unwavering-opposition-to-violence-still-matters/ <comment><USER2> modern "civil dialogue" seems to suffer from the notion that context is optional</comment>


Show HN: Political party logos from around the world [2018 updates] - <AUTHOR> http://www.politicallogo.com/ <comment><USER2> Whats the point?</comment>


Replace make with Rake - <AUTHOR> http://www.trottercashion.com/2010/10/29/replacing-make-with-rake.html

<comment><USER2> For Erlang specifically, you should probably use rebar (<http://github.com/basho/rebar>). It is pretty much the best thing ever.

A common pattern lately is to use rebar with a very minimal makefile that just makes things like "make" and "make test" do the equivalent rebar actions so that people unfamiliar with it don't even notice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Rebar definitely looks pretty cool. Is there any documentation for it other than this video (<http://vimeo.com/8311407>) though?

<comment><USER2> There is no real documentation yet, which is unfortunate. "rebar -c" is pretty helpful for what commands it has, and most of the layout conventions are not rebar's, but OTP's (those are documented here: [http://www.erlang.org/doc/design_principles/applications.htm...](http://www.erlang.org/doc/design_principles/applications.html#id69069)). A rebar.config.sample file is provided in the GitHub repo which lists every configuration option. The mailing list and its archives are also pretty useful if you get stuck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> For Erlang and many other languages, plain Rake is good. For Java and some JVM based languages buildr ( <http://buildr.apache.org/> ) provides a nice abstraction on top of Rake and also support for Maven repositories.

</comment><comment><USER4> As we've started to name other alternatives to make: waf[1]

[1] <http://code.google.com/p/waf/>

</comment><comment><USER5> This is a good article about fixing dumb makefiles in Joe's book, but please don't use Rake with any actual Erlang projects. Rebar does everything you want and probably more.</comment>


How to Live in a Heated Tent (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://paulkirtley.co.uk/2014/how-to-live-in-a-heated-tent/ <comment><AUTHOR> The article covers many aspects to comfortably camping in the snow and cold. I enjoyed the structure and cooperation the author employs to keep the system efficient.</comment>