Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A rash of nearly lethal mushroom poisonings in Ohio

cleveland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 311 posts

Re: A rash of nearly lethal mushroom poisonings in Ohio

#301

Post by DangitBobby »

colechristensen wrote: post #164
DangitBobby wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the intended purpose of the app is to tell you whether a mushroom or plant is edible or not, I think it's merely meant to identify plants, fungi, and other things for a hobbyist who's into botany and the like. I could definitely see where you're coming from if the app advertised itself as a "a great wilderness survival companion app" or something like that... But we're pretty much speculating, here. Thi…

It doesn’t matter what the app intends to do. You should not under any circumstances identify mushrooms without loudly and clearly spelling out specific dangers.

It would probably be wise to do so, especially after you've learned that it could save lives. But to decide after the fact that it's criminal negligence is not a healthy outcome. I'm all for trying to make sure people don't hurt themselves, but the app makers should not be legally responsible for the decision that was made here, period.

Re: A rash of nearly lethal mushroom poisonings in Ohio

#302

Post by notch656a »

1letterunixname wrote: post #118
yosito wrote: post #117

I'm from Ohio, and even before the apps, it was common to hear stories about people being poisoned by mushrooms. It's also relatively well known (though not well enough, obviously) that there are several species of toxic mushrooms that look nearly identical to edible ones. Perhaps people think an app is going to be infallible. I really think app stores ought to pull any mushroom-identifying app that doesn't come with…

And approve a life-saving drug that's already proven in Europe. It seems reckless and stupid to not immediately approve it given the impact.

I'm no fan of the FDA, but it's worth noting Europeans said the same about thalidomide and thankfully America didn't listen.

  In 1960, Kelsey was hired by the FDA in Washington, D.C. At that time, she "was one of only seven full-time and four young part-time physicians reviewing drugs"[4] for the FDA. One of her first assignments at the FDA was to review an application by Richardson-Merrell for the drug thalidomide (under the tradename Kevadon) as a tranquilizer and painkiller with specific indications to prescribe the drug to pregnant women for morning sickness. Although it had been previously approved in Canada and more than 20 European and African countries,[8] she withheld approval for the drug and requested further studies.[3] Despite pressure from thalidomide's manufacturer Grünenthal, Kelsey persisted in requesting additional information to explain an English study that documented peripheral neuritis,[9] a nervous system side effect.[4] She also requested data showing the drug was not harmful to the fetus.[9]

  Kelsey's insistence that the drug should be fully tested prior to approval was vindicated when the births of deformed infants in Europe were linked to thalidomide ingestion by their mothers during pregnancy.[10][11] Researchers discovered that the thalidomide crossed the placental barrier and caused serious birth defects.[7]
This is why America does independent review of results obtained from Europe.

Re: A rash of nearly lethal mushroom poisonings in Ohio

#303

Post by justshowpost »

nkurz wrote: post #44

Since no one has done it yet, I'll ask the obvious question about the FDA: how many people die or need a liver transplant each year because the FDA is being unreasonable here? Here's some quotes from the article: Approximately 40% of people who ingest the deadly Amanita mushrooms die or require a liver transplant, according to Dr. Pierre Gholam, the liver specialist at University Hospitals who treated Hickman. ... Th…

Well, given they were injecting untested and unproven SARS-CoV-2 "vaccine" which wasn't even a vaccine till they changed the definition, they could do a traditional medicine plant despite the mild toxicity and the absence of other clinical evidence...

But why FDA is to blame? Just get it from nearby euro-drugstore and do your unlicensed fix.

Re: A rash of nearly lethal mushroom poisonings in Ohio

#304

Post by bergenty »

silisili wrote: post #143

If there's one thing I've learned in my life about mushrooms, it's that there are way, way more varieties than you think, and for any 1 there are 20 that look the same. I used to hang out on r/mycology, and even experts would ask tons of questions before even making a guess. There's no way in hell an app can do this reliably, and while I hate to say it, I hope people sue them into oblivion. This isn't something benig…

If a human can do it using only visual and geographical cues, an app is definitely capable of the same.

Re: A rash of nearly lethal mushroom poisonings in Ohio

#305

Post by Matticus_Rex »

BostonEnginerd wrote: post #240
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's trivially easy to avoid toxic species, though. If you put in a tiny amount of effort into learning and limit yourself to thinks without toxic lookalikes (or put in more effort into learning), you are not risking liver failure and hospital time.

The rash of poisonings makes it sound like avoiding toxic species isn’t that trivial.

It is trivial, but people who don't even have a trivial level of knowledge of things get themselves in trouble in many domains all the time.

Re: A rash of nearly lethal mushroom poisonings in Ohio

#306

Post by Matticus_Rex »

pfdietz wrote: post #241
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no risk of agony and death from foraging many edible species. If I'm foraging big orange pored shelf mushrooms, for example, my risk of death is zero. This is like saying "what's the upside of drugs when some of them kill you?!"

Yes, there is no risk if you know what you're doing. But above that, the risk is that you have misestimated your level of "knowing what you're doing". So, the sensible thing to do is make the cutoff at the point where the risk of that error is lowest. And that point is "is it a wild mushroom?" Or you can just assume your knowledge is good enough and risk becoming a Dunning-Kruger statistic.

There are countless places in life where people do elective activities that would be potentially deadly if they didn't have a base level of knowledge, and in none of those is the general expectation that people will make the cutoff "where the risk of that error is the lowest."

Why? Because it's not that hard to figure out whether you're misestimating your level of knowledge if you actually do things to attempt that verification.

If you're not going to attempt that, yes -- you should stay away from virtually all things that have ever killed anyone, ever.

Re: A rash of nearly lethal mushroom poisonings in Ohio

#307

Post by Matticus_Rex »

e12e wrote: post #224
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that there's at least one, and that a number of them will still make you sick. Put a few common pored edibles (Laetiporus sp., Cantharellus sp., Grifola frondosa, etc.) in your notes for sure though, with basic descriptions, as even their few remote lookalikes (at least pored ones -- some people think Omphalotus sp. look like Cantharellus for some reason) are just going to give you a moderate stomach upset at wo…

> Put a few common pored edibles (... Cantharellus sp Chantarelles don't have pores?

Derp; I meant non-gilled. Thanks for the correction. The false gills on chanterelles are a major part of why they're so accessible to new foragers.

Re: A rash of nearly lethal mushroom poisonings in Ohio

#308

Post by BurningFrog »

refurb wrote: post #297
BurningFrog wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the only example you have is 60 years old makes this a terrible argument.

10 years ago better? It was on the market between 1976 and 2009, and is thought to have caused between 500 and 2,000 deaths. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benfluorex

Sure, that's more serious.

It's true that the "European FDA" sometimes approves things they have to recall later. But the American FDA also does that. Only rejecting by all medications can you avoid that.

My thought is that medical science works the same way in Europe as in the US, so if it was a scientific matter, approvals would be "portable".

I think a model that explains things better is that the approvals are political/regulatory. And I wish the were scientific.

Re: A rash of nearly lethal mushroom poisonings in Ohio

#309

Post by pfdietz »

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #306
pfdietz wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there is no risk if you know what you're doing. But above that, the risk is that you have misestimated your level of "knowing what you're doing". So, the sensible thing to do is make the cutoff at the point where the risk of that error is lowest. And that point is "is it a wild mushroom?" Or you can just assume your knowledge is good enough and risk becoming a Dunning-Kruger statistic.

There are countless places in life where people do elective activities that would be potentially deadly if they didn't have a base level of knowledge, and in none of those is the general expectation that people will make the cutoff "where the risk of that error is the lowest." Why? Because it's not that hard to figure out whether you're misestimating your level of knowledge if you actually do things to attempt that v…

You do a risk-benefit tradeoff. Here, the risk massively outweighs the benefit. So you have to be absolutely certain you're not mistaken. This is very different from activities with low probability risks and/or considerably larger benefits.

Re: A rash of nearly lethal mushroom poisonings in Ohio

#310

Post by allisdust »

Ekaros wrote: post #170
allisdust wrote: post #138

I never understood why people don't just eat store bought mushrooms. Why risk liver failure and other serious health complications not to mention countless hours of hospital time over something as trivial as eating wild mushrooms. Why not teach in school explicitly to not eat wild mushrooms and may be teach how to farm safe varieties if someone desperately needs to eat their own picked ones.

Why do people cook food and not buy it only from restaurants with rigorous health and safety checks in place? Could avoid lot of food poisonings that way.

I'm not sure its comparable ? Cooking food at home would be more hygienic than however rigorously maintained restaurant.
Post reply on HN