41–50 of 344 posts
Widely used chemical *(that was generally phased out in the 70s) linked to Parkinson's. Still important, but you don't need to start searching product labels in 2023 for it.
https://www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment/superfund-sites-...
> It inhibits complex 1, the leading enzyme in a chain of reactions that convert food to energy in cellular organelles called mitochondria. So they upside is that it probably significantly reduces your risk of both cancer and type 2 diabetes, which you're >100x more likely to die from than Parkinson's. There are even longevity bloggers, like Peter Attia, who advocate that everyone should be taking mitochondrial compl…
These processes have billions of years of evolution behind them and are highly conserved.
People shouldn't mess with them until there are huge studies, and not in the context of cancer therapy. Just because something helps with cancer, like mitochondrial complex 1 inhibitors (or radiation) doesn't mean we should all do it.
Remember all the talk about how we should all eat lots of anti-oxidants to prevent cancer? It turns out it's more complicated than that, and an anti-oxidant rich diet can actually increase cancer risk.
When you drink your coffee without caffeine in your 30 for escaping a harm from caffeine, but end up with Parkinson in your 60+.
Why would you drink coffee if not for the caffeine. It's not exactly the most delicious drink.
When you drink your coffee without caffeine in your 30 for escaping a harm from caffeine, but end up with Parkinson in your 60+.
That chemical is trichloroethylene. Even Science does clickbait now.
"After adjusting for differences in age, sex, race, and ethnicity, the scientists found veterans from Camp Lejeune had a 70% higher rate of Parkinson’s disease than the Camp Pendleton group." Why didn't they adjust for socioeconomic status? Wealthier people tend to be able to afford better medical care, live in healthier environments, eat healthier foods, etc. These could all be confounding factors, and a study like…
Alot of socioeconomic factors are baked into the above co-morbidities but anyway, is there a reason to think that veterans of two different marine camps have significantly different socioeconomic profiles from eachother?
What would happen that was bad if we banned this until we had more safety evidence?
Some companies would lose money. We can't allow that.