Widely used chemical strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease

Go on Google Scholar and read through the research on Metformin. Metformin has a complex mechanism of action, acting is as a Mitochondrial Complex 1 inhibitor in some cases but not others. But the consensus seems to be that it reduces cancer risk by about 30%, relating to its capacity as a Mitochondrial Complex 1 inhibitor.

Also, if watch Jerry McLaughlin's YouTube talks about pawpaws and cancer, he summarizes the research that mainly focuses on the mechanisms of action of annonaceous acetogenins in fighting cancer -- these are also Mitochondrial Complex 1 inhbitors, similar to Metformin but much stronger.

Basically these chemicals cause a buildup of radical oxides in your mitochondria, which reduce their efficiency. If your mitochondria have too many radical oxides, or have them for two long, then your mitochondria will die. And if enough mitochondria in any given cell die, their host cells will also obviously die. This is what causes progressive supranuclear palsy, which is what this article is probably (incorrectly) referring to as Parkinson's.

But because the metabolic needs of cancer cells are higher than the metabolic needs of non-cancer cells, there may be a certain dose of these chemicals that is high enough to inhibit cancer but low enough that it doesn't cause palsy. Further, the way that cancer cells often develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs is by using ATP to pump out the drugs once they have entered the cells. These mitochondrial complex 1 inhibitors can prevent these protein pumps from working by making the mitochondria less efficient, and therefor effectively prevent cancer cells from developing certain types of resistance to chemotherapy drugs.

Basically if you go through Google Scholar and read the research on pawpaws, rotenone, graviola, and Metformin, it's all more or less the same stuff. John Clifton's book Your Fourth Choice is also a fun book you can get on Amazon and read in an hour or two. It does a good job summarizing the academic research on annonaceous acetogenins. (I bought it because I collect books on North American Pawpaws, not because I was in the market for an experimental cancer treatment.)

I too was skeptical of the original post without any references. However, your post also did not provide references.

Wiki isn't great, but here is what I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene

   Fetal toxicity and concerns for carcinogenic potential of TCE led to its abandonment in developed countries by the 1980s.

    The use of trichloroethylene in the food and pharmaceutical industries has been banned in much of the world since the 1970s due to concerns about its toxicity.

However, I can still find some pages about "TCE Vapor Degreasing", so it is still in use today: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-t...

The saddest one I found: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/s...

    Historically, TCE was used as a surgical anesthetic and inhaled analgesic. The Food and Drug Administration banned such use in the United States in 1977.

Woah.

Upvote here. Good suggestion. This would be more accurate and less click bait-y.

I don’t think GP is making a moral argument. It seems more they are arguing that novel techniques lead to novel consequences, which could be harmful. GP assesses the potential risks outweigh the benefits of a new process when a process with known consequences exists.

If their argument is not about morality but instead about risk avoidance, would it still be fallacious reasoning? They could even still be wrong (because they incorrectly calculated the risks) without suffering a fallacy, right?

I am genuinely asking. I don’t know the answer.

So what decaf isn’t ?