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

Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 127 posts

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#31

Post by jacques_chester »

leoh wrote: post #18

"We are a chemophobic culture." I take great issue with this statement. We are most decidedly not a chemophobic culture. People are more than willing to take medicines that are artificially synthesized and, as the author mentions, with good reason. I, for one, am not chemophobic. I personally know an individual who developed one of the first total-syntheses (i.e. "artificial" chemical synthesis) of a very important a…

> But there are miraculous, mysterious things that we do not understand about natural products and the human body.

Mysterious, sure.

Miraculous? http://i.imgur.com/SeOnW.jpg

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#32

Post by leoh »

jacques_chester wrote: post #31
leoh wrote: post #18

"We are a chemophobic culture." I take great issue with this statement. We are most decidedly not a chemophobic culture. People are more than willing to take medicines that are artificially synthesized and, as the author mentions, with good reason. I, for one, am not chemophobic. I personally know an individual who developed one of the first total-syntheses (i.e. "artificial" chemical synthesis) of a very important a…

> But there are miraculous, mysterious things that we do not understand about natural products and the human body. Mysterious, sure. Miraculous? http://i.imgur.com/SeOnW.jpg

Fair point, I don't mean to imply divine agency. A much better word would be "incredible" or something similar.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#33

Post by sliverstorm »

firefoxman1 wrote: post #22
tokenadult wrote: post #8

From the article: "We are a chemophobic culture. Chemical has become a synonym for something artificial, adulterated, hazardous, or toxic. Chemicals are bad—for you, for your children, for the environment. But whatever chemophobics would like to think, there is no avoiding chemicals, no way to create chemical-free zones. Absolutely everything is made of atoms and molecules; it’s all chemistry." This was striking to m…

Never heard the term "chemophobic" before, but now that I think about it I have some chemophobic friends. Their argument is always something like this: "Humans evolved consuming only organic material from their very beginnings up until about 100 years ago. Humans just haven't evolved to tolerate synthesised chemicals in a mere 100 years." (that's obviously paraphrased but you get the point) But when it's said like th…

Considering you can synthesize organic material, life can produce inorganic compounds, and plenty of organic material is toxic as shit, I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking.

I can't speak for everyone, but I am of the opinion that glucose synthesized in a lab requires no special evolution on the part of humans to process.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#34

Post by skrebbel »

a_p wrote: post #14
tokenadult wrote: post #8

From the article: "We are a chemophobic culture. Chemical has become a synonym for something artificial, adulterated, hazardous, or toxic. Chemicals are bad—for you, for your children, for the environment. But whatever chemophobics would like to think, there is no avoiding chemicals, no way to create chemical-free zones. Absolutely everything is made of atoms and molecules; it’s all chemistry." This was striking to m…

The public's fear of "chemicals" was so great that Dow Chemical effectively dropped the "Chemical", so they now effectively brand themselves as just "Dow". I learned about this name change from what has to be my favorite interview with a CEO ever, in which the Dow Chemical CEO actually said "Yeah, it’s a branding topic. So we’ve got to go out there and really re-educate humanity, because at the end of the day, 95 per…

I don't think the Dow CEO quote is all wrong. He runs a bunch of chemical plants. When he says "Have chemistry in them", I think it's safe to assume that he means "chemical processes induced by humans". Which is, as a matter of fact, how most people interpret the term "chemistry", even if it's wrong in the strict sense.

So by that definition, that salad I harvested from my allotment garden last summer doesn't have "chemistry in it". It grew all by its own, and then I washed it and ate it raw.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#35

Post by sliverstorm »

bane wrote: post #13
tokenadult wrote: post #8

From the article: "We are a chemophobic culture. Chemical has become a synonym for something artificial, adulterated, hazardous, or toxic. Chemicals are bad—for you, for your children, for the environment. But whatever chemophobics would like to think, there is no avoiding chemicals, no way to create chemical-free zones. Absolutely everything is made of atoms and molecules; it’s all chemistry." This was striking to m…

Please don't even get me started on "natural" or "processed foods".

Can I interest you in some all-natural arsenic I extracted from apple seeds?

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#36

Post by megablast »

sliverstorm wrote: post #33
firefoxman1 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never heard the term "chemophobic" before, but now that I think about it I have some chemophobic friends. Their argument is always something like this: "Humans evolved consuming only organic material from their very beginnings up until about 100 years ago. Humans just haven't evolved to tolerate synthesised chemicals in a mere 100 years." (that's obviously paraphrased but you get the point) But when it's said like th…

Considering you can synthesize organic material, life can produce inorganic compounds, and plenty of organic material is toxic as shit, I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking. I can't speak for everyone, but I am of the opinion that glucose synthesized in a lab requires no special evolution on the part of humans to process.

What you are saying is disingenuous. Clearly the pills made for pharmaceutical are incredibly dangerous, even when taken as per the instructions. That is why they are prescribed.

Avoiding taking prescription drugs unless you really have to (ie are going to die), as I do, is not a bad way to live. Just because natural things will kill you, does not mean we should not avoid man made things. So I do not take pills for headaches, for sleeping, etc...

You thinking is because you can die by a bear, you should not look before crossing the road.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#38

Post by masklinn »

leoh wrote: post #18

"We are a chemophobic culture." I take great issue with this statement. We are most decidedly not a chemophobic culture. People are more than willing to take medicines that are artificially synthesized and, as the author mentions, with good reason. I, for one, am not chemophobic. I personally know an individual who developed one of the first total-syntheses (i.e. "artificial" chemical synthesis) of a very important a…

> But there are mysterious things that we do not understand about natural products and the human body.

Then again, there are mysterious things we do not understand about the human body itself, and the chems as well: there are a number of drugs which do work, but we have no idea what their mechanisms of action are, we just know they work (or seem to anyway).

Take good old aspirin for instance, we do understand mechanism of action... since 1971, even though aspirin has been manufactured and marketed since 1899 and willow-based medicines (and other salicylate-rich compounds) have been a staple of medecine since at least 2000 BCE.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#39

Post by wvenable »

passionfruit wrote: post #9

This article makes some bad analogies. Showing the structure of two different molecules and acting aghast that someone would choose one over the other is like saying all digital information is 1's and 0's so it's all the same. Or it's like saying all words are just a bunch of the same letters therefore they have no meaning.

Choosing one over the other because of how they are named is ridiculous -- not because of their composition.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#40

Post by AngryParsley »

sliverstorm wrote: post #35
bane wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't even get me started on "natural" or "processed foods".

Can I interest you in some all-natural arsenic I extracted from apple seeds?

Apple seeds contain cyanide, not arsenic: http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp

I agree with your point though. Lots of natural things are deadly. In fact, the most toxic compound known is natural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin

Post reply on HN