Opioid use rarely kills people with clean drugs of known strength. Opioid use kills people when they don't know how strong their drugs are and take too much by mistake, and when they consume poisons along with the drug, but those risks can be removed without removing the opioid.

So letting people buy opioids over the counter wouldn't actually cause people that kill themselves and not pass on their genes.

And then no one gets denied medical care on the advice of your software. Which is a significant improvement over the state of the art.

People think of drug addicts as subhuman. Doctors are people. Therefore, doctors think drug addicts are subhuman.

I might grow breadseed poppies and extract raw opium sometime, so I can prove to doctors beyond a reasonable doubt that I'm not drug-seeking (if I have opiates at home and I'm at a doctor asking for help instead of at home getting high, obviously I'm not just there to ask for morphine). I mean, they shouldn't deny medical treatment to people they think are drug seeking, but as a stopgap measure this idea appeals to me.

My experience of telling a doctor that I had unauthorized prescription medications has been good so far (it was estradiol and bicalutamide and she was more or less chill about it). So I'm inclined to think similar strategies will go well in the future.

If the level of opioid signaling in an opioid user's brain weren't higher than a non-user's, there'd be no driving force to maintain tolerance.

I think in cases like this, it should be up to the patient whether the risk is worth it for them.

I wonder where the ripples are coming from. Is the machine set to pulse?

Pick! The! Lock!

We should give those immigrants citizenship. And we should offer citizenship to every noncitizen who gets screwed over by ICE mistakes and misconduct. That way ICE's incentives will be more aligned with justice, since they'll no longer be able to keep people out by not doing their jobs.

Maybe mama is stored in arterial blood but not venous blood, and when there's a lot of mana the body expands blood vessels to make room. That'd make mana overload one of the multiple vasodilators that can cause migraines.

Nitroglycerin is an explosive because it has oxygen and fuel in the same molecule. Benzoyl peroxide is another fuel/oxidizer mix and is also explosive, even though it doesn't cause migraines.

Nitroglycerin causes migraines. Ergot alkaloids treat migraines. Do they affect mana capacity or mana generation? Or do they bypass the mana mechanism and cause the same symptoms by an alternate route?

Dynamite. He invented dynamite. That's a way of stabilizing nitroglycerin so it won't explode if you look at it funny.

TNT is a different explosive that's inherently more stable than nitroglycerin, so it doesn't need extra stabilization.

When you freeze tissue, ice crystals damage the cells as they grow. If you can get tissue way below freezing very quickly, many small ice crystals form instead of a few large ones, and no individual small crystal is forcefully pushing its sharp edges into bits of the cell.

By the square-cube law, it's easier to rapidly cool a small thing than a big one. Cells are much smaller than tissues made of many cells, so you can freeze them faster and get less damage.

You have wild mustard there too?

Many moral questions are really questions about new situations, not new principles. For example, if you already believe you ought not eat pork, there's no violation of Hume's Guillotine in turning to DNA sequencing to determine whether there's pork in a dish.

I don't know if this is what this guy means, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that we already believe the moral principles that would let us answer most moral questions to our satisfaction, and we're just waiting for a thorough understanding of the facts.

D

(Had to finish the word)

I hope they either have a carve-out for inhaler propellants or a safe non-HFC propellant ready to replace HFC-134a.

"perfect" is a bit of a bold claim.

Edit: I see that it wasn't your claim, but the source's. It's still bold.

I'd say they're probably closer to "certified organic" than "non-GMO" -- some of the things you can use instead of parabens are worse for the consumer's health (e.g., formaldehyde releasing preservatives). The alternative to GMO is typically less food, not worse food.

Why are they trying to blame parabens? We have evidence showing that parabens are pretty thoroughly harmless as currently used. And you have formaldehyde, a perfectly good known carcinogen, right there in the suspected causes list.

At a bare minimum it isn't a complete understanding, or else there wouldn't be so many reports of depressive symptoms lessening when people go on ketogenic diets (i.e., nearly all energy coming from dietary fat, and typically mostly animal fat).