[removed]

[removed]

Yea

Definitely!

[removed]

Pretty sure opiate levels continue going down in the blood for a while after death

Sedating drugs can work synergistically as well, so while 100 mg probably wouldn’t be lethal in someone with significant tolerance if you add other sedating meds like diphenhydramine and cyclobenzaprine the overall level of sedation may push them over the edge.

[removed]

Each person is different, but I happen to know that for a healthy 6’5”, 200lb 27yr old male, who was a moderate opiate addict, a dose of 25 10mg pills (250 mg hydrocodone) taken orally of hydrocodone did not cause overdose. Their were ill effects, but no loss of consciousness and no hospitalization. Again, each person’s chemistry is going to be different, but that did happen.

Thank you. How are people not able to comprehend this view point.

Yes, psychiatry has defined disorder. And the definition is relative. Relative to what the ‘norm’ is set as. The norm being whatever the majority find tolerable.

Regardless of the fact that we’ve been existing in the current (ever changing) social form for a fraction of the time humans have been around.

By this definition being a blond, pale skinned person prone to skin cancer and surname burn, in Australia, would be ‘disordered’. However because the adaptational difference is easily observable we do not designate it as such, we just understand that those genes are not adapted for that environment.

Adhd is no different. It’s an adaptation suited to some things more than others. It can only ever be a disorder by relative standards and in specific situations.

While this doesn’t take away from the idea that adhd people in this society need help and understanding, it is incorrect and inaccurate to label it a disorder. Since this implies some form of malfunctioning of what would otherwise be normal.

The label of ‘disorder’ in relation to adhd will eventually be seen as backwards, ignorant and offensive in the same way as racist terms are today. Watch this space.

Cutting edge studies support everything I have said. But like all areas of science and understanding; what is commonly known by those at the forefront takes forever to trickle down to those in schools, institutions, the media and the average Joe.

That's meta-analysis, yeah. looking at data from one or more other studies and using it as the data for a new one. Mentioned that in the last bit as what actually happens most often with stuff like this.

[removed]

Another route is study review (probably not the term, brain still booting) where an unrelated, huge, long-term study comes along with a giant population, huge test datasets, good documentation practices and publicly shared datasets. It has all the information such that some scientist just working from a computer can make connections and infer an unrelated connection. So even though none of the proposed studies would ever get funding or approval, the advancement could still come along.

I am thinking of a few big ones but I can't get my neurons on the names of the studies. You wouldn't believe the number of times in the preceding paragraph I tried to remember the name for something. If you are super interested in what I am talking about poke me in comments and later I will cite the names of studies and the unrelated papers/ideas/advancements that came out of study review.

[removed]

I suppose you are partially correct…there is no known cure. But my understanding and experience had been that mental health supports offer skills training that allow the individual some autonomy.

Thank you. Yea, and there were also other drugs in the system, specifically diphenhydramine and cyclobenzaprine. I know there's just no way to figure it out. But 100mg of hydrocodone doesnt seem like a lethal dose for a person with tolerance.

Very good explanation. Thank you.

[removed]

[removed]

Assume that is true. A planet of equal size farther from the sun receives fewer total rays because that is how angles work. Yet solar rays are considered effectively parallel due to the extreme distance. So is it the apparent size of the sun in the sky that makes the difference? If distance doesn"t matter, we would be heated by all the stars in the sky and there would be little difference between day and night temperature. Is there a large difference between day and night? This illustrates the problem with describing things using generalities.

It would be hard to tell if a species was new, or just previously undiscovered. But, some animals have evolved in the very recent past. The Norwegian rat is no longer susceptible to warfarin-based poisons. Evolution does not favor larger organisms, and humans are losing the race. Bacteria and viruses have existed a lot longer than humans and they continually adapt, evolve and conquer. And that doesn't even include the Weaponized stupidity that the party of Trump has introduced to the human species.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.176.4041.1343

Edit to include… I wasn't considering the domestication of animals when I gave my answer. Someone down the line brought that up.

[removed]

oh, cannes food going bad after it’s opened is not botulism, any more than a salad going bad in the fridge. that’s other processes & organisms.

botulism grows in NON-ACIDIC, ANOXIC environments. so it can grow inside the can (no oxygen), before the can is opened. industrial canning processes get very very hot to kill the spores so they don’t grow even when the environment is right.

so, the thing about honey seems weird (maybe you have more info than i do though).)

i read in a medical source that after the widespread campaign to NEVER feed babies honey, which every US parent myst have heard of at this point, the rates of infant botulism… did not change.

What do you mean by sporulate? Isn’t this a bacteria we’re talking about?

I was totally unaware bacteria could have spores