Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Moto7451 334 days ago
The test setup ignores the digestive system. There are going to be a lot of substances you can pour on a culture of brain cells with negative affect that your body produces or happily consumes. That’s the point of the parent.

Add milk, an alcoholic beverage, or some lemon juice and those cells are unlikely to survive. Meanwhile the standard path of consumption handles the situation just fine before your brain is ever involved in metabolism.
3 comments
OutOfHere 332 days ago
To the reader, I strongly urge not listening to some rando on the internet (as opposed to the scientists) who asks you to dismiss a study, simply because the risk-reward calculus here is strongly in favor of not taking the unnecessary risk of brain damage.
link
hollerith 333 days ago
OK. Thanks for explaining.
link
bestouff 334 days ago
Alcoholic beverage, just fine ? I disagree.
link
Moto7451 333 days ago
How about Kombucha? Vanilla extract? Sourdough bread? Mouth wash? Oral medicines? There are more sources to alcohol than the bar, including many incidental sources we don’t think about and happily feed to children as soon as they can handle solid foods.

Like anything there’s nuance here. I’m not saying being drunk, an alcoholic, or having a single alcoholic beverage will have no negative affects. I’m discussing the difference between a culture (cells on agar) and the entirety of the human body. You are not going to reproduce the same results they had because your digestive tract, kidneys, and liver are inline.

This is really important because our food contains so many things naturally including the Erythritol in the original article.

Let’s talk about another example. Would you find Fish acceptable? How about mercury? How would you square exposure to mercury due to eating fish?

link
majkinetor 333 days ago
Learn about hormesis then and don't succumb to the yt's med-bros click-bait hype
link
Esophagus4 333 days ago
Jeez, what a dismissive (and handwaivy) response.

Alcohol is a carcinogen, and even small amounts are linked to increased cancer rates[1][2].

The only thing the WHO, CDC, and US Surgeon General have in common with the “YouTuber med bros click bait hype” you try to wholly discredit is that they probably all do have YouTube channels…

[1]https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/oash-alcohol-cancer-...

[2]https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-...

link
majkinetor 333 days ago
Jeez, learn to read and learn and stop with this BS already:

From your first article:

> The amount of alcohol a person drinks affects their risk of cancer. An important factor is the overall amount of alcohol consumed consistently over time.

That, sure as hell, means that you can drink small amounts sometimes, not 0, as there is no such thing. Again, read about hormesis. Here it is for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis#Alcohol

link