Right, Purdue Pharma—the sleasebag Sacklers—were unethically pushing OxyContin (oxycodone) but the unethical tactics that Merck adopted in marketing its NSAID Vioxx seems to have been forgotten. Vioxx was withdrawn from the market and Merck paid out billions in law suits.
If you've time watch this YouTube video on Merck and the Vioxx scam (if you weren't aware of the facts you'd think you were in Palermo/Mafia territory): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K0GrFnOpJoU
"Why are COX-2 drugs like Celebrex still prescription only ?"
Why? Because Celebrex (celecoxib) is a dangerous drug which can cause irreparable harm (heart attacks and related) if taken for long periods. In fact, its sister drug Vioxx (rofecoxib) was banned and Merck had to pay billions in damages. There's more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47835635#47862704
Whilst Celebrex is safer than Vioxx it still has the same side effects profile as the latter.
I'd also recommended you watch the YouTube video in the link on Vioxx, it demonstrates the dangers of COX-2 drugs shouldn't be underestimated.
Recently, I've had to take Celebrex (celecoxib) for a back injury and I've been taking it longer than is normally recommended—and that truly worries me (I've determined I have to come off it ASAP).
Where I am (Australia), most doctor's prescriptions that have to be taken long-term are issued as the first script plus five repeats. Not so with Celebrex, a script can only be dispensed three times (3 x pk of 30 200mg capsules — one per day, for 90 days max) and scripts can only be dispensed every 21 days. Reason: Celebrex is only recommended for short-term use because it's considered a dangerous drug with possible irreversible side effects if taken for too long.
This was not news to me even before taking Celebrex, way back in the 1990s I was prescribed its sister drug called Vioxx (rofecoxib) for back pain and it was much more effective than Celebrex (at least it was for me).
Anyway, sometime around 2000 I read an article in the journal Science about a significant statistical increase in deaths by heart attack, stroke etc. by those talking rofecoxib. At the time I said to myself it won't be long before Vioxx is banned. It took another three to four years for that to happen as Merck Pharmaceuticals fought the decision every inch of the way. It's worth reading the Wiki about this (when it's between a drug company and millions of dollars profit patients come off second best):
What's relevant here is that the related drug Celebrex survived because its side effects—whilst manifestly similar—aren't quite as bad as Vioxx. In short, Celebrex's COX-2 selectivity versus other less selective NSAIDs like aspirin (which target both COX-1 and COX-2) was deemed sufficiently beneficial despite its potential serious side effects.
Note: I'm not offering medical advice here and you should always take that from your medical practitioner. I mention this because only several days ago I had a discussion with two younger doctors who'd never heard of Vioxx let alone the Vioxx/Celebrex controversy.
You may be interested in this YouTube video on Vioxx. Unfortunately it's over hyped and designed to alarm but it's essentially factually correct: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K0GrFnOpJoU
USB-C ports are more fragile than Lightning - one of the three ports on my laptop will no longer hold cables in place anymore. It also requires more precise alignment to get the cable plugged in.
I agree, and it preceeded USB-C. It came out in a market that was almost overwhelmingly USB Micro B; which was an extremely terrible connector.
Apple really fucked up by keeping the connector proprietary. Sure it helped them slim some phones but it didn't exactly help long term, and now we have a technologically inferior connector that took even longer to come to market.
I can't forgive Apple for that.
Good engineering, early to market, mired by greedy and short sighted businessmen.
I thought this way too, but have since heard that the Lightning connector itself has the spring-loaded contacts that wear out, in contrast to USB-C where they're on the cable. So I don't think it's so straightforward
Sure, on paper the USB-C should be superior for that reason. But we have a lot of years of experience that suggests in practice the Lightning connector is more durable.
Don't let them off that quickly. We've been making electrical connectors for well over a hundred years. There are books on high reliability connectors many hundreds of pages long. Connectors for aerospace, the military and industry have made connector technology highly advanced and connections very reliable.
Fact is USB connectors are shitty because they've been made as cheaply as possible—cheap manufacturing takes precedence over reliability and user ergonomics.
The trend of mass producing rock-bottom cheap connectors started in the early 1950s with that abominable super cheap RCA audio connector and it's continued ever since with consumer products. There's no end of crappy designs, the F coaxial connector for antennas, the DIN audio connector, the Belling Lee coax and so on.
Trouble is too many consumers are prepared to tolerate the crap without complaining so it
continues.
Honestly, I’m not sure either. I can’t find anybody who actually went through the trouble of testing port/cable durability over many cycles.
I can personally speak to the seeming reliability of the springs on lightening, but thats anecdotal and would only apply to devices I’ve interacted with. Truthfully USB-C has been almost as reliable (only seen 2-3 ports with issues over literally hundreds, vs the 0 for lightning over a smaller sample).
I guess at some point the argument is moot, but I do like digging lint out of USB-C connectors a lot less- it is a lot more worrying to do.
Right, I'm no fan of USB-C either. One knows why the USB alliance keeps designing such shitty connectors. After so many attempts they've got it right—it's the cheapest crappy design they could get away with.
Apple USB-C ports and plugs are superb so maybe the design is not so bad. Maybe most manufacturers just use crappy ports to save a few cents. But yeah, mechanically Lightning was awesome. Great plug/port.
They also have a much higher data bandwidth and higher charge rate, so Apple would have most likely ditched lightning for something else at some point (though it would probably be some proprietary cable if not for the EU regulation)
"…by the time batteries wear out, most people are going to want a new a phone."
Why? There have been few new features in recent years and new phones have restrictions not wanted by many. Google is closing the Android ecosystem and making it more proprietary so I'll keep my phone as long as I'm able.
The non-replaceable battery has to be one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on consumers. It's great that it's about to be broken.
This is what happens when a country is run by accountants and lawyers who are under the thumb of Big Business, especially mining companies—they even get to set their own taxation rates (if they're impeded in any way they'll change the government).
The other factor is an ultra conservative and timid population obsessed with sport, entertainment, celebrity and trivia and where the word "mañana" is embedded in its psyche.
Lack of refineries is just one instance, we can't even get our huge gas reserves to the eastern states leading to shortages and energy price hikes (no trouble exporting gas to the rest of the world mind you).
We've killed off self sufficiency—no strategic manufacturing left, we export ores without first refining them (iron ore for example). Anything we invent is developed by other countries, and so on, and so on. One could write a book!
There's a saying one's beginning to here amongst some locals these days "things won't change for the better until the Chinese take over". When you start hearing stuff like that you know things are bad.
It's very depressing living here, I just wish I had an easy means of escape.
"This also matches what happens when distilling ethanol from water."
Right, normal commercial ethanol production is 95% EtOH, 5% H2O (the constant boiling mixture/azeotrope). That's good enough for most uses but not all. The only problem the average person would ever likely encounter from the residual H2O would be in the application of alcohol-based coatings such as shellac where it can cause whitish discoloration. Painters will occasionally use 99% EtOH which is substantially more expensive (removing that residual H2O requires an altogether different proxess).
Ethanol can be used as a temporary measure in methanol poisoning as it temporarily outcompetes methanol in the metabolic process. So it's only useful until proper medical help arrives when better alternatives such as fomepizole are administered. Even then there is no guarantee of success.
Methanol is still metabolized to dangerous formaldehyde and formic acid by the liver's alcohol dehydrogenase. The logic of giving ethanol or fomepizole is to slow down the rate of production methanol's dangerous metabolic byproducts so less damage is done, nevertheless those dangerous metabolites are still produced.
Ethanol's first-pass metabolite is acetaldehyde and it is still toxic but not to the same degree as those of methanol.
It is incorrect to say ethanol is an antidote for methanol poisoning. Using ethanol is a last-ditch stand to try and take some minor control of an otherwise out of control situation. There's nothing subtle about it—it's a blunderbuss approach that often doesn't work well because replacing one poison with a less toxic one is a pretty hit-and-miss process.
Antidotes counteract poisons, that's not what happens when you give ethanol in methanol poisonings.
> The logic of giving ethanol or fomepizole is to slow down the rate of production methanol's dangerous metabolic byproducts so less damage is done, nevertheless those dangerous metabolites are still produced.
Who cares if dangerous metabolites are "still produced" when the danger has been limited? It's like claiming that blood transfusions don't help with shock because the patient still lost the same amount of blood.
> Using ethanol is a last-ditch stand to try and take some minor control of an otherwise out of control situation.
This is some weird-ass over-elaborate synonym for antidote.
> There's nothing subtle about it—it's a blunderbuss approach that often doesn't work well because replacing one poison with a less toxic one is a pretty hit-and-miss process.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. This all reads like AI slop.
> Antidotes counteract poisons, that's not what happens when you give ethanol in methanol poisonings.
You literally give it to them to counteract the poison. You're using a idiosyncratic version of the word "counteract," which doesn't relate to the health or survival of the person poisoned, but has a lot to do with the absolute levels of "dangerous metabolites produced."
"This is some weird-ass over-elaborate synonym for antidote."
I did not say or infer that ethanol should not be used in the treatment of methanol poisoning.
Giving ethanol to counteract methanol poisoning is not a simple fix like giving naloxone for a herion OD (which works effectively in minutes), it's more complicated and often involves multiple procedures such as hemodialysis and strict monitoring of ethanol levels (assuming one knows what that level should be, ipso facto, how much methanol was consumed and whether it was coconsumed with ethanol—facts often not readily available in an emergency department).
The almost flippant assumption that ethanol is a fix all panacea for methanol poisoning by many who've posted here is just irresponsible. Fact is methanol OD is a major medical emergency and in no way should it be played down.
If I have to be the bringer of unwelcome truths then so be it. Shooting the messenger generally makes things worse.
> A 10% ethanol solution administered intravenously is a safe and effective antidote for severe methanol poisoning. Ethanol therapy is recommended when plasma methanol concentrations are higher than 20 mg per dl, when ingested doses are greater than 30 ml and when there is evidence of acidosis or visual abnormalities in cases of suspected methanol poisoning.
Under
> 7.4. Antidotes and Elimination Enhancement
> 7.4.2. Ethanol
A therapeutic blood ethanol level of about 22 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) is recommended.
...
>If ethanol was coingested with methanol and the blood ethanol level initially was >22 mmol/L (100 mg/dL), the bolus dose of ethanol can be skipped.
It's like you didn't even read your own source.
They are calling it recommended for certain conditions, and saying you can skip parts of treatment for co-ingestion!
Then in the conclusions section
> Despite its extensive use, methanol poisoning remains a critical public health concern globally, often resulting from accidental or intentional ingestion and outbreaks linked to contaminated beverages.
They've called out contaminated beverages, not outputs of distillation.
You've been had by misinformation and now you're peddling lies.
Homebrewing isn't the issue per se. Methanol from fruit and stuff people normally ferment is pretty negligible. The problem happens when the spirit is sold and broken down/stretched to go futher by middlemen by adding cheaper MeOH.
Unfortunately, that has happened enough times with people dying for it to be a problem. Seems some societies are more susceptible to these extremely dangerous ripoffs than others.
Isn't that an issue with alteration and distribution rather than risk during production for self consumption and could happen for just about any product?
I didn't say they did. If you think this ruling (if upheld) won't change things then you're kidding yourself
In Poland and other European countries where home distillation has been practiced for centuries nothing would happen but an instant cultural shift in the US with a major uptake in homebrewing certainly will. Ratbags and carpetbaggers will find ways to get in on the act and that's when the trouble will start.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Vioxx scandal is every bit as big as the Purdue one. Check this Wiki (lawsuits): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib
If you've time watch this YouTube video on Merck and the Vioxx scam (if you weren't aware of the facts you'd think you were in Palermo/Mafia territory): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K0GrFnOpJoU
reply