5 ms·

> I reject this kind of blind safetyism. You said you searched to learn more about lithium, but somehow missed that it's highly recommended to be administered

> I reject this kind of blind safetyism. You said you searched to learn more about lithium, but somehow missed that it's highly recommended to be administered by doctors due to side effects after long term use. Anything that damages your kidneys or thyroids can kill you, so calling it "blind safetyism" is silly.

rogerrogerr 1y ago
It’s blind safetyism when an article writes “don’t do this because no one has proven it is safe”. Most people will read that as “you can probably do this but in the off chance something bad happens, I wrote these words so you have a harder time suing me”. It would be more useful and effective for the article to say “don’t do this to yourself because it can damage your guts, see these links, there’s tradeoffs here” The former just fades into the modern world’s background noise of unchecked ass-covering.
- CoastalCoder 1y ago
  > The former just fades into the modern world’s background noise of unchecked ass-covering. The missing piece of this argument is just what the probability of different legal risks is here. Wether or not their ass-covering is reasonable hinges on that and on their risk tolerance.
  - rogerrogerr 1y ago
    Oh, it’s rational for them! That’s the problem - it’s always rational to treat anything you write as the highest level of liability. No one loses money by adding more disclaimers. Observe: Drinking water is a good idea. *check with your doctor if you are allergic to water, have a history of drowning, or are unable to distinguish water from ethanol. Do not consume water while intubated. People with rabies may have adverse reactions to water. Use caution when drinking water if you cannot swallow or are currently vomiting. Water from some sources may be contaminated. Salt water may contain jellyfish. —- My legal exposure from the initial statement went down with every little stupid disclaimer I added there, and there’s no penalty for each one. But you probably didn’t even read the full thing. We’ve created a culture of everyone feeling like they need to cover their ass, and the real important things get drowned out.
tgv 1y ago
Especially since mice are not really perfect models for humans. For starters: these mice were "12 to 24 months of age", whereas your typical Alzheimer patient is well over 30 times that. The article also links it to amyloid plaques, which is a contested hypothesis that may well have held back Alzheimer research for decades. To be fair, the article seems to look at more mechanisms, but that's well beyond my expertise.
- modeless 1y ago
  12 to 24 months is old in mouse years. And the article offers a plausible explanation for both why plaques could cause the disease and why clearing them alone might not fix it without lithium supplementation.
hollerith 1y ago
The kidney damage, etc, are consequences of the very high doses of lithium needed to control bipolar disorder. Most experts who have been recommending lithium supplementation to support general health recommend doses about 100 or 300 times lower.
- modeless 1y ago
  Exactly. An "exquisitely low dose" should be safe. And Alzheimer's also kills you, after making life no longer worth living. For people who already have it, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't try an appropriate dose.
  - inejge 1y ago
    > An "exquisitely low dose" should be safe. The problem is that a subset of self-experimenters have the mindset "the more, the better" -- I still remember the Covid-era vitamin D discussions, with people openly reporting taking stupendous daily doses. (Lithium and vit. D are not in the same category, but you'll recognize the approach.) So someone goes overboard, maybe damages their health, and traces it back to an article without the caveat. Lawsuit time! We're talking about fractions of a percent here, but with a wide enough potential readership you have a non-trivial chance of a hit. Common sense doesn't work at scale. Hence the CYA rhetoric.
tokai 1y ago
>it's highly recommended to be administered by doctors due to side effects after long term use This is at a clinical dose which is somewhat high. It is the dosage fund reliable as treatment for bipolar type 1. As long as you get your kidney numbers checked twice a year, at that dose, its mostly unproblematic as issues show themselves in the numbers before major damage.
QuantumGood 1y ago
When I started giving injections to a family member, I learned many things can cause problems that I didn't know about, such as that very tiny bits can break loose from the bottle top and cause issues. "Blind safetyism" is a point of view that can be more popular with certain personality types, but I think it's often a good starting point for research.
thisislife2 1y ago
To add to what the parent comment said - Lithium is also prescribed for some mood disorders. So if you are thinking of self-medicating with it please be aware that it can mess with your brain chemistry too.
hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
Lithium orotate has been available as a supplement for decades and hasn't shown adverse effects. Here is a study from a few years ago that also showed no harmful effects from lithium orotate: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230021001136 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323002...

rogerrogerr 1y ago

It’s blind safetyism when an article writes “don’t do this because no one has proven it is safe”. Most people will read that as “you can probably do this but in the off chance something bad happens, I wrote these words so you have a harder time suing me”. It would be more useful and effective for the article to say “don’t do this to yourself because it can damage your guts, see these links, there’s tradeoffs here” The former just fades into the modern world’s background noise of unchecked ass-covering.

CoastalCoder 1y ago
> The former just fades into the modern world’s background noise of unchecked ass-covering. The missing piece of this argument is just what the probability of different legal risks is here. Wether or not their ass-covering is reasonable hinges on that and on their risk tolerance.
- rogerrogerr 1y ago
  Oh, it’s rational for them! That’s the problem - it’s always rational to treat anything you write as the highest level of liability. No one loses money by adding more disclaimers. Observe: Drinking water is a good idea. *check with your doctor if you are allergic to water, have a history of drowning, or are unable to distinguish water from ethanol. Do not consume water while intubated. People with rabies may have adverse reactions to water. Use caution when drinking water if you cannot swallow or are currently vomiting. Water from some sources may be contaminated. Salt water may contain jellyfish. —- My legal exposure from the initial statement went down with every little stupid disclaimer I added there, and there’s no penalty for each one. But you probably didn’t even read the full thing. We’ve created a culture of everyone feeling like they need to cover their ass, and the real important things get drowned out.

tgv 1y ago

Especially since mice are not really perfect models for humans. For starters: these mice were "12 to 24 months of age", whereas your typical Alzheimer patient is well over 30 times that. The article also links it to amyloid plaques, which is a contested hypothesis that may well have held back Alzheimer research for decades. To be fair, the article seems to look at more mechanisms, but that's well beyond my expertise.

modeless 1y ago
12 to 24 months is old in mouse years. And the article offers a plausible explanation for both why plaques could cause the disease and why clearing them alone might not fix it without lithium supplementation.

hollerith 1y ago

The kidney damage, etc, are consequences of the very high doses of lithium needed to control bipolar disorder. Most experts who have been recommending lithium supplementation to support general health recommend doses about 100 or 300 times lower.

modeless 1y ago
Exactly. An "exquisitely low dose" should be safe. And Alzheimer's also kills you, after making life no longer worth living. For people who already have it, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't try an appropriate dose.
- inejge 1y ago
  > An "exquisitely low dose" should be safe. The problem is that a subset of self-experimenters have the mindset "the more, the better" -- I still remember the Covid-era vitamin D discussions, with people openly reporting taking stupendous daily doses. (Lithium and vit. D are not in the same category, but you'll recognize the approach.) So someone goes overboard, maybe damages their health, and traces it back to an article without the caveat. Lawsuit time! We're talking about fractions of a percent here, but with a wide enough potential readership you have a non-trivial chance of a hit. Common sense doesn't work at scale. Hence the CYA rhetoric.

tokai 1y ago

>it's highly recommended to be administered by doctors due to side effects after long term use This is at a clinical dose which is somewhat high. It is the dosage fund reliable as treatment for bipolar type 1. As long as you get your kidney numbers checked twice a year, at that dose, its mostly unproblematic as issues show themselves in the numbers before major damage.

QuantumGood 1y ago

When I started giving injections to a family member, I learned many things can cause problems that I didn't know about, such as that very tiny bits can break loose from the bottle top and cause issues. "Blind safetyism" is a point of view that can be more popular with certain personality types, but I think it's often a good starting point for research.

thisislife2 1y ago

To add to what the parent comment said - Lithium is also prescribed for some mood disorders. So if you are thinking of self-medicating with it please be aware that it can mess with your brain chemistry too.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

Lithium orotate has been available as a supplement for decades and hasn't shown adverse effects. Here is a study from a few years ago that also showed no harmful effects from lithium orotate: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230021001136 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323002...