By this logic most festival goers would have dropped dead already considering how many of them use MDMA.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Is Huberman a quack?
By this logic most festival goers would have dropped dead already considering how many of them use MDMA.
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
He's a moron when any kind of drug that makes people have fun is involved. In his episode on alcohol, he recounted how at college parties he would sit back and look at people while thinking about how every single person having fun was going to be a loser alcoholic eventually.
He’s not wrong, only loser normies who peak early do drugs.
Isn't he on roids? Roiding is far worse than the occasional drink
Forgetting about the extremes on both ends, roiding is far better than regular alcohol usage. It's not fair to compare the occasional drink to cycling.
He's probably just on high doses of test, so he thinks that's science approved.
It's not
I think its how annoying drunk people are when you are sober that does that tbh
>yeah bro we'll cut this thing we're selling as a powerful stimulant for dancing sold in milligram doses with a powerful depressant that knocks you on your arse and can kill you in microgram doses
I appreciate that fentanyl laced cocaine has killed people but I'd wager those were more like murders where they were actively attempting to cause a death
>fentanyl is instant death
moron
Fentanyl is given to kids during basic surgeries. It's not some evil poison that just kills you instantly.
so is general anesthesia, but you don't recommend that for people that are just trying to fall asleep
>dummy doesnt understand dosage and usage
yes obviously. he might be knowledgeable about a few topics, he already made episodes on those long ago. now he's gotta keep pumping out content so he just ends up talking out of his ass.
> By this logic most festival goers would have dropped dead already considering how many of them use MDMA.
this isn't correct, I still think he's wrong though.
Remember George Floyd overdosing on fentanyl. At the time the entire media claimed fentanyl is safe, who even knows what a lethal dose is, the heckin' knee is what killed him. Any attempt at trying to find the lethal dose of fentanyl was throttled by google.
Now years later you can look up the lethal dose and it's fricking 2 milligrams. It has no smell and no taste. Someone could just put less than a pinch of fent in your drink and you would die.
Why should I give a flying frick what some roidgay israelite moron says?
Yeah this dude may have a small sliver of expertise in which his opinion is to be respected but he's pretty much a grifter.
>By this logic most festival goers would have dropped dead already considering how many of them use MDMA.
this is not true. It just means that the dealers didnt frick up their math
"Grifter" is the worst word to gain popularity in the last 3 years. Everyone uses it wrong. It does not mean "person I don't like"
Okay then, a fraud, a charlatan, a snake oil salesman, a fake, a pretender. I don't care about the guy but he makes money talking about shit he barely knows about to gullible people online. There's a whole roster of these same kinds of dudes doing the same kinds of thing.
>Yeah this dude may have a small sliver of expertise in which his opinion is to be respected
>but he makes money talking about shit he barely knows about
You're contradicting yourself. Just admit you don't like him.
Damn you’re just an idiot. It’s common practice for these kind of people to have a normal career for years in a niche field, get popular for some reason, run out of content they’re an expert on, and start talking about whatever else to make money.
And that makes someone a grifter? Especially if they have other people on the show who are certified expert in said field, and it's mostly just an interview of this more qualified person?
Nah mate. Liver King was a grifter. You just don't like this guy. That's cool though, all I ask is some honesty.
I disagree. Though I think his podcasts are long winded and sometimes overly informative in the wrong way, he makes an effort by bringing on gusts who do have expertise. Endocrinologists, sports doctors, nutrition experts, researchers, etc…
He also makes a very hard statement in all of his podcasts about how he’s just reading the current literature, his opinion on it, and that it could change based on what other studies are done.
He’s only a grifter if you’re sub 90 IQ (you)
another moron that is too scared to leave the university, so he lives there.
just gives normie advice and hides behind 'studys'
> too scared to leave the university
He’s doing extremely well for himself
I haven't done MDMA in 10 years but it used to be my bread and butter. The advice back then was NEVER TAKE PILLS, I followed this simple tip and nothing bad has ever happened to me. It made me more social and moronic, it was an enjoyable experience for me and the people around me, other than one time in which I wanted to hunt a deer for the bantz (I didn't hurt any deer, I wanted to catch one with my bare hands and ended up in the hospital)
As for that guy he has too many ads, I hate ads with a passion and all advertisers should commit sudoku
He'sone of the new age grifters which use "science" to tell you how to live. I have a PhD, biology, (don't give a shit if you believe me) and most people can't tell the "science" grift vs. real research results. Huberman is a great example of using a string of mechanistic studies to imply a certain outcome, which is fine for hypothesis generation, but you have to actually follow up with research.
Biology and research is complicated. We are dealing with very complex systems with too many input variables. We do our best to isolate the variables, but that also comes with the problem of ignoring the effects of the more complex systems and ultimately the outcomes. Easy example: Want a drug for obesity, say a GLP1 agonist. Simple binding study, put the receptor and drug in some wells, measure binding constant, find out it binds incredibly well. Awesome! New drug? No. Move up to cell systems. All of a sudden, it either kills the cell or can't even get across the cell membrane to reach the receptor. Let's say it passes that. We move to tissue. Turns out, the tissue environment leads to further receptor shielding and/or it binds to other receptors. Move to rat model: Turns out, first-pass liver eliminates all of the drug before it can circulate in the blood. Move to human: Turns out, rat and human have very different reactions to drug, and the GLP receptor isoform in humans doesn't bind the drug at all. Woops. Or, lets say it does. But then you measure reduction in obesity, and see....no change (because biology is complicated). Woops. That's an outcome study. If it exists, it's more or less the end-all be-all of what you can expect.
The initial binding study (receptor and drug in well) is mechanistic. A lot of amateur online idiots and grifters string together simple mechanistic studies and imply some sort of overall outcome, EVEN IF THE OUTCOME STUDY EXISTS AND CONTRADICTS THE STRING OF MECHANISTIC STUDIES. Don't be one of these morons like Huberman.
It's funny cause this reads exactly like a Huberman podcast.
Same reason why most climate change "science" is complete and utter BS. It's simply too hard to measure macroscopic effects on a system so complicated we have a hard time predicting how the weather is going to be 2 days from now
Every day I realize more and more how stupid the average person really is.