at-w

As have the opioids buprenorphine and Suboxone (buprenorphine/naloxone), which are genuinely useful treatments for addiction and have much lower risks of abuse.

>each of which ended up making a stronger, more dangerous opioid

This is true of some early opioids like heroin, but with e.g. Oxycontin the problem wasn’t a stronger opioid, it's how it ended up being prescribed.

Purdue's marketing led doctors to prescribe it to more people, in higher doses, and for longer. Oxycontin isn't inherently more dangerous than the dose of immediate release oxycodone or morphine that would have an equivalent effect.

Innovation in opioids shouldn't just be written off. They're still the best (and sometimes the only effective) treatment for a huge number of people, and some new opioids like buprenorphine/combos like Suboxone have real advantages.

The lesson from Oxycontin is more about deceptive marketing and prescribing practices.

>Taxes paid by your employer aren't taxes you pay.

They have the same effect in that they reduce what employees take home in a given labour market. Employees are effectively paying them in the same way that people who buy alcohol/cigarettes effectively pay more in states with higher taxes on those items (even though the taxes are technically paid by the stores).

If CA eliminated all income taxes and instead had employers remit the same effective rate for all salaried employees, employers would just reduce salaries accordingly.

As another example, France's income tax rates cap out around/below some high tax US states. But France is still a comparatively high tax jurisdiction largely because they also impose massive payroll taxes on employers which effectively reduce employee wages.

>the house take on the major platforms is vastly higher than with traditional sports betting

What kind of markets is this referring to?

Polymarket still charges 0 fees. While Kalshi's fees+spread can approach or even exceed traditional sportsbooks on some markets, neither of them have any interest in banning winning players, as they don't take a side on any bet and directly benefit from more betting activity. Kalshi also pays interest on bets, which can add up on longer term positions.

Betfair has operated with a similar model for decades in the UK and elsewhere.

There are lots of places where you can bet against other players now. The older betting markets like Betfair are no longer available in the US, but Kalshi, Polymarket, and others now offer the same kind of two-sided marketplace in the US.

Rwanda was never colonized by the British.

From 2020-2024, the UN recorded ~17,000 deaths among children in all measured countries combined. The share of that that is among older children/teens and in developed countries like the US is vanishingly small.

I'm not super well versed but my understanding is that that's right, with your actual DHT levels being the third variable. There are other non-hormonal causes of hair loss, like alopecia areata, but they're much less common.

DHT damages the hair follicles that are sensitive to it, causing them to grow back thinner after each growth and shedding cycle (which is typically a few years). As a result most men don't have visible hair loss until years after puberty kicks in.

>It seems that he is spending a lot of his time & effort on maintaining his hair (huge kudos for admitting that!). If his body was functioning like an 18-year old he should not need to do that. If Bryan really set back his true aging clock he probably would not be battling with ongoing hair loss (as he most likely did not battle hair loss 20 years prior), or at least it would stop (which does not seem to be the case).

Androgenetic hair loss (what Johnson has and what the medications he takes are designed to treat) is caused by genetic sensitivity to DHT and DHT levels in the body, not aging. People who don't have the genetic predisposition to AGA or who have very low DHT levels can often make it to 60+ with no visible hair loss. It's not like they're "not aging," they just don't have the combination of genes and DHT levels needed for significant hair loss to occur.

Lawyers aren't limited to isolated cases. Class actions exist for this exact reason and regularly lead to hundred million dollar+ payouts from banks and other large defendants for harm done to large groups of people.

>Individually yes, genetics contribute to height, but the full range of height genetics exist in every culture.

"The full range of incomes exist in every country, therefore differences in average incomes across countries must be negligible."

You've linked a long list of articles talking about race in America and Brazil, none of which I can see claim that there are no differences in genetic height by ethnic group. One is a book from 1944 that rightly rejects racially discriminatory policies and argues "that experience rather than inborn traits determines standards of social conduct." What part of that supports the idea that the 6' Tutsis or Croats are genetically predisposed to the same height as the Taron who average 4'3?

The MedlinePlus article you linked explicitly says "in some cases, ethnicity plays a role in adult height."

"Race" categories as described by all of your links that I saw ("black"/"white") are crude aggregations of hundreds of ethnic groups. Tutsis and Pygmies are both "African," but at the opposite extremes of human height. Framing the genetics of height in terms of American racial politics makes no sense.

>The source of the ideas you're asserting as fact are very dark and extremely thoroughly debunked at this point. Honestly it's kind of shameful to present these 1920s ideas as modern.

The "source of the ideas" are the peer-reviewed journals of PLoS Genet and Nature Genetics based on landmark genetic research published in 2012 and 2020. As in hundreds of other peer reviewed studies that have identified genetic markers responsible for height and how those markers vary across populations, including articles you yourself linked without apparently reading.

>Every single variation in "genetic trends" amongst cultures is negligible and otherwise entirely attributable to environmental factors.

Is the vastly higher rate of sickle cell anemia among people of West African descent is either "negligible and otherwise entirely attributable to environmental factors"? Is it simply Europeans' "environment" that causes them to go bald and get skin cancer at rates dozens of times higher than people of East Asian descent growing up in the same countries?