Gloominary wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:19 am
..But Suck, you haven't presented anything that could remotely be called empirical evidence for your claim, that caffeine intoxication is harmless, you have nothing.
Because I have been on the defensive, and not on the offensive. I'm not the one who decided to make a thread about the dangers of caffeine, in admitted contrast that most "mainstream" studies agree it's generally fine. I have provided certain sources inverting some of the negative claims you have made about caffeine, such as the study on caffeinated driving.
Another contention is that you also have not asked me to prove to you that caffeine is harmless. You claim to already be aware of the positive studies, but reject them whole-sale, so I don't know why you would ask me that.
Absence of studies proving caffeine intoxication is dangerous, is not evidence caffeine intoxication is not dangerous
This is correct, but even you don't think we have an absence of studies on caffeine, you just believe they're rigged.
It's worth noting, that in the concept of testing for 'Null Results', the absence of evidence that it's good is not evidence that it's bad, but the absence of evidence that it's bad is actually evidence that it's good. This can be best demonstrated in something like a cat-scan, if they don't see any cancer, it's evidence, or even proof, that you don't have cancer. This can be likened to a drug study somewhat, where if a side effect like erectile dysfunction is not observed, than the drug clearly does not cause ED.
All you've presented so far is anecdotal evidence: I've seen people caffeinate themselves into a panic attack, but I don't recall them driving afterwards: I don't recall anyone implicating caffeine in vehicular accidents.
I'm not using my anecdotes that caffeinated driving isn't a problem as proof that it isn't, because I don't need any; I can't assume everything that doesn't even have evidence to suggests it happens, happens. Just as I can't assume penguinadoe, and in fact will assume that it isn't a problem. I don't need evidence against a claim, you need evidence for it. This more or less falls into the idea of assuming something is a problem just because it's a possibility, that I've been conversing with you.
When I say that I've never heard of anyone who's gotten into a car accident because of caffeine, I'm not just speaking in a personal sense, but I've never heard of it happening on the news, either.
Now I'm not against presenting anecdotal evidence
Of course you're not, you're the culprit who's been ripe with them from the get-go. You've been constantly presenting anecdotes to in attempt to show how caffeine is bad for you, and a problem while driving.
Where's the scientists who've conducting studies of automobile accidents specifically looking to see whether they can implicate caffeine intoxication in any of them?
Where's the scientists looking to see if tornadoes plan on picking up penguins in Antarctica anytime soon? I mean, having said I'm sure it's been considered before, it's just not something that has many or any leads to make into an issue. I'm there aren't any studies looking specifically into the state of water intoxication while driving, either.
Where's the experiments like I came up with near the beginning of this thread, where drivers are given enough caffeine to induce a panic attack or psychosis before driving through obstacles courses, to see if they perform just as well sober?
You mean the made-up experiment that you specifically made up to pre-suppose that it's an issue in reality?
If there aren't any, or very few, or they were all funded by big coffee and their affiliates, then you have almost nothing.
I reject your notion that I didn't source anything, because I did provide some studies. I don't recall that you ever asked me to back up something I said with source, whereas I asked you many times
Stop it with the big coffee shite. We've been over this, and it's an entirely separate point already delved. The sources don't mean much to you because you've been incredibly indoctrinated into meaningless principles that you don't even apply to your own community of individual that you respect. You don't even afford me any benefit of doubt, you just assert it's all funded by "Big Coffee", a term I'm still not quite sure encompasses, if it's something that goes against your beliefs, without going into detail of showing how it's even funded by 'big coffee', probably because you don't have a lick of evidence.
So far I'm the only one who's presented anything like empirical evidence, my link to the Caffeine blues, which government and whatever else rejects, and my study on sports drink intoxication.
It's not the government that rejects your silly book, it's an independent research site, and in fact the Quackwatch page I linked to doesn't say a darned word on his book, just on the individual himself. It goes into detail about how he got his degree without any proper training by basically purchasing it, which in fact was not referenced by any 'government institution', but a direct email to a former head of school that gave that degree to him. *Also collaborated by a wikipedia page on the school in question
It's too humorous as well, that you don't provide the author of that book with the same level of skepticism for 'big money interest' that you would for anything else, because the man sold his own supplement claiming to negate the 'side effects' CAUSED by caffeine, the same substance he wrote a book about and has such a contention with.
I've already been over with you about how your article on the energy drink thing wasn't actually a study, did not and does not show what you think, AND, ironically - FROM A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION!
- which you claim - being under the false impression that Quackwatch is a government website - is not to be trusted in the case of Caffeine Blues
author Stephen Cherniske! My dude, your mind is a crazy labyrinth I
can barely find my way out of, but I guess you never learn.
You can always raise the bar further and further to avoid having to face the conclusions that upset you and your paradigm.
It's not that I'm raising the bar, I think you're just entirely confused as to which bar I'm using.
We know panic attacks themselves apart from any drug are bad for driving and a whole host of other things too, and it's very unlikely a caffeine induced panic attack is going to be somehow magically, radically different.
I don't know if panic attack are a big issue while driving, either. If they're bad enough, but typically, people with general anxiety disorders just learn to go about their daily lives living with it. That includes activities like driving.
Just saying: well there's no studies specifically (dis)proving caffeine is harmless, so therefore it's harmless, therefore I don't have to deal with your arguments and liken to arguments to magical penguins, is incredibly lazy and selfserving.
My point to likening any of your scenerios to penguinado, is not to say that something like that has the same probability of occurrence - we don't know if it does - but that it COULD be as much or similar of a concern, because we have absolutely no data suggesting caffeinated driving is an issue, or that penguinado is one.
I think I've had to reexplain this to you more than enough times that you'd stop butchering the meaning of why I bring up penguinado.
I'm not the only one who's made a claim here, Suck has made a claim also, and therefore there's just as much burden on him to prove caffeine intox is benign/not dangerous.
For the better half of this thread, we've been discussing the effects and potential issues of caffeinated driving, and not the overall health of caffeine. Needless to say - you're not the one asking me to back up anything. If you did, I would probably just quote some studies from a couple of universities, and you'd go on to tell me that they're being skewed by the cult worshipers of Big Coffee, and you'd probably claim that - without providing any evidence, despite that you're the one harping on ME for not providing evidence.