You yourself admitted you know or knew people who caffeinated themselves into an anxiety attack, I know people who caffeinate themselves into a panic attack (like I mentioned near the beginning of my thread, my friend almost killed me a few times and now I won't get into his car with him), a lot of people know people.I never said that getting in an accident because of caffeinated driving is something that is an impossibility. I mean, for god's sake, I think it's technically a possibility that tornadoes could open up in Antarctica and sweep up penguins in a global catastrophe. It's just not a widespread issue, or even one that happens occasionally. Least, you haven't shown that it is, this article included. 20 cups of coffee is quite the absurd amount, and you've slowly gone up on your hypothetical dosage. You're too focused on the potential severity and not at all on the likely hood of this actually happening. There are hypothetical events that could increase someones chance of getting in a car accident after drinking too much water.
Someone could consume 100 bottles of water before they go driving and induce extreme water intoxication, it does not mean it's an occurrence in our world worth having a concern over. Just because people can do it doesn't mean they will.
And we know when these people are caffeinating themselves into a panic attack, they don't lock themselves in their rooms, they're busy, if anything they're busier than they normally are cause that's what people do when they're high on caffeine, they keep busy.
These people have lives, going to and from work, meeting up with friends, they don't drink their 10 cups at home and stay home and watch TV.
So we know millions of people abuse coffee and occasionally get into panic attacks on the road, it shouldn't be this hard.
Just as people on sugar go out and drive, or tobacco, or cocaine, or meth, PCP, XTC, alcohol, weed, or any other recreational stimulant/depressant.
I guess all the people you knew who abused caffeine were housebound or something, invalids, or more plausible, you would rather believe in something fantastical, that caffeine abusers never ever step into their car, which flies in the face of our common experience of caffeine abusers and our knowledge of how every other recreational stimulant/depressant works, than question big science and government, and it's not even like we have to question them a lot, just a little on this issue, they did their job on coffee to some extent, but here, there was either some bias, corruption, mistakes made and/or negligence.
When people like you or big science or government make fantastical claims, we have to call them on it.
The comparison to overdosing on water is asinine.
One, you have to take a hell of a lot more water to become intoxicated by water, water is the least toxic substance known to man.
Two, when you drink too much water, everything in your body screams telling you to stop, but coffee tricks the (central) nervous system into always wanting more.
Three, nobody knows anyone who gets intoxicated on water, except a couple of really dumb kids once in a while or people who're already severely intoxicated on something else, where as we know adults get intoxicated on coffee all the time, and drive.
It's just absolutely ludicrous you make me waste my time and energy having to explain this stuff to you.
And It's not just panic attacks either, what goes up high falls down low, there's also severe caffeine withdrawal.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20045678Prove it.
Then the data is probably just partly biased, corrupt, mistaken and/or just negligent as it has been thousands of times in the past, I mean in addition to the other concerns, scientists only have so much time and energy to go after so many substances and things.You keep missing a crucial part: Apparently people who consume high enough amounts of caffeine that can plausibly be a considerable force for the reason of them getting into a car accident, don't drive much at all. Because that's not what the data shows.
They prioritize, and unfortunately, there needs to be more studies and experiments conducted on this phenomenon, like the hypothetical experiment I proposed earlier about driving while heavily intoxicated on caffeine, because apparently some people need studies to assure them that fire burns.
Of course energy drinks are worse than coffee, there's more caffeine in them, and yea maybe taurine or whatever amplifies them some more, but so what?Sugar isn't really a stimulant; If you're trying to say that energy drinks don't have any other ingredients in them which differentiate the effects from coffee, that is not true. They typically contain supplements like Taurine, (sometimes) L-theanine, multiple B-vitamins and L-carnitine - which has been found in studies to potentiate caffeine in a way that mere caffeine doesn't even provide. I've also seen herbs like Ginseng root in some of them, which actually is considered a stimulant, though I'm not sure of its psychoactive effect.
I mean, there's a reason why even this very "National Safety Commission" has gone out of their way to separate energy drinks from coffee or other caffeine containing products.
We know lots of people still manage to drink themselves into a stupor on coffee or caffeine pills and go driving, they don't need an energy drink to reach panic attack level, and we know panic attacks aren't good for driving.
It's not that I doubt government completely, it's that I have no reason to doubt them here, cause they're making a claim that goes against the money, and everything else, not with it....Moreover, the National Safety Commission is a government organization, which I thought you didn't trust?
I know my friend almost killed me because he was driving heavily caffeinated, I'm sure I'm not the only one.But I don't know anyone myself who has ever gotten into a car accident because of caffeine 'intoxication', and I have not heard of it happening, from anything that could remotely be deemed a reliable source of information.
I've seen him on low doses and high, he's a much better driver on low.
What is and isn't a reliable source has been challenged, arguably somewhat successfully, in this thread.
Not all inferences are equally probable, relevant or widespread."billions of people drink water, and will occasionally get into a dangerous state of hyponatremia out on the roads" As another example, "Out of all the people who drink coffee, there must be a few that drop it into their eyeballs before they go driving"
coffee tricks the (central) nervous system into always wanting more.
Caffeine withdrawals, and the fact that some caffeine heads have trouble regulating their caffeine.Prove it.
While I have little doubt your experience was true for you, plenty of people report caffeine withdrawals being really bad for them.As someone who has experienced this so-called 'severe caffeine withdrawal', it's really not, and most certainly not when compared to other drugs. But live in whatever delusion you'd like.
Anything over about four for the average person, and the effects become increasingly toxic.http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20045678
I don't see anything in that link which states "4 cups of coffee is too intoxicated to be driving, and doing so will lead to a car accident"
Nothing is absolutely specific, everything has more-less implications for everything else.It just damages the source for the intention you shared it because it doesn't even show that caffeine itself is a problem when driving, but specifically and only energy drinks.
In the wild, where sensation is especially reliable, you'd never find refined drugs, but in any case, whether refined or not, drugs taste somewhere in between bland and bad.I would say you almost don't taste anything of the drug, by putting the average pill in your mouth. In fact, even in coffee or marijuana, if you were to extract the pure alkaloids of the substances responsible for the psychoactive effect without any of the flavorlactones or scents attached, they wouldn't taste like anything at all. So needless to say - I still don't see your point.
In the case of water versus sugar water, our use of refined sugar corrupts our palette, and in the case of broccoli, she'd probably eat it if it's all that was available, but having other available options, like fruit, meat and potatoes, she'd sooner eat them, and that probably is an indication they are better for her, but I don't wish to delve deeply into diet here."My 2 year old daughter spits out broccoli and doesn't like unflavored water, therefore these things must be bad for you"
It's not that the senses should always trump the intellect when deciding what to consume, it's that they should be used in conjunction with the intellect.
They're not arbitrary, especially when the intellect hasn't found ways to corrupt/distort them with things like refined sugar and salt, which dress foods up and mask their flavor.
The same principles apply in our attraction to the opposite sex.
Scientists think sexual attraction evolved to help us select superior mates, well the same is true of food, but just as cosmetics and things can be used to accentuate a persons beauty, or mask their ugliness, refined sugar and salt corrupt/distort natural mechanisms/processes.
The sweet fruit and the bean/seed are two very different things, they probably would've spat the bean/seed out, or it would've passed through the system largely without being absorbed.That certainly didn't seem to be the case, for the Yemenis who originally popularized it in their culture it. In fact, while we don't know the exact origin, it's thought that the sweet fruit of the coffee shrub was first ingested, in ignorance that it possessed any psychoactive effects at all. Even black coffee is a byproduct that came after the ingestion of the coffea cherries, and the beans.
You don't have time/energy to consider every possibility when making a predication, so you're selective, your brain does this automatically, it tends to think of the most likely possibilities first from prior experiences, predictions and research, however if upon closer inspection, another possibility is brought to your attention that's roughly equal or more probable than the ones you initially thought of, than fine, you can consider it, but every single one you brought up so far was demonstrably retarded, not even worth considering, because it wasn't rooted in prior experiences, predictions and research, like your penguin fantasy, and not at all like what I was doing.and just because you can't conceive of something as a driving force, does not mean that there isn't one, this was the point to bringing up extreme pranksterism.
Until you try to prove something is indeed correct to someone, just saying it's correct, proves nothing.Oh yeah, "nothing is really logical, the laws of thought are wrong, and everyone's opinion is equally correct
If you have good arguments, and person x reviews and rejects them, than person x is wrong, even if he thinks he's right, but if you claim to have good arguments for another claim, but you never show them, whether they're actually good or bad, if they're never presented to person x, until he reviews them he has no reason to believe they're any good.
Furthermore, by the time he's permitted to question, his mind has already been conditioned not to
And I disproved your opposite impression, you claimed scientists always have motive and opportunity to stand up and speak out for what they believe to be true, no matter how controversial, because they care about peer and public recognition, where as I proved often this isn't the case, for lots of reasons, like if they end up being wrong, they'll appear foolish, or in the case of big business, science can easily be corrupted, scientists could lose their prestige, their careers, perhaps even their lives blowing the whistle on the establishment, or because they're very attached to and fond of their paradigm, the standard model, and the list goes on and on.Prove it, as I've provided the exact opposite impression.
I don't have to prove scientists never speak out for what they believe to be true cause that's not my claim, my claim is sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, where as your claim is, or what you'd like to believe is: they always stand up for what they believe to be true, or we should always assume they do.
Naturopaths also have universities and peer review, and anyone can review another's work, and make their review known.So the studies of this "alt-community" are even more consistent to each other than the ones that come from reliable universities, and peer reviewed medical journals?
I've just demonstrated we can't count on your sources, especially when it comes to caffeine.
That's why you have to experiment, try to verify some of their work, research, reasons and products for yourself.So one could make the case that the reason they're so consistent is because they're colluding with each other in order to better sell their products? Because hey, the same motivation for institutional collusion is potentially there for them to do it if they all agree with each other, so why not? It could all be 'skewed and biased' data based on what their peers and individuals who they look up to are saying in this 'alt-community'.
If some of it checks out, than it's more likely the rest checks out too.
I'm advocating free thought here, where as your presenting a false dichotomy: either have blind faith in mainstream institutions, or divergent ones.
No one and nothing have a monopoly on truth.
We shouldn't believe what any individual or institution claims, when it flies in the face of reason and common sense, as yours do, especially in this case.Because hey, the same motivation for institutional collusion is potentially there for them to do it if they all agree with each other, so why not? It could all be 'skewed and biased' data based on what their peers and individuals who they look up to are saying in this 'alt-community'. I could make a feasible case for why this is, using the same jacked principles that you are to assume Big Pharma is colluding with caffeine manufacturers in order to increase profits, and pumping out bunk information.
No one in their right mind believes caffeine intoxication is benign, as you do.for all the reasons I've mentioned and probably more...
...that I've shown to be incredibly stupid. No one in their right mind relates to your idea that caffeine turns people into mind-numb, drug addicted savages. I think that you subconsciously know that as well, but maybe you're just too invested from already defending these clear irrationlities to turn back now.
This is your paradigm:
Establishment: innocent until proven guilty by the establishment.
Anti-establishment (Individuals and institutions operating on the fringes or outside the establishment): guilty until prove innocent by the establishment.
Never critique/question government, big business, big media and big science.
Always critique/question small business, small media, small science and yourself.
Do you see how much of a lemming your are?