A high risk
biohacker is someone whose
biohacking is pioneering. They are using
supplements and procedures which are new and exciting. Though well-studied recently, the long-term,
and sometimes even shorter-term effects and side effects of these substances
are not well known. These side effects
can lead to mild, moderate, or severe side effects and even death. Some bio-hackers have died, presumably as a
result of some of their biohacking practices.
Therefore, the high-risk biohacker has to know what things he is doing
which is high risk, take measures to mitigate the possibility of bad outcomes,
and accept the risk that he is taking on.
What he should not do: try to convince himself and others that what he
is doing is perfectly safe. That is
delusional thinking which will hurt him or her, others, and the biohacking
movement in general.
The high risk biohacker has to answer these questions:
How long have humans
encountered this or similar substances? In
other words, have animals co-evolved with this substance?
Plants, animals, and fungi co-evolve. For example, plants use nicotine to kill
pests, but they also use it to get humans addicted so that we spread their seed
all over the planet. Tobacco plants are a
successful species. Plants often makes
substances that kill small insects while making larger animals high so they
spread the seed. Plants like marijuana
has long traditional use, thousands of years of known use. There are side effect, but they are well
known, so there is a low risk of unknown side effects if the plant is used in
traditional ways. Therefore, there has
been human exposure in a certain traditional form. But opium and heroin are different entities so
that leads to another question:
How much has the substance
been altered from a natural form? How synthetic
is the substance?
A more synthetic substance will be more foreign to an animal
body and therefore there is higher risk of unforeseen consequences. This includes for example, genetically
modified organisms. From what we know,
nature has had little interaction with genes modified by humans, like frog
genes in a tomato. There is no telling how
that will interact with the environment.
Therefore gene therapies are high risk at the moment as there is more
uncertainty as to the effects. Next is
recent human experience with the substance.
How long has it been on
the market? Are post-clinical reports in
yet?
If the substance is completely new, for a medication, even though
they have done studies, they do not know the long-term effects of the substance
because the substance has never been used for decades yet. We will find out. If you are the guinea pig, that puts you in
the high-risk category. Bodybuilders of
the past were in the high risk category because they did not know the long-term
effects of using testosterone. They
discovered it shrinks your testicals and can shut down natural production. Today, SARMS are being used which are marketed
as safer but in reality, we do not know the long-term effects. Hopefully they will be safer but using them
is high risk at this point. We can infer
a little from the chemical the SARM was created from, for example if it was
made from an estrogen inhibitor, we can infer that it may desensitize the androgen
receptors similarly to how much the parent compound did so to the estrogen receptor
but there is no convincing yourself that you are not high risk biohacking,
which, congratulations is fine. You are
a pioneer, just be aware of that. Also,
if one wants to do high risk biohacking with a doctor, it is usually very
expensive because doctors won’t take insurance for that. Perhaps you can draw up a contract, even to
do low risk biohacking with just mild medications for mild conditions with a
goal to produce improvement in other functions as well, many doctors won’t
do. It would be good if you could contract
with your doctor to work with you, instead of trying to weld authority over
you.
Medium risk biohacking: Medium risk biohacking we reserve for
substances which have been on the market for decades and we generally know what
the side effects are. This could be a
substance like dextromethorphan. It’s an
nmda antagonist, it has been used as OTC cough syrup for decades but has been
in research for myriad uses.
Low risk
biohacking: You are optimizing sleep, diet, exercise. This is low risk. The benefits are many, the side effects are
few. If you are healthy, this is where
you should be, especially if you are young.
You can’t get any better, but you can get worse, so don’t use any
substances. If you do, know that you are
taking on risk that will not improve things overall but you are being a
pioneer. Substance use are for people who
have dis-ease, they are not easy. To the
point that they need to use something and take on the side effects to feel
better and they are better off even with the side effects. If you are completely healthy and satisfied
with life, stick to low risk. You can
use substances which have been in use for at least a thousand years. Coffee, wine, many fruits, veggies, herbs,
mushrooms. I mean, there is still a lot of
things you can experiment with. Especially
things that come from the lands of your genetic background because your genes
have co-evolved with them. Alcohol has
been in use in western lands for thousands of years, it is very dangerous but
the risk is known, and it can be used safely.
So, what kind of biohacker
are you? Be honest with
yourself. Be a man, or a woman, and
admit what risk you are taking on and be proud of it. Don’t be delusional, sticking all kinds of
things in your body and claiming it’s safe.
We will try our best to be safe but we gotta man up and take on the
risks and benefits.
I am personally in the high risk category, but I wouldn’t call
myself a biohacker or a pioneer. I have
medical conditions which I am trying to improve or cure while at the same time
getting some nootropic benefits. But the
substances I am using puts me in the high risk category. A person using a lot of high risk substances
can expect some side effects, short-term and long-term. The higher the risk, the less time till a
severe error may occur. But the benefits
may be worth it. Many people suffered
and many people prevailed to produce our current understanding of steroids
which did not all come from doctors or researchers. Doctors were even saying in recent memory
they don’t make you stronger, they just make you mad and break stuff. That was not true, they definitely improve
recovery ability which equals strength if you work out. So, the researchers and muscle men of
yesteryear gave us our current knowledge of steroids through high risk trial and
error. Some of them paid a heavy price
for it, liver failure, kidney failure, heart failure, and the early death rate
of those guys was incredible. But some
of them lived long lives.
Daryl Frank Seldon, MS, copy-writer, knowflow1@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment