MolecularCactus1324Billionaire Anti-Aging Zealot Shares Data on Son’s Erections
I mean he’s trying to find the healthiest things to help people live longer.
I’m not sure about the dick thing. But he’s carrying out many experiments with food, sleep habits etc.
Although you’re only focusing on the erection thing. Which seems a small part of the research, you’re focusing specifically on.
teftExperiments with a sample size of 1 are basically useless.
Is he though? He does so many things at once and only on himself. I don’t think you can call that research.
I appreciate his data collection and experimentation, although plenty of the data is anecdotal and the number of simultaneous experiments in a complex system is gonna make parsing out protocols a chore.
And what useful data comes from one rich asshole trying EVERYTHING? This is not science, it’s existential desperation sprinkled on a soufflé of wealth and cringe.
Why are you so angry at him?
He’s literally trying to make people live longer.
I don’t see why you’re calling him vulgar names.
andyburkePeople are upset because this person has the means to effect real altruistic change but instead is pretending to do science in a purely selfish effort.
I hope that explains it. I have no horse in this race.
It’s the opposite of selfish, he’s publishing all of this findings to the internet for everyone to see and use.
It’s not pretend, he’s actually doing it.
[deleted] in lemmyHe is posting shitty anecdotes.
No it’s the actual data sets
No, you don’t understand science.
You’re just trying to be antagonistic now. It’s the data sets. He shows what is beneficial, what’s increasing his longevity. It’s not that hard to comprehend. What decreases issues, what increase years a live on this planet.
Why would you attack someone who’s trying to help find what helps people live longer?
You are an idiot.
Ha, and now you’re attacking me. So you don’t really have an argument, you’re just slandering people.
It’s pretty telling that many comments on here are just attacking this guy. I wonder if bots are being used to try and smear this guy.
Fast food companies don’t want people to stop eating fast food.
Does getting healthy offend you?
It’s time for your dick injection, Bryan.
Weird that you’re attacking someone who’s trying to help people.
Are you being paid by the fast food industry?
To smear and try and debase people who are trying to show people how to be healthier and happier?
So you can keep making money and hurting the population
Sorry about your illiteracy
So you can keep making money and hurting the population
One would think a billionaire is keeping on making money much more than anyone who has a legitimate critique of his methodlogy.
Or they want to critic it because it’s affecting their bottom line ie fast food industry.
He’s just gone on Netflix. And now he’s receiving a lot of hate.
Dr. WeskerThey are offended by money and penises, and especially the two combined. Might as well let it go.
WesDym@Internetexplorer I think it's probably fair to assume that you won't understand why I'm blocking you. Or why anyone does.
Does getting healthy offend you?
Not at all. But seeing hobbysts and/or attention seekers pretend to do science when they’re not, that’s annoying. And if it misleads others, it could get someone hurt or killed.
Or extend their life, because they do consuming junk food and start trying to be healthy. It’s so easy to live a unhealthy life, at least this guy is trying to put people on the right direction.
You guys seem offended that he’s trying to be healthy and it’s weird. I don’t understand your agenda. Unless you work for the fast food companies and don’t like the idea of people but eating junk food.
On a basic level people could just stop eating junk food. Nothing he’s offering is life threatening, however eating harmful food_is_
Vandals_handle"He shows what is beneficial, what’s increasing his longevity. " How?
How would we know his longevity has increased and not decreased? How would we know which of the myriad of variables, or which combination of variables, was responsible for the increase (or decrease)? Not following the scientific method, won’t produce useful data. As someone said, anecdotes.
By taking readings and measurements of the human body. Seeing if your in an increased healthy state.
There are markers which shows the health of the body.
Here’s the deal: those markers are proxies for health. But there have been numerous cases (Alzheimers research is particularly full of them, but it’s widespread in many biological systems) where changing the proxy marker does nothing to change the underlying condition. Causality doesn’t work like that. You think it’s A causes B, but in fact it’s Z causes A by one causal chain, and Z causes B by (potentially) another. So there’s your guy’s first fallacy.
The second is to conduct multiple trials in parallel on the same subject. Then, even if a change in the proxy variable actually means a change in health, you have no reliable way to untangle which factor or combination of factors was responsible for the change.
Third, a sample size of 1 or 2 is fucking stupid. It makes it impossible to tell if any measurements collected are releveant, or even repeatable. It also makes it impossible to tell if any fluctuation was random or actually caused by something you are trying to measure. And if you’re trying to measure an actual effect, you need a control group to compare it against. He has none.
Source: I was educated as a statistician and my focus was on experimental design in bio-science and pharma.
So, even assuming good will on this guy’s part, he’s a hobbyist doing junk science. If he really cared about helping humankind, he should have asked someone who knows how to do experiments to advise him on how to set up his protocols.
Yes, I understand, annual medical checkups including blood tests, ekg, eeg, etc. provide readings and measurement that measure an individuals general health. That was not the focus of the question.
The how I am asking is how measurements of his condition tell us which of the multiple concurrent changes he made are effective and which had no effect, or perhaps even a negative counter effect? How is this providing useful data?
Because specific treatments work in specific areas.
Sleeping for the brain, general body rejuvenation.
Antioxidants the heart, there are many experiments going on. But health could be attributed to certain treatments.
Sometimes we don’t know the full extent of the affects of treatment over the whole body.
But key aspects can change with certain treatments.
To see if there’s a net positive affect as well.
Sleeping for the brain, general body rejuvenation.
We already know sleep is important and lack of sleep causes or exacerbates multiple conditions. Will his next breakthrough be stay hydrated homie?
*Antioxidants the heart, there are many experiments going on. But health could be attributed to certain treatments. *
Again how? With multiple treatments at once, how do you attribute to a certain treatment and not another, or multiple?
Sometimes we don’t know the full extent of the affects of treatment over the whole body.
And the methodology being used will provide no helpful data to help gain that knowledge.
But key aspects can change with certain treatments.
Again how? With multiple treatments at once, how do you attribute to a certain treatment and not another, or multiple?
To see if there’s a net positive affect as well.
Ibid
What decreases issues, what increase years a live on this planet.
Can’t do that with a sample size of one, because there isn’t a comparison to know if it is longer or not.
Longer? And it’s not just him, his son also participates and yes you can change your lifestyle and try results and see if it’s affective for him. That’s still data.
On the plus side, we now have at least some evidence that Bryan Johnson is on Lemmy! 🤣
“But worthless data is still data!”
His methodology is a joke. Throw everything against the wall and hoe something sticks. He has no way of telling which of the many experiments is successful, he’s a walking collection of confounding factors.
Also, if he were somehow able to find something that outperforms the null hypothesis, and against all odds, find out which treatment it actually is, he could just go drop the performative altruism, go private on it and try to monetize it.
Well yeah he’s trying many things at once because he wants to extend his life and live the greatest lifestyle. It’s not 100% an experiment. Some of it is just trying to live a longer life through healthy options.
He can read the results for different areas. Ie sleep, how long, when and how that affects his well being.
He’s trying to do a good thing and ask you guys can do is bitterly try and tear it down. I think you guys have an agenda.
Which people is he “trying to help”?
Anyone and everyone that is interested in longevity.
Ooohh I’m sorry. “Himself” was the answer. Good game, thanks for playing.
He’s helping himself by publishing the results for everyone? That doesn’t even make sense.
You’re being obtuse and and I question your intentions in have a good faith argument.
Multiple people have already told why that “data” is useless. Why are you defending this guy so hard?
Because he’s trying to do something good. Why are you attacking him so hard?
Publicly giving out information about the erections of his 19-year-old son is doing something good?
You’ve got a lot of self reflection to do, friend.
I don’t know about that but it’s funny you focus only on that.
What about the sleep data, food data, exercise data?
You’re only focusing on a small part of the research. Which makes me think you’re buying have this discussion in good faith
We’re in a post specifically about that, Einstein. Lol
And agian. Multiple people have already explained to you why his published data is useless. Read the words you’re looking at.
I think that the gay food industry don’t want you to be healthy and smear campaigns like this are attacking this guy
If you’re referring to the gay couple who run my favorite chocolatiers, they’re not smearing anything but fondant.
My advice to you: don’t listen to the voices and get off the internet.
The …gay food industry?
I don’t even know where to begin digesting that one.
I don’t even know where to begin digesting that one.
Although saliva starts the digestion process, you have to swallow for it to finish.
Lol he edited out “the gay food industry” from the comment
kescusayLooks like that was a mistake and he removed the “gay” reference. Not sure what he actually intended to write, though.
You’re assuming his actual intentions are what he declares them to be. Hey, maybe they are. But there’s no way of knowing that.
But I try a lot of things and fail. So does everyone else. What matters is not his intention, but the quality of the results. And the way he’s collecting and reporting his results is undisciplined and unscientific.
But you don’t seem all that able to understand either science or the human character, so I’m going to cut my losses and stop trying to explain it to you. Maybe some day, when I’m bored, I’ll come up with a doggy-doggy horsey-horsey version and try again.
He may think it helps others to publish his results. Or maybe it’s just a publicity stunt. But neither of those motivations mean that the results will be worth a shit.
So without knowing any of the results, they’re invalid? That makes no sense
donYou can simplify all of this just by saying you’re a big fan of the guy.
Literally everything in your reply is some extremely weird projection trying to invalidate another person’s opinion, and it’s incredibly strange.
Honestly, you come across as a person who hasn’t had much interaction with different opinions, perspectives, and personalities.
It’s not an option though. It’s an attack. They’re just attacking his personality, or calling him names. That’s not opinion, that’s just trying to smear the guy.
They’re bad faith arguments.
Calling him a rich ar*ehole isn’t an opinion. It’s just being rude.
Why are you so confused by this? It’s not at all as difficult as you’re trying to make it seem.
You’re literally in a public forum trying to project your assertions about another person merely because you don’t agree with them. It’s perplexing, really.
You fail to understand one of the simplest characteristics of the human species, and that is they’re not actually required to behave as you believe they should, and many understandably won’t.
I reassert my original advice to you to broaden your horizons to endeavor to interact with others more and more meaningfully, so as to familiarize yourself with, and become much better accustomed to, the plethora of human personalities. You’ll thank me, I assure you.
Because it seems they’re just trying to smear him. They’re attacking him for no logical reason.
I reassert my original advice to you to broaden your horizons to endeavor to interact with others more and more meaningfully, so as to familiarize yourself with, and become much better accustomed to, the plethora of human personalities. You’ll thank me, I assure you.
You really will.
If they’re even real. So many bots around these days. And they don’t seem to want to listen so it seems like they have an agenda.
But your advice is cogent, if it’s a real person without an agenda
Bots, by their very nature, usually have some kind of agenda, and that agenda may be to pretend that they have no agenda at all.
If bots are what worries you, you are voluntarily on a platform that you know has bots that you cannot trust, so you’re going to need to decide whether to remain on a platform you’ve determined that you cannot inherently trust, or leave, and by doing so, not need to be paranoid about the bots on this platform.
Which, of course, is to say that there are similar such bots on other platforms you may choose to visit…
Exhausting, no?
kazernielthat 2nd sentence is pure poetry 👌