4 ms·

I am surprised that no one on HN has yet mentioned that this is pseudo-scientific nonsense. There is no rigor in the methodology presented. Among many glaring p

by almttr 10y ago

I am surprised that no one on HN has yet mentioned that this is pseudo-scientific nonsense. There is no rigor in the methodology presented. Among many glaring problems, there is no mention of evaluation of potential chemical and/or pharmacokinetic interaction among the ingested substances, no objective testing of the mixture's supposed effects, and the entire procedure is very plainly unscientific development process which amounts to little more than ignorantly mixing numerous chemicals which individually have non-proven and questionable benefits when taken as supplements. More egregiously, much of the information presented is totally incorrect. Developing a substance which may cross the blood brain barrier is much more involved than simply shrinking compounds "from a micrometer to a nanometer level," a concept which does not make sense at a molecular level. The author also makes a potentially dangerous (and wholly false) assertion that tolerance may be prevented "by supplying the proper building blocks and nutrition for my body to replenish the reservoir of biochemicals," more absolute nonsense, as tolerance is a complex neurological phenomenon caused by functional changes in neurons. I also believe that the author is using the word tolerance when he means dependence. There's plenty more wrong with this article, and it bothers me to see it on the front page of HN. I would go as far as to say that this is exactly the kind of poor understanding of the scientific process that allows for many consumers to be fleeced by loosely scientific marketing, especially in the categories of supplements and other OTC health products, many of which exist only because of placebo effects. I suspect this is a poorly crafted advertisement.

mattkrause 10y ago
This is moderately terrifying too: > Over 54 days in January and February, I tested the safety of Plusfour by consuming it regularly.
nkurz 10y ago
For all the reasons you mention, I think it's a fabulous article for HN. What it needs is more critical and analytical comments like yours![1] I would go as far as to say that this is exactly the kind of poor understanding of the scientific process that allows for many consumers to be fleeced by loosely scientific marketing, especially in the categories of supplements and other OTC health products, many of which exist only because of placebo effects. That sounds about right. But since considering that such marketing is legal, calling attention to the issues in public may be a better choice than hoping the problem will go away if ignored. Over 54 days in January and February, I tested the safety of Plusfour by consuming it regularly. While I applaud the author's adherence to legal ethics and willingness to be his own test subject[2], knowing that he's one of the founders of Soylent does concern me about his possible priorities regarding product safety. [1] This comes across sounding too negative toward the author of the blog post. Writing up his experiences is a great way to start the conversation, and I thank him for this. [2] JBS Haldane's article "On Being One's Own Rabbit" has always stuck with me: http://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20160325 http://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20160325 (p. 71)
crawfordcomeaux 10y ago
You raise valid points about the lack of rigor described in the link. If this is mere advertising, oh well. If it's an authentic personal experience, then I'm a bit more intrigued by his findings. It definitely reads like what I'm currently going through in a different context, but for the same problem. Your entire post ignores the fact that this is a story about one person's experience & doesn't require the sort of rigor you're suggesting. The goal wasn't to create something for everyone to use; it was to help fix himself. The application of the scientific method has become too objective when the individual subject's experience is completely ignored. We need to reintroduce the subjective into several scientific fields. For example, the mind is impacted by our neurochemistry & can also affect our neurochemistry. Yet few drug studies examine or control for patient mindset or emotional state. Science for improving humans needs to take into account the whole human experience.
nanreh 10y ago
I came here to post that this is pseudoscientific BS and your comment was top comment :)
codingdave 10y ago
This isn't science. This is marketing. The author was a founder at Soylent, so this looks a lot like a ramp up to a new product. He said part 2 will talk about results of "the experiment". I'm guessing Part 3 will be how to buy it (or kickstart it).

by almttr 10y ago

mattkrause 10y ago

This is moderately terrifying too: > Over 54 days in January and February, I tested the safety of Plusfour by consuming it regularly.

nkurz 10y ago

For all the reasons you mention, I think it's a fabulous article for HN. What it needs is more critical and analytical comments like yours![1] I would go as far as to say that this is exactly the kind of poor understanding of the scientific process that allows for many consumers to be fleeced by loosely scientific marketing, especially in the categories of supplements and other OTC health products, many of which exist only because of placebo effects. That sounds about right. But since considering that such marketing is legal, calling attention to the issues in public may be a better choice than hoping the problem will go away if ignored. Over 54 days in January and February, I tested the safety of Plusfour by consuming it regularly. While I applaud the author's adherence to legal ethics and willingness to be his own test subject[2], knowing that he's one of the founders of Soylent does concern me about his possible priorities regarding product safety. [1] This comes across sounding too negative toward the author of the blog post. Writing up his experiences is a great way to start the conversation, and I thank him for this. [2] JBS Haldane's article "On Being One's Own Rabbit" has always stuck with me: http://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20160325 http://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20160325 (p. 71)

crawfordcomeaux 10y ago

You raise valid points about the lack of rigor described in the link. If this is mere advertising, oh well. If it's an authentic personal experience, then I'm a bit more intrigued by his findings. It definitely reads like what I'm currently going through in a different context, but for the same problem. Your entire post ignores the fact that this is a story about one person's experience & doesn't require the sort of rigor you're suggesting. The goal wasn't to create something for everyone to use; it was to help fix himself. The application of the scientific method has become too objective when the individual subject's experience is completely ignored. We need to reintroduce the subjective into several scientific fields. For example, the mind is impacted by our neurochemistry & can also affect our neurochemistry. Yet few drug studies examine or control for patient mindset or emotional state. Science for improving humans needs to take into account the whole human experience.

nanreh 10y ago

I came here to post that this is pseudoscientific BS and your comment was top comment :)

codingdave 10y ago

This isn't science. This is marketing. The author was a founder at Soylent, so this looks a lot like a ramp up to a new product. He said part 2 will talk about results of "the experiment". I'm guessing Part 3 will be how to buy it (or kickstart it).