The error in "safteyism" isn't that the conventional wisdom will incorrectly identify safe things as dangerous. It's that risk and reward always exists on a sp

The error in "safteyism" isn't that the conventional wisdom will incorrectly identify safe things as dangerous. It's that risk and reward always exists on a spectrum, and the people best incentivized to get that tradeoff right are patients and caretakers, not concerned 3rd parties. The error of the concerned 3rd party is particularly egregious with a disease like Alzheimer's, which presents a significant risk of ruin in the form of information death. It is totally rational to use an intervention that will cause you significant harm if it preserves your mind another few years.