His methodology is a joke. Throw everything against the wall and hope 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.
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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 carrying out methodology, posting results and showing what’s effective
His methodology is a joke. Throw everything against the wall and hope 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.
He is posting shitty anecdotes.
No it’s the actual data sets
No, you don’t understand science.
“But worthless data is still data!”
On the plus side, we now have at least some evidence that Bryan Johnson is on Lemmy! 🤣
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.