Kurzweil should be concerned that his name is associated with junk science, and the overall result, but I think its a little far-fetched to think the man is actually selling nutritional supplements that he thinks are bogus.
The state of medicine and nutrition today is such that we know there is so much we don’t know. The human body is supremely complex, to make an understatement. The evidence is pretty strong that most supplements, and even most multi-vitamins, don’t do much or even do harm.
However that is certainly not true in every case, and there are particular supplements where we have strong evidence for net positive effect (vitamin D and fish oil have very strong evidence for net benefit at this point—everyone should be on them) .
But if you are someone like Kurzweil, and you want to make it to the Singularity, you probably will do the research and believe you have some inside knowledge on optimizing the human body. I find it more likely that he actually does take a boatload of supplements.
I’m sure he does take a lot of them himself, but the problem is that Kurzweil taking supplements will still make people think he is delusional (because most people are instantly suspicious of people who do so, generally for good reasons).
So I’m curious, do you believe that typical supplements have net negative effect, vs just neutral?
It was my understanding that the weight of evidence points to most having neutral overall effect, which to me wouldn’t justify instant suspicion. I mean you may be wasting money, but you probably aren’t hurting yourself.
And if you really do the research, you probably are going to get some net positive gain, statistically speaking. Don’t you think? I know of at least 2 cases (vitamin D and fish oil, where the evidence for net benefit is strong—but mainly due to deficiency in the modern diet).
I think it is a mixed bag: Some supplements are potentially dangerous, but others (like the ones you mention) can be very helpful. The majority, however, probably have little to no effect whatsoever. As a result, I don’t think people should mess around with what they eat without it being subjected to rigorous clinical trials first; though there might be a positive net gain, one dose of something bad can kill you.
In any case, though, believing that something is helpful when it has not yet been tested is clearly irrational. (This is more what I concerned about with Best and Kurzweil.) Selling or promoting something that isn’t tested is even worse; it borders on fraud and charlatanry.
Kurzweil should be concerned that his name is associated with junk science, and the overall result, but I think its a little far-fetched to think the man is actually selling nutritional supplements that he thinks are bogus.
The state of medicine and nutrition today is such that we know there is so much we don’t know. The human body is supremely complex, to make an understatement. The evidence is pretty strong that most supplements, and even most multi-vitamins, don’t do much or even do harm.
However that is certainly not true in every case, and there are particular supplements where we have strong evidence for net positive effect (vitamin D and fish oil have very strong evidence for net benefit at this point—everyone should be on them) .
But if you are someone like Kurzweil, and you want to make it to the Singularity, you probably will do the research and believe you have some inside knowledge on optimizing the human body. I find it more likely that he actually does take a boatload of supplements.
I’m sure he does take a lot of them himself, but the problem is that Kurzweil taking supplements will still make people think he is delusional (because most people are instantly suspicious of people who do so, generally for good reasons).
On a related note, Ben Best also sells supplements on his website, and many of them look pretty questionable.
So I’m curious, do you believe that typical supplements have net negative effect, vs just neutral?
It was my understanding that the weight of evidence points to most having neutral overall effect, which to me wouldn’t justify instant suspicion. I mean you may be wasting money, but you probably aren’t hurting yourself.
And if you really do the research, you probably are going to get some net positive gain, statistically speaking. Don’t you think? I know of at least 2 cases (vitamin D and fish oil, where the evidence for net benefit is strong—but mainly due to deficiency in the modern diet).
I think it is a mixed bag: Some supplements are potentially dangerous, but others (like the ones you mention) can be very helpful. The majority, however, probably have little to no effect whatsoever. As a result, I don’t think people should mess around with what they eat without it being subjected to rigorous clinical trials first; though there might be a positive net gain, one dose of something bad can kill you.
In any case, though, believing that something is helpful when it has not yet been tested is clearly irrational. (This is more what I concerned about with Best and Kurzweil.) Selling or promoting something that isn’t tested is even worse; it borders on fraud and charlatanry.
Edit: No, let me amend that: it is charlatanry.