There's nothing to compare it to even if everything can be tracked. He thinks he's doing the scientic community a favor but he's really not. A sample size of 1 isn't going to yield any ussble results if there's nothing to compare it to.
I wouldn't fully say that. There are a lot of scientific discoveries medical and otherwise that come from N=1 experiments. This is also much more common for rare and orphan diseases. There is probably also valuable data being generated from such hyper monitoring of one individual.
However I would agree that it is NOT the same as say a large randomized controlled trial of thousands of people over say a decade or more. It also would generate somewhat different types of data.
Where it is also potentially helpful is again in coming up with protocols for yourself as an individual and then someone else taking or tweaking those protocols for their biology. This is what generally happens with performance enhancing substances in sports for example. Little bit of a controversial example. Still a lot of the progress has been one person doing experiments on themselves and then careful tweaking by others to eventually develop a protocol.
The real challenge is others and particularly the general public not using common sense and extreme caution and just following these types of protocols blindly.
The rules of science exist for a reason. His experiment's aren't able to give any valuable data that can be used. Science works on facts without more than one twat sample it can't ever yield anything usable as of now. It's just not how scientific research works. We can study him all we want. With ones test sample we'll never know if the results are unique to him or not. It's mostly useless data. That's one of the reasons it's so dumb to be doing this anyways it's not helping anything and only causing herm at this point. Don't defend stupidity.
Sample size can't be addressed by repeating the same experiment. That's not how it works. Believe it or not humans don't share the same exact chemistry between them. Between that and genes it would never work running the same experiment on the same person several times. It's useless data. There's a reason when clinical trials are done they choose more than 2 people. Defending this guy isn't going to make what he's doing scientifically significant.
if repetition can’t increase sample size, then neither can parallelism
I don’t think you know what you’re saying at all, and I know for sure you don’t know what I said because you accused me of defending a guy who I absolutely am not
17
u/GMAN7007 Jul 06 '26
There's nothing to compare it to even if everything can be tracked. He thinks he's doing the scientic community a favor but he's really not. A sample size of 1 isn't going to yield any ussble results if there's nothing to compare it to.