[feoren]

> Palmer also sheds light on the new treatment pathways this theory opens up--which apply to all mental disorders, including anxiety, depression, ADHD, alcoholism, eating disorders, bipolar disorder, autism, and even schizophrenia.

Because he's an obvious hack who's completely full of shit? I always wondered what kind of person would ever have bought those early 1900s "Dr. Amazing's Medicinal Tonic" claims about curing syphillis, headaches, snake bites, cancer, broken bones, and bad breath. I guess I found one?

[Zelphyr]

Can you give concrete evidential examples that refute his claims?

[feoren]

Sure can, right after you give me concrete evidential examples that refute the Time Cube guy. The reason people don't bother to refute bullshit-on-their-face claims is because it takes 20x more effort to refute a bullshit claim than to make one in the first place, and it's absolutely pointless to argue with a hack who never intended to base his argument on evidence anyway. The best thing to do with these guys is completely ignore them, the same way they ignored the vast body of human knowledge and understanding in the first place.

[Zelphyr]

I'm not saying you're wrong in your view of Dr. Palmer. I can see this is a subject that you have strong feelings about but, unfortunately, you've given me nothing to work with. I'm earnestly trying to understand another side of his claims, which is why I asked for more concrete evidence.

I had not heard of "the Time Cube guy" before but a quick search brings up a lot of conspiracy theories. However, I don't see what that has to do with Dr. Palmer's Brain Energy theory.

For what it's worth, I hate conspiracy theories. It's intellectual laziness. So, when you said Dr. Palmer's Brain Energy theory is pseudoscience I immediately wanted to know more because I want to be able to disregard it if the facts warrant that.

[feoren]

I think my quoted passage says everything it needs to say (emphasis mine):

> which apply to all mental disorders, including anxiety, depression, ADHD, alcoholism, eating disorders, bipolar disorder, autism, and even schizophrenia

All mental disorders!? That is not the kind of claim anyone with a real discovery has ever made. Everyone who claims that their discovery could cure everything in that list is a huckster. He's claiming that mitochondrial issues cause everything that can ever go wrong with the brain! He's simply casting aside the possibility that any of these conditions could be caused by any of the dozens of causes that we know are associated with various cognitive decline (even if there isn't a simple causal link to any specific mental disorder):

* Lead, mercury, or other heavy meatal poisoning

* Neurotransmitter deficiencies or reuptake problems

* Infection and auto-immune issues

* Blood flow issues

* Prions

* Cell death from toxic substances (e.g. huffing paint)

* Problems with myelin sheathing

* Problems cleaning junk out of CSF

The list goes on and on. No, screw all that, every other scientist on the planet is wrong: it's just this guy's one thing that he found that causes all mental disorders. Maybe he'd say "ok but lead poisoning is actually damaging the mitochondria, so I'm still right!" but that's at best moving the goal posts, and at worst obviously wrong: toxic metals damage everything. Other scientists have studied lead poisoning, and the main problem seems to be its action on myelin sheathing, not on mitochondria. Most of this stuff has no causal relationship with mitochondrial damage at all. You have to completely disregard almost the entire body of neuroscience to make the claims he's making.

The list of "all mental disorders" is so vast, so complicated, so nuanced, that we can't even agree on what something like schizophrenia even is. We're talking about the brain: the most complicated system in the known universe. It's not all caused by this one guy's pet theory.

Anyone who comes out of the gate with "Einstein was wrong! Perpetual motion machines! The rest of the world is lying!" can be completely ignored. This guy may not be explicitly claiming that every other scientist who studies the brain is wrong, but they are implicitly claiming that.

[Zelphyr]

That’s what I was looking for. Thank you.