[aroch]

This may not be, but things like Soylent which claim to solve all your nutritional and health needs by drinking it, are the equivalent of homeopathy -- like say, drinking g tea made from the horn of rhino will make your virile.

[awalton]

Soylent claims to have every dietary macro-nutrient necessary for maintaining life. And it's pretty simple to look at it and say, "yep." It meets that claim perfectly as we understand macro-nutrients.

The problem is, there may be more to us than just "add macronutrients." We might need things like micro and nanonutrients. We might need variations in the kinds of proteins. The bacteria in stuff we eat might be the key to keeping us healthy in the long term. But how are we ever to know any of this unless someone studies it?

That, in absolutely NO WAY, should be misconstrued with homeopathy, which is absolutely bullshit about water "remembering" molecules that used to be in it.

[beagle3]

I don't think you know what homeopathy is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy will give you a clue. "Tea from the horn of a rhino" is possibly considered treatment in some places, but it is not homeopathy.

(Which is not my support of homeopathy - it's just that using the right term is important for discourse. It's important to distinguish between copyright infringement and theft, and it is important to distinguish between different forms of alternative -- that is, not scientifically proven -- medicine).

[jere]

Well, I'm there with you on Soylent. And the at home FMT makes nervous as well. What I don't get is the widespread notion that: self experimentation makes you a nutter.

[logfromblammo]

If you are an amateur experimenter, and require a human test subject, self-experimentation may be your only remotely ethical option.

There is also the added advantage that you also know whether the test subject is complying with the experimental protocols. The disadvantage is that the person running the experiment on you is an amateur that may not necessarily be aware if the experiment is harmful.

Given that many physicians can't be certain of the results when they prescribe treatments and medications, I figure that if they can roll the dice like that without even having a stake in the outcome, people who take greater risks for greater payouts are not crazy. They are just less risk-averse.

[aroch]

Self experimentation doesn't make you nutters, its performing invasive medical procedures that involves the transfer of biologic waste from one person to another with no clinical supervision that makes you nutters

[logfromblammo]

A little perspective, here, please. Humans sell lubricant specifically marketed for introducing foreign objects to their lower digestive tract. We also sell home enema kits without a prescription at local drugstores. You don't need clinical supervision. At best, they could provide donor screening to reassure you that you aren't going to give yourself a new disease. If you know the donor, you could probably do at least as well just by observing them for a period of time.

Putting someone else's poop in your colon is not that disturbing when you realize that it already had your poop in it. It wasn't exactly squeaky clean before the procedure.

And believe me, the guy squirting strange feces into himself as a personal experiment has thought about this a lot harder than you. Even the guy doing it for a bar bet has probably invested more doubt.

[nitrogen]

How is Soylent, which actually has ingredients, anything like homeopathy, which is just water?

[ajcarpy2005]

Soylent isn't perfect but it's not even close to equivalent to the non-efficacy of homeopathy.