82-year-old who claims he has not had any food or water

[phyzmatix]

Well, I guess on the grounds of known medical science and general knowledge, this is entirely impossible so I would like to ask two things of you:

1) What do you think of this (I understand this is a scientific forum, but perhaps the moderators will allow a certain degree of speculation)?
2) Please keep us updated if there are any further articles in the news about this man.

Here we are: Man claims to have had no food or drink for 70 years

I'm not sure if such claims have previously been studied (?) but I just can't help but wonder how amazing it would be if this turns out to be true.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Maybe he has Night Eating Syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_eating_syndrome

 

[cronxeh]

3 weeks from now he'll be dead and we'll attribute it to old age.

 

[elect_eng]

1) What do you think of this (I understand this is a scientific forum, but perhaps the moderators will allow a certain degree of speculation)?

The scientific explanation is quite simple. He is a fraud, and he has survived 6 days without food or water. There is nothing unbelievable about this story at all.

An interesting story would be that he was monitored for 6 weeks, or 6 months or 6 years and survived with no food or water. But, that's not going to happen.

 

[WiFO215]

The scientific explanation is quite simple. He is a fraud, and he has survived 6 days without food or water. There is nothing unbelievable about this story at all.

With such a ludicrous claim he has made, I readily believe he is a fraud but just to be sure, where'd you find that out?

 

[elect_eng]

With such a ludicrous claim he has made, I readily believe he is a fraud but just to be sure, where'd you find that out?

I didn't find it out for sure. I simply deduced it using logic and known scientific information about the human body and physics.

It's known that the human body needs water intake to survive. It's possible to survive 6 days without water, but not too much longer than that. There are things you can do to reduce your water requirements and some people may be genetically predisposed to go longer without water. Also, it may even be possible to adapt your body to do much better than typically expected. However, in no way can a person go for years without water intake by some means.

One of the key water losses occurs during breathing. Water vapor excapes in this way and this is typically over a kg of water per day. I suspect this person used meditation and breathing control to minmize his water needs.

Which is more likely?

1. This man has mystical powers than enables him to survive indefinitely without food and water.
2. Or that he is just a fraud.

The answer seems clear if you take a scientific interpretation of the facts.

What information is in that story that would lend any credence to option number 1 above? Such an extrordinary claim would require considerable evidence in order to be believed by anyone, but the story has absolutely no claims of evidence at all. The only fact is that he is monitored for 6 days and has not ate nor drank. Well, even I could do that, although just barely.

The story only becomes interesting if he can go much much longer than this. If he is still alive after a few weeks, then a scientist will ask, "How is he cheating?". He must be getting drinks by trickory. Again, which is more likely, "mystical powers" or "magician's trick". I just get out my "baloney detection kit" and the answer is clear.

 

[pallidin]

I just don't what to say about something so absurd.
Hmmm... I think I'll have a slice of pizza and a cold beer just to calm down.

 

[elect_eng]

... I just get out my "baloney detection kit" and the answer is clear.

It just occurred to me that the reference to the baloney detection kit may not be obvious. Please see the following if it's not clear.

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

 

[russ_watters]

It just occurred to me that the reference to the baloney detection kit may not be obvious. Please see the following if it's not clear.

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

Meh - I just assumed it was another Professor Frink invention, probably related to his sarcasm detector: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Professor-Frinks-Sarcasm-Detector/215577562744

Useful, though - thanks!

 

[Nick666]

That guy should talk to David Blaine, get some tips from him, update his ****.

 

[WiFO215]

What are the updates on this guy? Have they said anymore about him after yesterday?

 

[Martin Rattigan]

It is totally amazing - and quite worrying when you consider that the Indian military are now in charge of their own big ones.

 

[phyzmatix]

3 weeks from now he'll be dead and we'll attribute it to old age.

I wonder if there are going to be any updates on this though, or if the Telegraph only went for a once-off article for the speculation value.

What I like about this is that at least the guy is under observation in an attempt to verify/disqualify his claim...(OK, I know that we don't know the true conditions etc etc etc but it's something).

Most of the weird and wonderful claims I've heard of are of the "I found a yeti in the woods, but he was too quick and I got nothing" type whereas this possibly falls into the category of "I found a yeti in the woods, oh, and here's a piece of skin to test".

 

[Shalashaska]

Hoax, insanity, hoaxanity? Then again, maybe he has an abundance of chlorophyll? :rofl:

 

[elect_eng]

Hoax, insanity, hoaxanity? Then again, maybe he has an abundance of chlorophyll? :rofl:

:rofl: Yes, but even plants need water.

Anyway, if he keeps this act up, he will need to be planted in the ground very soon.:rofl:

 

[Shalashaska]

:rofl: Yes, but even plants need water.

Anyway, if he keeps this act up, he will need to be planted in the ground very soon.:rofl:

Maybe he's trying to pre-mummify himself?

 

[DaveC426913]

The scientific explanation is quite simple. He is a fraud, and he has survived 6 days without food or water. There is nothing unbelievable about this story at all.

The correct scientific method would be to not dismiss it until the results are in.

Six days without water is a long time. He should definitely be showing signs of degradation (which is what they'll look for). If he shows no signs of degradation, then they might go for a longer test.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fraud too. But you can't claim you're giving it scientific due diligence by claiming "It just isn't true."

 

[elect_eng]

The correct scientific method would be to not dismiss it until the results are in.

But you can't claim you're giving it scientific due diligence by claiming "It just isn't true."

You need to reread my posts. You are misrepresenting what I said and putting words in my mouth. You are not fooling me, nor anyone else with this tactic.

 

[Shalashaska]

The correct scientific method would be to not dismiss it until the results are in.

Six days without water is a long time. He should definitely be showing signs of degradation (which is what they'll look for). If he shows no signs of degradation, then they might go for a longer test.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fraud too. But you can't claim you're giving it scientific due diligence by claiming "It just isn't true."

The correct method is to NOT test this man, for his health if nothing else! This is a fundamentally unsafe practice, so dismissing it would be the right thing to do, followed by assessment by mental health professionals and if he likes, tissue samples. To survive without water and food would require a radically different physiology from any form of life that is known, and I would expect to find evidence of that. You don't just let some batty old man starve and dehydrate until you see kidney functions decline! You do not test on humans this way, it's bloody criminal.

 

[WiFO215]

You don't just let some batty old man starve and dehydrate until you see kidney functions decline!

It's okay. On the long run, it'll scare other nutters from trying to spread hoaxes.

 

[Shalashaska]

It's okay. On the long run, it'll scare other nutters from trying to spread hoaxes.

I wish, but that doesn't ever seem to work. I don't blame the nut, I blame the people elevating this to some kind of quasi-science.

 

[elect_eng]

You don't just let some batty old man starve and dehydrate until you see kidney functions decline! You do not test on humans this way, it's bloody criminal.

Correct! It almost implies fraud on a higher level than just the man itself. Or, perhaps the man refuses treatment and the doctors have no recourse, but to monitor him. Does anyone know the India laws in this situation?

 

[Evo]

What I like about this is that at least the guy is under observation in an attempt to verify/disqualify his claim...(OK, I know that we don't know the true conditions etc etc etc but it's something).

But they're not planning to hold him for very long. I'd say a month would be a good test. That way they might be able to detect if he's drinking. Does he have access to a toilet?

 

[Mentallic]

Couldn't they just speed up his degradation process and get him to run a marathon? Rather than sitting there in his meditated state all day long... Or is this what's required of someone to never get hungry?

In that case... I'll be running off to the pizza store now.

 

[Shalashaska]

But they're not planning to hold him for very long. I'd say a month would be a good test. That way they might be able to detect if he's drinking. Does he have access to a toilet?

Hold him for a MONTH?! Hell, let bury the poor SOB in peat while we're at it. This guy is too old to be challenging his body this way.

 

[Saladsamurai]

You need to reread my posts. You are misrepresenting what I said and putting words in my mouth. You are not fooling me, nor anyone else with this tactic.

I reread them and cannot see how Dave is misrepresenting you words let alone how he is trying to fool you.

Correct! It almost implies fraud on a higher level than just the man itself. Or, perhaps the man refuses treatment and the doctors have no recourse, but to monitor him. Does anyone know the India laws in this situation?

And sure we should run tests on this fruitcake. Who cares if it is an experiment on a human? If someone is going to make a bold claim like "hey you can set me on fire and I won't die" then I say light 'em up and see what happens.

 

[Shalashaska]

I reread them and cannot see how Dave is misrepresenting you words let alone how he is trying to fool you.
And sure we should run tests on this fruitcake. Who cares if it is an experiment on a human? If someone is going to make a bold claim like "hey you can set me on fire and I won't die" then I say light 'em up and see what happens.

Oh yeah, that's the essence of medicine right there, just flick a bic.
This is an old man, and the only doctors I recall taking that approach to research were of the Josef Mengele variety.

 

[Stratosphere]

. Does he have access to a toilet?

:yuck:

 

[elect_eng]

I reread them and cannot see how Dave is misrepresenting you words let alone how he is trying to fool you.

I really get tired of having to explain such obvious things, but very well, if you insist.

He said the following:

The correct scientific method would be to not dismiss it until the results are in.

Six days without water is a long time. He should definitely be showing signs of degradation (which is what they'll look for). If he shows no signs of degradation, then they might go for a longer test.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fraud too. But you can't claim you're giving it scientific due diligence by claiming "It just isn't true."

So he is attributing the following things to my statements.

1. I have dismissed the claim before the results are in.
2. I have claimed to have given scientific due diligence.
3. I have stated that "It just isn't true" without any other logic.

First of all, I haven't dismissed the claim, I have pointed out that there is no evidence by which we are asked to believe the claim. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence in science. The claim is basically a claim that conservation of mass does not apply to the one human. Apparently, we are to believe that he can breath out water vapor and not lose water. Sorry, but I need evidence for that. The only evidence is his being alive after 6 days without drinking water. Aside from the fact that he could be sneaking water, an average person is able to survive 10 days without water, which implies that a trained person should be able to do much better. So there is no evidence at all. There is, as yet, nothing substantial to dismiss, but I'm open to see more evidence, even if I'm highly skeptical. In any event, I pointed out that the situation becomes more interesting if he is still alive after a few weeks, and the next question is then whether he is cheating. This is not dismissing the claim, it is considering that more evidence may come in and further investigation would then be needed. Yes, I point out that the claim would still be very unlikely to be true because a magic trick is not very difficult, while the violation of basic physical laws is contrary to the entire known history of scientific evidence. One has to weigh probabilities in life, and consider past experience.

Second, I have not claimed to have done scientific due diligence on this question. I have simply made the most logical conclusion with the facts I have available. This is the most scientific approach I can take under the circumstances. I am not in a position to do full due-diligence, even if I wanted to. I would have to quit my job, fly from the USA to India, kidnap this guy and then subject him to my own cruelly devised scientific experiments. Forgive me if I don't do that. The most you can say is that I'm implying that the claim is unworthy of serious scientific consideration, but I make no claims to have done scientific due diligence. So why is this claim attributed to me, and why do you not understand my objection to the false claim being attributed to me?

Third, I have not claimed that "it just isn't true" without applying some scientific facts and logical thinking. I first stated my final conclusion without explaining my reasoning. Then, when asked, I gave some insight to why I reached my conclusion. I have applied the "baloney detection kit" and concluded that there is no justification to believe the claim. It is most likely not true and not worthy of serious contemplation. Scientists make these judgements all the time. There are some things worthy of investigation and there are some things unworthy of consideration. One applies logic and reverses the question "why should I believe that?". The available scientific evidence does not even suggest the claim should be considered. So, not only is there no evidence for the claim, there is no good reason to even consider the question of whether the claim is true. Basically, applying logic and common sense is scientific, even if not "scientific due diligence", and is much more than simply stating that "it just isn't true". Again, why is this statement attributed to me, and why don't you understand that I object to it?

 

[Evo]

Hold him for a MONTH?! Hell, let bury the poor SOB in peat while we're at it. This guy is too old to be challenging his body this way.

If we are to believe his claim, it won't affect him. Obviously if he's lying they will notice if he starts exhibiting signs of dehydration or weight loss long before it becomes an issue.

 

[cronxeh]

Is it wrong to start placing bets now? :tongue:

 

[Saladsamurai]

snip ... I really get tired of having to explain such obvious things,

I am sorry that you took the trouble to write all of that, since I am not going to read it. I got as far as what is seen above and your condescending attitude was all I really needed. I can just assume the rest is just nonsense.

A word of advice: save your insulting tone for the end of a post; that way the reader has to read through the whole thing first.

 

[elect_eng]

A word of advice: save your insulting tone for the end of a post; that way the reader has to read through the whole thing first.

Were you insulted? Well, then I'm sorry I insulted you. That was not my intent. I was just expressing my frustration and disappointment. In fact, I was insulted by your comment. You summarized all of my posts with a statement that (EDIT: in fairness, indirectly by agreeing with Dave)

"But you can't claim you're giving it scientific due diligence by claiming 'It just isn't true.' "

That was unfair, inaccurate and (frankly) insulting. Anyway, I wasn't trying to make a big deal about it. I just wanted to correct what I felt was a mischaracterization of my message.

 

[DaveC426913]

You need to reread my posts. You are misrepresenting what I said and putting words in my mouth. You are not fooling me, nor anyone else with this tactic.

Yes, I used the sneaky and underhanded tactic of quoting your exact words in my response. :rofl:

 

[Saladsamurai]

"Consider it revoked."