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

[cronxeh]

Is it wrong to start placing bets now?

 

[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.

 

[Saladsamurai]

"Consider it revoked."

 

[DaveC426913]

The scientific explanation is quite simple. He is a fraud ... There is nothing unbelievable about this story at all.

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

"...scientific explanation is ... fraud..."

"...scientific due diligence ... it isn't true..."

Please demonstrate how this is an inaccurate interpretation, and enough to claim it is unfair or insulting.

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

Please see http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/".

When someone starts thowing out words like "droll" and "pathetic" and "amused" and generally trying to talk like a wealthy Bond villain, he comes across less like the confident cigar=smoking fellow he is imagining and more like a man who has been pantsed attempting to convince clothed people that they are the ones who should feel foolish.

 

[elect_eng]

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

Yes, you did, but ignored my following posts (perhaps inadvertently). That's why I said you need to go back and reread them. Note that anirudh215 nicely asked me for further clarification because you and he are correct that elaboration was needed. I promptly and happily provided further information. When I first responded I was making a casual comment, but then when asked for more information, I thought it would be educational to bring in Carl Sagan's idea of the "baloney detection kit".

Both you and Saladsamurai put me in a position where I had do defend my message. So, I did just that. I thank Saladsamurai for revoking his comments.

 

[elect_eng]

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

Please demonstrate how this is an inaccurate interpretation, and enough to claim it is unfair or insulting.

Well, above I explained why I thought it was inaccurate and unfair. You can either accept that or not. I feel good that I explained myself.

Why it is insulting should be clear. As a scientist/engineer, I don't subscribe to the notion that I can just claim something is true without proof and say that I have done scientific due diligence. Accusing me of that is one of the few ways you could insult me.

Please see http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/".

Yes, you are correct. That comment was inappropriate, and I apologize for it. It really was an expression of frustration however. I felt that my message was very clear and so was frustrated that I needed to elaborate further, but apparently I just didn't express myself clearly enough. I really sincerely do get frustrated because it seems that a great deal of time is needed to carefully craft statements that won't be nitpicked and criticized. It just seems to happen so often and it really does get tiresome to have to clarify and then clarify those clarificaitons. But, I guess it's important to be very clear and very accurate in order to avoid this problem. That's just the nature of the game, and I need to either accept that or not play.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, above I explained why I thought it was inaccurate and unfair. You can either accept that or not. I feel good that I explained myself.

You are correct in that I had not accounted for your follow up post. I only reacted to the first one. I can see how that could be an unfair judgement.

I really sincerely do get frustrated because it seems that a great deal of time is needed to carefully craft statements that won't be nitpicked and criticized.

Yeah. One learns to be kind of cautious around here; there are so many experts willing to mitpick. And I guess that rubs off.

 

[Shalashaska]

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.

Evo, you can't just allow elderly people to dehydrate, which is not a simple linear process. He could be very committed to this lie, or mentally ill and hurt himself. By the time you detect endocrine function decline there is already some damage, and in the elderly this can rapidly deteriorate. This can occur in the young-mid 60's, but in his 80's?!

Testing his claim would be simple:

1:Test respiration for exhaled metabolic products (ketones and more), but keep the hydration on.
2:Use a syringe to draw urine from his bladder for tests.
3:Imaging of internal organs

Assuming that we accept basic tenants of physics, he would require a physiology utterly unlike those of a human to maintain a stable body temperature, and a means of creating metabolites and water vapor in the breath without any intake. Check his A1c for the love of god, and see what his blood glucose levels have been doing.

 

[phyzmatix]

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?

If I remember correctly, the article mentions something about him not having urinated or passed a stool (is that the correct phrasing) since they took him in so I assume he's got access to some or other ablutionary facilities. I'm not sure how long they're planning on keeping him, but I would also like to see what's happened in a month's time.

 

[alxm]

Meh, this whole thing sounds pretty fishy and pseudoscientific.
I mean just considering the claim worth investigating is pretty absurd.

Monitor the guy for 24 hours and weigh him before and after. Take a few breath samples.
You lose a quite appreciable amount of water due to perspiration and breathing, which should be easily measurable on anything a bit better than your run-of-the-mill bathroom scale.

If the guy loses a few hundred grams or more of water over a day, like the rest of us, then that's clearly not sustainable over any significant length of time.

 

[jackmell]

We need negative entropy to live and we need a continuous supply of it because the second law of thermo is constantly turning it into positive entropy. Where then is he getting his if it's not coming from food?

 

[CRGreathouse]

We need negative entropy to live and we need a continuous supply of it because the second law of thermo is constantly turning it into positive entropy. Where then is he getting his if it's not coming from food?

The ambrosia dripping from his palate, `sez him.

 

[Shalashaska]

The ambrosia dripping from his palate, `sez him.

Ha!

@jackmell & alxm: Well said.

Wait... isn't ambrosia supposed to be fatal to mortals in mythology?

 

[jackmell]

Hi. What mutations would be required to create a photosynthetic mechanism in the human body to create sugars and thereby eliminate the need to take in food? We already have one "photosynthetic" mechanism used to synthesize vitamin D although I suspect most of it is synthesized by current metabolic routes and the sun just "flips" it into a conformation that is the actual vitamin. Don't know for sure though.

 

[Shalashaska]

Hi. What mutations would be required to create a photosynthetic mechanism in the human body to create sugars and thereby eliminate the need to take in food? We already have one "photosynthetic" mechanism used to synthesize vitamin D although I suspect most of it is synthesized by current metabolic routes and the sun just "flips" it into a conformation that is the actual vitamin. Don't know for sure though.

You'd still need water... beyond that, who knows?! There's a vast difference between photosynthesis in plants, and what would be required to fuel our metabolism. Offhand, a Greek god turning you into a willow tree would be the simplest way.

 

[DaveC426913]

Monitor the guy for 24 hours and weigh him before and after. Take a few breath samples.
You lose a quite appreciable amount of water due to perspiration and breathing, which should be easily measurable on anything a bit better than your run-of-the-mill bathroom scale.

If the guy loses a few hundred grams or more of water over a day, like the rest of us, then that's clearly not sustainable over any significant length of time.

I would not consider this to be conclusive.

It's one thing to project that it "must be" or "cannot be", it's another to measure it. I'd want to see it over a period of time that makes the results irrefutable.

 

[Shalashaska]

I would not consider this to be conclusive.

It's one thing to project that it "must be" or "cannot be", it's another to measure it. I'd want to see it over a period of time that makes the results irrefutable.

...And I'd love to use human's as rats in tests, but it's not ethical, and in this case it isn't necessary. Why do you feel the need to monitor him, instead of physiological testing to show that his anatomy is incapable of such a feat?

 

[DaveC426913]

...And I'd love to use human's as rats in tests, but it's not ethical,

The guy is doing it voluntarily; it's simply a matter of asking his permission to monitor him.

and in this case it isn't necessary. Why do you feel the need to monitor him, instead of physiological testing to show that his anatomy is incapable of such a feat?

Because the proof is on the pudding.

I guess it depends on what you consider "busted". Him breathing some moisture on his breath is a far cry from him going six days without water with no deleterious effects.

Hey - maybe his manna only replenishes him once every 24 hours Seriously though, your short-term samplings fail to capture the gross effect.

 

[Shalashaska]

The guy is doing it voluntarily; it's simply a matter of asking his permission to monitor him.


Because the proof is on the pudding.

I guess it depends on what you consider "busted". Him breathing some moisture on his breath is a far cry from him going six days without water with no deleterious effects.

Hey - maybe his manna only replenishes him once every 24 hours Seriously though, your short-term samplings fail to capture the gross effect.

Ok, let me put it another way... he's 82 years old, and either desperate for attention/money or mad as a march hare. Test his A1c, image him until he glows in the dark, and unless someone can offer an explanation as to how human anatomy can violate thermodynamics, conservation of energy, and more, I don't see the need for this test.

I understand that you also think this guy is a few sandwiches short of a picnic (which he would clearly disdain), but at 82, when his body begins to metabolize his own muscle tissue, that could box in his kidneys VERY rapidly when you add dehydration to the mix. Can we really say that a man who claims to have existed by dint of magic is capable of informed consent?

I don't object to an old man sticking himself in a box until he dies, although I dislike the idea. I HATE the notion of medical doctors ignoring the axiom to do no harm. It may not be in the Hippocratic Oath, but it's a good notion regardless. If he were in a prison, he would be fed and hydrated against his will, and for a damned good reason.

 

[zomgwtf]

I would not consider this to be conclusive.

It's one thing to project that it "must be" or "cannot be", it's another to measure it. I'd want to see it over a period of time that makes the results irrefutable.

So starve him until he dies? This isn't something that medicine should take part in... it's quite disturbing. He should be treated properly like any other individual attempting to starve themselves to death whether that requires drugs or force feedings or both, doesn't matter at all to me. He can go starve himself in his village where his believers will hopefully see it for what it is; fraud.

 

[Shalashaska]

So starve him until he dies? This isn't something that medicine should take part in... it's quite disturbing. He should be treated properly like any other individual attempting to starve themselves to death whether that requires drugs or force feedings or both, doesn't matter at all to me. He can go starve himself in his village where his believers will hopefully see it for what it is; fraud.

Amen. Just as doctors shouldn't be administering lethal injections, they should not abrogate their responsibilities for the sake of a mystical fascination or purity of the scientific method.

 

[DaveC426913]

So starve him until he dies?

For Pete's Sake what's wrong with you people? Are you being [doublyitalicized]deliberately[/doublyitalicized] obtuse??

If he exhibits deleterious effects, you stop the exam and you've debunked his claim.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

An Indian man claims this? If the laws there do not prohibit this test, that's all there is to it. The notion of subsisting without food and water is of deep significance in some religions. I believe it to be hogwash, but if there is no law to stop this, and as he is unlikely to be harmed as a result of this, it is pointless to object. If he is, 82 is a fairly long life.

 

[eveo]

i don't understand why law goes so far as to keep YOURSELF over harming yourself. if I want to harm my body, that is a factor of my own stupidity and let it be. the man wants to test himself, he holds dominion over himself not anyone else so let it be. plus he has immediate care awaiting him if ANYTHING goes wrong so I'm not seeing the debate here.

it gets to the point where the imposition of well-being is counter-productive.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

i don't understand why law goes so far as to keep YOURSELF over harming yourself. if I want to harm my body, that is a factor of my own stupidity and let it be. the man wants to test himself, he holds dominion over himself not anyone else so let it be. plus he has immediate care awaiting him if ANYTHING goes wrong so I'm not seeing the debate here.

it gets to the point where the imposition of well-being is counter-productive.

It is assumed, beyond morality, that sane people do not wish to commit harm upon themselves. If you attempt suicide, you will not go to jail, but a hospital. Harm to oneself can lead to harming others, and there is a moral dimension to this. People already take part in Phase I clinical trials, that are a gamble of their lives, yes? Suicide in terminal patients is regularly assisted, something that any medical doctor or nurse knows. You can drink until you black out, smoke until you die of cancer or obstructive ling disease, and play with knives if you wish. That is a lot of freedom to do harm I think.

 

[Matterwave]

Anyone have an update? Since in April 28 he hasn't eaten for 6 days, today should be his 11th or 12th day without food OR water (unless of course he's given up since then).

To go without food for 12 days isn't too difficult if you have the fat to back it up (which he doesn't really seem to), but going without water for 12 days is pretty extraordinary...even without the dehydrating effects of heat or some such.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Anyone have an update? Since in April 28 he hasn't eaten for 6 days, today should be his 11th or 12th day without food OR water (unless of course he's given up since then).

To go without food for 12 days isn't too difficult if you have the fat to back it up (which he doesn't really seem to), but going without water for 12 days is pretty extraordinary...even without the dehydrating effects of heat or some such.

Must be a scam if he is still alive and well, or it is time to convert to Hinduism. ;)

 

[Hepth]

I hate how there really is no information about this beyond the basically one copied article. I haven't seen a hospital, doctor, scientist, university, or research lab's name. Which scientists are doing this and where? I assume he'll stop after 10 days and they won't even bother reporting that he was a fraud, and it'll just die out.