Neuralink has begun human trials, we think. The problem is that all we know about it is an announcement made by head jackass Musk on Twitter, which isn’t exactly a reputable source. That doesn’t stop Nature from commenting on it. I’m not used to seeing rumors published in that journal, and if you think about it, this is basically a condemnation of the experiment.
…there is frustration about a lack of detailed information. There has been no confirmation that the trial has begun, beyond Musk’s tweet. The main source of public information on the trial is a study brochure inviting people to participate in it. But that lacks details such as where implantations are being done and the exact outcomes that the trial will assess, says Tim Denison, a neuroengineer at the University of Oxford, UK.
The trial is not registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, an online repository curated by the US National Institutes of Health. Many universities require that researchers register a trial and its protocol in a public repository of this type before study participants are enrolled. Additionally, many medical journals make such registration a condition of publication of results, in line with ethical principles designed to protect people who volunteer for clinical trials. Neuralink, which is headquartered in Fremont, California, did not respond to Nature’s request for comment on why it has not registered the trial with the site.
So…no transparency, no summary of the goals or methods of the experiment, and no ethical oversight. All anyone knows is that Elon Musk’s team sawed open someone’s skull and stuck some wires and electronics directly into their brain, for purposes unknown, and with little hope of seeing the outcome published in a reputable journal. OK.
Besides the science shenanigans, I’m also curious to know about what kind of NDAs and agreements to never ever sue Neuralink the patients/victims had to sign. There has got to be some wild legal gyrations going on, too.
Surely Medical Negligence is a criminal, not a civil, matter, and thus not something you could get a binding NDA to cover?
Cartomancer beat me to it.
https://www.sciencealert.com/us-woman-receives-revolutionary-brain-implant-for-ocd-and-epilepsy
US Woman Receives Revolutionary Brain Implant For OCD And Epilepsy
……
Pearson’s doctors offered her the 32-millimeter (just over an inch-long) device to treat her debilitating epileptic seizures, confident it would be able to detect the activity that causes the episodes and deliver a pulse to interfere with them.
…..
For what it is worth. Perhaps tone down the criticism a bit until more is known about all of this. It may do some good for those who need it. In such cases this might be much better than serious surgery or drug therapy that can sometimes be as much of a curse as a blessing. Though yes, more transparency would be a very good thing. But maybe we should ignore Musk’s blathering and silly dreams. It may be Musk has given the medical experts a new tool for good use.
Cheerful Charlie, what has your linked article to do with Neuralink? Or is your comment just a look squirrel?
Perhaps we should tone down criticisms of homeopathy or astrology until a more is known about all of this.
IANAL, but if something goes seriously wrong, I don’t think NDAs and legal agreements are going to matter.
They won’t be enforceable.
IIRC, you can’t sign away your legal rights in the USA.
This brings up some memories that I didn’t want to think about.
I’ve seen patients die in poorly thought clinical trials more than once.
I wasn’t actually there but I knew about the trials and in one case, knew the patient.
One cancer trial, first three patients got sick, one died within hours.
Inadequate testing of a cancer drug that turned out to have another target.
I didn’t think much of the docs involved.
Two decades later I met one of them at a conference and changed my mind, sort of.
He was so traumatized by the trial, that he dropped out of medicine and went into a related field where he didn’t treat patients. It still bothered him a lot.
Implants are not anything new it seems. Musk’s day dream of controlling a phone with an implant is that, just a dream. But Neurolink may be useful for medical purposes. The point being, brain implants are not a Musk invention. People don’t get indignant with such medical implants. I suspect Musk’s ideas will fade away for lack of any way to accomplish what Musk promises. Like nanotechnology did not become the miracle technology Eric Drexler envisioned when he made big promises. Nanotechnology though is still around and is important. Musk’s brain implants I suspect will follow a similar trajectory.
But the main point is this. Brain implants are not a new idea by any means and are useful in some people’s lives. I am more bemused than outraged by all of this.
This shouldn’t be allowed! Elizabeth Holmes, Paolo Macchiarini, Musk – they’ve all been allowed to act in ways that are dangerous and often fraudulent, with the complicity of the media and the protection of powerful institutions, and it keeps happening again and again. It has to stop. Better than asking three years from now how he was able to get away with it, he should be stopped now.
WIRED:
“How Neuralink Keeps Dead Monkey Photos Secret.”
“Elon Musk’s New Monkey Death Claims Spur Fresh Demands for an SEC Investigation.”
Rolling Stone:
“Elon Musk’s Big Lie About Tesla Is Finally Exposed.”
I suspect that anyone who’d voluntarily let Elon Musk’s company perform experimental brain surgery on them had minimal brain activity to begin with.
Not even with a poop emoji?
That’s not like Elon. Yeah, he could be hiding something. Or, alternatively, he’s full of crap and they’ve implanted nothing.
Musk making huge mistakes is not anything new either.
Musk over promising and under delivering isn’t anything new either.
His self driving Tesla cars have turned out to be self driving for short distances until they aren’t and then they crash.
Hope isn’t a clinical treatment.
Someone has to be desperately hoping that Musk’s Neuralink isn’t like Tesla’s self driving feature.
Then there is his boring company and what happened to Twitter.
It’s one thing when a $44 billion dollar company like Twitter/X crashes, it’s a lot more personal when it is…your brain that crashes.
From Nature in 2016 – “Culture of silence and nonchalance protected disgraced trachea surgeon (updated)”:
From the OP:
Musk is a narcissistic sociopath and a known liar and, as with all of his ventures, the public is “informed” of Neuralink developments primarily via his profit- and influence-seeking hype. Where are all the published articles on the research that’s been done so far? Where can we find out on what basis the FDA approved unregistered human clinical trials? How is this science? Science isn’t done by press events, pamphlets, social media promotion, or carnival hucksterism. The story for the media should be the irregularity of and secrecy surrounding this research and not Musk’s self-interested claims.
What everyone forgets is that the normal rules don’t apply when they involve the mega-rich like muskrat, drump bozo et al. wanting to do something that would be illegal for ordinary people. We the underlings must bow down and let them have their way if we ever wish to have the fabulous future they tell us we can have.
No, PZ. Homeopathy and Astrology are total BS. Yes, Musk deserves criticism. But again, implants in brains is not a new Musk invention. That dream will fade with lack of progress on big dreams but brain implants will still be around. Again. It isn’t new. And yes, there have been some experimental implants that allow paralyzed people to actually type on a computer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/science/brain-computer-als-communication.html
….
A 34-year-old paralyzed man lay on his back in the laboratory, his head connected by a cable to a computer. A synthetic voice pronounced letters in German: “E, A, D…”
…
Musk is late to this party it would seem. His efforts will either come to nothing, or will be morphed into a useful technique which is not new, and is happening without the outrage. Lumping it in with pseudoscience like homeopathy is silly. Long term, we have no idea where this is all going, but a pseudoscience it isn’t.
YMMV
I can’t imagine agreeing to get such an implant at all, let alone from Musk for all the reasons already given.
As it happens, I’ve signed up for a study of the effectiveness of prophylactic radiation treatments intended to keep small-cell cancer out of the brain. I had to sign here and initial there…several documents all intended to prove that they had told me about all the risks. There was also a document in which I explicitly gave permission to share some of my personal data (nothing that hackers could use for anything). I’m happy to do my small bit to increase human knowledge.
But Musk’s “study” is shrouded in secrecy? I wouldn’t get anywhere near it.
cheerfulcharlie@3,7,
You’re missing the point. PZ says nothing in condemnation of brain implants per se, but of:
A simple distinction, I’d have thought.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/27/health/digital-bridge-implants-paralysis/index.html
……
CNN
A 46-year-old Swiss man who was paralyzed after falling on ice has regained some movement after a world-first surgery that installed an implant on his brain that uses artificial intelligence to read his thoughts, his intentions to move, and transfers them to a second implant in his abdomen that stimulates the right muscles to make parts of his body move as his brain wants them to.
…..
Is everybody here sure it is all pseudoscience, like homeopathy? Or is anybody paying attention to these little news stories that have been appearing over the last decade? None of this is totally new or theoretical only.
https://synchron.com/
Synchron allows brain implants to control an iPad. Musk again is late to the party.
There is a lot of this sort of thing going on besides Musk.
I’ll agree that brain implants are not per se ‘pseudoscience’, but for demented reasons of his own Musk is portraying ‘his’ brain implants as magical pseudoscience – with the secrecy and lack of registering the supposed clinical trial being strong evidence that he is both incompetent and full of nonsense….at best.
Medical experimentation is how you push forward in the field, it seems. Bodily autonomy allows an individual to volunteer to have a procedure done to them. I may think it’s ill-advised, but that only means I won’t have it done to me.
If I go around saying other people shouldn’t get this surgery or that surgery, eventually I end up stepping on toes and contributing to a culture of oppression for people who tie that surgery to a sense of well-being or basic identity. I predict the same thing will eventually be recognized here, though likely not for a while, and in the meantime Neuralink or its competitors or successors will smooth out the dangerous parts of this procedure.
cheerfulcharlie, from all that’s been leaked and released, Musk’s company is still at 1970’s level technology, whereas everyone else is using current leading edge technologies.
But, at least things are safe, what with replacing the IRB with an NDA.
As others have noted, some of the technology has been around for a while. One of my family is undergoing treatment with this tech – with a reputable institution – and it’s got a lot of promise. Nothing like Musk is claiming, of course. For one thing, it turns out that every brain is pretty unique, so getting the tech to work involves a lot of customized tuning by neurological experts. It’s far, far from implanting electronics and presto! — it works.
Makes sense if you think about it – neuroplasticity is a fact, so just shoving something into a brain doesn’t make sense. Everyone’s brain will be different. But as we’ve seen, Musk is an idiot.
daulnay @22
That sounds like the way it should be done, I hope it works for your family member, whatever that means in their case.
cheerfulcharlie @various
As others have said, it isn’t the idea of brain implants, it’s the track record of both Musk as an individual re: things like over promising, safety records, etc., and of the specific work of Neuralink – take a look at the links SC (Salty Current) put up and comment #8. Does that really leave you with confidence in the company?
Not to be outdone on libertarian techbro medical malfeasance, Peter Thiel announces the Enhanced games. Athletes from around the world will be able to take all the chemical assistance they want and still compete.
Heh. Elon the hype expert does like his grandiose claims.
https://www.businessinsider.com/neuralink-elon-musk-microchips-brains-ai-2021-2
gijoel, what’s wrong with that?
Part of me wants to congratulate you on your continued faith in humanity that this joker can do even the least part of this sort of operation right (the part where he ducks accountability). The rest of me agrees that of course this is the one aspect he’d make sure was on point. I wouldn’t be surprised to find he has a detailed plan on how to push accountability off on literally every single person involved but himself. The patient, the surgeons, the designers, maybe even William Gibson for popularizing the cyberpunk genre by writing Neuromancer, or possibly Musk’s kindergarten teacher for not doing enough to promote a stronger sense of ethics in the budding sociopath.
John Morales @ # 26: … what’s wrong with that?
The answer depends on your feelings about dead or seriously damaged athletes.
For those who profess to care about them (such as, say, stadium operators & their insurers), a concatenation of vaulting-poles would not be enough distance to keep from Thiel and his guaranteed-disaster enterprise.
@26
Increased risk of testicular cancer, heart attacks and strokes, testes shrinkage, infertility, increased cholesterol and elevated blood pressure from steroids. Hypertension, and dying in your sleep from a heart attack thanks to EPO. They’re the first drugs that spring to mind, and glob only knows
Besides a lot of athletes are young, like teens and twenties, and the pressure on them to win is enormous. Thiel is asking young people to endanger their lives for his entertainment. Football codes around the world are facing legal scrutiny over the long term effects of concussion trauma to players. So if this pipe dream ever goes through he and his cohort will probably be sued for willful negligence.
I’m tired so I hope I’ve made my point clearly.
gijoel:
Well, yes — all well-known side-effects of PEDs. So what?
All participants know all this stuff, we live in the age of the internet.
Well, that’s up to them. Informed consent, etc. Not like it’s been an open secret for quite some time that bodybuilders and strongmen and (basically) top-level athletes already do it anyway. It’s already happening.
Not like the proposal is to force people to do it, is it? The proposal is to allow them to do it.
I very, very much doubt that, since nobody is being forced to participate or being misled.
You have indeed. You want to deny agency to people, ostensibly for their own good.
You want to police what people choose to do.
John Morales: “gijoel, what’s wrong with that?”
Me: “What’s RIGHT with that?”
You want to deny agency to people, ostensibly for their own good. You want to police what people choose to do.
Oh come off it, fool, that’s what every con-artist, fraudster and abusive spouse says the second anyone makes any mention of stepping in to protect others from their actions. Take your tired old glibertarian blither-point and shove it back where it came from.
“Well, that’s up to them. Informed consent, etc.”
Nope. There are some things that people should not be allowed to do, and body modifications beyond good nutrition and exercise are – at this point in history – somewhat on the prohibited list. Certainly not without thorough psychological analysis and definitely not for the amusement of someone else. A hundred years from now, and most likely a thousand years from now, we’ll likely know enough to do a variety of modifications without harming the person – but not any time soon.
RB, you sure seem excited. Relax.
It perfectly fits the USA’s ethos of freedom and liberty. :)
And it does not deny people their agency, as I wrote.
Anyone involved at that level will damn well know what’s going on, the risks and the rewards.
Better than you, probably.
You can get as excited and indignant about it as you want, but you’re not disputing the fact, are you?
Look: right now, the Olympics are open to anyone who does not test positive for PEDs.
Once upon a time, the Olympics were open only only to amateur athletes, because obviously professionals were effectively cheats.
Once upon a time, women athletes were not allowed to participate in various events, excused by worries about their feeble bodies succumbing to harm.
And so forth.
Tell you what, though. You go tell people on PEDs that they are being conned and defrauded and abused by virtue of their buffing-up, and see how far you get.
Me, I’m perfectly happy to advocate for preventing cons and fraud and abuse, but those are entirely different from PED consumption, not being informed and volitional and discretionary.
No one is forcing them or fooling them any more than someone is forcing or fooling you to enhance your training.
So.
That list excludes boxing, for example. And skiing. And extreme sports. Basically, the sports with less participation rates don’t feature, though the possible injuries can be even worse.
Do you think that, for their own good, people should be stopped from thus injuring themselves thus?
Because that’s the objection being presented, and presumably the cause of your vehemence.
Doesn’t harm others, it’s a personal choice, but it’s awful they are allowed to subject themselves to such risks.
profpedant, thanks. You provide the perfect example of what I speak.
Are they really? Because with the most token Googling you can find endless examples of both.
In the USA, they had Prohibition, on exactly that basis. Turns out, people like booze.
So, now we had a new criminal class, and a new class of criminal. And much more corruption.
Didn’t last that long, the USA came to its senses.
profpedant @33
If individuals want to do “body modification” so be it. You realize that vague term includes spacers in ear lobes and other sorts of non-enhancing things right? Maybe tattoos, nose piercings, and implanting BBs into your junk. Not for me, but if someone wants to have BB bumps on their johnson who am I to stop them?
And people should be allowed to take hormones. The issues are whether governing bodies like Olympics, NFL, NCAA (in US) allow athletes taking such drugs to compete. I frown on a roid-monkey olympics myself but if a bunch of steroid abusers which I don’t condone their choice myself want to form some enhancement competition I’m thinking that may be in a grey area from a personal freedom perspective.
Plus body modification prohibition whether anatomical, or hormonal as you see the term, kinda impedes trans people a bit no?
I don’t get calf implants. But maybe someone finds that important.
Well, cosmetic surgery is body modification. So is cutting one’s hair and trimming one’s nails.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_modification
This is a culturally specific sort of body mod I wouldn’t do but I also think in counterfactuals, that if I was born elsewhere:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip_plate
I think profpedant may have chosen the wrong term by accident.
I’m quite libertarian on drugs. Steroids are an issue but post-menopausal women, men on the downswing, and especially transpeople need them. I don’t think people should take steroids for bodybuilding and sports performance and if sports institutions forbid them so be it. But if someone wants to take them to become like Arnold I dunno. There is an issue amongst guys similar to anorexia called bigorexia or Adonis complex which stems from distorted maleness. I don’t condone that. But I think drug prohibition is a bad idea though fentanyl and meth are way out of the grey area.
It’s their bodies, their choice.
As long as they aren’t unconsensually hurting others or putting other people in danger and have been fully informed of the risks and in their right minds and not pressured into doing so.
Its not a choice I’d make and not something I’d encourage or be that intrested in seeing but still, see my first five words above.
@39-StevoR
If someone wants steel spikes implanted in their skull I see that as a poor choice like some face tats but if they really want to.
With drugs fentanyl and meth become a threat to others in either second hand exposure or behavior. Maybe it was urban legend but bath salts resulting in eating the face off somebody is a red flag.
I tend to the “it’s their bodies and therefore their choice” view, with the exception of those still children. Given the horrors some parents are prepared to put their children through for success I think that is an important exception. I realise some children want to compete at high levels, but I still think they should be restricted from using performance enhancing drugs until they are fully grown. However that does raise the issue of when people are capable of making decisions like this, there is plenty of research suggesting that our brains don’t stop maturing until our mid-twenties . . .
It’s their bodies, their choice.
But we don’t really follow that principle in sports, do we? Even if we all agree that athletes all chose to play in sports they knew were dangerous, that doesn’t stop us from imposing rules that make them safer: requiring specific kinds of helmets and other protection; banning PEDs that are known to have bad effects on those who use them; rules against certain kinds of blows or tackling; that sort of thing.
Also, it’s kind of understood — by honest people who are paying attention at least — that when people “choose” to play a sport because they need the money, and/or have to keep at it to get something back for it in the future, then it’s not really quite as much of a “free choice” as it’s said to be.
And no, Peter Thiel’s Steroid Olympics wet dream, if he goes through with it, won’t be any better in the “freely chosen” department either: if you need the money, you’ll join his team, and if you join a team of people taking PEDs to “keep up,” you’ll have no choice but to do the same, for the same reasons. (And who do you think is most likely to join such a team? Probably lots of people who got booted from other teams for using PEDs because they’d thought they had to.) Thiel’s just being, at best, a stupid obnoxious troll saying stupid obnoxious things to get attention.
This is some real super-villain shit, you know
Unless he’s making it all up, in which case it’s just shit.
RB @43, did you get distracted? The post is about Neuralink.
Thiel was a debouchment, supposedly super-villanous, but actually merely less authoritarian and intolerant.
It’s not being made up, it’s real for real. Pigs and monkeys have suffered for it.
Sewing-machine brain wire implanters. All real.
@42:
Heh heh heh. Such naivete!
Still, here, for you: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10409494/
“Bodybuilding has a long history of performance-enhancing substance use. The early forms of PES in bodybuilding were simple remedies such as caffeine, alcohol, and opiates. However, the emergence of anabolic-androgenic steroids in the mid-20th century revolutionized the sport and transformed it into what we see today [5]. In the early days of bodybuilding, natural training methods and diet were the only ways to achieve a well-sculpted body. However, with the rise of the anabolic steroid industry in the 1950s, athletes started experimenting with testosterone and other substances to enhance their performance. By the 1960s, anabolic steroids were widely used in bodybuilding circles, rapidly increasing muscle mass and strength gains [6].
Since then, the use of performance-enhancing substances in bodybuilding has evolved dramatically. Athletes now use various substances, including human growth hormone, insulin, diuretics, stimulants, and others, to gain a competitive edge. Additionally, the methods for administering these substances have become more sophisticated, including intravenous injections, transdermal patches, and oral dosages [7]. The use of performance-enhancing substances in bodybuilding is driven by several factors, including the desire to achieve a competitive edge, the pursuit of the perfect physique, and the pressure to meet societal beauty standards. In addition, some athletes may feel that they need to use PES to keep up with others using them [8]. Moreover, using PES can also provide psychological benefits, such as increased confidence and self-esteem. For many athletes, bodybuilding is a way of life, and they are willing to go to great lengths to achieve their goals [9].”
Mind you, voluntary cosmetic surgery is hardly forbidden, is it? Surgery carries risks.
Here, for you: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7572219/
I shan’t quote, but the article is titled “Assessing Cosmetic Surgery Safety: The Evolving Data”
One last one, since you seem to be living in some fantasy world:
Arnold Schwarzenegger Explains His Olympia-Era PED Use
(https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a43944437/arnold-schwarzenegger-steroid-use-bodybuilding/)
He got rich and famous for it, despite that principle not being followed. Must be unique, eh?
PS
In the immediately preceding comment, you wrote “This is some real super-villain shit, you know”.
So, it inevitably follows that if you were honest, you actually think that being, at best, a stupid obnoxious troll saying stupid obnoxious things to get attention is what is meant by some real super-villain shit.
(I’m guessing you don’t do smart drugs, though their regulatory regime is not the same)
Internet is weird, no?
John Morales@various,
There’s a distinction you ignore (or which hasn’t occurred to you), between allowing people to do things likely to harm them, and allowing commercial organisations to pay or otherwise encourage them to do so. Banning potentially harmful recreational or performance-improving drugs is a bad idea, banning advertisments for them or other commercially-motivated inducements to take them is a good idea.
KG:
Um, allowing people is allowing people, whether or not the allowance is granted by a commercial organisation or otherwise.
I’m not ignoring it, I just didn’t bring it up because allowance is allowance, regardless of who grants it.
But hey, I get your critique.
Allowing people to do stuff by a commercial organisation, bad; allowing people to do stuff by a non-commercial organisation, different. Distinct.
(Are you intimating that were the proposed games not commercial, then they would be fine?)
Yes, yes, yes. That’s basically what profpedant wrote, and I have already addressed it.
Not much I can add, you got my retort already.
(Meanwhile, nothing wrong with cosmetic surgery, right? Not at all potentially harmful. Not actually banned)
@gijoel:
From the link:
Translation: It would be pretty bad for the business if any of the athletes died during the event. Can’t make money off shit like that, so we check them during the event, they can die soon later on their own time, we don’t give a shit.
Also, I don’t need to read the 20 comments above to know that JM is once again being a fucking dumbass stick up his butt pedantic idiot.
lotharloo:
<snicker>
That’s a perfect epitome of prejudging. You claim to have no idea of what I’ve written (well, ostensibly. I don’t believe you for one second), but you think it’s “fucking dumbass stick up his butt” sorta thing.
So. This speculative and purported stick up my ass is that I am more tolerant than those who want to deny other people being able to have self-determination, right? Pedantic idiocy, to some.
In short, being more tolerant regarding others’ bodily autonomy and choices that don’t harm others, you think is a stick-up-the-bum. Up the arse, right? Anal penetration, that’s your go-to idiom.
Very pleasant of you.
—
Gotta love how that digression about Thiel that gijoel introduced has taken over the topic, which is Neuralink and Musk.
Ah well. Such is the inculcation against drugs that most people have undergone; so many can’t get over it.
I must concede, I am not that intolerant.
My failure, my ass-stick (it amuses me that you mob confuse donkeys with bums).
Anyway. I’m hardly wooish, but I like this Wiccan rede: “and it harm none, do what ye will.”
Why don’t we run voluntarily gladiatorial tournaments where people volunteer to kill and maim each other for the audience so some rich people could make money off them? People already die doing stupid stuff such as climbing icy mountains and shit and we also have boxing and shit so why not gladiatorial combat to allow rich men to make money off them? It’s all voluntary anyways bro! Bodily autonomy and shit bro! Freedom bro! Isnt’ this America or what bro? Anyways, I’m sure some butthurt liberal will try to write a wall of text about how this is exploitative and not every voluntary thing is necessarily truly voluntary and whaaa whaa whaa but I bet they just hate America. LUL.And freedom.
Indeed it’s the prime example of stick up the butt because the obvious issue is obvious and it’s not “people making choices” or “bodily autonomy” and it’s boring to try and explain things to you, because you will ignore the main point and bring up a dumbass pedantic point in response.
[Always the bluster, never the rebuttal — ah well. Yes, lotharloo, those grapes were sour]
No, you don’t get my critique, as you have completely misstated it – and in mangled grammar at that. Nor did profpedant make the same point I did. Do try reading for comprehension, rather than making your usual assumption that you are always right.
No. That was a situation my comment did not address, nor did it “intimate” anything abvout it either way.
It’s interesting that you feel compelled to bring up issues I did not mention, in your usual sneering fashion. Regulation of cosmetic surgery is a complex issue, Some types (e.g. the “Brazilian butt-lift”) should be banned, because of the degree of risk involved. Otherwise, I would favour restricting advertising of many procedures, but “cosmetic surgery” covers a wide range, and can certainly have psychological benefits.
@47. KG :
Agreed. I don’t think this Drugs Allowed Olymics (DAO) thing is a good idea or one that should be encouraged. If adults are really determined to do it and voluntarily choose to do so making an informed uncoerced decision then that’s okay but if those caveats aren’t met then, yes, its problematic and in any case, again, not something I think is a good idea that deserves to be promoted or pushed as a positive thing.
But then some sports and some sportspeople do voluntarily take extreme risks and do things that most people would consider foolish and ill-advised. Some sports are inherently dangerous eg. motor racing, mountaineeering, luge, skeleton, BASE jumping, rock-fishing, etc.. so I guess I’m thinking of this as an extreme version of that. People do choose to put themselves and their bodies through pretty severe and damaging things that can risk their lives and future health and if that’s what someone else really wishes to do then who am I or you or anyone to say they really can’t?
Especially if they doso with pfullknowledge and ideally medical supervision and advice and aid handy and as much protection and risk minimisation available as possible.
KG, thanks for the belated response.
Heh. Well done. Yes, I did get that one wrong, and I did wonder if you’d get back to it.
Different things, yours and theirs.
My bad. There you go. Not that it particularly matters, it’s basically an aside.
So, what is this distinction to which you refer?
After all, “allowing commercial organisations to pay or otherwise encourage them to do so” very much contrasts with “allowing non-commercial organisations to pay or otherwise encourage them to do so”, since non-commercial organisations are the complement of commercial organisations. There are no other organisations.
Surely that is a distinction, even if not the distinction to which you refer. But it’s surely the obvious one.
Do elaborate, if you care to, but I can’t see why you’d specify commercial organisations unless you meant to exclude the non-commercial type — if you didn’t, why not just “organisations”?
Well, that was what I brought up @37, which well precedes your own interjection.
You may not have addressed it directly, but there it already existed, and not in response to you.
Point being it’s a voluntary choice that has health risks, much as are PEDs.
But yes, you only now addressed it, to say it’s complicated.
(Unlike PEDs?)
As can performance enhancing drugs — see my #44.
“Moreover, using PES can also provide psychological benefits, such as increased confidence and self-esteem. For many athletes, bodybuilding is a way of life, and they are willing to go to great lengths to achieve their goals”
The equivalent would be beauty contests disallowing people who used cosmetic surgery, and someone saying they would stage a contest where cosmetic surgery were allowed.
John Morales @56
Just working out for modest gains may improve self-esteem. The problem is the gap between current and ideal self and the unattainable goal represented in bodybuilding literature. It’s a self-destructive mirage that may involve distorted body image or dysmorphia. Flight of Icarus?
I lived it for a while. I didn’t do steroids but did hurt my shoulder doing militaries and lumbar doing squats. I was in the room when someone severely tore their quadricep (or tendon?) on a hack squat machine. I was doing ab crunches with a rope on a universal at the time so saw the aftermath. A powerlifter at another gym dealt with the aftermath of a torn pectoralis due to a dumb move doing bench press with a modified bar. Steroids are one concern but severe injuries loom.