🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@brouhaha

[You likely know all this better than I do. I’m not trying to mansplain it to you, but explaining for the benefit of other readers.]

I am not upset with you, but if i were to get upset I’d be far more likely to be upset of the use of the sexist term “mansplain” than I would from the actual desire to explain. That said, your good :)

Did you urinate more than usual?

Nope, less than usual in fact. I think all day I peed once, maybe twice at most.

If it’s not water loss from sweating

I actually was quite cold all day, just turned the heat on a moment ago.. if there was any sweat it certainly wasnt noticable.

the main way you lose body weight is by fat broken down into ketones (lipolysis, ketosis)

Actually this part is partly true (there is glycogenesis and glycolysis cycles too). But yea the bulk of fat winds up as ketones for energy.

excreted by urination.

This is the part where your mostly wrong. ketones, once broken down for energy, result in the byproducts that are mostly water and carbon dioxide. While you are correct that the part you break down into water is exreted by your kidneys (or sweat) you are incorrect in your assertion that this is the route the majority of your weight is lost.

When breaking down ketones or sugar the resulting water is only 16% of the weight loss by mass. 84% of your weight loss is actually expelled in the form of CO2. When you loose weight you literally loose the overwhelming amount of your weight through your lungs.

The other alternative is muscle tissue being broken down (ketoacidosis), which is very bad, but shouldn’t normally happen.

While ketoacidosis is bad it is not the normal route a healthy person undergoes to convert protein into energy. Ketoacidosis is an unhealthy state, usually unique to diabetics, where you have both high glucose, and high ketone count leading to Ph imbalance and potentially death.

Typically proteins (dietary and muscle) are converted through protein metabolism, which starts with protein catabolism. Derriving energy from protein is actually quite normal if you consume more protein than your body needs.

@freemo
[You likely know all this better than I do. I'm not trying to mansplain it to you, but explaining for the benefit of other readers.]
Did you urinate more than usual? If it's not water loss from sweating, the main way you lose body weight is by fat broken down into ketones (lipolysis, ketosis), excreted by urination.
The other alternative is muscle tissue being broken down (ketoacidosis), which is very bad, but shouldn't notmally happen.

@mxtthxw

So my first question is, how solid of a diagnosis is your apnea? was it borderline? Was it confirmed with a follow up?

It seems sleep apnea is the go to for a lot of things because its easy. A true diagnosis is nuanced and requires a high quality doctor and equipment. It also is distorted by the fact that the equipment and/or location of the study means your sleep will not be typical and thus you may demonstrate some symptoms that you wouldnt otherwise present at home when well rested.

The best sort of sleep study is one where they do the full study in the hospital, and then send you home with a light weight monitor for you to sleep with for a week or more at home. If your sleep study didnt include both of these aspects I would be a bit suspect of that part.

I get periods of hypersomnia where I can sleep for 14 hours plus.

Hypersomnia is slight counter to apnea. Apnea usually makes it hard to get deep sleep, so I’d be a little suspect (not too much) by this property. I too have this pattern. My sleep disorder is delayed sleep phase disorder, but it manifests as going to bed every night 1 hour later and then having hypersomnia once I fall asleep (10 - 14 hours is quite normal for me). For me this appeared to be cost first and foremost by the low-t, that treatment alone is improving it already, and secondarily by my hypothyroidism. If you havent been checked for both of those that would be my first suggestion, with or without the apnea.

I’ve been putting that down to autistic burnout.

However, I’m still not 100% sure about the autism diagnosis. Most of the time I don’t feel any real problems but other times I’m like no I feel autistic af.

So this is where my opinion may get a bit divisive. I am of the opinion that in the UK and the USA (and maybe canada) that autism is massively over-diagnosed, by atleast 90%+ in high-functioning cases. Not to say there arent high-functioning autists, there are. But they are far more rare than the diagnosis suggests.

What i think is happening is a bit of an underlying flaw in psychiatry in how it reasons about disease and a bit of a runaway effect in the societies of those countries. Psychiatry assumes the majority of a population is “normal” and as such any of those in the minority struggle to cope with society are the ones experiencing disorder. Psychiatry utterly fails once 51%+ of a society enters into psychosis because the tools stop working. What I think has happened is our societies have become so overwhelming toxic and bad for mental health that an overwhelming majority of these populations have developed one of the many forms of personality disorders, leaving a small minority of healthy “normal” people. Since psychiatry operates on the fundamental assumption of normality in a society psychiatry unfortunately tries to find a reason why normal people in the minority are struggling to function and thus assigns them as the person with the disorder, and deems the larger majority with the personality disorder as the “normal ones”… this causes huge amounts of false autism diagnosis instead of addressing the real cause, the personality disorders the other half of people have.

This only became extremely obvious to me once I started living among European people and seeing how I went from feeling “what is wrong with me” to “wow literally all of america is diseased”

@freemo Thank you for your honesty and humbleness.

I’ve never noticed any rude behaviour so I’ll skip that part.

What I do know is that Medical Doctors are overall conservative and unwilling to think out of the box.
They were lectured that Testosterone is evil and need to be avoided, while the opposite is true.

Brain fog is often the result of low testosterone. But many more symptoms are caused by low T, like Ostoperosis (lack of bone density), lack of energy, sleeping problems. loss of muscle tissue (Atrophy) and off course a low Libido.

For many years doctors thought that Testosterone caused Prostate Cancer while more and more evidence learns that men with low Testosterone levels are more likely to develop Prostate Cancer. Young men, who are walking Testosterone bombs don’t develop Prostate Cancer, whil aging men with declining T-levels do.

Long story, but what I mean is that your gut-feeling was right. You were right to circumvent the ‘normal’ pathways to discover what was going on in your body.

Testosterone is life! Men and even women cannot do without it. Low T-levels will cause ilness and possibly severe risks.

I’d like to commend you on your quest en encourage you to proceed. You will ad years and quality to your life.´

I predict that maybe in about 10 yrs or so, the medical world will take a complete other stance toward Testosterone and TRT will become a regular treatment, which is a lot cheaper than battling symptoms and fight off Prostate Cancer.

@magitweeter

Those are all practical policy recommendations which may or may not help make utility the determiner of profit. I can even grant that they do. My question is about something different.

I am glad we agree, at least, so far as we can with such a limited scope.

Is it wrong of me to assume that you’re taking for granted that production and distribution are organized around markets as they’re typically understood?

Yes I would say thats a wrong assumption. I am not taking it for granted. At no point did I say that current governments are healthy governments. Therefore how they are currently organized has little bearing on how I claim a healthy government should be organized.

The disconnect, as I see it, is that I am arguing that such dysfunction arises in the nuance between the extremely complex facets of government systems that ultimately fail to deliver healthy markets, as well as quite a few other unhealthy byproducts (like starving poor people). The solution is not and never will be a dogmatic and ideologically pure system like pure blind redistribution of wealth (everything is free and equal) or pure unregulated wealth (everyone has whatever they can kills steal and rob and its theirs). A healthy solution can only arise from the careful nuance and interplay of various ideologies and an understanding of where and how they should be applied in such as system.

On the flip side it would appear your argument is that the very tenant of capitalism as an element int he more complex systems of governement is the factor that is to blame and will rot it away (never mind the fact that we have counter proof of that since governments that are anti-capitalist have likewise failed). One might presume your argument would be one for communism as an idealized principle, but that is just speculation. and I argue that any idealized dogmatic principle applied tot he formation of a government is in fact what leads them to fail, and not any one principle in isolation.

@aeleoglyphic@mastodon.social @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@freemo

Those are all practical policy recommendations which may or may not help make utility the determiner of profit. I can even grant that they do. My question is about something different.

Is it wrong of me to assume that you're taking for granted that production and distribution are organized around markets as they're typically understood? Markets in goods and services, markets in labor and capital, supply and demand—that sort of context?

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@magitweeter

How does it come to be that utility is the determiner of profit in a “free market”, whatever that means?

Through a very complex system of laws and regulations that are carefully selected. I could not ellucidate such a complex and complete system trivially here in these comments in a single night.

That said, if you’d like to touch on a small fraction of some of the major regulations that keep a market free we can certain touch on some of the major points in a non-exhaustive manner.

1) free education and training for everyone at every level. You cant have equity (equal oppertunity, not equality) if peoples start in life in terms of skills and abilities arent equal.

2) Good generous caring results-based conditional welfare… in others words, a system that makes sure the poor have the absolute basic to survive no matter what, and enough to thrive as long as they are willing to do their part.

3) Strong anti-trust (anti-monopoly) laws that are enforced. Monopolies mean the market isnt free. You cant have a free market if monopolies can control it.

4) Strong laws and strong enforcement against corruption, particularly price fixing. Regulations mean nothing if you can simply collude to circumvent them.

These 4 are probably some of the most important top 4 elements neccesary for a capitalism to be a capitalism (as I defined it), though as I stated they are only a very small tip of the iceburg.

@aeleoglyphic@mastodon.social @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@freemo

Given your stated willingness to answer my questions, let me rephrase my last few replies in the form of a question:

How does it come to be that utility is the determiner of profit in a “free market”, whatever that means?

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@freemo

«a free market (a market where utility is the determiner of profit...)»

This sounds like an incredibly difficult, if not impossible, thing to achieve. I for one don't see a way to achieve it without outright abolishing private property as we know it.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@magitweeter

This sounds like an incredibly difficult

Most governments eventually fail no matter what ideology they employ, this is true of capitalist, communistic and everything else. Yes governments are incredibly difficult to do successful. No argument there.

I for one don’t see a way to achieve it without outright abolishing private property as we know it.

Its been done, and those governments have all failed too. Even when they are democratic they have literally been voted out of existance by the massive starvation it tends to result in.

So we have very clear proof that simply enacting such a policy in a government system will absolutely not be a magic fix for these ills.

@aeleoglyphic@mastodon.social @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@magitweeter

Of course, but that work could be provided by anyone.

It absolutely could… Any case of a resource being turned into a utility could be done by anyone. The point here is in capitalism the people whoa re most effective at converting resources to utilities are the ones who get assigned those abilities through the free-market pressures that drive it.

If a tenant were as good or better than the landlord at driving utility then in a healthy capitalism they would be a home owner and not a renter, thats the whole point.

A tenants’ union

Nothing stopping such an entity from existing in a capitalist government. The key is such an entity will only exist (for long) if they can provide such a utility better than everyone else.

It takes no special skill and neither does it require ownership of the building.

It absolutely does take special skill. Evaluating the quality of a managerial service and who you defer such services to is very much a skill. Pick a bad service and you loose everything (as you provided bad utility), pick a good one and you thrive. You also need to be ready to switch services should your current service decline in quality.

The only reason it’s the owner who gets to do that job is that they’re legally entitled to.

No that isnt the only reason. They are legally entitled to and provides the best utility in doing it. If they were only legally entitled to but didnt provide good utility they would pick a poor service and have lost their property as a result, which would mean a newer better landlord would take their place that can provide that utility better.

@aeleoglyphic@mastodon.social @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

@freemo I think that graph is reasonable, but only if you’re talking about the people who are regularly tuned into politics.

I think the folks who don’t pay attention most of the time probably fit closer to a standard bell curve.

@Vincarsi

you’re mischaracterizing capitalism as something that doesn’t have inherent flaws.

No I wouldnt say so. I am not claiming its flawed or not. Capitalism itself is one ideology, as with all ideologies it does not and can not exist in a bubble. There is no such thing as a “pure capitalism” because a capitalism is one among many principles that must be combined to form a government.

Flaws arise in how one combines the various principles available to them to form a system of government than incorporates those principles.

As I have mentioned many times I continually assert the adjective “healthy capitalism” to distinguish it from unhealthy capitalism, which can certainly exist as well (and have plenty of flaws). What makes a capitalism healthy or not comes from the nuance in how one combines principles along side it.

The very fact you keep talking about “healthy capitalism” belies that you know you’re talking about a fantasy where all of the problems with capitalism are magically solved.

Quite the opposite, if I thought capitalism was perfect as a pure ideology without the need for any other principles or nuance then I would not need the adjective “healthy”. The fact that I am using that adjective is exactly the evidence that it isnt a fantasy and that I am well aware that unhealthy capitalism can also exist.

I’m not interested in a system that’s only good if everyone does it right.

Since capitalism is not a “system” it is a pure ideology, and a system only comes about when you combine principles and nuance to create an overall mechanation this statement is nonsensical to the context.

The world has been brought to the brink of destruction under capitalism

The world has been brought to the brink of destruction under quite many principles in play, many of which have had unhealthy manifestations. This includes communistic countries (which also are equally nuanced).

it doesn’t matter what it’s like healthy when it’s so easily sickened.

Agreed, which is why the overall system selected must be one that is not easily sickened.

@Radical_EgoCom

@Radical_EgoCom

A few individuals concentrating wealth among themselves isn’t desirable

It is if those individuals are providing the most utility to society. Absolutely it is.

at least not to the poor

Even to the poor. A society that maximizes utility of its resources benefits the whole of society when that society has equity (instead of equality). Which as I said is an element of a healthy capitalism.

as it creates a power imbalances that favor the elite

No, it creates power imbalances that favor the people who add the most utility to society, making them elite. Which again, is exactly what we want.

These power imbalances exist because the capitalist system inherently prioritizes profit over the well-being of workers and the community

Incorrect. capitalism inherently prioritizes utility, profit without utility doesnt exist in a healthy capitalism. As for the well-being of workers, you only get maximum utility if you have healthy workers, ergo a healthy capitalism will not dismiss the health of its working populace.

making checks and balances insufficient in preventing exploitation and oppression.

Since your prior was wrong your posterior is likewise wrong.

It’s not individual or collective action that’s at fault, it’s the inherent nature of #capitalism.

Since you are repeatedly mischaracterizing what capitalism even is this conclusion falls flat.

@Vincarsi