I am slightly surprised that the author/submitter, Matthew Cauble, does not mention that he is the formulator/founder of Soylent, the story of which, I am sure, we are all at least passingly familiar. I cannot specifically address the veracity of his understanding of chemistry, but the pattern of speech here does slightly concern me. I hope that those who are close to him have taken it upon themselves to verify and tend as best they can to his mental health.<p>That said, beyond my hesitation as to whether I am reading science or pseudo-science, I can't help but feel that we have been here before. This does resemble the pattern of reveals leading to the introduction of Soylent. I have no opinion one way or another about Soylent, and I would readily believe it to be as good a meal replacement as exists. As a business plan, however, this new idea would seem to invite some far more complicated encumbrances. Mr. Cauble may intend to market the product as a nutritional supplement, but here he is openly discussing pharmokinetics, medical effects, and formulating the product so that it has specific medical effects. I am not a lawyer, but a cursory look at the regulatory environment suggests that he must be on rather thin ice.<p>Furthermore, as happened early in the Soylent story, his claims appear to be once more incautious, bordering on reckless. Mr. Cauble should surely know, now if not then, that he can no more ascertain the medical safety (let alone efficacy) of a potential medical product by personally consuming it every day for 54 days than I could prove LSD harmless by consuming it daily for a like period. What he means by "safe" is "it appears to not have poisoned me yet."<p>If Mr. Cauble is merely reporting on personal experimentation, then well and good. If this is the introduction to a new product, then the emergency brakes should be engaged right now. It would mean that this blog post was a form of deliberate advertisement, that Mr. Cauble intended to introduce this product to market with absolutely no proof of efficacy and a reckless disregard of safety, and that he was doing these things despite the absolute certainty that we all should have that, after the long story of Soylent, he absolutely should and does know better, and is not innocent in any disregard for moral or ethical standards.