Comment on He made beer that’s also a vaccine. Now controversy is brewing
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 week ago
“The bureaucracy is inhibiting the science, and that’s unacceptable to me,”
There are a lot of genuinely good natured and ambitious people in this world. And the NIH is run by a fucking clown college, atm. So I respect this guy’s vibe.
But self-experimentation is a huge taboo in bio-ethics for a litany of reasons. If this guy was a proper professional, he’d know that. And - if anything - this kind of recklessness inhibits plans for distribution at-scale for any kind of reputable provider.
The second order consequence of this decision isn’t good for mass distribution. It invites this kind of technology (or, at least, the pastiche) to be picked up by huskters and con-artists.
“One week of people dying from not knowing about this is not trivial.”
Statements like this reek of quackery. Even if he’s legit, he’s talking like someone more interested in marketing his medicine than verifying its efficacy.
But self-experimentation is a huge taboo in bio-ethics for a litany of reasons. If this guy was a proper professional, he’d know that.
He’s a professional virologist with the NIH.
Speaking from my own professional lens, I think the consensus around self-experimentation in biomed is way less black and white you’re making it out to be. What are your particular scruples in this case, if you don’t mind me asking?
He’s a professional virologist with the NIH.
Then he should definitely know better and know why what he’s doing will ruin any chance he has of rapid certification.
I think the consensus around self-experimentation in biomed is way less black and white than you’re making it out to be. E.g., Dr. Barry Marshall famously won a nobel prize for self administering H. Pylori.
Marshall won a nobel prize despite self-administration. And he’s a popular example in large part because he’s one of the last of note. Setting aside the dangers of self-experimentation, there’s a host of issues ranging from the individual psychological (doctors are as vulnerable to sunk-cost fallacy as anyone) to broader problems of replication issues (publishing one-off successes/failures can lead to misinformation regarding the viability of a given therapy).
As a counter-example, about ten years ago there was a huge media fixation on Reservatrol, stemming in part from scientists involved in the study boasting that they self administered to amazing effect. Consequently, the vaunted claims of the pharmaceutical- as an anti-aging drug and neuro-protectant - failed to bare out in practice. But it became a popular OTC remedy pushed by the Alternative Medicine folks.
Ginseng, Garlic, St. John’s Wort, and Acai Berries underwent the same fad promotions. Dr. Oz, most prominently, made a career of pushing various alternative supplements and remedies that he claimed he personally used or he used on celebrity guests and show hosts to great effect.
Then he should definitely know better and know why what he’s doing will ruin any chance he has of rapid certification.
Asking naively: In what way would this self-experiment have bearing on later trials done by other parties?
Setting aside the dangers of self-experimentation, there’s a host of issues ranging from the individual psychological (doctors are as vulnerable to sunk-cost fallacy as anyone) to broader problems of replication issues (publishing one-off successes/failures can lead to misinformation regarding the viability of a given therapy).
IMO the main issue I saw in this case was administering to family members, to put my cards on the table, but I think given the risk profile, it was acceptable in context if they were well-informed and had an epipen handy.
All research involves risk, and a key pillar of bioethics is the requirement of informed consent. Generally speaking, no one is better informed than a principal investigator to give that consent, and no one has better-aligned incentives to ensure safety.
I also think any doing serious biomed research is well-educated enough to understand standards of evidence and treat small-N case studies for what they are.
Ginseng, Garlic, St. John’s Wort, and Acai Berries underwent the same fad promotions.
This is going too far in my book; wishful thinking is the problem here, not self-experimentation in a clinical context. I agree these supplements are overhyped, but do you really think we should be barring people from trying out garlic and reporting what they experience?
The ethical issue in the case of grifter supplements is trying to financially profit from a contrived narrative, not the inherent process of trying things on a small scale and reporting those findings.
but do you really think we should be barring people from trying out garlic and reporting what they experience?
People are dying of sepsis using garlic and oregano oil instead of proper antibiotics. We forgot the miracle of Apple Cider Vinegar and CBD oil.
yakko@feddit.uk 1 week ago
You’ve got your head on straight, the last thing we need right now is sensationalist rhetoric and poor scientific ethics. It’s a fun idea and he makes some good points, but this isn’t how a serious person advocates for serious work.