3 ms·
You're completely missing the point. Those two things are not comparable. Yes, it's not a controlled study. But it still has enormous value. If I tell you I in
by darawk 11y ago
You're completely missing the point. Those two things are not comparable. Yes, it's not a controlled study. But it still has enormous value.
If I tell you I invented a cure for cancer, you should be highly skeptical of me. But if I tell you I have a cure for cancer, prove to you that I have cancer, then cure my own cancer - you shouldn't give that treatment FDA approval, but you should sure as hell start the clinical trials process. Whereas if I do not treat myself or anyone else, you should just write me off as a crank.
That is the difference between the world before and after this self-experiment. It upgrades the probability in everyone's mind that this is a real thing and it can really work. It doesn't mean we should all go blindly get the treatment done, but it does mean we should take this research much more seriously. That is its value.
- semi-extrinsic 11y agoExcept in this case, the proof that you've cured cancer (and that you had cancer in the first place) comes from a non-reputable lab (SpectraCell), doing a telomere length test which has not been documented in the literature. It's even on Quackwatch's list of labs doing "Dubious diagnostics tests".