3 ms·

>but if you're offered medicine with 95% efficacy that you can afford But it's not clear at all this is the case here. The article itself notes that it's unkno

>but if you're offered medicine with 95% efficacy that you can afford But it's not clear at all this is the case here. The article itself notes that it's unknown whether anyone has ever used any of these DIY medicines/medical devices, let alone how well they actually work. For all we know he could be pushing complete nonsense that kills people.

pizza 9y ago
He could be, but.. it's not as if all federally-sanctioned medicines are not complete nonsense that (don't) kill people, either. Let alone merely having greater iatrogenics than benefits. Relatedly, when doctors strike, mortality rates decrease [0]. Plus, very useful medicines that are deemed too unsafe to become publicly consumed may be totally safe for subsets of the general population, e.g. based on differing expression of enzymes, or other phenotypic differences. If you are (more or less) coping just fine with a health problem, (most often) you shouldn't really take any medicine whatsoever, regardless of whether or not it is approved. Only if you are distressed and desperate can you (a priori) expect medicine to do more good than harm. And if you are in that category, and the medicines that exist officially did not help, then you must make other attempts to rectify the problem in order to avoid danger. Admittedly it's not much of a source of relief, but the good thing about the nature of hobbyist tinkering networks is that information about dangers spreads fast, as well as information about discovered panaceas (both when the results are replicated in their favor, and when they falsify the panacea). [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849101 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849101