4 ms·

Who is they? We should promote amateur science among those with the means, ability, and integrity. That seems to me to be the best route to more drugs, cheaper

Who is they? We should promote amateur science among those with the means, ability, and integrity. That seems to me to be the best route to more drugs, cheaper drugs, and increased scientific literacy among the public. So much public reward and so little personal risk. Sigma Aldritch has 25 mg for $400. Your hobbies could include a personal bio-science company. Wouldn't that be a more interesting future self? More on ISRIB from the same people: - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3667625/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3667625/ - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4341466/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4341466/ Also, Centrophexine (aka Meclofenoxate on wikipedia) (and probably DMAE) works in humans with dementia using similar mechanisms as I understand it: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2506844/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2506844/

edjrage 6y ago
Should amateurs be allowed to do animal testing? The answer seems no, almost by definition.
- icandoit 6y ago
  I have found that feeding my dogs a food high in fish has improved their allergies. This was plainly ethical, right? I was suggesting that people test on themselves. Which is we something we already don and can only avoid by outsourcing all our choices. If I expect a given behavior to be net-beneficial and I carefully document and publish my findings who is harmed? What set of behavior, specifically, are you looking to legislate away? The fewer people looking for drugs and treatments the more expensive those will be. Every restriction is another price hike.
  - vulcan01 6y ago
    > I was suggesting that people test on themselves. My fear is that people may be deceived by random people to test "miracle drug" that turns out to cause heart problems or something equally serious.
  - edjrage 6y ago
    > This was plainly ethical, right? Maybe not? We could even have a discussion whether it's ethical to have a pet at all. But that's not even the point. You should probably be able to tell the difference between food that has been known to be consumed since forever vs. experimental drugs (or food for that matter). > I was suggesting that people test on themselves Ok, if that's your point, I'm completely on board with that. It wasn't very clear from your comment.

edjrage 6y ago

Should amateurs be allowed to do animal testing? The answer seems no, almost by definition.

icandoit 6y ago
I have found that feeding my dogs a food high in fish has improved their allergies. This was plainly ethical, right? I was suggesting that people test on themselves. Which is we something we already don and can only avoid by outsourcing all our choices. If I expect a given behavior to be net-beneficial and I carefully document and publish my findings who is harmed? What set of behavior, specifically, are you looking to legislate away? The fewer people looking for drugs and treatments the more expensive those will be. Every restriction is another price hike.
- vulcan01 6y ago
  > I was suggesting that people test on themselves. My fear is that people may be deceived by random people to test "miracle drug" that turns out to cause heart problems or something equally serious.
- edjrage 6y ago
  > This was plainly ethical, right? Maybe not? We could even have a discussion whether it's ethical to have a pet at all. But that's not even the point. You should probably be able to tell the difference between food that has been known to be consumed since forever vs. experimental drugs (or food for that matter). > I was suggesting that people test on themselves Ok, if that's your point, I'm completely on board with that. It wasn't very clear from your comment.