7 ms·

Without any evidence of efficacy, this article doesn't strike me as much different from "I went into the woods and gathered up some herbs and made myself an eli

by Imnimo 6y ago

Without any evidence of efficacy, this article doesn't strike me as much different from "I went into the woods and gathered up some herbs and made myself an elixir that cures covid". I guess it's neat that you did all that stuff, but unless it actually helps, who cares? Doing it with science-y ingredients instead of herbs and ordered them online instead of harvesting them from plants doesn't magically mean it actually works.

ChuckMcM 6y ago
The difference however is that this article is based on the scientific method, and the go into the woods and gather herbs is based on mythology. Now the reasonableness of experimenting on yourself, even in a scientifically "valid" way, is certainly arguable. But the elements are all there; Theory of the Immune system, Hypothesis that it can be trained in this way, experiment that trains immune system in a known with with the experimental training element. As others have pointed out, the immune system is designed to kill cells it doesn't like. And it has been demonstrated in other scenarios that it can target cells that are vital to one's survival, resulting in death when the immune system targets and kills those cells. Thus the risk in the experiment is that it will successfully invoke an immune response, it just won't be the one that was anticipated. Not surprisingly, this is the whole point of animal trials to get a feel for what might happen.
- fabian2k 6y ago
  It's hardly the scientific method when the outcome isn't actually measured. It is entirely unknown whether this whole procedure has done anything at all.
  - habryka 6y ago
    The author said he is going to try to do measurements to the best of what is easily possible: > So, we’ll do (up to) two more blood tests. The first will be two weeks after our third (weekly) dose; that one is the “optimistic” test, in case three doses is more-than-enough already. That one is optimistic for another reason as well: synthesis/delivery of three of the nine peptides was delayed, so our first three doses will only use six of them. If the optimistic test comes back positive, great, we’re done. > If that test comes back negative, then the next test will be the “more dakka” test. We’ll add the other three peptides, take another few weeks of boosters, maybe adjust frequency and/or dosage - we’ll consider exactly what changes to make if and when the optimistic test comes back negative. Risks are very minimal (again, see the paper), so throwing more dakka at it makes sense. > Consider this a pre-registration. I intend to share my test results here. Pre-registration for this kind of thing seems pretty good, and I am looking forward to seeing the results.
    - jonas21 6y ago
      And yet he titled the post "Making Vaccine". Unless you make it all the way through to the end, you might assume that he actually did make a vaccine -- and judging by the comments on HN, it looks like some people are assuming this. It all seems a bit... irresponsible?
      - avs733 6y ago
        Irresponsible or less wrong?
    - amluto 6y ago
      I've taken a whopping one class about immunology, so I'm not even remotely qualified. But maybe I'm just qualified enough to call this nonsense. The author is planning to take a "test". What test? The standard lab tests are some proprietary qualitative test looking for antibodies to a specific synthetic antigen. For a (new, untested!) vaccine, this is a dubious experiment at best. The vaccine could produce an amazing antibody response that doesn't trigger the test, or it could produce a tiny, useless response that happens to trigger the test. And the test is unlikely to give numbers. But this vaccine is using short-ish peptides. There are two (at least? I think just two) different types of T-cell receptor, and they are sensitive to different lengths of peptide. Testing for those is complicated and expensive. I don't know how one would find a lab to do the relevant tests, but it's probably not so easy.
  - ElijahLynn 6y ago
    From the article (towards the end): > If the vaccine induces an immune response in the blood, then it almost certainly induces one in the mucus lining, but the reverse does not hold. So a positive blood antibody test means it definitely works, a negative antibody test is a weak update against. > So, we’ll do (up to) two more blood tests. The first will be two weeks after our third (weekly) dose; that one is the “optimistic” test, in case three doses is more-than-enough already. That one is optimistic for another reason as well: synthesis/delivery of three of the nine peptides was delayed, so our first three doses will only use six of them. If the optimistic test comes back positive, great, we’re done. > If that test comes back negative, then the next test will be the “more dakka” test. We’ll add the other three peptides, take another few weeks of boosters, maybe adjust frequency and/or dosage - we’ll consider exactly what changes to make if and when the optimistic test comes back negative. Risks are very minimal (again, see the paper), so throwing more dakka at it makes sense. > Consider this a pre-registration. I intend to share my test results here.
- Imnimo 6y ago
  I would grant that it has a lot of the trapping of the scientific method, and uses a lot of the terminology. But I think we're kidding ourselves if we pretend that there's much knowledge to be gained here. It's a non-controlled trial with n=2 using ingredients of uncertain purity and a loose experimental protocol ("We’ll add the other three peptides, take another few weeks of boosters, maybe adjust frequency and/or dosage - we’ll consider exactly what changes to make if and when the optimistic test comes back negative."). I'd certainly put the net contribution to scientific knowledge below that of someone who just signs up for a clinical trial. It's like a scientific method LARP.
  - jpttsn 6y ago
    On the other hand, while the sample size is small, you can’t beat the representativeness of their sample. Self experiment, not in order to generalize conclusions to the rest of the world, but to find useful conclusions for own use.
    - avs733 6y ago
      It does not have a sample size. It was not sampled and one is not a size. The most basic cases of statistics run on point estimate evaluations. With one datum you just have a point, not an estimate, and you cannot evaluate anything.
  - ChuckMcM 6y ago
    Okay, I love "scientific method LARP"! Granted it is a bit elitist but still, conveys a solid point. As a counter point, was Edward Jenner[1] a LARPer or a scientist? Follow up question, was his net contribution to science "big" or "small"? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/
    - Imnimo 6y ago
      Jenner was living in the 1700s and was doing the best he could with the tools of the time. Still, his report included 20+ people, included challenge results in which subjects were exposed to smallpox to verify their immunity. If the role models for this exercise are all from the 18th century, that should ring some alarm bells.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  Does "go into the woods and gather herbs" follow the scientific method if I write my observations neatly in a blog post? The author says they will accept that their homebrew worked if they get a positive antibody test (yet, plenty of people will get a positive antibody test without any administration of homebrew or vaccine); but will not accept that it failed if there is a negative antibody test. As such, their hypothesis is not falsifiable and it is not science.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    I think you misunderstand what "falsifiable" means. This hypothesis is absolutely falsifiable. He just doesn't have the resources to conclusively falsify this hypothesis, because he's working with a small sample size and doesn't have affordable access to testing for immunity in the mucus lining.
    - throwaway2245 6y ago
      The hypothesis "my homebrew works at scale" is falsifiable. As you say, that really isn't under test, nor is it a hypothesis the author cares about. The hypothesis "my homebrew has worked on me" is what the blog asks ("I'm curious whether it will work - or whether we'll be able to tell that it works."). That is not falsifiable.
      - wtallis 6y ago
        > The hypothesis "my homebrew has worked on me" is not. If he ends up getting COVID-19 in a few months, he'll have pretty strongly falsified that hypothesis. You cannot dismiss a hypothesis as "not scientific" simply because it's likely that your search for evidence will be inconclusive.
        throwaway2245 6y ago
        I don't agree that is technically falsified. I know you used "pretty strongly" as sarcasm, but falsifiability is absolute - and this is not. (On your later point about my claim that this is not scientific, we are back to the comparison with gathering roots and berries - either both are, or both are not)
- xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
  The scientific method isn't "make up something plausible-sounding and then assume it will work". That is, at best, the first step.

by Imnimo 6y ago

ChuckMcM 6y ago

The difference however is that this article is based on the scientific method, and the go into the woods and gather herbs is based on mythology. Now the reasonableness of experimenting on yourself, even in a scientifically "valid" way, is certainly arguable. But the elements are all there; Theory of the Immune system, Hypothesis that it can be trained in this way, experiment that trains immune system in a known with with the experimental training element. As others have pointed out, the immune system is designed to kill cells it doesn't like. And it has been demonstrated in other scenarios that it can target cells that are vital to one's survival, resulting in death when the immune system targets and kills those cells. Thus the risk in the experiment is that it will successfully invoke an immune response, it just won't be the one that was anticipated. Not surprisingly, this is the whole point of animal trials to get a feel for what might happen.

fabian2k 6y ago
It's hardly the scientific method when the outcome isn't actually measured. It is entirely unknown whether this whole procedure has done anything at all.
- habryka 6y ago
  The author said he is going to try to do measurements to the best of what is easily possible: > So, we’ll do (up to) two more blood tests. The first will be two weeks after our third (weekly) dose; that one is the “optimistic” test, in case three doses is more-than-enough already. That one is optimistic for another reason as well: synthesis/delivery of three of the nine peptides was delayed, so our first three doses will only use six of them. If the optimistic test comes back positive, great, we’re done. > If that test comes back negative, then the next test will be the “more dakka” test. We’ll add the other three peptides, take another few weeks of boosters, maybe adjust frequency and/or dosage - we’ll consider exactly what changes to make if and when the optimistic test comes back negative. Risks are very minimal (again, see the paper), so throwing more dakka at it makes sense. > Consider this a pre-registration. I intend to share my test results here. Pre-registration for this kind of thing seems pretty good, and I am looking forward to seeing the results.
  - jonas21 6y ago
    And yet he titled the post "Making Vaccine". Unless you make it all the way through to the end, you might assume that he actually did make a vaccine -- and judging by the comments on HN, it looks like some people are assuming this. It all seems a bit... irresponsible?
    - avs733 6y ago
      Irresponsible or less wrong?
  - amluto 6y ago
    I've taken a whopping one class about immunology, so I'm not even remotely qualified. But maybe I'm just qualified enough to call this nonsense. The author is planning to take a "test". What test? The standard lab tests are some proprietary qualitative test looking for antibodies to a specific synthetic antigen. For a (new, untested!) vaccine, this is a dubious experiment at best. The vaccine could produce an amazing antibody response that doesn't trigger the test, or it could produce a tiny, useless response that happens to trigger the test. And the test is unlikely to give numbers. But this vaccine is using short-ish peptides. There are two (at least? I think just two) different types of T-cell receptor, and they are sensitive to different lengths of peptide. Testing for those is complicated and expensive. I don't know how one would find a lab to do the relevant tests, but it's probably not so easy.
- ElijahLynn 6y ago
  From the article (towards the end): > If the vaccine induces an immune response in the blood, then it almost certainly induces one in the mucus lining, but the reverse does not hold. So a positive blood antibody test means it definitely works, a negative antibody test is a weak update against. > So, we’ll do (up to) two more blood tests. The first will be two weeks after our third (weekly) dose; that one is the “optimistic” test, in case three doses is more-than-enough already. That one is optimistic for another reason as well: synthesis/delivery of three of the nine peptides was delayed, so our first three doses will only use six of them. If the optimistic test comes back positive, great, we’re done. > If that test comes back negative, then the next test will be the “more dakka” test. We’ll add the other three peptides, take another few weeks of boosters, maybe adjust frequency and/or dosage - we’ll consider exactly what changes to make if and when the optimistic test comes back negative. Risks are very minimal (again, see the paper), so throwing more dakka at it makes sense. > Consider this a pre-registration. I intend to share my test results here.
Imnimo 6y ago
I would grant that it has a lot of the trapping of the scientific method, and uses a lot of the terminology. But I think we're kidding ourselves if we pretend that there's much knowledge to be gained here. It's a non-controlled trial with n=2 using ingredients of uncertain purity and a loose experimental protocol ("We’ll add the other three peptides, take another few weeks of boosters, maybe adjust frequency and/or dosage - we’ll consider exactly what changes to make if and when the optimistic test comes back negative."). I'd certainly put the net contribution to scientific knowledge below that of someone who just signs up for a clinical trial. It's like a scientific method LARP.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  On the other hand, while the sample size is small, you can’t beat the representativeness of their sample. Self experiment, not in order to generalize conclusions to the rest of the world, but to find useful conclusions for own use.
  - avs733 6y ago
    It does not have a sample size. It was not sampled and one is not a size. The most basic cases of statistics run on point estimate evaluations. With one datum you just have a point, not an estimate, and you cannot evaluate anything.
- ChuckMcM 6y ago
  Okay, I love "scientific method LARP"! Granted it is a bit elitist but still, conveys a solid point. As a counter point, was Edward Jenner[1] a LARPer or a scientist? Follow up question, was his net contribution to science "big" or "small"? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/
  - Imnimo 6y ago
    Jenner was living in the 1700s and was doing the best he could with the tools of the time. Still, his report included 20+ people, included challenge results in which subjects were exposed to smallpox to verify their immunity. If the role models for this exercise are all from the 18th century, that should ring some alarm bells.
throwaway2245 6y ago
Does "go into the woods and gather herbs" follow the scientific method if I write my observations neatly in a blog post? The author says they will accept that their homebrew worked if they get a positive antibody test (yet, plenty of people will get a positive antibody test without any administration of homebrew or vaccine); but will not accept that it failed if there is a negative antibody test. As such, their hypothesis is not falsifiable and it is not science.
- wtallis 6y ago
  I think you misunderstand what "falsifiable" means. This hypothesis is absolutely falsifiable. He just doesn't have the resources to conclusively falsify this hypothesis, because he's working with a small sample size and doesn't have affordable access to testing for immunity in the mucus lining.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    The hypothesis "my homebrew works at scale" is falsifiable. As you say, that really isn't under test, nor is it a hypothesis the author cares about. The hypothesis "my homebrew has worked on me" is what the blog asks ("I'm curious whether it will work - or whether we'll be able to tell that it works."). That is not falsifiable.
    - wtallis 6y ago
      > The hypothesis "my homebrew has worked on me" is not. If he ends up getting COVID-19 in a few months, he'll have pretty strongly falsified that hypothesis. You cannot dismiss a hypothesis as "not scientific" simply because it's likely that your search for evidence will be inconclusive.
      - throwaway2245 6y ago
        I don't agree that is technically falsified. I know you used "pretty strongly" as sarcasm, but falsifiability is absolute - and this is not. (On your later point about my claim that this is not scientific, we are back to the comparison with gathering roots and berries - either both are, or both are not)
xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
The scientific method isn't "make up something plausible-sounding and then assume it will work". That is, at best, the first step.