3 ms·

Um... are you reading the same post as the rest of us? He's just trying out something an actual expert has made to see if it works when he tries to do it. So f

Um... are you reading the same post as the rest of us? He's just trying out something an actual expert has made to see if it works when he tries to do it. So far it hasn't worked, as he admits, but it certainly could. Sure, it's probably with greater cost, higher risk and less effectiveness than the mass produced vaccines I expect (and the author would likely agree). But it's certainly not the case thay a layman can never do what an expert can do, particularly if they are following expert instructions, they just shouldn't expect to do it as reliably or well as an expert (for example, with a bit of reading up you can wire your house and it'll probably be ok, but the expert is far less likely to electrocute himself and has a much lower chance of doing something that will lead to your house burning down). Are you so offended by someone spending $1000 and a few hours on a hobby that may have some useful results that you must assume bad things about them?

danpalmer 6y ago
The hubris is to expect that someone at home can manufacture something worthy of being called a vaccine if they're just smart enough to follow the science. Theoretically this might be true, but in practice it seems obvious that this will fail. I can think of so many ways in which this could be subtly invalid and I am in no way an expert. I would expect someone with commercial lab experience or vaccine production experience to be able to point out a hundred ways in which this won't work. Maybe the more obvious problem though is that we can't know if it works either. Without a valid scientific study on the effectiveness it's all just a guess. To call it a vaccine is hubris because it is precisely this study that deems a concoction of ingredients to actually be a vaccine. I'd expect Less Wrong to be the first place to point out all the flaws in the idea of just getting an antibody test to decide if it's working.
- concordDance 6y ago
  > The hubris is to expect that someone at home can manufacture something worthy of being called a vaccine if they're just smart enough to follow the science. Are you defining "vaccine" in a manner that makes those 19th century things called "vaccines" not actually vaccines? Vaccines aren't magic that can only be done by a suitably blessed priest and aren't necesarily even very high tech...
- Kim_Bruning 6y ago
  I must admit I only skimmed the white paper, and saved it to read in more detail later. Maybe I missed some part that set you off? https://radvac.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/White-Paper-SARS-CoV-2-vaccine-ver-3-3-1.pdf https://radvac.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/White-Paper-SA... (be aware: there's 3 pages of warnings and disclaimers upfront. They are very clear that this constitutes self-experimentation.) The paper does appear to assume that the reader is indeed an expert or at least a somewhat experienced amateur. If you sign up on their researchers map, they do ask whether you have a science degree and/or lab experience: https://radvac.org/researchers-map/ https://radvac.org/researchers-map/ I must admit I'm stymied by your implication that an antibody test wouldn't constitute evidence that the vaccine had been effective in that instance (n=1). What makes you say that?
- henryaj 6y ago
  He says he has lab experience. He followed the protocol set out in the paper. Sure he might have made a mistake - but it’s not magic. If you think there’s something off about his protocol, then say what it is. But your criticism is just “this guy is reaching above his station”. Sasha Shulgin synthesised plenty of compounds at home and tested them on himself. Did none of them work because he wasn’t working in a commercial lab?
amelius 6y ago
The main problem is probably that as a hobbyist you can only perform "N=1 experiments", and even without a control.
- moonbug 6y ago
  the dude made his girlfriends take it too.
  - henryaj 6y ago
    He didn’t “make” anyone do anything.
- Kim_Bruning 6y ago
  This appears to be an "open source science" project. https://radvac.org/a-homepage-section/ https://radvac.org/a-homepage-section/ What you can do is conduct experiments, and report back what you find. If enough people do that, then together one can get usable n.
  - jonathanstrange 6y ago
    Note the long disclaimer, though, clarifying among many other things: "Possible Risks and Uncertain Benefits - Immediate allergic or other serious reaction - Unforeseen long-term effects - Instillation/administration of the vaccine in an inappropriate way or in an infected area might increase the risk of infection by enhancing viral entry into the body - Benefits are uncertain. There are extensive published histories of the materials and procedures described on this site, but every novel vaccine should be considered experimental, with the possibility there will be no benefit. - Even if there are signs of immune response there is no guarantee this response is indicative of protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection, or if protection is achieved, how long it will last. - Even if the vaccine confers protection from the virus, certain methods for assessing protection–such as measuring antibodies due to previous infection–might not capture vaccine-induced immunity. In such cases, infection, and thus a positive test result, are unlikely to occur. Immunity passports and other privileges given to convalescents might be difficult to obtain for those with vaccine-induced immunity. - Use of this vaccine may change the efficacy of any future vaccines you may take or that are administered to you, in unknown ways."

danpalmer 6y ago

The hubris is to expect that someone at home can manufacture something worthy of being called a vaccine if they're just smart enough to follow the science. Theoretically this might be true, but in practice it seems obvious that this will fail. I can think of so many ways in which this could be subtly invalid and I am in no way an expert. I would expect someone with commercial lab experience or vaccine production experience to be able to point out a hundred ways in which this won't work. Maybe the more obvious problem though is that we can't know if it works either. Without a valid scientific study on the effectiveness it's all just a guess. To call it a vaccine is hubris because it is precisely this study that deems a concoction of ingredients to actually be a vaccine. I'd expect Less Wrong to be the first place to point out all the flaws in the idea of just getting an antibody test to decide if it's working.

concordDance 6y ago
> The hubris is to expect that someone at home can manufacture something worthy of being called a vaccine if they're just smart enough to follow the science. Are you defining "vaccine" in a manner that makes those 19th century things called "vaccines" not actually vaccines? Vaccines aren't magic that can only be done by a suitably blessed priest and aren't necesarily even very high tech...
Kim_Bruning 6y ago
I must admit I only skimmed the white paper, and saved it to read in more detail later. Maybe I missed some part that set you off? https://radvac.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/White-Paper-SARS-CoV-2-vaccine-ver-3-3-1.pdf https://radvac.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/White-Paper-SA... (be aware: there's 3 pages of warnings and disclaimers upfront. They are very clear that this constitutes self-experimentation.) The paper does appear to assume that the reader is indeed an expert or at least a somewhat experienced amateur. If you sign up on their researchers map, they do ask whether you have a science degree and/or lab experience: https://radvac.org/researchers-map/ https://radvac.org/researchers-map/ I must admit I'm stymied by your implication that an antibody test wouldn't constitute evidence that the vaccine had been effective in that instance (n=1). What makes you say that?
henryaj 6y ago
He says he has lab experience. He followed the protocol set out in the paper. Sure he might have made a mistake - but it’s not magic. If you think there’s something off about his protocol, then say what it is. But your criticism is just “this guy is reaching above his station”. Sasha Shulgin synthesised plenty of compounds at home and tested them on himself. Did none of them work because he wasn’t working in a commercial lab?

amelius 6y ago

The main problem is probably that as a hobbyist you can only perform "N=1 experiments", and even without a control.

moonbug 6y ago
the dude made his girlfriends take it too.
- henryaj 6y ago
  He didn’t “make” anyone do anything.
Kim_Bruning 6y ago
This appears to be an "open source science" project. https://radvac.org/a-homepage-section/ https://radvac.org/a-homepage-section/ What you can do is conduct experiments, and report back what you find. If enough people do that, then together one can get usable n.
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  Note the long disclaimer, though, clarifying among many other things: "Possible Risks and Uncertain Benefits - Immediate allergic or other serious reaction - Unforeseen long-term effects - Instillation/administration of the vaccine in an inappropriate way or in an infected area might increase the risk of infection by enhancing viral entry into the body - Benefits are uncertain. There are extensive published histories of the materials and procedures described on this site, but every novel vaccine should be considered experimental, with the possibility there will be no benefit. - Even if there are signs of immune response there is no guarantee this response is indicative of protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection, or if protection is achieved, how long it will last. - Even if the vaccine confers protection from the virus, certain methods for assessing protection–such as measuring antibodies due to previous infection–might not capture vaccine-induced immunity. In such cases, infection, and thus a positive test result, are unlikely to occur. Immunity passports and other privileges given to convalescents might be difficult to obtain for those with vaccine-induced immunity. - Use of this vaccine may change the efficacy of any future vaccines you may take or that are administered to you, in unknown ways."