5 ms·
I don't necessarily disagree with your premise, but something _can_ be both historic and modest. The first, tiny steps can show that there's something we can do
by mmastrac 4y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with your premise, but something _can_ be both historic and modest. The first, tiny steps can show that there's something we can do about it and that's historic.
Whether these benefits actually exist... well I'm on the same page as you with skepticism.
- pessimizer 4y ago> something _can_ be both historic and modest. Totally agreed. But can something be both "historic" and not even "minim[ally] worthwhile"?
- aidenn0 4y agoYes, something can be historic from a reasearch and knowledge point of view while not being worthwhile clinically.
- pessimizer 4y agoOr a minimal or nonexistent effect could be used to justify a continued investment in a bad direction.
- andrewflnr 4y agoYes, those are both possibilities. We don't know yet. What are you expecting, that we'll figure it out by pure reason here in HN comments? Wait for the rest of the evidence.
- bigDinosaur 4y agoAre there good examples of clinically worthless research and medicines later leading to genuinely worthwhile cures/treatments etc? I can't think of any but I am curious what examples you have in mind.
- aidenn0 4y agoThe first recipient of a human heart transplant died 18 days later. Now the average life after one is 15 years.
- rowanG077 4y agoBasically every piece of medical knowledge starts out as clinically worthless and over time grows into it. mRNA was clinically worthless until COVID. Radiation therapy did more harm then good when invented but is now a staple. CRISPR is still clinically worthless afaik.