6 ms·

You’re not seeing all the other candidate treatments that made things worse. If it just gives everyone a heart attack immediately the question would be, why did

by jryb 1y ago

You’re not seeing all the other candidate treatments that made things worse. If it just gives everyone a heart attack immediately the question would be, why didn’t you try this out on mice first?

adastra22 1y ago
My body, my choice. I get the restriction on marketing and selling until some degree of safety and perhaps efficacy is demonstrated. But I should be allowed to choose to take the treatment if offered for free, even without any previous study.
- b112 1y ago
  The main reason for all of this, is scams. Nutjobs without any medical background making claims without any scientific evidence. Or scam artists putting sawdust from a "special tree" into a bottle, and saying it cured his aunt, so it will cure you! If you look at the history of such things, it's just a constant battle against people being fleeced out of money. Con artists (and some of these wear lab coats and are quite professional in appearance and speak) know that desperation means easy prey. It's disgusting, but there it is. And it wasn't just a little problem. It was a huge problem. If the legal framework we have in place was torn down, you'd see all that re-emerge in a second. I agree that there should indeed be a way to balance snail oil salesman techniques, with the choice of someone in a dire circumstance. I did once read that there are FDA approved methods to get in on early stage/pre-clinical trials. These are targeted for people with severe conditions. People aren't being heartless here. But at the same time, loved ones will litigate to get money back from scam artists. This also includes going after doctors or facilities or anyone willing to enable such actions. And if treatments go sideways, and no one validated that it was anything more than made up gibberish? The lawsuits will fly then, too. The cops may follow. And it should be this way Truth is, you are free to imbibe and consume anything you want. No one can really stop you. And whatever method is being used here, I'm sure you could replicate it, buy the hardware, and so on. You are free to do this. It's just that no one wants to help. So you are free.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    That’s why said “if offered for free.” And no, I am not allowed to imbibe and consume anything I want (see war on drugs), nor is someone allowed to make a drug for me, even if they give it to me for free. I am not free to just make a medication on my own. I tried this. The lab I was going to rent backed out when the FDA threatened shutting them down.
    - coldtea 1y ago
      >nor is someone allowed to make a drug for me, even if they give it to me for free. Nutjobs and snake-oil are not just for-profit. See cults. See bizarro medical claims from kooks. See flat eathers. >I am not free to just make a medication on my own. I tried this. The lab I was going to rent backed out when the FDA threatened shutting them down. If somebody is going to rent a lab to "make a medication of their own", it's best that they're kept out of it.
- samus 1y ago
  Nobody will offer it to you though. And if they don't even get it to work in an animal model, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't even exist.
- intended 1y ago
  Your body your choice has no application here. No one is compromising your bodily autonomy. The regulation is to ensure a working marketplace - which is fundamentally a collection of humans interacting. The regulation is to prevent predictable abuses of market power.
  - 0xEF 1y ago
    That's fair, I guess, but say there were some way for me to sign a contract saying they could test on me should I become afflicted Alzheimer's? Wouldn't there be some sort of legal protection for them, then? Because I'd happily do it. I've watched multiple family members suffer from some form of severe mental decline and it is horrifying enough to make me willing to sacrifice myself if there is even a sliver of a chance that my sacrifice will help future generations avoid that pain. And since we're all nerds here, we all know that if we want to know if a thing actually works the way we want it to, we have to test it repeatedly in its working environment.
    - dpark 1y ago
      > Wouldn't there be some sort of legal protection for them, then? Not really, no. A company that unleashed unproven drugs in a vulnerable human population would be sued into oblivion. They would lose in court over and over as judges and juries decided that no, you cannot in fact sign away your right to not be subjected to criminal negligence. They would very likely be subjected to criminal prosecution as well. This (the lawsuits) happens all the time. People sign waivers, get hurt, and the courts decide that the level of negligence involved overrides the waiver. Happened a while back at a Jiu Jitsu gym. Someone signed all the waivers and got paralyzed and successfully sued for $46 million. The jury decided that the instructor was criminally negligent.
      - samus 1y ago
        Things like these are sometimes done for experimental cancer therapies. Granted, the patients are going to die anyway, and the therapy has gone through most of the trials.
- coldtea 1y ago
  >My body, my choice This is not available to you yet. Their drug, their choice.
- more_corn 1y ago
  You can. The restriction is on anyone else offering it to you. Theres a long tradition of medical researchers experimenting on themselves. Barry Marshall was so sure bacteria could cause ulcers that he consumed said bacteria, and gave himself ulcers in order to cure them with antibiotics. There’s also a FDA provision for treatment of last resort. If you’ve got a terminal condition with no approved treatment and there’s a possible treatment of unknown safety and effectiveness you can apply and get that treatment. If you or a loved one has Alzheimer’s I highly encourage you to request this treatment. You’ll be risking unknown side effects and or death, but it will generate data for those who come after and could advance the treatment of this terrible disease by a decade.

by jryb 1y ago

You’re not seeing all the other candidate treatments that made things worse. If it just gives everyone a heart attack immediately the question would be, why didn’t you try this out on mice first?

adastra22 1y ago

My body, my choice. I get the restriction on marketing and selling until some degree of safety and perhaps efficacy is demonstrated. But I should be allowed to choose to take the treatment if offered for free, even without any previous study.

b112 1y ago
The main reason for all of this, is scams. Nutjobs without any medical background making claims without any scientific evidence. Or scam artists putting sawdust from a "special tree" into a bottle, and saying it cured his aunt, so it will cure you! If you look at the history of such things, it's just a constant battle against people being fleeced out of money. Con artists (and some of these wear lab coats and are quite professional in appearance and speak) know that desperation means easy prey. It's disgusting, but there it is. And it wasn't just a little problem. It was a huge problem. If the legal framework we have in place was torn down, you'd see all that re-emerge in a second. I agree that there should indeed be a way to balance snail oil salesman techniques, with the choice of someone in a dire circumstance. I did once read that there are FDA approved methods to get in on early stage/pre-clinical trials. These are targeted for people with severe conditions. People aren't being heartless here. But at the same time, loved ones will litigate to get money back from scam artists. This also includes going after doctors or facilities or anyone willing to enable such actions. And if treatments go sideways, and no one validated that it was anything more than made up gibberish? The lawsuits will fly then, too. The cops may follow. And it should be this way Truth is, you are free to imbibe and consume anything you want. No one can really stop you. And whatever method is being used here, I'm sure you could replicate it, buy the hardware, and so on. You are free to do this. It's just that no one wants to help. So you are free.
- adastra22 1y ago
  That’s why said “if offered for free.” And no, I am not allowed to imbibe and consume anything I want (see war on drugs), nor is someone allowed to make a drug for me, even if they give it to me for free. I am not free to just make a medication on my own. I tried this. The lab I was going to rent backed out when the FDA threatened shutting them down.
  - coldtea 1y ago
    >nor is someone allowed to make a drug for me, even if they give it to me for free. Nutjobs and snake-oil are not just for-profit. See cults. See bizarro medical claims from kooks. See flat eathers. >I am not free to just make a medication on my own. I tried this. The lab I was going to rent backed out when the FDA threatened shutting them down. If somebody is going to rent a lab to "make a medication of their own", it's best that they're kept out of it.
samus 1y ago
Nobody will offer it to you though. And if they don't even get it to work in an animal model, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't even exist.
intended 1y ago
Your body your choice has no application here. No one is compromising your bodily autonomy. The regulation is to ensure a working marketplace - which is fundamentally a collection of humans interacting. The regulation is to prevent predictable abuses of market power.
- 0xEF 1y ago
  That's fair, I guess, but say there were some way for me to sign a contract saying they could test on me should I become afflicted Alzheimer's? Wouldn't there be some sort of legal protection for them, then? Because I'd happily do it. I've watched multiple family members suffer from some form of severe mental decline and it is horrifying enough to make me willing to sacrifice myself if there is even a sliver of a chance that my sacrifice will help future generations avoid that pain. And since we're all nerds here, we all know that if we want to know if a thing actually works the way we want it to, we have to test it repeatedly in its working environment.
  - dpark 1y ago
    > Wouldn't there be some sort of legal protection for them, then? Not really, no. A company that unleashed unproven drugs in a vulnerable human population would be sued into oblivion. They would lose in court over and over as judges and juries decided that no, you cannot in fact sign away your right to not be subjected to criminal negligence. They would very likely be subjected to criminal prosecution as well. This (the lawsuits) happens all the time. People sign waivers, get hurt, and the courts decide that the level of negligence involved overrides the waiver. Happened a while back at a Jiu Jitsu gym. Someone signed all the waivers and got paralyzed and successfully sued for $46 million. The jury decided that the instructor was criminally negligent.
    - samus 1y ago
      Things like these are sometimes done for experimental cancer therapies. Granted, the patients are going to die anyway, and the therapy has gone through most of the trials.
coldtea 1y ago
>My body, my choice This is not available to you yet. Their drug, their choice.
more_corn 1y ago
You can. The restriction is on anyone else offering it to you. Theres a long tradition of medical researchers experimenting on themselves. Barry Marshall was so sure bacteria could cause ulcers that he consumed said bacteria, and gave himself ulcers in order to cure them with antibiotics. There’s also a FDA provision for treatment of last resort. If you’ve got a terminal condition with no approved treatment and there’s a possible treatment of unknown safety and effectiveness you can apply and get that treatment. If you or a loved one has Alzheimer’s I highly encourage you to request this treatment. You’ll be risking unknown side effects and or death, but it will generate data for those who come after and could advance the treatment of this terrible disease by a decade.