6 ms·

They aren't without their downsides, but they remain better than the alternative on balance. That's not a credible claim. Tell that to either of the two people

by wwwtyro 14y ago

They aren't without their downsides, but they remain better than the alternative on balance. That's not a credible claim. Tell that to either of the two people that left those comments. Sure, there's risks inherent with experimental drugs, but these people are dying or losing loved ones. They don't give a damn, and none of us has any right to stop them from taking those risks with their own persons. Their bodies are their own, they are not yours. And frankly, the snake-oil salesman claim strikes me as little more than FUD. People can get recommendations from multiple MDs before making up their minds.

rubyrescue 14y ago
The history of snake-oil salesmen is well documented. http://www.authentichistory.com/1898-1913/2-progressivism/8-quackery/ http://www.authentichistory.com/1898-1913/2-progressivism/8-...
- wwwtyro 14y ago
  I'm not denying their existence.
- maxharris 14y ago
  Why is it OK to lump honest physicians, researchers and patients in with snake oil salesmen and their victims? Why is it morally acceptable to have laws intended to help the people that don't care to tell the difference? Those laws come at the expense of those who do care, who take the trouble to figure things out. Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humanity forward?
  - Retric 14y ago
    Why is it OK to lump honest physicians, researchers and patients in with snake oil salesmen and their victims? The best snake oil salesmen believe in their products. There are already exceptions for allowing people to take highly experimental procedures when there likely to die without them. However, there are plenty of cases where highly trained well meaning doctors caused massive suffering without benefit to their direct patents. As a recent example of fringe medicine, a few athletes have injected themselves with stem cells. Not to mention the modern version of doping which often involves substances that are known to be harmful or medicine has little idea what the long term effects are.
    - maxharris 14y ago
      So we should treat every physician, researcher and patient as guilty, incorrect or foolish until proven innocent, correct or wise? However, there are plenty of cases where highly trained well meaning doctors caused massive suffering without benefit to their direct patents. No one is omniscient. The ideal in medicine can't be something impossible (i.e., medicine that cures all ills and everyone, and never has any risks or side effects). No one knows how to do that (now and for the foreseeable future), and we shouldn't deny people the best chance they have at life to chase an impossibility.
      - Retric 14y ago
        So we should treat ... researcher... as guilty, incorrect or foolish until proven innocent, correct or wise? Yes, that's the point of peer review.
        maxharris 14y ago
        Peer review is just another thing that helps individuals decide scientific matters for themselves. The implicit idea behind peer review can be summed up like this: "This is what I think about this work. (I have credentials X, Y, and Z, and I've published this stuff you many have heard of.) What I have to say is just another thing for you to consider. Take it or leave it."
        Retric 14y ago
        It's more than that as it's vary possible for things to fail peer review and or be edited and resubmitted. But, also in some ways less as you as a reader don't know who did the peer review.
  - roc 14y ago
    > "Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humanity forward?" Our free society lived with the alternative. And they collectively decided "the right to be defrauded is a false liberty, this is no the way forward, let us try another way." And you know what? We've moved further forward, faster since these regulations were put into place. When people have trust that they're not being defrauded, they participate in the market to a far higher degree. When companies don't have to compete against charlatans, don't have to balance every dollar of research with a dollar of trying to educate the public about what is and what is not medically sound, they invest far more into their research efforts.
    - Turing_Machine 14y ago
      I do not recognize "the collective's" right to make this decision for me.
      - roc 14y ago
        And yet by participating in this society you are directly supporting their ability to make such decisions, whether they side with or against you on a given issue. If you actively pursue one of the many methods available to effect change, you can only do so via the same channels that allowed others to set up the status quo. Even securing a constitutional amendment against such laws would just underscore the right and ability of others to pursue their own amendment to overturn yours. The only way to secure your victory would be to end representative democracy. And of course no other method of government would deliver a guarantee to respect your freedom to make such decisions free from their meddling. So all that's left is no government.
        Turing_Machine 14y ago
        "The only way to secure your victory would be to end representative democracy." That would be why I prefer a constitutional republic to a democracy. Edit: to be more specific, a constitutional republic that pays actual attention to the Tenth Amendment.
noonespecial 14y ago
For what its worth, I agree with you, but the other side is not so unreasonable as it seems. The risk is not to the dying. The risk is that selection bias (of the miracle survivors) might cause an ineffectual drug to creep down the chain of "desperateness" (from the truly desperate to the less so) until it possibly occludes treatments that do work.

by wwwtyro 14y ago

rubyrescue 14y ago

The history of snake-oil salesmen is well documented. http://www.authentichistory.com/1898-1913/2-progressivism/8-quackery/ http://www.authentichistory.com/1898-1913/2-progressivism/8-...

wwwtyro 14y ago
I'm not denying their existence.
maxharris 14y ago
Why is it OK to lump honest physicians, researchers and patients in with snake oil salesmen and their victims? Why is it morally acceptable to have laws intended to help the people that don't care to tell the difference? Those laws come at the expense of those who do care, who take the trouble to figure things out. Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humanity forward?
- Retric 14y ago
  Why is it OK to lump honest physicians, researchers and patients in with snake oil salesmen and their victims? The best snake oil salesmen believe in their products. There are already exceptions for allowing people to take highly experimental procedures when there likely to die without them. However, there are plenty of cases where highly trained well meaning doctors caused massive suffering without benefit to their direct patents. As a recent example of fringe medicine, a few athletes have injected themselves with stem cells. Not to mention the modern version of doping which often involves substances that are known to be harmful or medicine has little idea what the long term effects are.
  - maxharris 14y ago
    So we should treat every physician, researcher and patient as guilty, incorrect or foolish until proven innocent, correct or wise? However, there are plenty of cases where highly trained well meaning doctors caused massive suffering without benefit to their direct patents. No one is omniscient. The ideal in medicine can't be something impossible (i.e., medicine that cures all ills and everyone, and never has any risks or side effects). No one knows how to do that (now and for the foreseeable future), and we shouldn't deny people the best chance they have at life to chase an impossibility.
    - Retric 14y ago
      So we should treat ... researcher... as guilty, incorrect or foolish until proven innocent, correct or wise? Yes, that's the point of peer review.
      - maxharris 14y ago
        Peer review is just another thing that helps individuals decide scientific matters for themselves. The implicit idea behind peer review can be summed up like this: "This is what I think about this work. (I have credentials X, Y, and Z, and I've published this stuff you many have heard of.) What I have to say is just another thing for you to consider. Take it or leave it."
        Retric 14y ago
        It's more than that as it's vary possible for things to fail peer review and or be edited and resubmitted. But, also in some ways less as you as a reader don't know who did the peer review.
- roc 14y ago
  > "Why shouldn't we live in a free society where the best within us can make a difference, and take humanity forward?" Our free society lived with the alternative. And they collectively decided "the right to be defrauded is a false liberty, this is no the way forward, let us try another way." And you know what? We've moved further forward, faster since these regulations were put into place. When people have trust that they're not being defrauded, they participate in the market to a far higher degree. When companies don't have to compete against charlatans, don't have to balance every dollar of research with a dollar of trying to educate the public about what is and what is not medically sound, they invest far more into their research efforts.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    I do not recognize "the collective's" right to make this decision for me.
    - roc 14y ago
      And yet by participating in this society you are directly supporting their ability to make such decisions, whether they side with or against you on a given issue. If you actively pursue one of the many methods available to effect change, you can only do so via the same channels that allowed others to set up the status quo. Even securing a constitutional amendment against such laws would just underscore the right and ability of others to pursue their own amendment to overturn yours. The only way to secure your victory would be to end representative democracy. And of course no other method of government would deliver a guarantee to respect your freedom to make such decisions free from their meddling. So all that's left is no government.
      - Turing_Machine 14y ago
        "The only way to secure your victory would be to end representative democracy." That would be why I prefer a constitutional republic to a democracy. Edit: to be more specific, a constitutional republic that pays actual attention to the Tenth Amendment.

noonespecial 14y ago

For what its worth, I agree with you, but the other side is not so unreasonable as it seems. The risk is not to the dying. The risk is that selection bias (of the miracle survivors) might cause an ineffectual drug to creep down the chain of "desperateness" (from the truly desperate to the less so) until it possibly occludes treatments that do work.