3 ms·
There are a bunch of people that are going to hear about this, get excited, and then test it on themselves. Well, there would be a lot more if it was a simple c
by droopyEyelids 12y ago
There are a bunch of people that are going to hear about this, get excited, and then test it on themselves. Well, there would be a lot more if it was a simple chemical and not a protein, but still, it's the kind of thing that grad students might share with their friends.
And it can and will be a crazy thing to do when they take it. But the point I'd like to make is that whatever they experience won't be added back to the sum of human knowledge, because their self-administration will be illegal or un-condoned.
I wish there was a way for informed volunteers to consent to legitimate studies about this, because it's like an untapped resource to waste the courage of the nootropic fanatics who are going to do experiments on themselves.
- Retric 12y agoI suspect people who regularly do 'novel' drugs are a long way from a representative sample. Ideally you want to test as close to a clean slate as possible.
- xkcd-sucks 12y agohttp://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/01/07/guinea-pigging http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/01/07/guinea-pigging
- jostmey 12y agoI don't it really matters all that much. The real bottleneck is testing it. Then worry about finding a more representative sample if it works.
- xkcd-sucks 12y agoI feel like mining the text of Erowid/Bluelight/Longecity could be interesting... from a large enough corpus you could probably figure out some differences in pharmacology between a few related compounds. And maybe get some adme/tox info as well. As for actual experiments, liability would be a nightmare... maybe someone in Sealand/North Korea/etc could administer a framework where they mail you samples+instructions and you send back a daily questionnaire or something