"The problem is not that Halassy used self-experimentation as such, but that publishing her results could encourage others to reject conventional treatment and try something similar, says Sherkow. People with cancer can be particularly susceptible to trying unproven treatments."

fuck. of course. I don't see an issue with people who particularly nasty stuff trying unproven treatments and jeez your not going to stop them. I mean I believe jobs though fruitarianism was going to cure his cancer or some such. As long as they are only risking themselves I don't see an issue.

[–] SandLight@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago

Also, it's not like most people can just walk into a lab and start cooking to cancer eating viruses. Just because I know someone did it doesn't mean anything to me if I found out I have cancer tomorrow.

[–] oldfart@lemm.ee 21 points 1 week ago

"Halassy has no regrets about self-treating" well no shit xD

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So the problem here is this.

Imagine that you have terminal cancer, but you're not a famous virologist.
Somebody comes along and offers you untested, experimental treatment injections for the low, low price of $75,000.
Gofundme.

I've seen exactly that type of scenario play out with my own relatives. It's a good reason why medical treatments marketed to the public should be proven to be safe and effective.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 8 points 1 week ago

I can't necessarily blame the cancer sufferer but would the gofundme people. Im not sure that scenario is such that you should restrict it. I mean its going to happen to regardless of science papers. Its usually more about the person than things they have seen. I mean its not going to lessen the amount of scammers.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

But how else will I be able to market and sell my cancer treatments/drugs? /s