[jessep]

I applaud the author's spirit of mad science and adventure.

As someone with a lot of doctor friends and family, I think it is pretty clear most doctors are not familiar with the relevant research and by default give a cautionary response which merely parrots back the status quo fears, but they're even more risk averse due to malpractice concerns. In terms of getting your blood work done, sure, I'll agree that seems interesting.

My father, a doctor, used to be afraid of low carb/ketosis diets, because "bacon, cheese". Years later he read the relevant information and completely switched camps.

Finally, self experimentation can be dangerous, sure. But that doesn't mean it isn't valuable and interesting. Do you think people should never do potentially dangerous things in pursuit of adventure, knowledge, truth?

[tacos]

Do what you want privately but the value proposition changes when you publish your self-experimentation world-wide. More so when you promote it. And yet more still if and when you try to profit from it.

There are clear and common ethical standards here and the blog post comes in well under them.

[jimrandomh]

This is a blog post on the author's personal blog. It doesn't even have ads on it. I really don't see a legitimate objection here. Just take the data for what it is - a report of something one specific person was able to do, which other peoples' physiology might or might not be able to handle, plus some speculation about our distant evolutionary history.

[tacos]

> This is a blog post on the author's personal blog

No, the context is now reframed as a post on a highly-influential site, this one. The author is now commenting here, which is great.

But "Don't try something like this without at least talking to a doctor, I probably should have" has yet to appear on the post. Therefore I reserve the right to state my objection.

[maxerickson]

Should the talking to a doctor disclaimer come with a disclaimer that you should first make sure your doctor is competent?

And a disclaimer to make sure that the person reading the comment is competent to assess whether their doctor is competent?

And a disclaimer that there may be errors in the disclaimers, so think for yourself a little bit?

Personally, I'll take an article like this one where the author doesn't much represent any of it as advice over an article that claims to give a bunch of advice but qualifies it with a disclaimer that it might not apply, check with an expert.

[tacos]

You prefer less boilerplate in this situation, I prefer more. I consulted to law firms, perhaps you have not. Mythbusters say "don't try this at home" why can't he?

[nicky0]

He can, but chooses not to.

[unethical_ban]

You're not giving enough credit (or responsibility) to readers to say "Hm, I should consider the risks and other considerations before implementing this myself".

[xavivives]

Warning added.