[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.