[StavrosK]

This was flagged (I don't know why), but it seems like a very interesting article to me and would like to read the discussion here, so I vouched for it. I don't know enough about the science to opine on the content, but I think it's worth a second chance.

[colincooke]

The article checks two bad boxes for me.

1. It disparages the work of individuals/organizations unjustly, who have done society a great service throughout this trying time. An attitude which has the potential to feed anti-vax sentiment/scepticism. 2. It suggests and endorses, without the proper caveats, something which is potentially dangerous, that is injecting yourself with a homegrown vaccine.

Might be interesting to read a commentary on this individuals experience from a measured place (a practicing scientist for example breaking down the risks of what he/his group did), but the content as it stands doesn't deserve to be promoted in my opinion.

[stavros]

Those bad boxes were checked for me too, but the realization it gave me that "wait, I can actually synthesize a vaccine myself" trumped the first two.

[colincooke]

Good point, could have been a great article if it took a more careful tone and just demonstrated how cool it is that the tech now exists to do this yourself (with sufficient means + skills), without adding the other negative elements/suggesting that folks should do this themselves.

[gus_massa]

You can synthetize a vaccine candidate yourself. The problem is to be sure that it creates enough immunity and that is safe enough.