[NotGMan]

>> In choosing to self-experiment, Halassy joins a long line of scientists who have participated in this under-the-radar, stigmatized and ethically fraught practice. “It took a brave editor to publish the report,” says Halassy.

Sad state of science that real results cannot be published because it goes against the current dogma.

[zacharycohn]

Rather than turn this into some weird culture war thing, I suggest you finish reading the article.

That is, in no way, why it had difficulty being published.

[eyphka]

I would encourage reading about Jim Allison (the nobel prize winner in medicine for immunotherapy) and his difficulty having his research acknowledged / getting funding as an immunologist working in cancer research.

Wired magazine did a piece on him detailing how funding for this type of research was largely stonewalled because it ignored status quo ideas on cancer treatment.

My understanding is that traditionally ovt research was nearly impossible to get funding for but has begun to become easier as the status quo research and researchers from the 2000s have been replaced.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

[puskavi]

Yeah, imagine all those million dollar cancer drugs that dont really work, when you could just inject traditional vaccines to tumor

[ethbr1]

> because it goes against the current dogma.

That's not the issue. The issue is that it's reporting results from self-experimentation, which simply from an objective results perspective has many conflicts of interest and accuracy.

[JackFr]

I mean it’s kind of the opposite of a randomized double blind study, so from a public health stand point it’s an anecdote, a single datapoint with any negative results presumably unreported.

[OutOfHere]

With opinions like yours, the US would never have developed mRNA vaccines.