[hueving]

>It's a calculated risk, sure, but I don't think the Thalidomide example is particularly relevant.

It's very relevant. It shows that people are too willing to take risks with major unknowns. Where do you make the cutoff with your drug experiments? Only people that are certain to die? People with high exposure risk? People that are having difficulties recovering? Any selection you pick there is completely arbitrary because you don't know the potential downsides to the experimental stuff you want to try.

[ghshephard]

"Where do you make the cutoff with your drug experiments? "

I don't know where you make the cutoff, but I'm comfortable saying that its somewhere below having a disease with a 50% mortality rate in under 14 days. I'm pretty much okay taking any risk at that point.

[DanBC]

What if the risk was survival but with locked-in syndrome and constant very high pain? Or survival but severely brain damaged - no ability to feed yourself; or talk; or understand the conversations of other people.

[ctdonath]

A risk? yes. But if that risk is significantly less than the other high-risk form of "severely brain damaged, unable to eat, talk, or understand" known as death, many would take it. Remember, the point is trying something that doctors & pharmacists believe has a sensible chance of actual _cure_ (perhaps with acceptable side effects better than death/dementia).

I don't understand the propensity of some to demean "hey, there's a serious immediate problem, let's do everything we can to help" with "but it might (with minuscule odds) go horribly wrong! therefore we can't let anyone do anything that's not established best-condition status quo!" With that mindset, it's a wonder such people ever drive to work (you might die in a horrible flaming carbecue!).

Statistical prioritization matters. Just because there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean there isn't a better one.

[waps]

Experimental treatment obviously means unknown risk.

And of course the deal is going to be that you take full responsibility for the risk. In other words, if something like that happens, you get zero assistance, not even from any health insurance you already have.

> I don't understand the propensity of some to demean "hey, there's a serious immediate problem, let's do everything we can to help" with "but it might (with minuscule odds) go horribly wrong! therefore we can't let anyone do anything that's not established best-condition status quo!" With that mindset, it's a wonder such people ever drive to work (you might die in a horrible flaming carbecue!).

Short answer : because it's happened before.

I would also argue that given history, the risks of unknown treatments having major side effects are significant (let's say ~15-20%). The risks of major side effects on pregnancies and later offspring are even more significant (20-40%).

So those odds are not that minuscule and there are going to be victims.

Your attitude stems from the idea that seems to be propagated a lot these days : that science and therefore medicine can fix anything, any disease. That was almost true for a short period at the end of the 70s. In the 80s we found several diseases became fully resistant. Now the counter of completely incurable diseases is in the thirties, and rising fast. Old, well-known diseases are coming back, untreatable. Tuberculosis, pneumonia, dysentery ... all have MRSA variants. And that's ignoring a lot of viruses. Rabies, HIV, Hep C, MERS, Avian flu, Pig flu, ... all of which are essentially untreatable.

The point the CDC has been making for ~20 years now is that ~3 decades ago "net-"scientific advancement against infectious diseases stopped. There were advances, but diseases advanced at roughly the same pace. 2 decades ago we started losing ground and in the last decade we've been losing ground like never before.

And of course we're completely focusing on the wrong solution : don't use medicine anymore ! Great, but that ship has sailed, adaptation has happened and it's generally too late. There have been studies on how long these adaptations last, and how long we'd have to wait if we stopped treating ill people. The timeframe is in the centuries.

[ctdonath]

So those odds are not that minuscule and there are going to be victims. Your attitude stems from the idea that seems to be propagated a lot these days : that science and therefore medicine can fix anything, any disease.

Yes, there will be victims. No, I don't subscribe to "science/medicine can fix anything" - don't put absurd words in my mouth/fingers.

Balancing those problems vs BEING DEAD, I'm irritated that you'd deny me the former option.

I've been dead once already; may the fleas of a thousand camels infest the armpits of he who would give me little choice but do it again.

[tripzilch]

Or how about if you're fine, but your children will be born with disabilities.

[andygates]

What about preventative treatment? Say we have a prototype vaccine. Now you have to find the cutoff between a chance of getting a fairly deadly disease, and the chance of a vaccine not working or having nasty side effects. That's a much greyer area.

[Padding]

You didn't get the point of the argument.

What do you do when something with 51% mortality in 15 days comes up? And then something with 49% in 13 days .. where do you draw the line? And what do you do when people continue to cry out?

[barrkel]

The existence of a Sorites paradox doesn't mean that heaps and grains are not different things.

[ghshephard]

I got the point of the argument. And, I made it very clear that I don't know where to draw the line. All I know for sure, is that 50% mortality in 14 days comes below that line. Sign me up for an experimental treatment.