> The current system does allow for experimentation, but provides a conservative framework for it.
Which most people seem to think is wrong. The vast majority of treatments that get prescribed by doctors are unproven in terms of safety and efficacy. The main differences between the status quo and a proper experiment is that we're not recording any data or allowing for informed consent.
Re:Bacteria on the Brain
by will_pseudonym on Monday November 30, 2015 @08:33PM
(#10653140)
I won't debate you on whether I am correct. I will only state that science is (by definition) advanced ONLY by people over time who knew better, held up by everyone else hadn't thought it through.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_peptic_ulcer_disea...
June 12: Marshall intentionally consumes H. pylori and becomes ill. He takes antibiotics and is relieved of his symptoms.
That's personal hubris! :)
There is a selection bias here, you hear about the successes but not so much about all the crackpots that increased suffering needlessly. This article is about one such case, in case you didn't notice.
The current system does allow for experimentation, but provides a conservative framework for it.
It's huge personal hubris to announce that you know better and they haven't thought it through. Which is one of the things the approach is aimed to protect us from.