Slashdot Mirror


The Feds Are Officially Cracking Down on Basement Biohackers (gizmodo.com)

Kristen Brown, reporting for Gizmodo: The Food and Drug Agency has issued a stern warning to anyone who might be crazy enough to undertake gene therapy in the do-it-yourself fashion. Definitely don't do this at home, a statement released on Tuesday implies. And if you do, we'll throw every law we can at you. The FDA's deterrent comes on the heels of a brazen DIY gene therapy experiment, in which a 27-year-old software engineer injected himself with an unprove gene therapy for HIV designed by three biohacker friends. The first injection was streamed live on Facebook in October, and went viral after it was covered by Gizmodo. "You can't stop it, you can't regulate these things," patient zero, Tristan Roberts, told Gizmodo at the time. Apparently the FDA begs to differ.

220 comments

  1. They can't stop it by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They can't stop it, but just like drugs, they can drive it underground so people that choose to do this will be unable to seek medical attention without fear of being arrested.

    1. Re:They can't stop it by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you? I think the biohacker morons are likely the ones to face charges in this scenario, not the person injecting themselves.

    2. Re:They can't stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it'll be about as safe as a coat hanger abortion? Wow, count me the hell in, Soylent friend!

    3. Re:They can't stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dawn of the bladerunners.

    4. Re:They can't stop it by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you?

      So what if he did?

      A government issued license doesn't grant any special magical powers; it only tests basic competency (and depending on state, verifies schooling) in the field which is being licensed. IIRC, even with a medical license, nothing really stops a podiatrist from performing neurosurgery, so...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re: They can't stop it by saloomy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A podiatrists can not perform neurosurgery, it requires additional certifications that regional medical centers that are a certain grade of medical facility must have on staff at all times.

      Irrespective, licensure does not improve quality, it only limits supply. Thatâ(TM)s the goal of the AMA, to limit licensed doctors to drive up costs and therefore profits for its members, at the expense of unlicensed would-be practitioners and the customers of those being licensed.

    6. Re:They can't stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if not many, there are certain circumstances that I would, particularly if there were no other options that have gone through the many years and millions of dollars to gain approval. Also, medical license != medically trained.

    7. Re:They can't stop it by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you? I think the biohacker morons are likely the ones to face charges in this scenario, not the person injecting themselves.

      You're assuming that it is two different people. If it's illegal and you have a terminal illness that you think it might help then you are likely going to do it yourself or find a close friend to help you. Just like medical marijuana and medical suicide, there is enough stuff on the web that someone can take care of it themselves with a little research.

    8. Re:They can't stop it by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you? I think the biohacker morons are likely the ones to face charges in this scenario, not the person injecting themselves.

      Depends on the circumstances.

      If I was facing a fatal degenerative disorder with no real treatment, then I might be willing to experiment a little.

      In that situation, I might be willing to take some mystery pill that might cure me (or might kill me faster) versus a known fate of becoming bedridden as my body slowly dies over the next year. I can't count on a pharmaceutical company investing millions (or billions) of dollars to come up with a treatment for my disorder, so I have little to lose from going with a risky experimental treatment. Slowly dying in a hospital bed isn't really appealing.

    9. Re:They can't stop it by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0



      And your point being? If people choose to ignore the warnings because they're smarter than the experts, why should everyone else scramble to do anything for them?

      You probably have that cute saying, 'Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part', hanging around somewhere. This is no different. People have been warned about the dangers of drug use for close to 100 years yet, instead of heeding those warnings, people continue to ignore them because it's nothing but the government trying to prevent them from having a good time.

      Now, with the ability to do your own biohacking, with no controls or safety protocols in place, people are being warned not to try this at home.

      In both cases, after ignoring the warnings, people die yet for some odd reason, we're supposed to bend over backwards, spending our time and resources, to protect them. Remember that guy who was essentially liquefied at Yellowstone Park last year? And why did it happen? Because he and his sister thought it would be fun to ignore all the posted warnings about the dangers of the hot springs. As a result, park rangers had to risk their lives to a) find out if the body was still there and b) try to recover whatever was left (effectively zero).

      The same with this. If people choose to ignore the warnings and injure or kill themselves, they have only themselves to blame. We shouldn't have to pay the price for their stupidity.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    10. Re:They can't stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People operate on themselves and others every day just not in the sense you're implying. If I have a blister under my finger nail I'm going to get a piping hot needle, bear the pain, and lance the thing through my nail. Would save me a ton of time compared to going to a doctor's office and why pay someone else to do it? People self administer drugs to themselves everyday too. Just look at the "herbal oil" crowd. They admisters stuff that may (probably doesn't) work for every thing.

      And if your really want fun examples, check out the digestive track diy'ers.

      I bet these genetherapy hacks could get away with it if they just sold it as an herbal supplament meant to be consumed orally. How many things meant for oral consumption can easily be injected for maximum effect (alchol is one that comes to mind.)

    11. Re:They can't stop it by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you?"

      No, I would do it myself, as this guy did, which is perfectly legal.
      Just like you can buy lidocaine at Amazon and fix your own wounds.

    12. Re:They can't stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On a serious note, these biohackers don't donate to anyone's political campaigns, and are big competition to the companies that do. For example, if a biohacker makes a cheap $10 version of an EpiPen, then the maker of EpiPen loses profits, as they charge $608 for a 2 pack. Another example, are there's many older drugs that work better than new drugs, but only the new drugs are patented still and profitable, even though an older drug may work much better. Which is prescribed by doctors? Only the new one because of the profit.

    13. Re:They can't stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on the person and the circumstances, yes, yes I would. You seem to be unaware of all the deaths that the official health system causes due to malpractice, recurrent mistakes, "these things happen", "we couldn't know", etc. Expecting the health system to keep you healthy is like expecting justice from the legal system.

    14. Re: They can't stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      That is the purpose of the whole clinical trials regime enforced by the FDA. Big Pharma loves it, because it provides a big barrier to entry for upstart competitors.

    15. Re:They can't stop it by sjames · · Score: 1

      Careful now. Push that too far and suddenly we're banning sport or sugary beverages.

    16. Re:They can't stop it by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      warned about the dangers of drug use for close to 100 years
      Make this 10000 or 40000 years and you are much closer.

      Anyway, your story reminds me about a school mate of a friend of mine. She got killed (actually vanished) by a saltwater crocodile in Australia. There were warning signs all over the place, but she and a friend decided to go swimming anyway ... she got eaten. Her friend survived. Nothing of her got recovered (she was about 30 that time, so not a 'stupid girl').

      And then again, a friend of mine who is Australian told me they used to 'rescue' tourists every year who were attempting to cross rivers, sunbath at the banks or even swim in crocodile infested areas ... they either never saw the warning or never heeded them.

      Sometimes they were in 100m or less range of clearly visible crocodiles. Considering a crocodile can run roughly 35 - 40 mph (60 km/h) that is an idiotic idea.

      My friend never approached those guys he only yelled with a megaphon at them ... he was a kind of hippy and did not carry guns.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:They can't stop it by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you?

      Being treated by a biohacker is a high-risk strategy that will kill quite a few people, but patients for whom the cost and availability of treatment exceeds their means are going to try it. And it is in the high-risk field that the next breakthrough may come.

    18. Re:They can't stop it by netizen_james · · Score: 1

      People have been warned about the dangers of drug use for close to 100 years yet, instead of heeding those warnings, people continue to ignore them because it's nothing but the government trying to prevent them from having a good time.

      Do you really think that the warnings that smoking cannabis would turn you into a bat were valid? When the government engages in mindless fear-mongering, doesn't that pretty much invalidate anything else they might have to say on the subject? In his congressional testimony, Anslinger claimed, and I quote: "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." Not one of the several compound assertions in that statement is true. Cannabis is not addictive (or at least, no more so than pornography, gambling, or chat-rooms) Cannabis doesn't cause insanity. Cannabis doesn't cause criminality. There are zero recorded instances of a death due to toxic overdose of cannabis. Zero. So this idea that government has only the best interests of The People at heart when it does anything is massively ignorant, and foolishly naive. See this speech by law professor Charles Whitebread about this history of druglaws for some actual history of the government's perfidy in the case of cannabis: http://www.druglibrary.org/sch...

    19. Re:They can't stop it by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that a lot of this is driven by the pharma industry who don't want deaths turning public (or investor and regulator) opinion on something.

      The case of Jesse Gelsinger, who died after some poorly designed experimental gene therapy, took the wind out of gene therapy's sails. Maybe it wouldn't have gone anywhere anyway, but with everyone too spooked to fund it anymore after one death, it definitely wouldn't.

      CAR-T too, more recently

    20. Re:They can't stop it by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      If you look in the Federal Register you'll find LOTS of things that aren't even remotely true.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    21. Re:They can't stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't stop it, but just like drugs, they can drive it underground so people that choose to do this will be unable to seek medical attention without fear of being arrested.

      You bet it. This is my body and I am the sole sovereign over it. No trouble finding anything on the black market.

    22. Re:They can't stop it by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you?

      In many cases, yes. For small things, I would prefer not to pay thousands of dollars and risk hospital infections.
      For bigger things, I would prefer to go to a country that practices more modern medicine than here in the US, and where the doctors aren't affiliated with (read: owned by) hospitals and have to put the hospital's profit interests first, an insurance company's interest second, their own greed third, and my interest a distant fourth.

    23. Re:They can't stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case with HIV treatment, if the biohackers had a plausible therapy, the pharmaceutical companies would be more than happy to buy it. Drugs for things like HIV are incredibly expensive to research and develop and when they find one that works, it gets less effective the more doses they sell.

      Pharma would be more than happy to not have to ever deal with that class of medication again.

      So, when somebody claims to have an untested treatment like this, people should be hugely skeptical of both the safety and efficacy of the product. It's not like boner pills that would cut into big pharma's profit, this kind of treatment would enhance their bottom line if they bought it and sold it even if it was a one course deal for a small sum of money.

    24. Re: They can't stop it by arth1 · · Score: 2

      A podiatrists can not perform neurosurgery, it requires additional certifications that regional medical centers that are a certain grade of medical facility must have on staff at all times.

      I think you confuse "may not" with "cannot".
      If I chopped my toe off out in the wilderness, I'd give it a try myself too.

    25. Re: They can't stop it by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Irrespective, licensure does not improve quality, it only limits supply.

      Licensure improves average quality because it eliminates the lowest quality professionals from the labor pool.

      Lawyers, doctors, psychologists, and engineers can lose their livelihood due to poor skills, inadequate knowledge, or unethical behavior. Hell, most of the problems we have with the police are because a few assholes aren't afraid of being thrown in jail or kicked out of the profession.

      Sometimes the lack of a doctor will kill you. Sometimes a bad doctor will kill you. Licensing requirements, at their best, represent a balacing act for professions with an impact on public health and safety. You want an adequate labor supply without letting in the fuckups.

      If my ass is on the line, I don't want some idiot who doesn't know the law, doesn't know to cut properly, or doesn't know how to calculate structural loads. I especially don't want that idiot working on my behalf when I have a limited capacity to oversee them.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    26. Re:They can't stop it by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Cannabis doesn't cause insanity.

      Not entirely accurate. Some people experience a brief disturbance during use, and there are some long-term risks.

      There actually is evidence for a causal link between cannabis use and psychotic disorders, although the risk factor is not that high. I.e., much lower than the risk of lung cancer from smoking.

      Of course, Anslinger wouldn't have had this evidence when he made his original, outlandish claims. That was legitimate bullshit; at best, the broken clock was right for a second.

      Reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    27. Re: They can't stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and sometimes the lack of a bad doctor will kill you... If i was severely injured i would rather have a bad doctor (non-licensed) over having no doctor.

      Should it not be your choice? Why should someone else decide it for you? If i decide to do some crazy shit i should only have myself to blame..

      Of course i do agree on that you should not be allowed to call yourself a doctor without a licence..

    28. Re: They can't stop it by Altrag · · Score: 2

      You'd try giving yourself neurosurgery if you chopped off your toe? That doesn't seem terribly productive..

    29. Re:They can't stop it by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Do you notice what they did with that MJ story, they actually put the outcomes for alchohol addiction onto MJ, the symptoms people recognise from excess alchohol use, very propagandist by them and all to kill hemp as a competitor and nothing at all to do with MJ. Just a real measure of the history of corruption of the US government, who will kill it's own to generate more profit and in massive numbers.

      I look at the whole story in this regard and I have to wonder, was it all fake, were they live stream trolling. Computer geeks and nerds aren't the ones likely to go for any kind of lucky dip cure and amateur genetics (I doubt that even exists in reality) is about a lucky dip as you can get.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    30. Re: They can't stop it by arth1 · · Score: 1

      You'd try giving yourself neurosurgery if you chopped off your toe? That doesn't seem terribly productive..

      Even a very tiny chance to be able to get some nerves connected by doing what I've only read about would be better than nothing.

    31. Re:They can't stop it by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you?

      Like Richard Feynman said, if you're out in the jungle and you get malaria, and there is no modern clinic, go to the medicine man for treatment because he might have medicine that helps. It doesn't matter if he understands scientific reasons for putting the quinine bark in the medicine; it doesn't matter if he thinks that the dance he does afterwards chases the evil spirits out. The medicine in the bark will still work.

      biohacker morons

      Yeah, no way! I would be more likely to visit an unlicensed mafia clinic for open-heart surgery than to inject some weird shit from a "biohacker."

    32. Re:They can't stop it by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      A government issued license doesn't grant any special magical powers

      False, it generates a Protection from Cops field on the wearer.

    33. Re: They can't stop it by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      AMA is a trade organization that the most conservative 25% of doctors belong to, and they are not the ones in charge.

    34. Re:They can't stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just posted above about that exact same case--I went to a hospital to have blood buildup drained from under a toenail, but I rather regretted not doing it myself.

    35. Re: They can't stop it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Licensure improves average quality because it eliminates the lowest quality professionals from the labor pool.

      I think we need to be a little wary about the licensing issue going too far. If you say own a home or a car or whatever, and want to do your own work, regardless of what it is, then I think the inspectors should largely let you get on with it, but require additional inspections, which may cost more, and if you fail an inspection they can of course charge you for a re-inspection, within reason. As it is now, hiring professionals for a task may cost thousands more for things like plumbing and electric and what is worse you will get more unpermitted work, which helps no-one.

      Actually, I could even see them requiring a licensed contractor to check your work as well, but as things are now, the licensed contractors won't even touch work they didn't do, citing liability reasons, which is crazy, since your not asking them to warranty it, but rather to give a best effort inspection.

      Again, I'm not really against licensing in general, but I am for the right of people to work on their own belongings. If they have the skill they shouldn't have to pay thousands more just to get someone with years of experience to do relatively simple tasks. Besides, even for the companies with licenses, it is probably not the license holder that does the work, but instead some low cost minions with the license holder perhaps checking it over.

    36. Re: They can't stop it by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Not just doctors and the AMA. All kinds of work requires licenses. Even tour guides and interior decorators, in some places.

      The "protect the consumer" argument is most obviously bullshit in those cases. Will a customer end up dead or crippled if someone tells tourists nonsense about the maple trees in front of the old courthouse, or abuses the Sherwin-Williams color palette?

      The Institute for Justice challenges these sorts of things, a lot. https://ij.org/

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    37. Re: They can't stop it by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 2

      Clinical trials do provide a barrier to entry, but if you think that's the main purpose of the way clinical trials are regulated - or even a large contributing factor - you're just wrong. Safety and efficacy of a new drug, device, or procedure are really important to get right.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  2. Actually... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

    On the one hand, I say let 'em do it. If they succeed, we have the potential for medical breakthroughs. If they fail, they win Darwin's Award. Either way, nobody gets hurt.

    On the other hand, I can see some sort of home-brew Resident Evil thing happening if things go wrong...

    Maybe limit it to certain lines of research/self-testing, and calling certain types and materials off-limits?

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Actually... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      * should say, "nobody else gets hurt."

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm reminded of Blood Music by Greg Bear.

    3. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Homebrew gene therapies might cause long term genetic harm, pass on to children, polluting the gene pool. People will start demanding genetic testing of potential mates prior to breeding. Economic class divisions will be punctuated by genetic class divisions, with teeming masses of mutants laboring under the control of a group of a genetically-elite super-species.

      In short, it will be fucking awesome!

    4. Re:Actually... by djinn6 · · Score: 1
      If you have a terminal disease and multiple doctors tell you they have no cure, I think it's fair for you to try it. Worst case is you die.

      I can see some sort of home-brew Resident Evil thing happening if things go wrong.

      Zombies aren't a thing IRL.

    5. Re:Actually... by ThePawArmy · · Score: 1

      ... yet.

    6. Re:Actually... by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      The problem is that no one really wants to die. Even people who jump off of bridges that manage to survive often say that they regretted the choice to jump afterwards.

      However, eventually you will start dying in a every real and immediate sense of the word and at that point you're gladly willing to do just about anything to prolong your life. That makes you incredibly easy to take advantage of in such a situation and why the government has clamped down not only on homebrew medicine like this, but even imposes limitations on clinical trials for new medications.

      I guess I don't really care personally if people want to do this, and ultimately people are responsible for their own decisions no matter how much the government tries to get in the way, but I'm also not going to pretend that making it easy to do things like this won't result in some utterly heinous behavior on the part of society.

    7. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This actually sounds like the version of events the government would like to see happen, not what could happen from uncontrolled public biohacking.

    8. Re:Actually... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Zombies aren't a thing IRL.

      Have you seen any Flakka videos? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re: Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chances of you or I or most people ending up at the top are very slim.

    10. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember some terrible sifi show in the 90s that had the premiss of dna diversity control. They had gems embedded just below their necks to ensure everyone mated in a way that would insure the dna pool stayed diverse.

    11. Re:Actually... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      with teeming masses of mutants

      Being an unregistered mutant will be an act of treason, just ask Your friend the computer.....

    12. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zombies aren't a thing IRL.

      Mother Nature would like a word with you.

    13. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why shouldn't it be that way?

      Your kids are an economic burden, and a potential source of crime, pollution, disease, and even more kids. Therefore, having kids is not something that only impacts you, it has a huge impact on everyone else.

      Generally speaking, when actions have huge long-term impacts to many people...we regulate them. We do this for the greater good.

      Reproduction isn't special. It should be regulated for the greater good. Only the genetically healthy should be allowed to breed.

      It will finally gives a means to rid the gene pool of the French once and for all.

    14. Re:Actually... by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      Those ant's aren't really zombies. They're mind-controlled, yes, but so are many people.

    15. Re: Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo, +1, Troll!

    16. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue with that is exploitation. A patient with only months to live is likely to sign up for all sorts of things that other people wouldn't. Lowering the standards isn't necessarily unreasonable in cases like that, but the science needs to be there to suggest that it might work. Otherwise, it's just exploitation that might wind up making the end even worse.

    17. Re:Actually... by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      Either way, nobody gets hurt.

      There is no guarantee this is the case; I think bio-hacking can be potentially very dangerous, much more so than, for example, nuclear industry. This is why I think it should be harshly regulated, at least at this time - until we develop better tools, processes or global knowledge to handle potential accidents.

      I know this sounds like a Luddite position, or like one of those fifties horror movies ending with the priest or the cop solemnly declaring "there are things Man was not meant to know". However, bio-hacked products have the potential to be self-replicating. They can be strains of bacteria or viruses, or maybe prions; I'm not aware of any serious reasons why an enthusiastic bio-hacker hobbyist can't (accidentally or intentionally) create a lethal self-replicating biological agent.
       
      Cost is not a blocker - bio-hacking can be done using relatively cheap tools and materials, with most of the necessary stuff available with a trip to the glassware store. Safety regulations aren't a blocker either - the authorities have no easy way to know who engages in a bit of a hobby trying to genetically engineer six legged chickens, and amateurs won't have the necessary training, nor will they bother installing a negative pressure room in their garage. Most importantly, there is no guarantee the effect of an accident will be small, because of self-replication. Even the worst nuclear accidents only affect a limited area around the site, but a worst case biological accident doesn't have those limitations. Nothing else a single average person does can potentially kill everybody in the whole world. Leaking a lethal self-propagating virus can.

    18. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homebrew gene therapies might cause long term genetic harm, pass on to children, polluting the gene pool.

      Too bad I don't care. I did not ask to be alive. Now you deal with that, because I am gonna try it as soon as I can.

    19. Re:Actually... by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Was it called Island City?

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    20. Re:Actually... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Terminally ill people (disease will kill them, no known cure) deserve to be able to experiment beyond the safe bounds of medical law. If it works they save countless other lives, if it fails at least they had hope in their final days.

    21. Re:Actually... by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      What they're setting the stage for here are takedown notices to YouTube, etc. to suppress the community. Like the guy said, there's no stopping it, but if we burn all the books, it will slow it down.

    22. Re:Actually... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You should be able to go to your doctor and get an official certificate of impending death to give yourself a free pass to violate whatever FDA regulations you want.

  3. Alternative Medicine by Osgeld · · Score: 4, Funny

    Worked for Steve Jobs!

    1. Re:Alternative Medicine by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, is he still sick? Is he?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Alternative Medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not sick anymore, but the cure had a very bad side-effect.

    3. Re:Alternative Medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve Jobs: I'm getting better.
      Modern Medicine: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.

    4. Re:Alternative Medicine by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      He has been stable for a while now.

    5. Re:Alternative Medicine by gnick · · Score: 1

      Well, is he still sick?

      I don't have access to do a physical, but my guess is that he has a fairly severe case of necrosis. He's not well.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:Alternative Medicine by Mal-2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      He'll be back in a few years. He's spending a decade dead for tax purposes.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    7. Re:Alternative Medicine by outlander · · Score: 2

      +1

      Nice to see you, Mr. Desiato.
      Your bodyguard's a bit rude, innit?

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
  4. Viral by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

    "The first injection was streamed live on Facebook in October, and went viral after it was covered by Gizmodo."

    That seems like a strange interaction.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    1. Re:Viral by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was retroviral.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Viral by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      So now we need to wear condoms when browsing Facebook or Gizmodo? Fucking morans!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Viral by outlander · · Score: 1

      ...oh.

      I read a student essay where he talked about his need to use gundams when $intimate with his SO.

      Let me tell ya, that was an image that took lotsa brain bleach to clear out.

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
  5. Only we're allowed to experiment on you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no freedom without self ownership.

    1. Re:Only we're allowed to experiment on you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that even mean anything?

      "Ownership" of any kind is antithetical to freedom. Ask yourself this: if you own yourself, who precisely is doing the "owning"?

    2. Re:Only we're allowed to experiment on you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self-ownership is where all freedom stems from. How can you be free without control over your own body? How can freedom exist when your very existence is seen as granted by a higher authority?

      If you own yourself, you own yourself. Not complicated. Take your circular logic back to university where someone might be fooled by it.

    3. Re:Only we're allowed to experiment on you! by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      The things you own end up owning you.

    4. Re:Only we're allowed to experiment on you! by netizen_james · · Score: 1
      So because I 'own' this clay bowl that I made for myself, I'm less free? How does that work exactly? Are you making some metaphysical claim about being 'tied' to material possessions?

      .

      Yes, that which I call 'I' has ownership over the physiological hardware which is supporting and running the software of 'Mind' of which 'I' am an instantiation. That is the 'who' that is doing the 'owning'.

      .

      Or in the motto of the Gands: "Freedom - I Won't" (see E.F. Russel's "...And then there were none") We all can choose to be free - entirely free - anytime we want. As Sartre pointed out.

    5. Re:Only we're allowed to experiment on you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You own your own words.

  6. Save a life, or comply with rules and regulations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know someone who drove the development of a new genetic treatment for his son who had an incurable, fatal genetic disease. This person is extremely smart and well connected to genetic medicine experts. The treatments were successful in saving his son from a steady decline and early death, and are now being trialed in the US. He did what any parent would do to save his child's life, if they were in the same situation. But he knew the legal risk also, and most doctors didn't want to know about or support his efforts, for fear of legal repercussions. So he had to fly to a hospital in Mexico monthly to have the treatments administered. When the choice is between dying or facing some legal repercussions for trying to save a life, I think most of us would go with trying to save your own life, or the life of a family member. The FDA needs to back off.

  7. Our bodies, ourselves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's my junk, and bidness. FDA, this is a private endeavour not involving the public at large. So go suck the big one. Go suck Obama your gay overlord and master.

    1. Re:Our bodies, ourselves. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      FDA, this is a private endeavour not involving the public at large.

      Unless/until you make something that goes viral even if it was not your intention to do so. Then it involves the public at large, maybe even the whole planet.

      "Help us Elon Reeve Musk, you're our only hope."
      "Get your ass to mars." - Arnold Schwarzenegger
      etc.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  8. You know who else was a DIY biohacker? by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, not Hitler. But he did have a German name.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:You know who else was a DIY biohacker? by eriks · · Score: 1

      FRONKinsteen!

  9. Criminal, victim and the government. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Let us say we enact a law making some act illegal. Let us also stipulate the SCOTUS agrees the law is constitutional. Now that act has a criminal and a victim.

    Enforcement is successful if the victim sides with the government. (theft, burglary, kidnapping, ...)

    If the victim sides with the criminal, it is extremely difficult to enforce the law. (contraband black market, vice laws, ...)

    If people randomly cook things up and inject themselves with it, it is difficult to stop it. Even if it is very dangerous to rest of the society (like becoming a carrier of super drug resistant pathogens. ...

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Criminal, victim and the government. by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      If the victim sides with the criminal, it is extremely difficult to enforce the law.

      Just because something is difficult to do, it doesn't mean that it is practically or morally wrong to do it. I could name a lot of difficult things that are very good to do.

      Right now, we're looking only at earnest, passionate hackers who are knowledgeable about biology. But if you let this become an unregulated market, you'll end up drowning in snake oil.

      I believe the government should make it possible for individuals and small labs to offer legitimate services, but it definitely needs to watch for abuses. Few people make better targets than the desperate, and few people are more desperate than those facing permanent disability, chronic pain, or death.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  10. Human Research Subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are very strong laws concerning using humans as research subjects for very good reasons.

    Read this: Tuskegee syphilis experiment

    This type of shit can and will happen again if the Feds don't crack down on "biohackers".

    1. Re:Human Research Subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MKUltra took place after Tuskeegee all the laws in the world didn't matter to the CIA or do anything to prevent it.

      But somehow people having the agency to try experimental treatments on their own diseases is a moral hazard, and this totally isn't the state protecting their buddies in the pharmaceutical industry. No, they care about our safety!

      Bootlicker.

    2. Re:Human Research Subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those colored folks contributed to the body of human knowledge. This was the highest to which they could aspire, and they reached the pinnacle of success for their capabilities. Please don't fault them. They did a good deed in the best way they knew how.

      Had it not been for this experiment, their lives would have been empty and wasted -- abject failures. At least this way they were able to contribute back to society.

    3. Re:Human Research Subjects by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But it's ok to poison people with fake medicine and charlatans selling snakeoil to people who are desperate enough to believe it, yes?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Human Research Subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See? This is what continually gives snake oil a bad name. Snake oil is a rich source of Omega 3 fats. For reals.

    5. Re:Human Research Subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's fish oil, you big dummy!

    6. Re:Human Research Subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's vile.

      You assert that people of African ancestry are somehow deficient.

      Suck it up, buddy. They're not, any more than any other group.

      We exist in a heterogenous society in the US, and we need to educate every single person, irrespective of their morphology. FFS, we are engaged in economic competition with a set of largely homogenous societies on the far side of the pacific rim who are cleaning our clock because we subordinate education to ideology.

      Every kid, irrespective of their morphology, can learn.

      School should be a thing for everyone through college, to the extent we as a society can afford it. Without it, our society (and the liberal western democracies it supports, as well as a few other less-than-ethical governments) will collapse. And the world that'll be left will be every person for themselves, which people romanticize until they live in such a society....

    7. Re:Human Research Subjects by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      This type of shit can and will happen again if the Feds don't crack down on "biohackers".

      Tuskegee was the government

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Human Research Subjects by omnichad · · Score: 1
  11. Or you lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hey I caught some weird flu, please help"

    There you go.

  12. :facepalm: by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Cooking up meth in your basement is also illegal, but there doesn't seem to be any shortage of meth out there does it ?

  13. You can't just cure HIV! by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    There's thousands and thousands of jobs hinging on that!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:You can't just cure HIV! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same with cancer

  14. How are they going to find out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drive around in biohacking vans scanning everyone's basement somehow? Get real.

    1. Re:How are they going to find out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vans could find people in flannel with neckbeards and follow them home....

  15. Can't see why by sheph · · Score: 1

    When you go the doctor you are taking your chances. They prescribe medications that "may help", or "may not". They perform surgeries that may or may not help. All based on what they think essentially. Granted their experience and training makes that an educated guess, but they're still wrong sometimes. It's also not infrequent. The one certainty is that those medications will have side effects, and you will still receive a bill for services rendered. All the time the FDA approves things that are later determined to be harmful. How is it that they think they should be the ultimate arbiters of what a person can and can't do on their own? Unless it's not about protecting the public, but rather protecting an industry. I think if you're dying anyway what does it hurt? Especially if you're electing to do it to yourself? How is it that the federal government can mandate what's best for an individual when they themselves are full of corruption, inadequacy, and incompetence? Not a fan.

    --
    I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    1. Re:Can't see why by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      I think since "they hate us for our freedoms" the only viable defense is to take the freedoms away.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  16. Govenment's body, government's choice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How weird that they think they could do fuck all to stop it.

  17. Children of Thalidomide by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    You must be careful rushing wonder solutions without adequate testing. Thalidomide was supposed to be a wonderful solution to morning sickness for pregnant women. It never completed testing in the US, but was approved for use in Europe. Once in use, the women who took it were giving birth to children with horrendous birth defects. The testing done was only testing if it had any effect on the women taking it, and hadn't progressed to checking the effect on the unborn child.

    1. Re:Children of Thalidomide by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've read it is very effective battling leprosy.

      Women who have it prescribed must take extraordinary measures though to not get pregnant.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    2. Re:Children of Thalidomide by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is an effective drug, and has a number of uses. Too bad it wasn't tested enough before being released for use.

  18. Circumstances by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would you allow someone without a medical license to operate on you?

    Under normal circumstances no but sometimes circumstances aren't normal. Sometimes the people with the medical license are prohibited from helping you by law or it costs too much to hire them. Sometimes people are curious or desperate or delusional. Sometimes people see a profit in doing things without a license. Quackery is a real thing (see homeopathy). If you have a condition that will kill you and the people with medical licenses won't help you, chances are good you'll look at other options you might not normally consider.

    1. Re:Circumstances by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Look at it as a patient. Two options are presented:
      Doctor: Yeah, you have cancer. We can treat it. It's going to cost all your life savings and then some, and take a year at least. During which you are going to wish you are dead, because these chemo drugs are pretty nasty - expect to spend most of your time in bed or vomiting. Forget about work. But, if you go through all that, I think you've a fifty-fifty chance of not dying.
      Quack: Just take these pills and you'll be fine. Don't believe the medical establishment, they are just trying to take your money.

    2. Re:Circumstances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quack: Just take these pills and you'll be fine. Don't believe the medical establishment, they are just trying to take your money.

      It looks like you know this based on your tone, but for anyone else reading who doesn't: that quack is also after your money but is being disingenuous about it. The difference is the doctor with actual training and knowledge of real science stands a chance of helping you in the end

    3. Re:Circumstances by gnick · · Score: 3, Informative

      Quack: Just take these pills and you'll be fine.

      Nobody would be stupid enough to believe that pills are going to cure their cancer. That requires magnets and crystals. A little pricey if you want them charged and balanced to conform to your chakra, but cheaper than chemo. Prayer is cheaper, but a proper faith healer might want a donation.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:Circumstances by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

      Look at it as a patient. Two options are presented:

      You presented those two options (interesting, the same number most shills present when arguing anything.) In reality, there are many more, such as: you have to spend your life savings for a drug which can be manufactured for pennies from the guy across town. Or: there's a treatment in R&D which appears safe but you can't get it before you die, but it's relatively simple to do and there's a fully-certified biohacker (hint: 90%+ of them are actually biotech majors) who will do it under the table because he happens to have a lab and he's your buddy.

      Just like most regulations, this has nothing whatsoever to do with public safety and everything to do with taxation. If biohackers and individual treatments become as common as the local barber (hint: they could be, there are plenty of biotech majors and they nearly all have their own labs, all of them can follow a protocol,) then it cuts out the trillions of dollars in getting FDA approval, going through trials, cuts out pharma monopolies, healthcare device manufacturer contracts paying out 10,000x or more the cost of the hardware to the manufacturer, all of which gets taxed, etc.

      I'm not saying biotech isn't hard, or that it can't be fucked up - but if you fuck it up the potential for harming another person is astronomically low, you'd be more likely to die from the aforementioned barber choking on saliva, twitching, and slicing your throat with the scissors then having a panick attack and drowning you in barbasol to try to cover up the crime before you bled out. When you fuck up biotech it just dies before you can do anything with it, it's working with living things and those die when they stray outside of the parameters designed for.

      Worst case scenario you get some charlatans who pop up and take advantage of people, just like we already have with holistic and faith healers.

    5. Re:Circumstances by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      This is basically the medical pot argument. You can go to a pain clinic, get hard core pain drugs that slowly destroy your body or you could smoke some pot.

      True story, a friend of mine told the pain clinic she was using a THC creme on her knee to help with the pain and that it was working great, the pain clinic said that by self treating they could no longer prescribe her pain meds. So now she can't get legal meds and is relegated to only the 'illegal' ones.

    6. Re:Circumstances by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Or: there's a treatment in R&D which appears safe but you can't get it before you die, but it's relatively simple to do and there's a fully-certified biohacker

      Ah yes, the old '100 mpg carburetor' argument.

      Sure, 'simple' breakthrough that Big Pharma doesn't want to pursue for some reason or doesn't know about. But your neighborhood biohacker understands.

      Sorry, not buying it.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Circumstances by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      True story, a friend of mine told the pain clinic she was using a THC creme on her knee to help with the pain and that it was working great, the pain clinic said that by self treating they could no longer prescribe her pain meds. So now she can't get legal meds and is relegated to only the 'illegal' ones.

      Not in Washington State, Oregon, Colorado, and a growing (heh, growing...) list of others. Sessions/Trump/DoJ can not stop the tide from turning, there's just too much public interest and too much money to be had in state taxes.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    8. Re:Circumstances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Sorry, not buying it.

      Your money, your choice.
      Other people's money, _their_ choice.

    9. Re:Circumstances by Luthair · · Score: 1

      The problem is that quacks convince people they're a legitimate and better optional that real professionals. Heck, there are a number of clinics today providing stem cell treatments that have not been shown to be effective. This is only going to get worse and health agencies around the world should crack down hard on people offering these treatments.

    10. Re:Circumstances by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Or: there's a treatment in R&D which appears safe but you can't get it before you die, but it's relatively simple to do and there's a fully-certified biohacker

      Ah yes, the old '100 mpg carburetor' argument.

      Sure, 'simple' breakthrough that Big Pharma doesn't want to pursue for some reason or doesn't know about. But your neighborhood biohacker understands.

      Sorry, not buying it.

      Or: there's a treatment in R&D which appears safe but you can't get it before you die, but it's relatively simple to do and there's a fully-certified biohacker

      Ah yes, the old '100 mpg carburetor' argument.

      Sure, 'simple' breakthrough that Big Pharma doesn't want to pursue for some reason or doesn't know about. But your neighborhood biohacker understands.

      Sorry, not buying it.

      The pharmaceutical industry is not the same as the automotive industry.

      The pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars to bring a treatment to market -- if there are only a few hundred or even a few thousand people that need that treatment, then there's no way to recoup their costs at a price that most people are willing or able to pay.

      Existing gene therapy treatments can easily reach into the $500K range or more - insurance companies may not cover it and few people can cover it themselves. But if a backyard chemist could do the same treatment for $1K (because he doesn't have all of the regulatory hurdles (and yes, safety standards) to follow, then it opens the treatment to many more people.

      Is the risk better than the reward? I dunno, ask someone who's dying and can't afford the treatment if he'd be willing to use an experimental treatment by a backyard biochemist that has only a 25% chance of success.

    11. Re:Circumstances by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Sure, 'simple' breakthrough that Big Pharma doesn't want to pursue for some reason or doesn't know about. But your neighborhood biohacker understands.

      Are you aware AIDs was cured about a decade ago? It was cured by a company called Human Genome Sciences, they created a one-time gene therapy treatment tailored to the individual. It worked in clinical trials 100% of the time without side effects. They published their final results and within a month were bought out by Glaxo-Kline-Smith. Know why you haven't heard of it? GKS has a competing therapy-based (as in, you pay them for life, for your whole life) treatment. Not all biohackers are capable of replicating that work, but probably 50% of them are. And biohackers are "some borderline retarded 16 year old kid who thinks he knows everything" as the word "hacker" tends to illicit the impression of, they are people with degrees in biotechnology, often genetic engineering. Biotech engineers do biotech for fun as well as work. When they do it for a company they are called "engineers," when those same people do it in their garage because they find it cool they are called "hackers."

      It is incredibly disingenuous to paint these people as hacks living down the road, there's maybe 2-3 dozen per large city and they have PhDs in their fields.

    12. Re:Circumstances by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      True story, a friend of mine told the pain clinic she was using a THC creme on her knee to help with the pain and that it was working great, the pain clinic said that by self treating they could no longer prescribe her pain meds. So now she can't get legal meds and is relegated to only the 'illegal' ones.

      Not in Washington State, Oregon, Colorado, and a growing (heh, growing...) list of others...

      You are profoundly mistaken. Opioid painkillers are regulated directly by the Federal government, and state laws are irrelevant. They piss-test opioid patients in California, the home of medical cannabis, and where recreational pot is also now legal, and if they detect cannabis residue they cut off access to the opioid medication.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    13. Re:Circumstances by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sometimes........circumstances happen.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Circumstances by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the people with the medical license are prohibited from helping you by law

      This actually happens a LOT. The legal mainstream stuff is basically all that their license/insurance/institution allows them to practice. There are many treatments that have better risk/benefit ratios than the mainstream, but are under-developed, not widely studied, nor publicized and even if your doc does know of one that's applicable to you, odds are he's not going to even tell you about it because he's negatively incentivized to do so.

    15. Re: Circumstances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sad that people would rather live in a cage as opposed to being free. Freedom is messy. It is dangerous. Mistakes will be made and accidents will happen. But it beats the alternative where only professional and certified bioengineers, doctors, lawyers, manicurists, barber's, auto mechanics, taxi drivers, etc are allowed to play their trade. The airplane could never have been invented intodays climate. If you want to kill off the hope and promise of genetic engineering require that only licencensed, certified and authorized experiments be allowed to take place. Sure you might need to make a few monsters before you can fix a disease, but it's better than never taking any risks

    16. Re:Circumstances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a great point that we should look at each situation. I waited twelve hours in excruciating pain for some blood buildup in my toenail to be drained. The pain immediately improved after the procedure. But that procedure just amounted to puncturing the nail with a hot wire. If I'd known the procedure was so simple, or that they were going to make me wait twelve hours, I would have done it myself or asked a friend to do it. But would I ask a friend to remove my spleen? No.

    17. Re:Circumstances by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      If 50% of biohackers were capable of repeating that work, someone would have become famous by now for doing exactly that. There is an infinitely greater chance that you're piece of shit liar.

    18. Re:Circumstances by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      If 50% of biohackers were capable of repeating that work, someone would have become famous by now for doing exactly that. There is an infinitely greater chance that you're piece of shit liar.

      You don't "become famous" by repeating proprietary work bought out by one of the largest most corrupt corporations on the planet at a huge cost which could ruin a large proportion of their sales permanently if it got out in the public view, you "get sued into oblivion."

      The only people competent enough to repeat the research on their own are also competent enough to know better than to ever take credit for it.

    19. Re:Circumstances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Health care must not be a monopoly. Our health business does not belong to an elite few. Health is everybody's business whether they have know-how or not.

    20. Re: Circumstances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orrrr you could try living somewhere like Canada, The UK, Germany, Cuba, Sweden, Norway, Japan, etc etc where there's national care and nobody loses their house to an insurance company. Oh but wait, youre FREE to die. USA #1!

    21. Re: Circumstances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, kick ass. Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're fucked up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded. What I'd do, is just like... like... you know, like, you know what I mean, like...

    22. Re:Circumstances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homeopathy != because use science and don't be a name swinging trogledyte before I have to beat you out of your parents womb into adulthood.

      The greatest example of homeopathy is the migration of old people moving towards warmer climate areas to avoid respiratory diseases as that habitat destroys common yearly flu epidemics and then the rise of STDs in that area from older people screwing around. Attack the habitat and kill the invading species, monitor the diseases like any common animal and hunt it to extinction with medical application.

      In short Homeopathy is not a treatment but a plan of avoidance. Some doctors are irrationally selfish psychopaths whom do not see the monetary gains of a fit individuals chances of incurring injury by being mobile rather than safe in bed with a sickness nor do they understand while patient is away the patient makes more money to spend. Economics can be quite a righteous endeavor so long as one is not a guilty dumbass viewing only half the picture.

  19. Land of the sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Home of the slave.

  20. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The main problem with this is that for every smart genius with good connections to genetic experts, there's thousands of deluded parents who pump their kids full of bleach because some unscrupulous assholes want to make a quick buck pretending to be medical experts.

    I can see your point and I do agree that in this particular case it saved a life, but we have seen what damage patent medicine by self proclaimed medical geniuses can, did and still does.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Beware of the medical industrial complex. by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Kind of reminds me in 1960, Eisenhower saying "beware of the military industrial complex", warning how the industry that supplies the government with the weapons of war, will figure out a way to have a sustainable war (the war on terror comes to mind), that NEVER ends, to keep the bullets, bombs & guns streaming. Same with the "war on cancer, AIDS, heart disease" etc. Why cure it, when they can continue to milk it forever with treatments that never cure it.

    1. Re:Beware of the medical industrial complex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy fuck, that is some ignorant conspiracy-level bullshit.

      My dad needed a spinal fusion due to deteriorated discs. First try failed--incomplete fusion. On the second try, they used some expensive bone growth protein, and it took. He can walk, stand all day, lift moderate weights, etc just fine now.

      Oh yeah, and they didn't use the protein the first time because it's expensive and insurance won't cover it unless the doctor can demonstrate that it's medically necessary. So fuck the insurance companies. Someone gets to suffer for an extra year so they can pad their bottom line.

      Even if it weren't necessary, the protein would have sped up his recovery time. So there's a pretty damn good justification regardless. But he's all set now--thanks to the medical researchers and not to the fucking parasites.

  22. a little bit of gnawlidj ... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    a 27-year-old software engineer injected himself with an unprove gene therapy for HIV designed by three biohacker friends

    Jesus Christ. I remember when idjits were satisfied with just collecting the Americium from broken smoke detectors and making Mom's shed a radioactive EPA superfund site.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  23. Good. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Considering the small but non-zero chance that one of these morons initiates something contagious and harmful, yes, I'm fine with the Feds cracking down on "basement biolabs".

    Go back to making custom party drugs, you dolts.
    That only mostly kills people that arguably volunteer for it.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Good. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Considering the small but non-zero chance that one of these morons initiates something contagious and harmful, yes, I'm fine with the Feds cracking down on "basement biolabs".

      But then again, it's even easier for this scenario to occur with normal hybridization in places where pigs and ducks are raised on farms.

      Biohacking to produce lethal epidemics is more likely to be intentional and by terrorists. We will keep on watching for this using existing antiterror strategies.

    2. Re:Good. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      so are the people with deadly diseases being test subjects for a big pharmy clinical trial in any different situation? Half being a control group that gets a placebo, half getting something that probably won't work?

      or it's okay with you because a multi-billion dollar corporation is doing it?

  24. Fixes itself... by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

    Isn't this issue self-correcting though? I mean gene-therapies are taking their sweet ass time through approval because most of them wind up causing cancer, and they killed the first experimental human subject.

    So like, if all the people who want to inject themselves with experimental treatments that're most likely just going to give them run-away cancer are allowed to do so; doesn't the whole issue go away after they all die?

  25. What They Actually Fear by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    ...Isn't some asshole 'practicing medicine without a license' or some high school kid raising up a batch of anthrax. It's individuals producing deadly medicine-resistant viruses genetically engineered to attack a specific individual. A DNA sample of the target is all that's necessary. Make it airborne and delivery can use multiple indirect routes extremely difficult to prevent for even the most large, sophisticated, and well-funded state security apparatus. No person of power would be safe from retribution.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  26. cool niggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God is dead too.

  27. Do you want to start the Eugenics Wars? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Because that's how you start the Eugenics Wars.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  28. Once again, the USA will be left behind by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    The general public is starting to be anti-science, the USA is the land of the ignorant where being smart is shunned upon.

    In the meantime, Germany and Russia will make super-soldiers while Japan makes cute sexy catgirls.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  29. Tristan Roberts' post-injection test results by tgibson · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's an article that has a few paragraphs of his followup tests in the weeks following the injection.

    He opened the documents sent from the lab and frowned slightly as he read. Then he laughed.
    "Alright, so - yeah, this was not what we were hoping for."

    According to the test results, Roberts' viral load rose from 28,800 on week two to 36,401 on week three - still low levels, but not the desired results. His count of CD4 helper T-cells - the immune system cell that HIV attacks - was higher than he'd ever seen it, but there was no way to know what that meant.

    "More data is necessary," Traywick chimed in from off-camera. Then he sat down next to Roberts, joking: "We didn't kill you."

    1. Re:Tristan Roberts' post-injection test results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but it's possible that the treatment is actually working and purging the virus from his genome. Higher viral load could simply mean that the virus is desperately trying make it..

  30. New virus strain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am working on my new strain of the smallpox virus. Only need to do some small gene edits. We will then have a wonderful new virus to spread health and happiness all over the world.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  31. I can't wait to see what they do with drug plants by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    As to the actual story not sure how much they can as the FDA regulates licensed individuals doing business. Further in the US all "drugs" are defecto legal until they are specifically banned.

    And when it comes to a therapy all one has to do is go to a country that doesn't care and or by extension just hop on a boat with a flag of said country and go into international waters.

    But onto my topic.... There is absolutely going to be an underground movement both against government drug regulation and corporate drug monopolies. Plants/bacteria/mushrooms that are modified to effectively produce quality drugs both illegal and those requiring prescription. I think this is actually what they are more afraid of when it comes to garage genetics. Imagine a company coming up with a very expensive and needed drug... then overnight someone could release an easily grown plant into the wild that produces said drug cheaply... and unlike MJ it doesn't need to be an easily recognizable plant... governments can't test every plant in a forest or for that matter food and flower gardens.

  32. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    The main problem with this is that for every smart genius with good connections to genetic experts, there's thousands of deluded parents who pump their kids full of bleach because some unscrupulous assholes want to make a quick buck pretending to be medical experts.

    Yup. Its called ... freedom and it is scary. "Its my body, my right"

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  33. Re: Forget biohackers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. Some entity needs more oversight and it isnâ(TM)t the folks doing hobby work in their homes.

  34. Re:Forget biohackers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's your Lipitor dose?

  35. If you think Government is the solution by DallasTruaxxx · · Score: 1

    If you think Government is the solution, it's because you think freedom is the problem. -- Alan Lovejoy

    1. Re:If you think Government is the solution by JoeDuncan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not all "freedom" is desirable.

      For instance the "freedom" to abuse others without consequence; is generally NOT considered a "freedom" we should have.

    2. Re:If you think Government is the solution by Varcain · · Score: 1

      when we say "freedom" we don't mean "freedom to", we mean freedom FROM. These biohackers should be free from government using force to prevent them from experimenting on their own bodies. What next, outlaw and penalize supplements and diets because government knows best?

    3. Re:If you think Government is the solution by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      when we say "freedom" we don't mean "freedom to", we mean freedom FROM.

      Empty rhetoric, this is a meaningless distinction.

      For instance, I can easily say rephrase as: it is generally not desirable for people to be free FROM government using force to prevent them from abusing others.

      You're making a "distinction without difference"

    4. Re:If you think Government is the solution by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You're engaging in dishonest sophistry. You know what the point is: You are free to do as you please, except to impose yourself on others. It's the Orwellian authoritarians that try to sell government regulation against personal choice as freedom.

    5. Re:If you think Government is the solution by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      You're engaging in dishonest sophistry.

      No. I am not.

      There is literally NO difference between saying "freedom from" or "freedom to" except in the arrangement of the words. They are the same thing: freedom FROM the consequences of some action = freedom TO perform the action without consequence.

      You know what the point is: You are free to do as you please, except to impose yourself on others.

      Except that *explicitly* WAS NOT the point being made. The point being made was that "freedom FROM" and "freedom TO" are different; except that they are patently NOT, which I pointed out.

      If the OP wanted to make a point about "being free to act as you choose, except to impose yourself on others" then that's what they would have said, and they didn't. Don't put your words in someone else's mouth.

    6. Re:If you think Government is the solution by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If the OP wanted to make a point about "being free to act as you choose, except to impose yourself on others" then that's what they would have said, and they didn't. Don't put your words in someone else's mouth.

      Part of arguing honestly and/or not being an autist is reading the intent based on context instead of trying to win based on technicalities.

    7. Re:If you think Government is the solution by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Honest debate doesn't include you having to make your counterpart's argument for them. It wasn't at all clear that OPs point went any deeper than the linguistic difference between "to" vs "from", and for all we know you're reading your own unfounded understanding into it.

      It also doesn't involve making digs at others about being autistic.

    8. Re:If you think Government is the solution by Varcain · · Score: 1

      Ok sorry, let me rephrase what I meant then: freedom of my fist ends where your nose begins. I thought it was pretty clear that proponents of freedom and personal sovereignty specifically don't want to trespass on freedom of other's. In this case person injecting himself with random stuff does no harm to others and as long as he poses no danger he should be free to do so.

    9. Re:If you think Government is the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You could save a lot more souls with rollerskates and easy bake ovens then with this" - Rev Lovejoy.

  36. Do you want hulks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because this is how you get hulks.

  37. "Underage sweet thing" --CDREIMER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget biohackers!
    But let us not forget the day you told us that retiring to Mexico to marry an "underage sweet thing" was "getting the most bang for your retirement dollars"

    Quoted text indicates a lack of paraphrasing. I report. You decide.

  38. Propaganda piece by whyyisthissohard · · Score: 1

    If it's not being sold, there is nothing they can do about it no matter how openly you act.

    "We'll throw every law we have at you"
    every law = zero laws

    Interesting to see how the media machine acts reflexively to propagate anything any federal agency wants to say.
    I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the banks own both.

  39. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "It's my body, my right"
    OK, cool. Now what are the rules for kids (like the op described). Is it that simplistically absolute? My kid, I can do anything?

  40. This is how some cures to things start out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And once the FDA finds out an actual cure or good treatment to something was made, it'll be covered up in a flash.

    Now, go donate another $1 to them foundations that have been 'trying' to find a cure to something for the past 20-30 some years. :D

  41. Re:I can't wait to see what they do with drug plan by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    That's going to be cool but I can't wait until someone cultures their fecal bacteria, coaxes some of the strains to take up that glowing jellyfish plasmid, and re-introduces into themselves, giving them glow in the dark poop.

    You can literally buy everything you need for under $200 right now including the plasmid.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  42. So... did it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will we know what kind of effect this thing had?

  43. Tattoos and piercings! by Templer421 · · Score: 1

    Excellent, anyone but a doctor injecting ink under your skin or a metal implant but a Doctor should be severely punished!

  44. It stop itself by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    "You can't stop it, you can't regulate these things," patient zero, Tristan Roberts

    We don't have to. The people involved will soon die off from ineffective treatment at best, or die from being treated with untested, dangerous drugs.

    1. Re:It stop itself by snookiex · · Score: 1

      Or, hopefully, some/many will get cured. This is unregulated human experimentation, it can go horribly wrong... or not.

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
    2. Re:It stop itself by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      Or cure themselves without the 500k+ of medical debt, and change the way society looks at healthcare.

      Seriously, the risk assessment goes something like this=

      I can't afford experimental treatment. If I try it myself I might live, I might find a better cheaper way to administer/manufacture a drug, and I will maybe face fines. If I do nothing...... I die anyway.

      Kind of a no brainier.... but I suppose they may need a...... bladerunner.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    3. Re:It stop itself by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      and that's totally different from clinical trials of new medicines for deadly diseases...how exactly? almost all of those fail too, the control and test subjects all get the usual mortality rate. you have no point.

    4. Re:It stop itself by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      and that's totally different from clinical trials of new medicines for deadly diseases...how exactly?

      Because they take place under the supervision of real doctors?
      Because they are based on trials in non-human test subjects?
      Because they are based on years or decades of research?

    5. Re:It stop itself by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Or cure themselves without the 500k+ of medical debt

      Yes, because the chances that some "biohackers" in their basement are going to come up with the cure to HIV is very likely. Hundreds of billions of dollars and universities and medical organizations around the world have been "hacking" it for 40 (?) years now.

      Anyway, we agree. Let them do it. Just get contracts in place so nobody can sue when the inevitable happens.

    6. Re:It stop itself by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      or not.

      Hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of researchers over decades has gone into solving things like HIV and cancer.

      What do you think the chances are that some 20-somethings in their basement are going to figure it out?

      But anyway, we agree. Let them do it.

    7. Re:It stop itself by snookiex · · Score: 1

      You are right. However, some of these 20-somethings might be really smart (or lucky). Odds are against them, but 0,000001% chance of success is still better than nothing.

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
    8. Re:It stop itself by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Dying a painful humiliating death because you poisoned yourself isn't better than nothing.

      Dying years earlier than you would have otherwise isn't better.

      Damaging yourself such that I have to pay your medical bills isn't better.

  45. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

    Let me ask you the same question you just asked, a different way. Should the government be required to vaccinate all kids, regardless of parental wishes, and arrest parents who don't?

    Whats the difference between Vaccine pushed by Big Pharma/Government complex onto unsuspecting children, without their or their parents consent, and someone bio-engineering a cure, and the government preventing it under the guise that the children have rights, rights explicitly denied by forced/mandatory vaccinations?

    There is no "right" answer, and its one that the government has no business answering.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  46. Re:I can't wait to see what they do with drug plan by boudie2 · · Score: 1

    The development of microreactors could revolutionize the production of pharmaceuticals in small quantities.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    "The microreactor is usually a continuous flow reactor (contrast with/to a batch reactor). Microreactors offer many advantages over conventional scale reactors, including vast improvements in energy efficiency, reaction speed and yield, safety, reliability, scalability, on-site/on-demand production, and a much finer degree of process control." It's almost like a 3d printer for drugs.

  47. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    The main problem with this is that for every smart genius with good connections to genetic experts, there's thousands of deluded parents who pump their kids full of bleach because some unscrupulous assholes want to make a quick buck pretending to be medical experts.

    In my mind, the main problem is treating an unattributed, totally anonymous post as factual.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  48. Re:Forget biohackers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly is a "cure all" for "a particular health condition." Isn't that an oxymoron?

    Are you saying all drugs should be illegal? Only the ones that kill you? Aren't drugs that are more likely to kill you than cure you already generally illegal? Why are you posting when you have nothing to say and it's clear people don't want to talk to you? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

  49. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know someone who drove the development of a new genetic treatment for his son who had an incurable, fatal genetic disease. ... The FDA needs to back off.

    I'm ambivalent about the FDA regulating treatments of genetic disorders - since, if things go wrong, people could end up dead.

    But, when it comes to analyzing genetic data, the FDA definitely needs to back off. These days it's possible to get your genome sequenced from a few drops of saliva - very minimal risk. So if the FDA wants to have a reference implementation of the software they think should analyze genetic data - along with certified technicians to use the software then that's fine.

    But people should also be free to run their own genetic data through whatever analysis programs they want - or even send it to whatever private companies they want to for analysis - as long as the private companies aren't claiming to do an FDA certified analysis when they're not.

  50. so did it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or nothing happend?

  51. 10th Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Per the 10th Amendment, the federal government has no say in the issue and any federal "authorities" that obstruct individuals or states in this regard will be subject to a measured response from lots of Americans that are tired of government overreach. I won't do anything, but I am sure the Federal government has no authority.

    1. Re:10th Amendment by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      FDA only has legal control if you sell across state lines, granted under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. They cannot take action within a state based on federal authority, but individual states have laws that either grant the FDA internal authority or have state agencies that accept FDA guidance, thus making it equivalent to the feds having direct authority.

  52. PSA: Frankenstein was fiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know, it seemed so real, but it's actually not. Here to help.

  53. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, on one side, you'll have a thorougly researched treatment with millions in research, trials, validation and testing. On the other side, you have a guy going 'Hey, I think if I put this and that in you, it'll help heaps!'

  54. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Vaccines impact other people though, as not getting one reduces herd immunity and puts the immune compromised, infants, elderly, and small percentage of no-effect cases and puts them in serious danger. Like with seat belts there is an argument from crash testing that you become a danger to others in the vehicle and can cause harm to others via your action, and the lack of restraint makes it easier to lose control of the vehicle. Which puts them in a very different class of behaviors than something like self administering risky treatments.

    I mean, does society have to accept a risk of epidemic and the destruction of millions of innocent lives because some people are too lazy to read the science on vaccinations?

  55. Re:Forget biohackers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't drugs that are more likely to kill you than cure you already generally illegal?

    Prescription drugs are perfectly legal for intended use. Some drug companies push for "off-label usage" without going through formal trials to increase profits. People can get addicted to and/or killed by the side effects .
    http://www.newsweek.com/opioid-crisis-driven-shady-drug-company-tactics-716856

  56. The Future is now by Isendur · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new Gattaca Overlords.

  57. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by netizen_james · · Score: 1
    Wrong. There is a right answer: Everyone without a medical reason must be vaccinated. The government should eliminate any bullcrap 'religious' or 'cultural' excuses for not vaccinating their children.

    Those who refuse to vaccinate their children should be fined, and in extreme cases have their medically endangered children removed from their household by Child Protective Services, no different from those who eschew medical treatment because 'gods will be done', and let their children DIE rather than getting appropriate and necessary medical attention.

    Yes, children have the right to not be abused OR NEGLECTED by their parents. That right to not be medically neglected includes the right to be vaccinated against common disease vectors.

    Yes, this is a proper role for government - to protect the interests of SOCIETY AS A WHOLE from those who would threaten harm to that society for their own selfish ends. That is, essentially, the fundamental purpose of government.

    You do understand the epidemiological paradigm of 'herd immunity', right?

    It's this nonsense war-on-science 'woo' about 'BigPharma' that has led to a re-introduction of measles, mumps, whooping cough and chickenpox.

    Please please read this excellent book about the 'war on science', and stop feeding that war with crapulatious caterwauling : https://www.amazon.com/War-Sci...

  58. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the movie Lorenzo's Oil

  59. only Monsanto is allowed to do that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you shell out the $$$ for campaign donations and purchase enough leaders, then you can practice all you wish. Even the planet itself!

    But until you do, you're a danger to society and must be stopped.

  60. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my mind, the main problem is treating an unattributed, totally anonymous post as factual.

    Typically, cowards are more reliable than 93 escort wagons.

  61. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

    Should the government be required to vaccinate all kids, regardless of parental wishes, and arrest parents who don't?

    Yes. There is extensive evidence that vaccination saves lives. Fortunately, states are starting to require it.

    Obviously, there are waivers for people who are sensitive to a particular vaccine. It's rare, but it's accounted for.

    Whats the difference between Vaccine pushed by Big Pharma/Government complex onto unsuspecting children, without their or their parents consent, and someone bio-engineering a cure

    Vaccines are rigorously tested before they are made available to the public, and they are generally sold publicly for a long time before becoming mandatory. Some vaccines aren't mandatory because there is no compelling public health benefit.

    Compare this to your neighborhood Chemical Joe, whose treatment probably has zero testing. He could be scamming desperate people, but there's no way to check up on him if anyone can setup a biolab at home.

    There is no "right" answer, and its one that the government has no business answering.

    Most people are not qualified to assess the safety and efficacy of a medical treatment. Most people couldn't make sense of the statistical section of a published paper. So we have a rule that medical treatments must be reviewed for safety and effectiveness before they can be offered to the public.

    This is a good starting point as far as a "right" answer is concerned. Maybe the FDA needs to adjust a few policies, but the overall approach is quite reasonable.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  62. Re:I can't wait to see what they do with drug plan by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    Neat, so why hasn't anyone tried this yet?

  63. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The main problem with this is that for every smart genius with good connections to genetic experts, there's thousands of deluded parents who pump their kids full of bleach because some unscrupulous assholes want to make a quick buck pretending to be medical experts.

    In my mind, the main problem is treating an unattributed, totally anonymous post as factual.

    Because your post is really attributed, Mr. Escort [rollseyes]

  64. False flag, even this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook is posting bad stuff on purpose with actors and idiots so that "regulators" will need to "regulate" those of us who behave. They're evil.

  65. Re:I can't wait to see what they do with drug plan by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    Critical lack of imagination?

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  66. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Should the government be required to vaccinate all kids, regardless of parental wishes, and arrest parents who don't?

    Yes absolutely. There have been many recent high profile court cases where parents were jailed for failing to provide the necessities of life when their child died of a preventable illness because the moron parents decided to treat with homeopathic or other stupid shit.

    Kids need to protected from their idiot parents in many cases.

  67. Re:I can't wait to see what they do with drug plan by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    I've got about 20 tabs open reading about this stuff now. I'm guessing you were talking about taking a sample of your own e.coli, doing the popular glowing e.coli lab and then ingesting the modified result so it reproduces?
    I had no idea this kind of stuff was within reach of the common person. Really fucking neato'

  68. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I have no problem with you pumping bleach up your own asshole. I draw the line where you hurt your child.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  69. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Let me ask you the same question you just asked, a different way. Should the government be required to vaccinate all kids, regardless of parental wishes, and arrest parents who don't?

    Yes. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

    Next question?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  70. Re:Forget biohackers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The feds should crack down on you spammer!

    There you are spamming amazon affiliate links through your blog with yet another fake account, you revenue stream hogging disgusting fat sexist tube of lard, Christopher Dale Reimer!

    You can be sure I will be watching this fake account too. I know this is you because you told me you were working on your freepass 11 file server and you are so dumb that you can't even masquerade yourself properly.

    Now, I told you I was out of meds last week and you didn't even care to contact me you lazy fucker.

    How many times do I have to express the emergency of the situation??????

    The python click script you wrote for my pheromone revenue stream web site suddenly stopped to work!!!!!!

    You fucking incompetent python script writer!!!

    When it works, I get 4000+ clicks a day on my pheromone revenue stream web site but only 5 or 6 without it!!!!

    Now, it seems like you dont care and that you have abandoned me you heartless fucking pig!

    Bonus:
    Here is a story that creimer told me when convincing me what a hard life he had:

    The tree was him and the tree knot was his butt hole!

    So, his uncle packed his fat ass with lard and with his cock! Not that it makes much of a difference but anyway, there it is!

    Signed:
    The girl that used to love you and now hates you, burn in hell where you belong you sexist pig!

  71. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, with RNA snippets.

  72. Re:Forget biohackers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fat man
    tries to gain karma
    C.D. Reimer

  73. Re:I can't wait to see what they do with drug plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn... I want that!

  74. But Monsanto is OK, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're making reams of money with it, then it's OK, right?

    Why am I not really reassured by how state thugs are being used?

  75. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

    Michigan just jailed a woman in October for refusing to vaccinate. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

  76. That fairy tale is always told. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In reality, would you admit you wanted to die after you failed? Or rather lie that you didn't really want, in order to get the help and sympathy, whose lack made you do it in the first place?

    Those people are deprived. Precisely because of selfish deludes cunts like you. They will say anything that might get them what they need. They got nothing to lose.

  77. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you really trust the government to have the authority to inject you and your children with whatever they want, "for your own good"?

    Do you think nothing could ever go wrong with that?

  78. this will stop very few experiments by Esekla · · Score: 1

    It's more likely to just prevent people from publicizing their efforts. Perhaps that's what the powers that be are more concerned with, then they have plausible deniability. However, the outcome is that anything truly dangerous that comes of such work is likely to go undetected for longer.

  79. Why just gene therapy? by shayd2 · · Score: 1

    Two other opportunities:

    "Gee,what if I grafted Ebola to E coli?"

    and

    The Metamorphosis - Wikipedia

  80. Patient zero? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Patient zero: In medical science, the primary case or initial patient in the population of an epidemiological investigation

    It feels kind of threatening to call him like that. Especially when he's saying "You can't stop it". Maybe there's a better designation for him?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  81. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this is the story: http://matt.might.net/articles...

  82. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me ask you the same question you just asked, a different way.
    Sure. When are you going to do that?

    There is no "right" answer, and its one ...
    So, no, it's not that simplistically absolute?

    PS - It's, with an apostrophe. Short for "it is".

  83. Re:I can't wait to see what they do with drug plan by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    You would need to properly shock them to encourage them to take up the plasmids but yea You are going to need agar plates, a make shift incubator, loops, nutrient broth, culture flasks (for bulk reproducing them once you get them glowing), and practice some care to not introduce anything else from outside you into the mix but it's possible for someone to do at home. You would also want to do a colon cleanse with something like GoLYTely. Also I'd recommend taking the other route to reintroduce them to avoid the stomach acids. Bottoms up!

    Seriously though, it should be possible but it would come with a significant, real risk of something going wrong so I wouldn't recommend someone ACTUALLY do it. That said I'm really surprised someone hasn't done it already.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  84. Re:Save a life, or comply with rules and regulatio by omnichad · · Score: 1

    people should also be free to run their own genetic data through whatever analysis programs they want

    Yeah, I think HIPAA practically demands having access to your own medical data. If you can have it but aren't supposed to read it, that's just silly.

  85. No cyberpunk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Came here for the cyberpunk references, was disappointed.

    captcha: collagen