It's not your place to tell people what to do with their own bodies.
Which, given the evidence, they unarguably are: Virtually every expert in the field, as well as other biohackers, think that what he’s doing is a bad idea, and based on dangerous superficial knowledge. The comparison to Barry Marshall (the stomach ulcher guy) is particularly unhelpful since Marshall was an expert in the field, and acting on a solid theory and with a contingency plan. But even his actions are still rightly called reckless.
All that said, I’m still impressed with Roberts’ self-experiment, and curious about the results of the long-term follow-up. But it is stupid.
"He did a stupid thing, therefore he's stupid" is not ad hominem. Inflammatory, subject to a huge debate about definitions, perhaps even wrong? Sure. But if you expand it out reasonably (a sample intervening premise: "People who do stupid things are stupid."), the logic is valid, in the technical sense. To attack the conclusion requires attacking something else about the premises, the most obvious fruitful avenue being the definition of "stupid" in question.
(Although, spoiler, that pretty much ends in "I have my definition and you have yours, and by mine, yes, he's stupid, but by yours, no, he's not.", and as long as we don't mistake the map for the territory and argue as if the definition of "stupid" that is used by someone has any power over the real world, is a perfectly acceptable result.)
(Incidentally, I consider my sample intervening premise up there as stronger than I personally would use the word stupid. I like to think of myself as generally not stupid, but I've done stupid things. Still, with that premise, the argument is logically valid.)
There's a difference between doing the research yourself and deciding to put your own body at risk "for the greater good" or even "for fun", and doing it because you saw a cool ad/PR story about it. It's why tobacco advertising was banned, too. You don't want the mobs to suddenly "want their genes enhanced, too!"
The two are not mutually exclusive. Why do any non-profits and open source projects advertise? Advertising is a fundamental component of all projects. Any perception otherwise is just the ol' bucket-of-crabs.
Come on, that's ridiculous.
E.g., if a loved one is abusing alcohol, it is definitely your place to intervene.
I think it is very well possible to have your logical mind hijacked by a possible cure for a disease.
Moreover, unless those engaged in genetic experimentation sterilize themselves, it also poses risks to population genetics.
I do and if there was a legit 1% chance I could cure it with a miracle treatment I’d try it no matter the side effects/risks. Worst case scenario I’d just kill myself.
This isn’t about “hacking things” to make them better it’s about having a bit of hope your life isn’t going to be horrible forever.
This is also the rabbit hole of how quackery thrives, parasiting off the hope or desperation of ill people.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/why-id-rather-have-hiv-t...
What they did was obviously stupid, but desperation makes you do stupid things.
A group of experts on ALS (aka Motor Neurone Disease or MND) evaluates various alternative therapies for the condition, considering factors including scientific plausibility, risks, etc. Some of the proposed treatments are totally implausible, like injecting something into a place where there's no reason to expect it would have any effect. Others are obviously scams. Others are conceived and sold by well-meaning people who make sick people feel some hope thanks to a positive and helpful demeanor, but who unfortunately don't have anything medically useful to offer.
Highly active antiretroviral treatment is a goddamned miracle. One pill a day turns a death sentence into a complete non-issue. I can't help but question the mental health of someone who would reject such an astonishingly good treatment in favour of being a human guinea pig.
https://www.aidsmap.com/Life-expectancy-near-normal-in-peopl...
Just to be clear your statement is 100% false:
By calling it "his emotional state" you are, again, disregarding the disease and the effects of it on many aspects of his life. It's not his "emotional state" as you call it, it's a chronic deadly and debilitating disease which is afflicting him.
You are being dismissive and disregarding something which you appear to know nothing about. See my comment above. You have no right to pass judgement.
Do we have to throw all knowledge out the window and say anything someone with a harsh life does is smart? What about having HIV makes it a good idea to eschew effective treatment for 2 years and then inject untested bullshit?
The people here recommending non experimental HIV treatment aren't saying so to hurt him. They are saying it because they don't want him to hurt himself needlessly.
As chronic diseases go, HIV really isn't particularly unpleasant. The majority of people aged over 60 are suffering from something far worse - hypertension, arthritis, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, COPD etc.
The gentleman mentioned in the article is behaving in an incredibly reckless fashion. He has rejected a safe and effective treatment in favour of something completely untested, for no obvious benefit. He is clearly suffering, but I think his problems are primarily psychological rather than biomedical.
I'm not here to try to educate you on all of the nuances of it in a comment, but suffice to say that you would not be so cavalier if you found yourself infected with HIV.