Now the reasonableness of experimenting on yourself, even in a scientifically "valid" way, is certainly arguable. But the elements are all there; Theory of the Immune system, Hypothesis that it can be trained in this way, experiment that trains immune system in a known with with the experimental training element.
As others have pointed out, the immune system is designed to kill cells it doesn't like. And it has been demonstrated in other scenarios that it can target cells that are vital to one's survival, resulting in death when the immune system targets and kills those cells.
Thus the risk in the experiment is that it will successfully invoke an immune response, it just won't be the one that was anticipated.
Not surprisingly, this is the whole point of animal trials to get a feel for what might happen.
> So, we’ll do (up to) two more blood tests. The first will be two weeks after our third (weekly) dose; that one is the “optimistic” test, in case three doses is more-than-enough already. That one is optimistic for another reason as well: synthesis/delivery of three of the nine peptides was delayed, so our first three doses will only use six of them. If the optimistic test comes back positive, great, we’re done.
> If that test comes back negative, then the next test will be the “more dakka” test. We’ll add the other three peptides, take another few weeks of boosters, maybe adjust frequency and/or dosage - we’ll consider exactly what changes to make if and when the optimistic test comes back negative. Risks are very minimal (again, see the paper), so throwing more dakka at it makes sense.
> Consider this a pre-registration. I intend to share my test results here.
Pre-registration for this kind of thing seems pretty good, and I am looking forward to seeing the results.
The author is planning to take a "test". What test? The standard lab tests are some proprietary qualitative test looking for antibodies to a specific synthetic antigen. For a (new, untested!) vaccine, this is a dubious experiment at best. The vaccine could produce an amazing antibody response that doesn't trigger the test, or it could produce a tiny, useless response that happens to trigger the test. And the test is unlikely to give numbers.
But this vaccine is using short-ish peptides. There are two (at least? I think just two) different types of T-cell receptor, and they are sensitive to different lengths of peptide. Testing for those is complicated and expensive.
I don't know how one would find a lab to do the relevant tests, but it's probably not so easy.
> If the vaccine induces an immune response in the blood, then it almost certainly induces one in the mucus lining, but the reverse does not hold. So a positive blood antibody test means it definitely works, a negative antibody test is a weak update against.
> So, we’ll do (up to) two more blood tests. The first will be two weeks after our third (weekly) dose; that one is the “optimistic” test, in case three doses is more-than-enough already. That one is optimistic for another reason as well: synthesis/delivery of three of the nine peptides was delayed, so our first three doses will only use six of them. If the optimistic test comes back positive, great, we’re done.
> If that test comes back negative, then the next test will be the “more dakka” test. We’ll add the other three peptides, take another few weeks of boosters, maybe adjust frequency and/or dosage - we’ll consider exactly what changes to make if and when the optimistic test comes back negative. Risks are very minimal (again, see the paper), so throwing more dakka at it makes sense.
> Consider this a pre-registration. I intend to share my test results here.
It's like a scientific method LARP.
Self experiment, not in order to generalize conclusions to the rest of the world, but to find useful conclusions for own use.
The most basic cases of statistics run on point estimate evaluations. With one datum you just have a point, not an estimate, and you cannot evaluate anything.
The author says they will accept that their homebrew worked if they get a positive antibody test (yet, plenty of people will get a positive antibody test without any administration of homebrew or vaccine); but will not accept that it failed if there is a negative antibody test.
As such, their hypothesis is not falsifiable and it is not science.
The hypothesis "my homebrew has worked on me" is what the blog asks ("I'm curious whether it will work - or whether we'll be able to tell that it works."). That is not falsifiable.
If he ends up getting COVID-19 in a few months, he'll have pretty strongly falsified that hypothesis.
You cannot dismiss a hypothesis as "not scientific" simply because it's likely that your search for evidence will be inconclusive.
I know you used "pretty strongly" as sarcasm, but falsifiability is absolute - and this is not.
(On your later point about my claim that this is not scientific, we are back to the comparison with gathering roots and berries - either both are, or both are not)
> I know you used "pretty strongly" as sarcasm, but it's not falsifiability is absolute - and this is not.
I'm having a very hard time parsing what you're saying. At this point, it looks like you're trying to make an argument that "falsifiability" must mean that it is both possible and practical to reject a hypothesis with 100% certainty, and if you can't then you're not doing science. Would you care to explain more clearly why the position you're taking is less extreme and absurd than that?
(Additionally, I did not use "pretty strongly" in any sarcastic way. I used it to acknowledge the possibility of confounding factors that I did not care to enumerate, which mean that even the experimental outcome of getting COVID-19 after inoculation with the homemade vaccine would not be a 100% certain rejection of the hypothesis that the vaccine conferred some protection against COVID-19. But if you're operating in a mindset of 100% certainty being achievable and necessary for science, then I can see how you would misunderstand me.)
This is equally science as going into the woods, picking some berries and roots, grinding them and put them up your nose, doing an antibody test, and writing your conclusions up in a blog post. There's no difference.
(But, yes, I think that writing hypotheses with 100% falsifiability, before challenging them practically, is quite a good definition of "scientific method", based on Karl Popper's work. You can compare with what Wikipedia has to say.)
Edited to respond to your edit: The word falsifiability is deliberately used to distinguish that we are talking about False, the Boolean state. The confounding factors are important - the confounding factors here mean I can't prove it False; there are no circumstances whereby the author has to accept that their hypothesis was False.
It seems like you're still not making the necessary distinction between whether it is possible for an experiment's outcome to falsify the hypothesis, vs whether it is guaranteed that the experiment will falsify the hypothesis if it is in fact wrong. The latter is an unreasonable requirement to make part of your definition of science.
The author described such a circumstance, but then explained that he did not have access to the necessary lab testing to actually do so. The hypothesis is falsifiable in principle even if the researcher does not expect to have the equipment necessary to measure falsification by that outcome.
> The author described such a circumstance, but then explained that he did not have access to the necessary lab testing to actually do so.
In the parent article? Could you quote that part?