Hacker News Reader

Are we making a good trade-off if that protection means preventing lifesaving treatments from reaching the market for decades or more? Does the risk the part might not work somehow justify the loss of life due to the absence of a lifesaving treatment?

Wouldn’t we learn a lot more about the effects of these experimental treatments if we allowed the willing to take them voluntarily?

View on HN

> Wouldn’t we learn a lot more about the effects of these experimental treatments if we allowed the willing to take them voluntarily?

In the case of life-extension treatments, no - we would learn much less if we allowed people to give them to their pets voluntarily.

The problem is that what you're testing for is very difficult to measure, so you need a well-run study like the one that Loyal has done here. If people just give them to their dogs without the structure of a trial, you'll never get the kind of data you need to conclusive prove life-extending effects, and because companies can now sell without such a trial, you eliminate the incentives to invest the time, money and effort into that kind of a trial.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com