Scientists and ethicists debate the hard questions - "Is it ethical to cure cancer?"

ethics of self-experimentation

How do you manage to pack such a profoundly retarded worldview into such few words? Moralstrags come up with the funniest excuses to listen to their opinions.

That ethical dilemma subsection of that Nature article is also just :

The problem is not that Halassy used self-experimentation as such, but that publishing her results could encourage others to reject conventional treatment and try something similar, says Sherkow.

Who are these "others"? Do they have the background to be reading and understanding fucking academic papers? Why aren't these tard reviewers using the "your results are not replicable" justification here for rejecting the paper (which may be valid, IDK)? If a treatment is replicable, what makes it worse than "conventional treatment" (why does it not BECOME "conventional treatment" outside of costs or implementation difficulty)?

There's also another reason for rejection mentioned here:

Stephen Russell, an OVT specialist who runs virotherapy biotech company Vyriad in Rochester, Minnesota, agrees that Halassy's case suggests the viral injections worked to shrink her tumour and cause its invasive edges to recede.

But he doesn't think her experience really breaks any new ground, because researchers are already trying to use OVT to help treat earlier-stage cancer. He isn't aware of anyone trying two viruses sequentially, but says it isn't possible to deduce whether this mattered in an 'n of 1' study. "Really, the novelty here is, she did it to herself with a virus that she grew in her own lab," he says

If the results don't break any new ground, it makes the ethicists look even stupider lmao