Mad Scientist Tests Drugs on Himself

[SQAAD]

This is 'real' hardcore science right there. This guy creates legal high. But he always tests them on himself before 'publishing' them on the market lol. Thats hardcore stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0NRsaPmVX8

Edited November 10, 2021 by SQAAD

[BipolarGrowth]

Nice. Reminds me of Alexander/Sasha Shulgin. 

[SQAAD]

@BipolarGrowth

20 minutes ago, BipolarGrowth said:

Nice. Reminds me of Alexander/Sasha Shulgin. 

I really like it when i see scientists putting some skin in the game. Maybe its not wise or the most intelligent thing, but it shows some courage and passion for the job :-) 

I like courageous people. But it is easy to do stupid sh*t and think you are being courageous. So its very very very hard to draw a clear line.......

[BipolarGrowth]

11 minutes ago, SQAAD said:

@BipolarGrowth

I really like it when i see scientists putting some skin in the game. Maybe its not wise or the most intelligent thing, but it shows some courage and passion for the job :-) 

I like courageous people. But it is easy to do stupid sh*t and think you are being courageous. So its very very very hard to draw a clear line.......

I would say what this guy and Shulgin did are both wise and intelligent. The wisdom comes in wishing to not negatively impact any other beings by first testing on yourself. The intelligence is understanding the chemistry enough to know what is safe to test in the first place this many times without ever deeply harming yourself. 

[Carl-Richard]

20 minutes ago, BipolarGrowth said:

I would say what this guy and Shulgin did are both wise and intelligent. The wisdom comes in wishing to not negatively impact any other beings by first testing on yourself. The intelligence is understanding the chemistry enough to know what is safe to test in the first place this many times without ever deeply harming yourself. 

It's still pretty crazy to test unknown chemicals on yourself, no matter how you go about it. Not all harmful effects are immediately experienced. For example, how do you know that something is neurotoxic before it's too late?

[Tim R]

It's just stupid, there's nothing scientific about it. Only because some substance doesn't have any negative effects on him, that doesn't make it safe for others.

[Salvijus]

2 minutes ago, Tim R said:

It's just stupid

Lol.

[Danioover9000]

   While it might be inspirational to be doing self experimentation, it has a lot of downsides practically speaking, and unknown variables that could go wrong. This scientist might be on a lucky streak, but at any moment it could go south so quick.

[Ima Freeman]

@Danioover9000 It isn't really healthy on his brain, but it isn't totally reckless either. If for example he creates a amphetamin class drug he roughly knows what mechanisms create the high.

And who knows what method he uses to test them. Maybe he starts with 0.1mg, then 0.15 mg and so on
 

[Heinrich Faust]

At the end, that's the only way to discover new psychedelics. Someone has to be the first person testing it.

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, Ima Freeman said:

It isn't really healthy on his brain, but it isn't totally reckless either. If for example he creates a amphetamin class drug he roughly knows what mechanisms create the high.

And who knows what method he uses to test them. Maybe he starts with 0.1mg, then 0.15 mg and so on

Slight modifications of known substances only decreases the probability of things going wrong. Things can still go wrong. Take thalidomide for instance. The (R)-(+)-enantiomer produces sedation while the (S)-(−)-enantiomer produces severe birth defects.

[BipolarGrowth]

45 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Slight modifications of known substances only decreases the probability of things going wrong. Things can still go wrong. Take thalidomide for instance. The (R)-(+)-enantiomer produces sedation while the (S)-(−)-enantiomer produces severe birth defects.

And we know this because people tried it or testing on animals. You can apply all of your logic to any lifesaving chemical solutions ever used. If you think this guy testing drugs on himself is worse than taking animals out of their environments to test drugs on them is better, I question your ethics. Either way, animal tests are not a full answer anyway. 
 

What do you suggest we do? Stop all development of new chemicals? 
 

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by BipolarGrowth

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's still pretty crazy to test unknown chemicals on yourself, no matter how you go about it. Not all harmful effects are immediately experienced. For example, how do you know that something is neurotoxic before it's too late?

Is it better to test the chemicals on someone other than yourself?

[SQAAD]

@Carl-Richard

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

For example, how do you know that something is neurotoxic before it's too late?

Thats the point: You don't know. But thats what true science is all about. Exploring and finding out. You can do it on animals or yourself at some cases. With your logic nobody would ever touch many psychedelics or research chemical just because we have not sufficient enough data.

5meo malt could be potentially neurotoxic as it is 5meo-dipt but i would be willing to try it nonetheless. I care about my well-being and safety but sometimes it is worth the risk. Personally i would risk my health in (an intelligent way) for God. Last time i was offered DMT by some friend. It could have been poison from all i knew. But i took the risk.

I believe Leo is risking his health also with all his experiements. But i admire that he is putting skin in the game. When someone is willing to put his health on the line (in an intelligent way, not recklessly) for some greater cause thats very admirable.

On the other hand when someone just cares about his well-being and nothing else, thats a petty sad existance full of fear and always obsessed with self-preservation. We don't admire people like that. They never do any breakthroughs in their lifes. They just survive.

Thats why we admire people like Gandhi, Spartacus and Martin Luther King.The guy in the video does something good by testing the drugs on himself 1st. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by SQAAD

[SQAAD]

@BipolarGrowth

10 hours ago, BipolarGrowth said:

I would say what this guy and Shulgin did are both wise and intelligent. The wisdom comes in wishing to not negatively impact any other beings by first testing on yourself. The intelligence is understanding the chemistry enough to know what is safe to test in the first place this many times without ever deeply harming yourself. 

I agree with you. Shulgins life purpose was to create and explore all these different chemicals. He really enjoyed it. And was in love with the whole process.

Edited November 11, 2021 by SQAAD

[SQAAD]

@Danioover9000

9 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

   While it might be inspirational to be doing self experimentation, it has a lot of downsides practically speaking, and unknown variables that could go wrong. This scientist might be on a lucky streak, but at any moment it could go south so quick.

I think we are always dealing with some unknown variables in any situation. 100% certainty is impossible. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by SQAAD

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Scholar said:

Is it better to test the chemicals on someone other than yourself?

No.

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, BipolarGrowth said:

If you think this guy testing drugs on himself is worse than taking animals out of their environments to test drugs on them is better, I question your ethics.

I didn't make a moral statement. If you want a moral conundrum: is it better for Shulgin to use animal testing first and then use it on himself or is it better that he drastically increases his risk of potentially squandering the future discovery of hundreds of useful new compounds with potentially life-saving therapeutic/medicinal properties?

[BipolarGrowth]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I didn't make a moral statement. If you want a moral conundrum: is it better for Shulgin to use animal testing first and then use it on himself or is it better that he drastically increases his risk of potentially squandering the future discovery of hundreds of useful new compounds with potentially life-saving therapeutic/medicinal properties?

You made a statement with huge moral implications, and I’d bet that you were bringing in some moral elements when you were saying this type of testing shouldn’t be done whether you’d like to admit it or not. 
 

Obviously the risk was calculated, quite low, and the procedure of testing was done in a painstaking way (at least in Shulgin’s case if you watch the video I posted) that produced a happy man with an impactful life who lived just fine doing this type of testing at a stupendous volume over decades. The need for testing on animals was eliminated by simply looking at the reality of how things occurred. 
 

If he wasn’t dosing so low at the beginning of testing, using animals would make more sense. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, BipolarGrowth said:

when you were saying this type of testing shouldn’t be done 

All I said is it's potentially very dangerous.