Jump to content
World's Largest Herpes Support Group


Zebra007

Let’s talk Biohacking

Recommended Posts

Zebra007

In the race for the cure or therapeutic vaccine what are the chances that Biohackers beat everyone to the punch? The risk is pretty obvious but the reward is a quicker delivery of something to reduce our pain or possibly infecting loved ones. Hypothetically who would take the risk? Crispr seems like it’s readily available. My guess is someone out of the U.S. will duplicate the tech and not have any FDA red tape to dance around and be able to offer something viable before anything hits the market. 

Thoughts?


 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9

"In the race for the cure or therapeutic vaccine what are the chances that Biohackers beat everyone to the punch? "
ZERO

"Hypothetically who would take the risk?"
Not a chance in hell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laguna
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Zebra007 said:

In the race for the cure or therapeutic vaccine what are the chances that Biohackers beat everyone to the punch? The risk is pretty obvious but the reward is a quicker delivery of something to reduce our pain or possibly infecting loved ones. Hypothetically who would take the risk? Crispr seems like it’s readily available. My guess is someone out of the U.S. will duplicate the tech and not have any FDA red tape to dance around and be able to offer something viable before anything hits the market. 

Thoughts?


 

 

 

 

At the risk of sounding ignorant in this regards, may I ask if this being done with other pharmaceuticals or medical therapies caught in the red tape?

Edited by Laguna
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zebra007
Just now, Laguna said:

At the risk of sounding ignorant in this regards; may I ask if this being done with other pharmaceuticals or medical therapies caught in the red tape?

Well from what I’ve seen on the forum drugs like Priteliver can be manufactured     In labs because the blue print is out there despite it not being FDA approved already. Obviously it’s a big risk not knowing what the side effects are. I can see this being the trend in the future. The tech gets copied and applied for cheaper  and sooner out of country. Once the blue print is Available then it can be copied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WilsoInAus

Hey @Zebra007 not quite right. You are referring to patents as the blueprint. These are issued to enable ongoing research and protect the rights of the patent holder but a reputable lab in a reputable country does not make it.

Unreputable labs in unreputable countries that violate patents do attempt to manufacture some drugs. You have no idea though whether they have actually made it properly if it is complex to manufacture.

You have no real idea if you are getting the substance as specified in the patent or flour!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iFdUp
7 hours ago, Laguna said:

At the risk of sounding ignorant in this regards, may I ask if this being done with other pharmaceuticals or medical therapies caught in the red tape?

Research Theravax.

That was basically 'biohacking' and consider the level of funding that had as a ragtag effort. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laguna

@iFdUp okay, yes I am slightly familiar with the Theravax story. I am wondering, however, if biohacking is happening on a broad or semi-broad scale in developed countries? A black market of accessibility that does not rely on visible funding? Maybe, just my fictional brain. 
Yes, I am speaking separate from what @WilsoInAus mentioned. I understand the patent misuse that occurs. I saw this often in skin therapy technology. Many expensive machines from US & Europe were copied in other countries. Sometimes I would purchase them to see if what I was getting compared to the original at a fraction of the price. Only trial and error tells. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laguna
11 hours ago, Zebra007 said:

Well from what I’ve seen on the forum drugs like Priteliver can be manufactured     In labs because the blue print is out there despite it not being FDA approved already. Obviously it’s a big risk not knowing what the side effects are. I can see this being the trend in the future. The tech gets copied and applied for cheaper  and sooner out of country. Once the blue print is Available then it can be copied. 

At this point, some of us may choose the risk! I wonder how consumers would know if this occurs? Has Priteliver been hacked?  The trouble is it wouldn't be worthwhile to a "reputable" lab. Only those who also see the risk vs. reward. Thanks for your comment 😊😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zebra007
49 minutes ago, Laguna said:

At this point, some of us may choose the risk! I wonder how consumers would know if this occurs? Has Priteliver been hacked?  The trouble is it wouldn't be worthwhile to a "reputable" lab. Only those who also see the risk vs. reward. Thanks for your comment 😊😊

I’m not sure if hacked is the right term but someone mentioned starting a “ priteliver “ buyers club on this forum once to some alarm. I don’t think it’s unthinkable that people would travel out of country to seek untested or alternate therapies. It’s been happening to some degree for years. ( See original Dallas Buyers Club ). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zebra007
1 hour ago, Laguna said:

@iFdUp okay, yes I am slightly familiar with the Theravax story. I am wondering, however, if biohacking is happening on a broad or semi-broad scale in developed countries? A black market of accessibility that does not rely on visible funding? Maybe, just my fictional brain. 
Yes, I am speaking separate from what @WilsoInAus mentioned. I understand the patent misuse that occurs. I saw this often in skin therapy technology. Many expensive machines from US & Europe were copied in other countries. Sometimes I would purchase them to see if what I was getting compared to the original at a fraction of the price. Only trial and error tells. 

I’m sure it’s on a broad scale. My only hope is that in the U.S. that the FDA doesn’t stomp them out. I don’t think biohacking should be a bad word. From a few articles that I’ve read it seems like they are basically a scientific “ makers “ group. Members pitch in on equipment etc. Some are even working on Coronavirus I believe. You can bet it will certainly flourish abroad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laguna
2 hours ago, Zebra007 said:

I’m sure it’s on a broad scale. My only hope is that in the U.S. that the FDA doesn’t stomp them out. I don’t think biohacking should be a bad word. From a few articles that I’ve read it seems like they are basically a scientific “ makers “ group. Members pitch in on equipment etc. Some are even working on Coronavirus I believe. You can bet it will certainly flourish abroad. 

@Zebra007 thank you for both of your replies. I believe this too will flourish as the FDA has too much power in the US and influence in other countries through international drug companies. I am only a novice in this area so I'm certain many other people in this forum are experts, however we are all astutely aware of the lack of opportunity and accessibility for the sick and suffering. That must change and I would be interested in continuing this conversation to see what comes out of the woodwork like your original post was asking. Hopefully those "in the know" will come forward!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iFdUp

Biohacking isn't a thing due to the behaviour of self proclaimed 'bio hackers'.

Anyone worth their salt is too busy to go public, assuming they already have what they need to get it done.

Anyone who doesn't already have what they need to 'biohack' and needs crowd funding will not get it. 

You don't really need to look at biohacking its self to understand that no efforts like it will work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a human being

I definitely think bio hacking and some concepts therein can democratize science/technologies when power and money can be concentrated up the top. 

One excellent example I think was the epi pens when they became prohibitively expensive I saw posts bio hackers had put together to make your own epi pens. Or people making prosthetics inexpensive with 3D printing!

In a way bio hacking is a localised kind of system and I def believe this can be one way to bring down costs although economies of scale globally can do so also. 

Also bio hacking tends to have two strands those interested in self experimentation with genetic research, something I personally view as dangerous,  or those who use natural medicine systems/processes often experimentally. I have been in a few nootropic groups and peptide groups although I don’t have such time for those sorts of forays.

I do believe in localised citizen science ultimately as the end game for the most part as a natural medicine user. How your body works and how to heal it should’ve basic education. It’s a different value system but the savings and values imbrued are invaluable. That said I do not consider myself a Luddite. I believe in responsible and judicious use of technologies. 

I am a big fan of Max Igan. I do not completely agree with his conspiracists take. What I love is his spiritual message, his open mindedness and that he speaks out over our own divisions in our community and how this has halted our progress. He states we should be a modern synthesis of tribal people with advanced technologies and I agree. How does this relate to bio hacking I guess localised systems, citizen science and the concepts of technologies. I looked at the Ubuntu guys for awhile and was interested in their quantum computers with Chrystals. Not sure if that was dream or reality as I never dig deeper into that one. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
readytostart

Maybe this might be a silly question, but, if Crispr technology is not a vaccine or a medicine "per se", would it have to pass the typical clinical trials? I mean, safety is a must, so that would be phase I, but if it theorically could erase the virus from neurons, results would be noticeable right away, am I wrong?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a human being
3 hours ago, readytostart said:

Maybe this might be a silly question, but, if Crispr technology is not a vaccine or a medicine "per se", would it have to pass the typical clinical trials? I mean, safety is a must, so that would be phase I, but if it theorically could erase the virus from neurons, results would be noticeable right away, am I wrong?

 

I imagine as a new technology it would be more stringent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.