Тег: Nootropics

Biohacking and the freedom to conduct experiments on oneself

Throughout history, people have experimented and performed various procedures on themselves. They tried different foods and medical remedies, underwent diverse rituals, and so on. In some cases, such experimentation even had significant scientific value. For example, one article cites 465 instances where researchers tested disease pathogens, tried new drugs, or performed other procedures on themselves. And although 8 of these cases ended in death, indicating a certain level of risk in such experiments, the vast majority (89%) led to positive results—confirmation of previously proposed hypotheses or the acquisition of valuable data.

Of course, today there is a negative attitude toward such experimentation, and toward independent intervention in the human body and health in general. State regulation has played a huge role in this, imposing strict restrictions on what a person can and cannot do, often insisting and deciding on behalf of ordinary people that this is allegedly safer. The state has done everything to ensure that biomedical experiments and procedures do not take place outside of approved institutions.

However, none of this has prevented the existence of biohacking. First of all, it should be noted that many means for its implementation are very common and not regulated at all, being simply bioactive supplements. No one can forbid you, based on current research or biohacking books, from purchasing certain vitamins or nootropics and taking them in the specified dosages and manner, let alone modifying your lifestyle or diet based on experimental data or even hypothetical assumptions. By the way, a good collection of useful tools and practices can be found in Daria Babkina’s book “Brain Biohacking: How to Manage Neurochemistry, Emotions, and Intelligence,” which was released this year.

But the matter doesn’t end there. Modern technologies make it possible to organize entire genetic laboratories at home, and there are already ready-made solutions for this. For example, for just 3,000 dollars, you can purchase a home laboratory with all the additions for bioengineering from “The Odin” (and educational kits for simple experiments cost only hundreds of dollars). You don’t have to go far for instructions on what exactly to do with such a laboratory—you can simply replicate step-by-step what has been done in various studies. This is exactly what one biohacker did—whose video you can see here—to correct his lactose intolerance; he simply recreated a gene therapy drug from an experiment on mice and tested it on himself. The result was excellent—a single pill allows for the free consumption of dairy products for over a year without experiencing any negative consequences whatsoever.

Considering how deeply modern science is stuck in countless regulations and the need to wait for state approval, sometimes even for decades, biohacking can give a boost to progress in the field of biotechnology, especially if we are talking about solutions that people need here and now to treat their diseases and various conditions that cause discomfort but do not yet have a sufficiently effective solution among those approved and allowed on the market by the state regulator.

Is there a danger in this? Naturally, among those engaged in biohacking, undesirable outcomes will sometimes occur. But people have every right to voluntarily assume such a risk, and an attempt to introduce a total ban on self-experimentation would not be justified, and to a large extent, would not even be feasible. Even now, there are fully approved activities that carry huge risks, such as extreme sports. And if a person can choose to do base jumping, rock climbing, or motocross, then why can’t they choose to control the biochemical processes of their own body, or even edit their genome?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Dallas Buyers Club

Imagine: you are given a terminal diagnosis, and a cure for your disease exists, but you aren’t given it. Why? Because it’s not allowed; it’s not state-approved. Absurd? However, this is exactly the situation a Texan named Ron Woodroof once found himself in—the hero of a true story that became the basis for the film “Dallas Buyers Club.” And how he acted is a true lesson in freedom and the fight against bureaucracy.

Ron was an ordinary guy from Dallas: an electrician who loved rodeos and lived a quiet life. In 1985, he received terrible news—he had HIV/AIDS and only a month to live. The doctors threw up their hands: they said there was an experimental drug called AZT, but access to it was strictly limited, and there were no other officially approved medicines. For most, such a sentence would sound like the bell for the final round, but not for Ron. He had no intention of obediently dying according to a schedule approved by officials.

What does a desperate but stubborn Texan do? He takes matters into his own hands! Ron found out that in Mexico and other countries, other drugs were already being used against AIDS—unapproved in the US, but helpful. He told all the prohibitions to go to hell and went across the border for medicine. He returned with a trunk full of life-saving pills and began sharing them with other patients. Thus, the underground “Dallas Buyers Club” was born—a kind of medical cooperative of freedom. Patients united, paid a symbolic membership fee, and in return received the necessary medicines they could not obtain legally. No charitable foundation or government program could have helped them as quickly as this club did.

Of course, the authorities found such lawlessness intolerable. The FDA and other officials declared war on Ron. He had dared to break the rules: he sold unregistered drugs, bypassed pharmaceutical monopolists, and generally dared to treat himself without permission! The bureaucrats tried to shut down the shop: raids, confiscations, threats of lawsuits. But Ron just looked for new ways. He transformed himself into a doctor or a priest, smuggling medicine in suitcases across the border. He set up supplies from Mexico, Japan, Europe—everywhere where regulators were faster. Every additional batch of drugs meant months and years of life saved for someone. In the end, Ron lived not 30 days, but over seven years—largely because he chose how to be treated himself instead of waiting for mercy from officials.

Let’s look at the situation more broadly: new drugs and technologies are born every year—from gene therapy and stem cells to experimental cancer drugs. Scientists figure out how to save a life—it seems like a miracle! But years will pass before the bureaucratic machine allows these miracle cures to be widely used. The usual approval path for a new drug can stretch for 5, 10, or 15 years. For a critically ill patient, this is an eternity they do not have. It results in a strange ethic: “Yes, we have a potential rescue for you, but please wait, first we need the paperwork.” The right to experiment is something that suggests itself. It is no coincidence that some countries have passed “Right to Try” laws—allowing the terminally ill to try any experimental therapies, bypassing part of the bureaucracy. It’s better to take a risk than to be guaranteed to die, right?!

And here is another interesting twist—biohacking. This is when people are both the guinea pigs and the doctors. Some, not waiting for approval, inject themselves with an experimental vaccine or gene therapy. Some take potent nootropics or hormones that are not officially permitted to upgrade their organism. In short, they test everything new that science has devised on themselves, regardless of regulators. These enthusiasts also defend their right to dispose of their own body and health. Their motto is “My body, my choice,” and they are ready to bear the consequences. The state, however, usually sees them as violators: oh, so you’re experimenting without a license, how dare you! And they dare because they want to live long, be healthy, or simply not wait for permission from above.

Voluntarist, Bitarch