Eunuch Maker site

[Godson]

Thanks for that.

I would prefer offline, given the nature of the topic and the unknown lurkers and whatever agendas they may have around this theme.

I will pm you with my Proton email address and you can send it there.

Likely be later in the week as the abstract is just beginning to gel. Once you read it, perhaps you might recommend others here who might be interested in the work and potentially open to sharing their opinions…

Many thanks,
- Micah

[Godson]

@wheely

I’m going back and rereading this thread and spotted one of your comments that I initially overlooked:

“It is also a thing that cuts both ways at times... I am tremendously frustrated by the rules about medical trials that keep a lot of things that looked promising in laboratory research into SCI's from being available for trial by willing and fully informed volunteers because it "wouldn't be ethical" Certainly they are high risk, but why can't a person with serious medical issues take a gamble?”

Tangential to the discussion of nullification, but adjacent to the theme of information and willing DIY - I can understand how your point of view (and I’m respectfully projecting here…) could have been shaped by your own experience and what it is (I assume) you’re speaking of.

If you’re interested in looking at an “IRL” example of patients taking their willingness to be “Guinea Pigs” as a solution not just for themselves, but also for the betterment of their patient community,” look up the “we are not waiting” movement in which insulin-dependent diabetics who have had enough of the collusion and slow movement of the care providers, drug companies, and other stakeholders upon whom they're dependent; forming a crowdsourced community to innovate amongst themselves and to “test and learn” outside of the boundaries of formality, regulation, and corporate IP.

You might find some interesting parallels to what you speak of…

[Godson]

Link to an interesting article I found in this morning’s news, and coincidental timing as I begin this project.

Although this article isn’t about eunuchs, it is about “knowledge transparency” and the intentional suppression of “uncomfortable facts” by the scientific community that would otherwise serve to expand and enhance universal understanding.

I find the author’s statement that:

“…it has never been more important for us to expand the limited definitions of "acceptable" research, and open the door to discoveries and deeper understanding,”

aligns with, confirms, and concisely summarizes the notion that’s been percolating through my comments but hasn’t quite crystallized yet.

Funny that it arrives now, the day after I just finished crafting my vision, mission, and guiding principles statements for my project. I’m going to take this as a sign, haha…

https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-na ... -1.7535772

[WheelyFixed]

@wheely

I’m going back and rereading this thread and spotted one of your comments that I initially overlooked:

“It is also a thing that cuts both ways at times... I am tremendously frustrated by the rules about medical trials that keep a lot of things that looked promising in laboratory research into SCI's from being available for trial by willing and fully informed volunteers because it "wouldn't be ethical" Certainly they are high risk, but why can't a person with serious medical issues take a gamble?”

Tangential to the discussion of nullification, but adjacent to the theme of information and willing DIY - I can understand how your point of view (and I’m respectfully projecting here…) could have been shaped by your own experience and what it is (I assume) you’re speaking of.

If you’re interested in looking at an “IRL” example of patients taking their willingness to be “Guinea Pigs” as a solution not just for themselves, but also for the betterment of their patient community,” look up the “we are not waiting” movement in which insulin-dependent diabetics who have had enough of the collusion and slow movement of the care providers, drug companies, and other stakeholders upon whom they're dependent; forming a crowdsourced community to innovate amongst themselves and to “test and learn” outside of the boundaries of formality, regulation, and corporate IP.

You might find some interesting parallels to what you speak of…

I hadn't been aware of that particular effort to open up the system more than as a low key discussion in some of the Free Software groups, which I didn't chase since I'm not diabetic so it isn't relevant to me... However I am VERY aware as a CPAP user of the (largely successful) effort to do the same with our CPAP machines... There is at least one major forum site that maintains and supports a Free Software program called "OSCAR" that can download and read the data from almost all the machines currently being used, and generate reports that my sleep doc says are as good or better than what he can get with the manufacturer's software... They also have the 'clinician manuals' for most machines that allow you to go in and adjust the settings. They have members that are pretty experienced at reading the OSCAR graphs and offer some suggestions about how to fine tune your settings....

In the SCI world there are a fair number of 'patient led' efforts to deal with a lot of the side issues, I.e. various efforts to deal with UTI's that have mixed success but also avoid the issues we get from the doctors related to over-use of antibiotics... I do serious hacking on powerchairs and other mobility gear, and have a friend that has been figuring out how to make manual chairs out of plywood and other low-cost materials, not so much for 'daily drivers' as to do things like specialized sports chairs...

However what I'm talking about isn't this sort of 'tool hacking' on the outer edges of the problem, but more getting into the core of it, which requires labs and surgical gear, high end research, etc. Essentially there have been a lot of at least somewhat successful efforts at restoring some level of function in laboratory animals (particularly rats and dogs) but no real progress in moving from lab animals to people... The biggest reason is all of the regulatory requirements for extensive (spelled exPensive!) and lengthy animal studies before even allowing any sort of human trials. I find this to be as morally offensive, if not more so, than forced experimentation on uninformed or involuntary subjects. Who the <BLEEP> do these "Medical Ethics" people think they are to be saying that I am not ALLOWED to give an informed consent and undergo an experimental procedure that might end up killing me if that is what I WANT to do? Is that not just as much 'playing God' with people's lives as anything done in the name of medical research to unwilling patients in American medical facilities for the 'feeble minded'?

WheelyFixed