It is certainly a wild west, as Michael suggested. Question about net positive depends on—positive for what and who? I have no doubt that some people are helped, so it can be a positive for them, but others are harmed. For the regulatory pathway, it is really independent so does not contributed to the positive path to medical approval. And as Michael said, if things aren’t done well, the bad press could hurt the medical pathway. I’m not preaching to folks what to do or not do, but from my own position, all I can do is educated folks about relevant risks and safety factors (what separates more risky from less risky use), and remind the public and other scientists and regulators that what you see in these settings is not necessarily reflective of the risk/benefit profile at play with approved clinical treatment with our safety guidelines at play.
It is certainly a wild west, as Michael suggested. Question about net positive depends on—positive for what and who? I have no doubt that some people are helped, so it can be a positive for them, but others are harmed. For the regulatory pathway, it is really independent so does not contributed to the positive path to medical approval. And as Michael said, if things aren’t done well, the bad press could hurt the medical pathway. I’m not preaching to folks what to do or not do, but from my own position, all I can do is educated folks about relevant risks and safety factors (what separates more risky from less risky use), and remind the public and other scientists and regulators that what you see in these settings is not necessarily reflective of the risk/benefit profile at play with approved clinical treatment with our safety guidelines at play.