I think he made this before the trip and it got uploaded while they continue searching for him and the latest tank vid. It's not like he's going to leave, at least not voluntarily. ;-)
No, it's just closed and he's hiding in a cupboard somewhere from the security guards. He took a sofa along for comfort, and his sword and shield for companionship and to defend himself in case they find him and try to throw him out.
I'm in a position where I'm in so much agony that I'm not useful to society or myself. If a drug were released that had a 50% chance of curing my condition and a 25% chance of killing me, I'd still take it. some things are so agonizing that it makes you feel like life isn't of much value anyways.
and I am your doctor and I say "no". Because I am a doctor and I have a power given me by the government. OK, to be serious, fuck the government and its all regulations of production and trade.
@MeldinX2 if it's a worldwide available drug that kills 1% of users, we're talking thousands of people dropping dead every year. Millions of people have arthritis.
if you take 100 your chance of death is about 63.4% maths: 1-(0.99^100) However, due to chemistry the chance could increase to 100% death due to overdose.
Well it's 1 % chance of death for every pill you take. It's not 2% chance to die just because you take 2 pills. So you count the chance unrelated to how many you take. It's like when when you gamble on red or black. You will always have a 50% chance of success each time you spin. Same with this each time you take a new pill the chance is still 1% for that pill. The chance ''reset'' if you will.
Don't most, if not all, medical procedures carry some amount of risk of death? I remember being told there was a risk of death when I was getting my wisdom teeth removed.
Darth Savage There is. There is a very small chance that it gets infarcted badly and you die from that infection. But in today's world the chance is way lower then 1%.
Mhh I got them removed half a year ago and I had no anesthesia besides some local one. More isn't really needed. Unless you got a strong phobia against dentists perhaps. In that case I can understand though.
BloggingLP A local is much less dangerous than a general, true. I've heard that some women have extracted entire human beings from their bodies without anesthesia, but you'll never catch me doing that either! ;->
Dammit, Lindy! You are repeatedly Avoiding the Question! "Do you like smelling Flowers, Lindy?" "Well, it depends. Will the flower continue to give me more and more pleasure every time I smell it?" "Er, We-" "Will said flower give me a reaction which will cause me to sneeze, Cough, et-cetera, or will it Harm me in other such manners?" "Lindy, you j-" "Will this flower somehow make people very sick with a Fatal virus, Causing mass death and Destruction of Mankind as we Know it?" "None of the above" "Oh, yeah sure."
Absolutely. The idea that this thing (or, indeed, any medicine other than something like antibiotics where there's an externality effect from breeding antibiotic-resistant pathogens) should be prescription-only is ridiculous. Lloyd was careful to state that no-one would be forced to take it - but he seemed entirely happy with the idea of someone being forced *not* to take it. People should be permitted to make their own decisions, and that remains true when the consequences may include death.
Fresh Rock Papa-E you are right, is most cases arthritis isn't that bad, but, there are cases of it totally crippling an individual because of inutility of a arm/hand/leg and constant horrible pain. I'd still take, I had arthritis on my wrist and had to have it immobilized for 2 weeks, and that was mild.
Oh, yes, the situation is greatly simplified here, but for how debilitating arthritis is and how many people taking this medicine would be old and have a higher than 1% chance of dying from something else soon, anyway, we could do a lot worse. Just finished watching the Healthcare Triage episode on the new prostate screening recommendations. I'm quoting numbers from memory here, but under old recommendations, for every 1 person saved from screening, something like 16 people with false positives were rushed into getting a treatment they didn't even need, and 2 or 3 of those 16 would become incontinent or impotent or both due to complications from said treatment. And everyone involved had to spend time and money on those treatments, regardless of how good or bad it turned out. I mean, granted, it should be a prescription drug only for use by people with BAD arthritis, but still.
That was such an amazingly complex answer for a question that was so seemingly simple. Thank you, sir, for making me feel smarter from just listening to you. Also, that was a great answer. Luckily, people are starting to think as similarly complex. It's looking like the world may finally be getting a bit better. Cheers!
This was a great question, and the very thoughtful, if incomplete, answer in the video shows why. This is a common type of question asked by physicians, scientists, regulators, and others everyday. The issues quickly become complex and all sorts of analytical, statistical, ethical, and other methods are used to come to a practical decision. You touched on a lot of the bigger ones.
Right. Simple question, which requires that the drug be released to the public for the answer to matter. I'd said yes even before considering non-randomness and improved predictability. Some people with arthritis would find either cured or dead better than now.
The thing I enjoy most about this video serious is watching Mr. Lloyd have absolutely no difficulty answering questions which seem, by their presentation, as if they are supposed to be quite challenging, when really most of them have a quite logical answer.
As someone with lupus, I'd take my chances. It causes an incredible amount of pain and is very hard to treat. It has changed my life in my ability to do so many things that my quality of life would be vastly improved by a cure. I'm relatively young and otherwise okay, so it would be worth the risk.
Interesting, I always wonder what drove the current big youtubers in the beginning. It's strange because if I had seen him walking down the street a youtuber is the last thing I would have expected he is.
If the Daily Mail offices got leveled by a bomb or an airstrike, or condemned due to a health violation, I wouldn't mind one bit. They really don't deserve to be doing what they're doing.
In medicine there is the metric called the Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). It's a rough measurement that looks at how much a drug/procedure improves your life. So for example one drug might add one year of being perfectly healthy before you die and another might add 5 years but you have mild pain and nausea, and those two could have the same QALY score. It's a way to see exactly what the benefits are, because then you subtract the possible negative side effects and you can see if overall the drug/procedure is a benefit or not. It's very subjective and not terribly accurate, but it's also very versatile and a useful first step when planning treatments since you can tailor it to the individual based on their medical history by adjusting the weights of different variables.
Hi Lindy, Speaking as a grumpy 60yo with occasional mild gout [currently well controlled by medication], not only do i think it should be released [though i would prefer 'prescription only, under a doctor's care' rather than 'available in brown paper bags on street corners'], but i would be signing up as a volunteer for the clinical trials.
ideas for future videos: 1. Halftracks - were they effective, and why are'nt they used anymore? 2. two magazines taped together to improve reloading speed - is it effective? 3. i dunno any more.
Hmmm, I have lived with a rheumatoid like chronic pain condition for 30 years. If such a medication came to light in the first ten years of my pain journey there would be no hesitation from me: considering I tried to suicide and self amputation during the early days of my condition. I would have tried this medication if there was a 50% chance of cure or death. I learned to live with pain. In the next decade I would not have taken the risk; I had young kids. Right now, 30 years on, I am actually considering being a human trialler of a new treatment that has a .86% possibility of fatality because there's a 70% chance that my pain will be significantly relieved for the rest of my life. Living with constant, chronic pain really is that bad.
I once got a allergy med that may cause liver damage, heart palpitation, chest pain and depressive episodes in 0.01% of patients. I got all 4 symptoms.
The answer is yes. As someone who has had constant pain for quite some time, the answer is yes. Now of course its a yes with a caveat, namely the patient has to fully know the risks before making the decision. But considering the rate at which people commit suicide with my level of pain is far, far beyond 1% even just throwing it out to everyone suffering would save lives. Pain is something which really grinds you down. One week with pain sure you don't feel great, but when you get into the scale of years that is when your life gets ruined. For example I used to go to the gym every day, studying med school, generally very productive. Had to quit med school, moved to Physics then had to quit, and these days I am nothing more than a drain on society, can barely go downstairs to eat more than 2 meals a day let alone follow proper hygiene, and so doing anything more productive or even seeing friends is out of the question. The cost to the NHS has to also be considered. Right now just to keep me in a bearable amount of pain its costing the NHS thousands of pounds a month solely for the drugs. The amount of money spent on me through both society with disability and the NHS with my treatment and medication will certainly be enough to save lifes which otherwise might not have made it. Again, will the savings and 1% deaths result in a net increase in lives saved, most probably. But most importantly healthcare isn't just based upon lives saved. Its quality of life. My quality of life is rock bottom, only made bearable with my love of computer games and possibly the fact that I'm too high to give a shit every day on the strongest of opioids. People seem to forget that fact, and 99 people living a full and fulfilling life for 1 death is often worth it. Of course it depends what the disorder is and since its only arthritis the quality of life reduction isn't too severe, but if we're assuming a pretty bad disorder then there are certainly times when a risk of death is worth it. And finally the bottom line, this is a question which is answered every day as "yes it is worth it" already. Every time someone is given general anaesthesia they have a 1 in 100,000 chance to die. Its tiny, but considering people are put under for simple things like a permanent runny nose I'd say we are currently firmly sitting in the camp of "yes a risk of death is absolutely worth an increase in quality of life", and as somebody suffering a terrible quality of life I couldn't agree more. I would be happy with a 50% chance to die if I recover, so 1% is nothing. A side note, enough with the dancing around the question please Lloyd. Sure the chance might not be a random 1%, but it also certainly may be a pure 1% as it often is in the real world. And as a side note part of the oath all doctors take is not to use patients as experiments. Thus the possibility of finding out in the future who is at risk also either doesn't factor into the question, or the person using that as a factor shouldn't be a doctor. Otherwise you will lead towards some WW2 style shit experimenting on people "for the greater good of mankind". Sure it might save lives in the long term, but for the person experimented on its not particularly nice or ethical.
Most drugs are already like that. In the same commercial block on TV you can see an ad for how wonderful a drug is followed by an ad for a law firm to represent the families of those killed by it. The 30 second drug ad will have 5 seconds devoted to the wonderful new benefits and 25 seconds of side effects including death.
I was diagnosed with polyarticular rheumatoid arthritis and at its worst I couldn't bring myself to move because of how painful it was. I have it in literally every joint in my body. Every time I went to move the only way i could describe it was like breaking a bone but in every joint. If there was some cure for it even if there was that one percent chance I wouldn't have hesitated for a second to take it.
actually there is a not very well known, but widely grown as an ornamental perennial, Belamcandin chinensis, aka "blackberry lily". While I would advise extreme caution as the effective dosage is almost unbelievably minute, it seems to have the ability to "recalibrate" one's immune system, at least it did for me. one tiny chewed flower petal that I promptly spat out due to unpleasant pepper like spiciness first caused mild vertigo, hot flashes (especially on forehead ) and a twinge or slight cramping in the cheeks of my mouth (similar to what some types of steak sauce induce). but on my lunch break the next day I realized that I hadn't taken my morning dose of allergy medication (allegra) due to not waking up unable to breathe! and further more I had no need for my mid-day dose of claritin! turns out that the Chinese have been using it to treat and ultimately cure many types of immune related ailments, including asthma, arthritis, allergies, rashes, and the list goes on. however, as I understand it it is illegal to self administer it in China. must be used under supervision of a physician (can cause eye damage due to iridoid compounds as it is actually in the iris family. cheers!
Lloyd, what does a real medieval or ancient battles felt like, not just the situation but how does one do things like rest or drink in the middle of a battle? and how does a battle looked like to the common soldier?
If you read the medication inserts listing the side effects (the ones written by lawyers and not doctors) a lot of meds have AT LEAST a 1% fatality rate. Fatal unexpected adverse reactions, medication errors, overdoses, anaphylactic reactions happen EVERYDAY at hospitals.
I am in general agreement with you, but we have ways around this sort of thing. Here in the US the FDA would say to come back with more data, and then they would allow its use in certain cases as long as you apply for a license specifically to prescribe this drug and only take on x number of patients in your practice that you'll prescribe it to. They'd also mandate something similar to the clozapine REMS, because theirs stupid people in healthcare too (including doctors). But the drug would never get that far because the first human trial would stop the instant they found a freaking 1% mortality rate! That's a huge risk to ask healthy volunteers to put themselves at risk for just to determine the dosing and side effects. Well the side effect is death and the ethics board is shutting down the study.
1% mortality rate while high isn't any higher than the amount of people who can die from having their appendix removed. While appendicitis can be life threatening on it's own. Many people who suffer from arthritis would happily take a 1% risk at having it completely taken away. I know it's not likely to change, but I'm not a fan of any sort of "ethics boards" because as long as people are informed and making the decision for themselves, it should be 100% okay to move along with a study. Ethics boards haven't done much more than get in the way of medical and scientific practices and improvements. There are people with jobs that offer a much higher mortality rate than any of these medical studies and practices but these "ethics boards" don't stop them from doing their jobs because they are necessary for our way of life in many cases. And something like a medication that could CURE arthritis, would help a lot of people get back to doing what's necessary in their way of life. So a 1% risk is nothing. Again, as long as people are informed of what could happen. That is the only real code of ethics people need to go by. Will it harm or kill me? possibly. What are the chances? You're not sure? Then I choose not to. That simple.
This sounded like Accutane for a moment because Accutane has really bad side effects and so can only be taken for extreme cases. I know there are more drugs like this, but my dad would tell me about how he had to take it. I also think my dad would be at least partially be able to take this arthritis medicine if it existed.
I knew someone with a horrible arthritis in her spine that left her wheelchair bound and in constant pain, which led to opiate addiction, she lost her job as a teacher, and I assume killed herself eventually since it only got worse with time and it's been a while. You don't have to take a medication if you don't want to.
Question: Provided the death of the animal species will not constitute the death of any humans in the future, how many human lives is an entire species of animal worth and why?
I've had chronic pain since 1989, if there was a cure with a 1% fatality rate I'd take it. I've already tried some stuff that had less certainty of cure and perhaps more than 1% fatality risk though they were always cagey about the actual percentages.
3:07 I caught a possible error of reasoning! : D How many people we're talking about is immaterial from a utilitarian perspective. The number of corpses increases in direct proportion to the number of cured arthritis-sufferers. The increase in one column directly cancels out the increase in the other column, such that it doesn't matter whether we're talking about a hundred patients or a hundred million patients.. What matters is that, assuming that we're applying proper triage methods, the average taker of this drug will be suffering less from his arthritis, such that the average tradeoff is less favourable. Imagine having a list which ranked every arthritis patient by how much he suffers from his condition, from high to low. The top decile is suffering really, really badly, so ithere's a greater payoff for giving them the cure. But for each decile you go down on the list, the amount of suffering goes down, while the risk of death remains constant. So, giving the cure to only the top 25% of patients suffering the most from arthritis is going to have a worse on-average reward/risk ratio than giving it to the top 50% of sufferers.
I think the question could stop at "Should people be allowed the responsibility of accepting the risks of their own choices". I think the answer to this question should always be yes.
G'day, That was a very good answer for a fairly silly question. If a Brain-Surgeon could guarantee to cure Cerebral Cancer in 99 Patients out of 100 Operations and the other Patient would die on the Table mid-surgery..; then that Neurosurgeon would be about 500% less deadly than the ones we have currently operating, because they bury a lot of mistakes in these Marvelous Modern Times. During The War of Two, RAF Bomber Command accepted an average loss-rate of 5% on any one "Mission", the Crews had to do 30 "Operational Flights" to complete a "Tour" followed by 6 months "resting" while instructing. then a compulsory second Tour of 30 Op's..; by which time the individual was "Statistically 300% Dead", so a 3rd Tour was voluntary. Anything with only a 1% Deathrate attached to it was considered "a Milk-Run"...; so whomsoever dreamed up this Question must've lived a very sheltered Life... Have a good one, ;-p Ciao !
1: Speaking of death, Lloyd, how did people handle death in the past ( assuming that it was a more common occurrence) handle death. 2: I've been forcing myself to watch TURN's third season. in one of the first episodes a group of queens rangers hold themselves up in a church on a hill with cannons and gravestones as cover. I thought to myself what would be the fastest way to take the hill and the solution that came to me was , well light the church on fire and then after a couple google searches I cams up stumpted. my questions are did the British have any long range incendiary weapons during the American revolution and how would you take the hill keeping in mind it has to be in under a day and they have cannons.
ALL interventions have an adverse effect provide and a fatality rate, even "doing nothing". The question is, what risk profile is any one person going to accept in order to obtain the high chance of a benefit?
Something that's not mentioned here that I've seen but is a huge factor is cost / benefit analysis. If someone were to take it, could / would families be able to demand compensation? If you change arthritis for a flu vaccine, a 1% mortality rate is crippling and who would wear the costs? Probably the pharmicutical company making the cure. As far as I know, no company lets anything higher than 0.2% out, and even then it's highly regulated and monitored. Their is a drug that's being used by HIV patients to prevent AIDS and that's a stupidly low "harmful side effect" that is being used to essentially prevent death, but the people taking it have to be very careful about who and what they do. Though I'd like to think someone with HIV would be careful because it could be disasterous if they infected someone else. The point is, these "cures" do exist for some things but are heavily regulated. Maybe ask "Could you live with the fact that your decision on a cure for something could result is thousands of deaths and be directly linked back to your decision?"
There are doctors out there who think they don't have to tell a patient the down side of medicine or an operation. Those are the doctors I'd be afraid of. My mom's orthopedic surgeon got angry when I asked him what potentially could go wrong with having a knee replacement. He didn't like his patients being told that there could be negative affects, but it's important to know everything when making a decision like that. I shudder to think what someone like that would do with a medication that could kill a patient.
For MS there is a situation that is somewhat similar. I would think that percentage to die is a bit higher. Of cause, this is a method, and is fairly new. And the 2 isch procent is probobly not random, but because the method is so new that they are not sure yet what causes some people to die.
i got a question, is there a Churchill that had a bigger cannon and if not why not as it would seem to be a great tank with it also with spitfire engines Churchill hulls and 12 pounder guns the British during ww2 seemed to have a tank to beat the tiger why was this not put done?
Definitely worth it. There are lots of medicines that save people that some people are allergic to and die from. Seems like we accept that sort of risk all the time.
What if released on the public means putting an additive into the water supply, or sprayed over large population cities, or a genetically modified mosquito?
It's me. Like your channel. But the question has been asked and answered (for a ~5% rate): Melarsoprol is the only treatment for second stage T.b.rhodesiense.
Transplanted patients have to take inmunosupressors to keep their inmune system away from the foreign organ, wich adds a huge chance of getting dangerous opportunistic diseases or even die from a usually not so dangerous one.
In the US drugs are allowed to be advertised to the general public (wasn't always so) so that people can pester their doctor into prescribing them. But at least side effects have to be listed in the ad. There are some drugs, even for relatively minor conditions like skin rashes, for which death or even sudden death is a possible side effect. So the question has become much less theoretical than when the Q217 book was written.
Seriously there are things out there that are not even medicines that have fatalities, like contrasts for radiographies, nuclear medicine and really really big etcetera
The key part is an informed AND intelligent market. Your British advertising policy that cures can only be marketed at doctors who might be intelligent enough to weed out fraud, but it'll be marketed to billions of other people instead
Print it in bog bold letters on the label, point out the risk on all the advertisements, and release. If you know the risks and do it anyway, it's on you.
I would answer YES to this question, but make sure the risk is disclosed and people are aware of the risks. They have a right to take their fate into their own hands and make their own choices.
You found a way out of that tank museum! Congrats
I think he made this before the trip and it got uploaded while they continue searching for him and the latest tank vid. It's not like he's going to leave, at least not voluntarily.
;-)
No, it's just closed and he's hiding in a cupboard somewhere from the security guards. He took a sofa along for comfort, and his sword and shield for companionship and to defend himself in case they find him and try to throw him out.
Hajun Lee i
Gimme Ca
I'm in a position where I'm in so much agony that I'm not useful to society or myself.
If a drug were released that had a 50% chance of curing my condition and a 25% chance of killing me, I'd still take it.
some things are so agonizing that it makes you feel like life isn't of much value anyways.
Yep. Sometimes the risk is worth it. Since the pain is worse than death. Also 1% is like nothing.
and I am your doctor and I say "no". Because I am a doctor and I have a power given me by the government.
OK, to be serious, fuck the government and its all regulations of production and trade.
@MeldinX2 if it's a worldwide available drug that kills 1% of users, we're talking thousands of people dropping dead every year. Millions of people have arthritis.
I know. But it will save more.
I agree. At least 75% cure is not euthanasia BS, when people deliberately kill you off...
1% chance you say? *takes 100*
g00dn4m3 lol
g00dn4m3 Why stop at 100? You still have roughly a 1/3 chance of surviving
That's not how chance works...
if you take 100 your chance of death is about 63.4%
maths: 1-(0.99^100)
However, due to chemistry the chance could increase to 100% death due to overdose.
Well it's 1 % chance of death for every pill you take. It's not 2% chance to die just because you take 2 pills. So you count the chance unrelated to how many you take. It's like when when you gamble on red or black. You will always have a 50% chance of success each time you spin. Same with this each time you take a new pill the chance is still 1% for that pill. The chance ''reset'' if you will.
How did they get Lloyd out of the tank museum
Chin Chin The Dark Lord
They used excessive physical force?1
Peter Knutsen maybe they let him drive home in an UC? lol
They claimed they were overbooked and had him reaccommodated.
not enough injuries for that
they lured him to a tank that was slowly driven outside the museum.
Don't most, if not all, medical procedures carry some amount of risk of death?
I remember being told there was a risk of death when I was getting my wisdom teeth removed.
Darth Savage
1% risk isn't the same as 0.01% risk.
Darth Savage There is. There is a very small chance that it gets infarcted badly and you die from that infection. But in today's world the chance is way lower then 1%.
BloggingLP Probably more likely to die from anesthesia.
Mhh I got them removed half a year ago and I had no anesthesia besides some local one. More isn't really needed. Unless you got a strong phobia against dentists perhaps. In that case I can understand though.
BloggingLP A local is much less dangerous than a general, true. I've heard that some women have extracted entire human beings from their bodies without anesthesia, but you'll never catch me doing that either! ;->
Dammit, Lindy! You are repeatedly Avoiding the Question!
"Do you like smelling Flowers, Lindy?"
"Well, it depends. Will the flower continue to give me more and more pleasure every time I smell it?"
"Er, We-"
"Will said flower give me a reaction which will cause me to sneeze, Cough, et-cetera, or will it Harm me in other such manners?"
"Lindy, you j-"
"Will this flower somehow make people very sick with a Fatal virus, Causing mass death and Destruction of Mankind as we Know it?"
"None of the above"
"Oh, yeah sure."
Release it, let people know the risks, and let people make their own choice.
Absolutely. The idea that this thing (or, indeed, any medicine other than something like antibiotics where there's an externality effect from breeding antibiotic-resistant pathogens) should be prescription-only is ridiculous. Lloyd was careful to state that no-one would be forced to take it - but he seemed entirely happy with the idea of someone being forced *not* to take it.
People should be permitted to make their own decisions, and that remains true when the consequences may include death.
@@EdwardCree It's cause he's British. Freedom isn't in his vocabulary.
@@jacobhayes5245 uhh, I'm British too. Freedom is in the vocabulary of 52% of the British electorate.
Turned a blind eye, for over a decade*
@@EdwardCree what about the british loyalist in northern Ireland. they seem fine forcing ireland into brexit
I always look forward to Lindybeige's "Lindy critiques 217 hypothetical questions"-series.
just 1% fatal? there are medicines out there much worse, I'd take it without thinking twice.
c'mon people, 1% of 7billion would be 70million, does the world really need France?
The point of the question is that arthritis isn't THAT bad. Also, 1% is huge.
Fresh Rock Papa-E you are right, is most cases arthritis isn't that bad, but, there are cases of it totally crippling an individual because of inutility of a arm/hand/leg and constant horrible pain. I'd still take, I had arthritis on my wrist and had to have it immobilized for 2 weeks, and that was mild.
Oh, yes, the situation is greatly simplified here, but for how debilitating arthritis is and how many people taking this medicine would be old and have a higher than 1% chance of dying from something else soon, anyway, we could do a lot worse. Just finished watching the Healthcare Triage episode on the new prostate screening recommendations. I'm quoting numbers from memory here, but under old recommendations, for every 1 person saved from screening, something like 16 people with false positives were rushed into getting a treatment they didn't even need, and 2 or 3 of those 16 would become incontinent or impotent or both due to complications from said treatment. And everyone involved had to spend time and money on those treatments, regardless of how good or bad it turned out.
I mean, granted, it should be a prescription drug only for use by people with BAD arthritis, but still.
I'd take it -without thinking- twice.
Just for fun
That was such an amazingly complex answer for a question that was so seemingly simple. Thank you, sir, for making me feel smarter from just listening to you.
Also, that was a great answer. Luckily, people are starting to think as similarly complex. It's looking like the world may finally be getting a bit better.
Cheers!
This is the most gloriously pedantic discussion I've seen on youtube in a long, long time. Bravo, sir. Have my like.
This was a great question, and the very thoughtful, if incomplete, answer in the video shows why. This is a common type of question asked by physicians, scientists, regulators, and others everyday. The issues quickly become complex and all sorts of analytical, statistical, ethical, and other methods are used to come to a practical decision. You touched on a lot of the bigger ones.
It depends on how bad your arthritis is. It it an inconvenience or crippling?
So it's a pretty simple question to answer.
Minute Man the question was would you want it to be released to the public, not would you personally take it
叶片！
Right. Simple question, which requires that the drug be released to the public for the answer to matter. I'd said yes even before considering non-randomness and improved predictability. Some people with arthritis would find either cured or dead better than now.
The thing I enjoy most about this video serious is watching Mr. Lloyd have absolutely no difficulty answering questions which seem, by their presentation, as if they are supposed to be quite challenging, when really most of them have a quite logical answer.
I really like your videos. They're educational and entertaining. A rare mix. You should upload a lot more.
i love how for all of these questions so far, he has torn them to shreds.
Lindybeige is the only one i know that takes these question so seriously and over-analyses it into oblivion .. its great!
what an interesting video really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and gave me something to think about :)
"Lloyd overanalyzes the question 5"
Congrats on 500k subscribers :)
"Let's go with the fantasy because otherwise we are sort of dodging the question" Oh no, hope he never ends up doing that.
As someone with lupus, I'd take my chances. It causes an incredible amount of pain and is very hard to treat. It has changed my life in my ability to do so many things that my quality of life would be vastly improved by a cure. I'm relatively young and otherwise okay, so it would be worth the risk.
Jenn F It's not lupus. It's never lupus.
Harry Potter Dr. House be damned. It's effing lupus.
Its *never* oh... you have lupus. Sorry, this isn't the meme your looking for. **hugs**
house: it's never lupus
gatesofcerdes of the House jokes for sure 😉
I have a question for you, what made you start making videos originally?
Interesting, I always wonder what drove the current big youtubers in the beginning. It's strange because if I had seen him walking down the street a youtuber is the last thing I would have expected he is.
When you piss the Daily Mail off you must be doing something right.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
So counting Joerg Sprave that makes two of my favorite UA-camrs. Ha!
Exactly.
If the Daily Mail offices got leveled by a bomb or an airstrike, or condemned due to a health violation, I wouldn't mind one bit. They really don't deserve to be doing what they're doing.
In medicine there is the metric called the Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). It's a rough measurement that looks at how much a drug/procedure improves your life. So for example one drug might add one year of being perfectly healthy before you die and another might add 5 years but you have mild pain and nausea, and those two could have the same QALY score. It's a way to see exactly what the benefits are, because then you subtract the possible negative side effects and you can see if overall the drug/procedure is a benefit or not. It's very subjective and not terribly accurate, but it's also very versatile and a useful first step when planning treatments since you can tailor it to the individual based on their medical history by adjusting the weights of different variables.
It warms my heart to know that 500,000 people appreciate this stuff.
Hi Lindy,
Speaking as a grumpy 60yo with occasional mild gout [currently well controlled by medication], not only do i think it should be released [though i would prefer 'prescription only, under a doctor's care' rather than 'available in brown paper bags on street corners'], but i would be signing up as a volunteer for the clinical trials.
This is the kind of answer that I would only expect from a medical doctor... I somehow always knew Lindy was a doctor!
Love these question videos, friend
This man's ruthless logic and dignified beard are nothing short of inspirational.
"You're cured mate" ahaha i love that
i bet a series of question written by sir beige would be super interesting!
Is this any different from people who have died from non-life threatening surgery ? Food for thought
ideas for future videos:
1. Halftracks - were they effective, and why are'nt they used anymore?
2. two magazines taped together to improve reloading speed - is it effective?
3. i dunno any more.
Hmmm, I have lived with a rheumatoid like chronic pain condition for 30 years. If such a medication came to light in the first ten years of my pain journey there would be no hesitation from me: considering I tried to suicide and self amputation during the early days of my condition. I would have tried this medication if there was a 50% chance of cure or death.
I learned to live with pain. In the next decade I would not have taken the risk; I had young kids.
Right now, 30 years on, I am actually considering being a human trialler of a new treatment that has a .86% possibility of fatality because there's a 70% chance that my pain will be significantly relieved for the rest of my life.
Living with constant, chronic pain really is that bad.
I once got a allergy med that may cause liver damage, heart palpitation, chest pain and depressive episodes in 0.01% of patients. I got all 4 symptoms.
The answer is yes. As someone who has had constant pain for quite some time, the answer is yes. Now of course its a yes with a caveat, namely the patient has to fully know the risks before making the decision. But considering the rate at which people commit suicide with my level of pain is far, far beyond 1% even just throwing it out to everyone suffering would save lives.
Pain is something which really grinds you down. One week with pain sure you don't feel great, but when you get into the scale of years that is when your life gets ruined. For example I used to go to the gym every day, studying med school, generally very productive. Had to quit med school, moved to Physics then had to quit, and these days I am nothing more than a drain on society, can barely go downstairs to eat more than 2 meals a day let alone follow proper hygiene, and so doing anything more productive or even seeing friends is out of the question.
The cost to the NHS has to also be considered. Right now just to keep me in a bearable amount of pain its costing the NHS thousands of pounds a month solely for the drugs. The amount of money spent on me through both society with disability and the NHS with my treatment and medication will certainly be enough to save lifes which otherwise might not have made it. Again, will the savings and 1% deaths result in a net increase in lives saved, most probably.
But most importantly healthcare isn't just based upon lives saved. Its quality of life. My quality of life is rock bottom, only made bearable with my love of computer games and possibly the fact that I'm too high to give a shit every day on the strongest of opioids. People seem to forget that fact, and 99 people living a full and fulfilling life for 1 death is often worth it. Of course it depends what the disorder is and since its only arthritis the quality of life reduction isn't too severe, but if we're assuming a pretty bad disorder then there are certainly times when a risk of death is worth it.
And finally the bottom line, this is a question which is answered every day as "yes it is worth it" already. Every time someone is given general anaesthesia they have a 1 in 100,000 chance to die. Its tiny, but considering people are put under for simple things like a permanent runny nose I'd say we are currently firmly sitting in the camp of "yes a risk of death is absolutely worth an increase in quality of life", and as somebody suffering a terrible quality of life I couldn't agree more. I would be happy with a 50% chance to die if I recover, so 1% is nothing.
A side note, enough with the dancing around the question please Lloyd. Sure the chance might not be a random 1%, but it also certainly may be a pure 1% as it often is in the real world. And as a side note part of the oath all doctors take is not to use patients as experiments. Thus the possibility of finding out in the future who is at risk also either doesn't factor into the question, or the person using that as a factor shouldn't be a doctor. Otherwise you will lead towards some WW2 style shit experimenting on people "for the greater good of mankind". Sure it might save lives in the long term, but for the person experimented on its not particularly nice or ethical.
"Only arthritis"? Tell that to someone with arthritis. Otherwise, I agree.
In medicine 1 out of a 100 is actually a very high risk.
So the pattern I'm seeing in your answers is, "These questions are awfully silly, now aren't they?"
Most drugs are already like that. In the same commercial block on TV you can see an ad for how wonderful a drug is followed by an ad for a law firm to represent the families of those killed by it.
The 30 second drug ad will have 5 seconds devoted to the wonderful new benefits and 25 seconds of side effects including death.
I was diagnosed with polyarticular rheumatoid arthritis and at its worst I couldn't bring myself to move because of how painful it was. I have it in literally every joint in my body. Every time I went to move the only way i could describe it was like breaking a bone but in every joint. If there was some cure for it even if there was that one percent chance I wouldn't have hesitated for a second to take it.
There is no simple answer with this guy. Every answer and question has to be qualified ad nauseum. I adore how his mind works!
you should do these more often
I agree, release it. Also I love the harpsichord ending music :D
actually there is a not very well known, but widely grown as an ornamental perennial, Belamcandin chinensis, aka "blackberry lily". While I would advise extreme caution as the effective dosage is almost unbelievably minute, it seems to have the ability to "recalibrate" one's immune system, at least it did for me. one tiny chewed flower petal that I promptly spat out due to unpleasant pepper like spiciness first caused mild vertigo, hot flashes (especially on forehead ) and a twinge or slight cramping in the cheeks of my mouth (similar to what some types of steak sauce induce). but on my lunch break the next day I realized that I hadn't taken my morning dose of allergy medication (allegra) due to not waking up unable to breathe! and further more I had no need for my mid-day dose of claritin!
turns out that the Chinese have been using it to treat and ultimately cure many types of immune related ailments, including asthma, arthritis, allergies, rashes, and the list goes on. however, as I understand it it is illegal to self administer it in China. must be used under supervision of a physician (can cause eye damage due to iridoid compounds as it is actually in the iris family. cheers!
These questions seem to be happening a lot slower than promised
I wonder if we reach 217th question before the world ends
Lloyd, what does a real medieval or ancient battles felt like, not just the situation but how does one do things like rest or drink in the middle of a battle? and how does a battle looked like to the common soldier?
If you read the medication inserts listing the side effects (the ones written by lawyers and not doctors) a lot of meds have AT LEAST a 1% fatality rate. Fatal unexpected adverse reactions, medication errors, overdoses, anaphylactic reactions happen EVERYDAY at hospitals.
#Question if you had to chose one event to change during the crusades which one would it be?
Good day Lindy
I am in general agreement with you, but we have ways around this sort of thing. Here in the US the FDA would say to come back with more data, and then they would allow its use in certain cases as long as you apply for a license specifically to prescribe this drug and only take on x number of patients in your practice that you'll prescribe it to. They'd also mandate something similar to the clozapine REMS, because theirs stupid people in healthcare too (including doctors). But the drug would never get that far because the first human trial would stop the instant they found a freaking 1% mortality rate! That's a huge risk to ask healthy volunteers to put themselves at risk for just to determine the dosing and side effects. Well the side effect is death and the ethics board is shutting down the study.
1% mortality rate while high isn't any higher than the amount of people who can die from having their appendix removed.
While appendicitis can be life threatening on it's own. Many people who suffer from arthritis would happily take a 1% risk at having it completely taken away.
I know it's not likely to change, but I'm not a fan of any sort of "ethics boards" because as long as people are informed and making the decision for themselves, it should be 100% okay to move along with a study. Ethics boards haven't done much more than get in the way of medical and scientific practices and improvements.
There are people with jobs that offer a much higher mortality rate than any of these medical studies and practices but these "ethics boards" don't stop them from doing their jobs because they are necessary for our way of life in many cases.
And something like a medication that could CURE arthritis, would help a lot of people get back to doing what's necessary in their way of life. So a 1% risk is nothing. Again, as long as people are informed of what could happen.
That is the only real code of ethics people need to go by. Will it harm or kill me? possibly. What are the chances? You're not sure? Then I choose not to.
That simple.
This sounded like Accutane for a moment because Accutane has really bad side effects and so can only be taken for extreme cases. I know there are more drugs like this, but my dad would tell me about how he had to take it. I also think my dad would be at least partially be able to take this arthritis medicine if it existed.
I knew someone with a horrible arthritis in her spine that left her wheelchair bound and in constant pain, which led to opiate addiction, she lost her job as a teacher, and I assume killed herself eventually since it only got worse with time and it's been a while. You don't have to take a medication if you don't want to.
Question: Provided the death of the animal species will not constitute the death of any humans in the future, how many human lives is an entire species of animal worth and why?
I've had chronic pain since 1989, if there was a cure with a 1% fatality rate I'd take it. I've already tried some stuff that had less certainty of cure and perhaps more than 1% fatality risk though they were always cagey about the actual percentages.
3:07
I caught a possible error of reasoning! : D
How many people we're talking about is immaterial from a utilitarian perspective. The number of corpses increases in direct proportion to the number of cured arthritis-sufferers. The increase in one column directly cancels out the increase in the other column, such that it doesn't matter whether we're talking about a hundred patients or a hundred million patients..
What matters is that, assuming that we're applying proper triage methods, the average taker of this drug will be suffering less from his arthritis, such that the average tradeoff is less favourable.
Imagine having a list which ranked every arthritis patient by how much he suffers from his condition, from high to low. The top decile is suffering really, really badly, so ithere's a greater payoff for giving them the cure. But for each decile you go down on the list, the amount of suffering goes down, while the risk of death remains constant. So, giving the cure to only the top 25% of patients suffering the most from arthritis is going to have a worse on-average reward/risk ratio than giving it to the top 50% of sufferers.
WARNING!
This medicine may cause extreme drowsiness
Funny I should watch this in the middle of the corona virus vaccine debate.
I think the question could stop at "Should people be allowed the responsibility of accepting the risks of their own choices". I think the answer to this question should always be yes.
I really think that the follow-up question to this one is more interesting: at what percentage is it no longer ok to use the drug?
Great topics, but one small suggestions would be to get to the point a little faster.
the side affect of instant death had me rolling!😂😂
Where did episode 4 go
G'day,
That was a very good answer for a fairly silly question.
If a Brain-Surgeon could guarantee to cure Cerebral Cancer in 99 Patients out of 100 Operations and the other Patient would die on the Table mid-surgery..; then that Neurosurgeon would be about 500% less deadly than the ones we have currently operating, because they bury a lot of mistakes in these Marvelous Modern Times.
During The War of Two, RAF Bomber Command accepted an average loss-rate of 5% on any one "Mission", the Crews had to do 30 "Operational Flights" to complete a "Tour" followed by 6 months "resting" while instructing. then a compulsory second Tour of 30 Op's..; by which time the individual was "Statistically 300% Dead", so a 3rd Tour was voluntary.
Anything with only a 1% Deathrate attached to it was considered "a Milk-Run"...; so whomsoever dreamed up this Question must've lived a very sheltered Life...
Have a good one,
;-p
Ciao !
We had that one... there was a prescription nsaid in the late 90s that was tied to heart attacks
Hey, Beigeman, you need to add Q4 to your Q217 playlist. ;)
1: Speaking of death, Lloyd, how did people handle death in the past ( assuming that it was a more common occurrence) handle death.
2: I've been forcing myself to watch TURN's third season. in one of the first episodes a group of queens rangers hold themselves up in a church on a hill with cannons and gravestones as cover. I thought to myself what would be the fastest way to take the hill and the solution that came to me was , well light the church on fire and then after a couple google searches I cams up stumpted. my questions are did the British have any long range incendiary weapons during the American revolution and how would you take the hill keeping in mind it has to be in under a day and they have cannons.
I'm assuming this book is American
why?
Boborbot The whole release it to the public thing implies the American way of bringing medical drugs to the people.
Are you saying that other countries don't first do closed trials to test for unforeseen side effects first before making it widely available?
Amber Ridgdill I'm not at all saying that. I'm talking about distribution.
... how do other countries handle distribution then if not from trials to public?
ALL interventions have an adverse effect provide and a fatality rate, even "doing nothing".
The question is, what risk profile is any one person going to accept in order to obtain the high chance of a benefit?
Something that's not mentioned here that I've seen but is a huge factor is cost / benefit analysis. If someone were to take it, could / would families be able to demand compensation?
If you change arthritis for a flu vaccine, a 1% mortality rate is crippling and who would wear the costs? Probably the pharmicutical company making the cure. As far as I know, no company lets anything higher than 0.2% out, and even then it's highly regulated and monitored. Their is a drug that's being used by HIV patients to prevent AIDS and that's a stupidly low "harmful side effect" that is being used to essentially prevent death, but the people taking it have to be very careful about who and what they do. Though I'd like to think someone with HIV would be careful because it could be disasterous if they infected someone else.
The point is, these "cures" do exist for some things but are heavily regulated.
Maybe ask "Could you live with the fact that your decision on a cure for something could result is thousands of deaths and be directly linked back to your decision?"
There are doctors out there who think they don't have to tell a patient the down side of medicine or an operation. Those are the doctors I'd be afraid of. My mom's orthopedic surgeon got angry when I asked him what potentially could go wrong with having a knee replacement. He didn't like his patients being told that there could be negative affects, but it's important to know everything when making a decision like that. I shudder to think what someone like that would do with a medication that could kill a patient.
I would release it to the public. My babusia suffered for most of her adult life from rheumatoid arthritis, and her pain only ended with her death.
For MS there is a situation that is somewhat similar. I would think that percentage to die is a bit higher. Of cause, this is a method, and is fairly new. And the 2 isch procent is probobly not random, but because the method is so new that they are not sure yet what causes some people to die.
ALMOST 500.000 SUBS!
You are far too smart to answer this question, my friend :)
i got a question, is there a Churchill that had a bigger cannon and if not why not as it would seem to be a great tank with it
also with spitfire engines Churchill hulls and 12 pounder guns the British during ww2 seemed to have a tank to beat the tiger why was this not put done?
He just came out of the museum? About time.
Is this similar to the idea of mass pushing penicillin to blanket cure a bunch of things, but there are people who have fatal allergies to it?
What happened to question 4?
Definitely worth it. There are lots of medicines that save people that some people are allergic to and die from. Seems like we accept that sort of risk all the time.
What if released on the public means putting an additive into the water supply, or sprayed over large population cities, or a genetically modified mosquito?
It's me. Like your channel.
But the question has been asked and answered (for a ~5% rate):
Melarsoprol is the only treatment for second stage T.b.rhodesiense.
As long as it's on box in big fat letters, then sure, release it, if I felt sick enough, I'd want to take the chance.
Well, well, well.
Transplanted patients have to take inmunosupressors to keep their inmune system away from the foreign organ, wich adds a huge chance of getting dangerous opportunistic diseases or even die from a usually not so dangerous one.
Ha ha, this answer is _way_ more pragmatically answered than I think the author ever expected it to be. XD
medicine: side effect include instant death
the people in the commercial: (insert happy dancing picture)
In the US drugs are allowed to be advertised to the general public (wasn't always so) so that people can pester their doctor into prescribing them. But at least side effects have to be listed in the ad. There are some drugs, even for relatively minor conditions like skin rashes, for which death or even sudden death is a possible side effect. So the question has become much less theoretical than when the Q217 book was written.
more of these pls
did q4 get skipped? not seeing it in playlist
Lindy whats up with your suit of armor? Any progress?
The real question is: How did he got out of that museum?
Seriously there are things out there that are not even medicines that have fatalities, like contrasts for radiographies, nuclear medicine and really really big etcetera
The key part is an informed AND intelligent market. Your British advertising policy that cures can only be marketed at doctors who might be intelligent enough to weed out fraud, but it'll be marketed to billions of other people instead
You should make a video about your stance on psychadelics
So ahead of his times holy shit.
Print it in bog bold letters on the label, point out the risk on all the advertisements, and release. If you know the risks and do it anyway, it's on you.
I would answer YES to this question, but make sure the risk is disclosed and people are aware of the risks. They have a right to take their fate into their own hands and make their own choices.
yes it should be made available. there that answers the question
next
hey lindybeige , which one do you think is better and why : bow vs crossbow
Question 4 isn't in the playlist, just a heads up.