„The problem is not that Halassy used self-experimentation as such, but that publishing her results could encourage others to reject conventional treatment and try something similar, says Sherkow.”
I don't think it's a good ground to rejected observational data. If you want the published data to be less biased you should introduce as little arbitrary (not connected to the quality of data itself) barriers as possible.
This is bullshit, especally since she also got "traditional" therapy after. This is just a statement by someone that is desperately looking for a negative point. You have to have access to equipment and skills that not many people have. And then if they have it, that's one more thing to try, the effects are quick if it works and you can revert to radio/chemo therapy if needed.
> This is just a statement by someone that is desperately looking for a negative point
No it isn't.
This is an expert explaining why journals have ethical concerns publishing the paper and why those concerns matter.
>> “I think it ultimately does fall within the line of being ethical, but it isn’t a slam-dunk case,” says Sherkow, adding that he would have liked to see a commentary fleshing out the ethics perspective, published alongside the case report.
„The problem is not that Halassy used self-experimentation as such, but that publishing her results could encourage others to reject conventional treatment and try something similar, says Sherkow.”