> But antivenom is made much the same way it was 130 years ago when it was first produced. A small amount of venom is pumped into a horse, camel or sheep, and the antibodies produced in response are harvested. The antibodies tend to be specific to the type of venom injected, and do little to ease symptoms from other types of snakes.
Ok so this guy did some crazy self-experiments with venoms from a range of snakes over an extended period. And more institutional scientists are finding useful antibodies in his blood. But ... why have the institutional scientists not previously done the equivalent process with animals. I.e. if you inject a horse with increasing concentrations of venom from a range of snakes, can you produce a universal antivenom?
thereisnospork · 1d ago
Probably would have issues passing an ethics review. Aside from the other non technical (cost) and technical hurdles (would it work).
fc417fc802 · 17h ago
I wish ethics were the issue but seeing some of the mouse studies that "pass" is quite depressing. I expect it's the cost, facilities, and logistics of keeping multiple horses for multiple decades. It would literally be proposing the equivalent of starting a long term small business with an up front cost in the low digit millions (you need to purchase a small farm).
0cf8612b2e1e · 1d ago
I am reminded of one of my favorite segments of Dirty Jobs where Mike Rowe works with a snake researcher. I do not know why his misery is so entertaining to me.
No one's that purely altruistic. It's like people who eat hot chilis and claim it's for food testing or quality control purposes.
At some point, you've gotta come to grips with the fact that you like getting bit by snakes.
Edit: Sorry, I really did mean that to be funny. I don't care what his motivations are for letting himself get bitten so many times. Whatever the root cause, it looks like we might benefit tremendously from it, and for that, I'm sincerely grateful to him.
toomuchtodo · 1d ago
> No one's that purely altruistic.
"James Harrison, a prolific Australian blood donor famed for having saved the lives of more than two million babies, has died at age 88."
It seems he likely appreciate the indirect fame it brought him, but it is actually personal sacrifice on his part. I commend his efforts.
Pet_Ant · 1d ago
I think if you really get down to it, there are only three motivations for people to do things:
1) they benefit from it somehow, even if it just flatters their sense of justice
2) they did it unquestioningly because someone told them to, it didn't occur to them that they even had a choice
3) they did something reflexively and may not even have realise they did anything.
So I find criticising people for "they did it because there was something in it for them" such a lacklustre criticism, because that applies to almost everything. It's what was in it for them and how much they gave up for it that makes it laudable or contemptible.
soupfordummies · 1d ago
And as the old adage goes "doing good is its own reward", it's kind of impossible NOT to do it because of personal rewards since they're sort of inherent in the good deed anyway.
Besides, why does it matter anyway? A good thing happened regardless of the motivation.
> I find criticising people for "they did it because there was something in it for them" such a lacklustre criticism
Agreed! However.
> there are only three motivations for people to do things
Cooperative behavior arises on its own via evolution in otherwise fairly primitive species. The benefit to the individual in such cases is extremely indirect but the game theory on a collective level is clear enough.
Which is to say, you could just genuinely want to help others. I suppose one could argue that doing so benefits you emotionally but I feel that would be getting a bit reductionist.
kstrauser · 1d ago
Alright. Almost no one is that purely altruistic.
ASalazarMX · 1d ago
Altruism is a weird thing, because deeds matter more than words, but doing altruistic things for the wrong reasons is still a bitter win. As an individual, intentions matter as much as deeds.
I'm not saying this man was or wasn't purely altruistic, I have no way of knowing that. I'm just playing Devil's advocate to point out that altruism can be a fascinatingly deceptive gray zone, even if it does a net good.
klik99 · 1d ago
I was gonna disagree with you, until I saw this line:
"Mr. Friede’s first snake encounter, a harmless bite by a garter snake at age 5, started a lifelong fascination. “If I only knew back then what was going to happen,” he recalled, laughing uproariously.
But he didn’t begin dabbling with snakes in earnest until he was married with children and working in construction."
"Dabbling with snakes" is just poetry
I mean, I think people can be that altruistic, but the people who really make a difference are those whose interests align with an altruistic outcome.
zahlman · 1d ago
I don't know that "likes getting bit" explains it. Perhaps, for example, it's a matter of feeling pride for surviving.
kstrauser · 1d ago
I don't know, either. Maybe it'd be my favorite thing ever, but I hope I never find out.
But get bit by one snake, you're unlucky. Get bit by 5 snakes, it's an occupational hazard. Get bit by 100 snakes, I think there's something else going on.
soupfordummies · 1d ago
More of a meta comment I guess, but this is the sort of unexpected and totally fascinating story that keeps me coming back to HN. It almost seems like a parody headline but, well, there it is.
Ok so this guy did some crazy self-experiments with venoms from a range of snakes over an extended period. And more institutional scientists are finding useful antibodies in his blood. But ... why have the institutional scientists not previously done the equivalent process with animals. I.e. if you inject a horse with increasing concentrations of venom from a range of snakes, can you produce a universal antivenom?
Relevant clip https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xu6huF9KE1Q
At some point, you've gotta come to grips with the fact that you like getting bit by snakes.
Edit: Sorry, I really did mean that to be funny. I don't care what his motivations are for letting himself get bitten so many times. Whatever the root cause, it looks like we might benefit tremendously from it, and for that, I'm sincerely grateful to him.
"James Harrison, a prolific Australian blood donor famed for having saved the lives of more than two million babies, has died at age 88."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harrison_(blood_donor)
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/03/health/james-harrison-blood-d...
1) they benefit from it somehow, even if it just flatters their sense of justice
2) they did it unquestioningly because someone told them to, it didn't occur to them that they even had a choice
3) they did something reflexively and may not even have realise they did anything.
So I find criticising people for "they did it because there was something in it for them" such a lacklustre criticism, because that applies to almost everything. It's what was in it for them and how much they gave up for it that makes it laudable or contemptible.
Besides, why does it matter anyway? A good thing happened regardless of the motivation.
Agreed! However.
> there are only three motivations for people to do things
Cooperative behavior arises on its own via evolution in otherwise fairly primitive species. The benefit to the individual in such cases is extremely indirect but the game theory on a collective level is clear enough.
Which is to say, you could just genuinely want to help others. I suppose one could argue that doing so benefits you emotionally but I feel that would be getting a bit reductionist.
I'm not saying this man was or wasn't purely altruistic, I have no way of knowing that. I'm just playing Devil's advocate to point out that altruism can be a fascinatingly deceptive gray zone, even if it does a net good.
"Mr. Friede’s first snake encounter, a harmless bite by a garter snake at age 5, started a lifelong fascination. “If I only knew back then what was going to happen,” he recalled, laughing uproariously.
But he didn’t begin dabbling with snakes in earnest until he was married with children and working in construction."
"Dabbling with snakes" is just poetry
I mean, I think people can be that altruistic, but the people who really make a difference are those whose interests align with an altruistic outcome.
But get bit by one snake, you're unlucky. Get bit by 5 snakes, it's an occupational hazard. Get bit by 100 snakes, I think there's something else going on.