I don't know if you're purposely being antagonistic, but I'll respond because I try to assume that people are arguing in good faith.

You predict nothing of that sort in the linked comment. The antibody test being negative is a distinct event from immunization. 

The first linked comment I said that "there's a 1-2% chance here that you've effectively immunized yourself from COVID.". In the second linked comment, I clarified that an anti-body test would be the the predictor of immunization.

I picked 50% because of the comment:

My rough guess is that there's a 75% probability of effectively full immunity

Regardless of people accepting or rejecting my bet, my prediction came true. For a community supposedly dedicated to rationalism and prediction markets, a -8 downvote on my comment seems a lot like groupthink, trying to push down dissenters. 

Too bad that the LW community falls victim to obvious snake oil and herd mentality. I wish it weren't so. 

I don't understand the argument about SAD. 

Should I conclude from my inability to find any published studies on the Internet testing this question that there is some fatal flaw in my plan that I’m just not seeing?

A simple Google search shows thousands of articles addressing this very solution. The first Google result I found is a paper from 1984 with 2,758 citations: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/493246

We report our preliminary attempts to modify these depressions by manipulating environmental lighting conditions. We have recently reported reversing depression in one patient with SAD by modifying his environmental lighting

...

The following light treatment was administered. ... (1) bright, white full-spectrum fluorescent light (approximately 2,500 lux at 90 cm)

But taking a step back, the "Chesterton’s Absence of a Fence" argument doesn't apply here because the circumstances are very different. The entire world is desperately looking for a way to stop COVID. If SAD suddenly occurred out of nowhere and affected the entire economy, you would be sure that bright lights would be one of the first things to be tested. 

Dentin addresses the 1-2% claim pretty well, so I won't repeat it.

You can buy nasal sprays over-the-counter, while I can't think of a single injectable medicine that you can buy legally without a prescription. I don't think the "stab people in the arm" argument is very strong.

Would you like to make a friendly wager? (Either Dentin, or johnswentworth, or anyone else making their own vaccine). We can do 50/50, since its in between our estimates. If you have two positive back-to-back anti-body tests within 2 months, you win (assuming you don't actually contract covid, which I trust you'll be honest here). If not, I win. To start off with, I'm willing to put down $100, but happy to go up or down.

Vaccines that are brought to clinical trials have a 33.4% approval rate, which seems like a reasonable estimate of the chances that this vaccine works if executed correctly.

I don't follow. Don't vaccines have trials on cells, mice, primates, before clinical? So unless radvac has also done similar testing, this 33.4% isn't comparable.

Props to you for taking action here, this is some impressive stuff.

That being said, I'm extremely skeptical that this will work, my belief is that there's a 1-2% chance here that you've effectively immunized yourself from COVID.

What do you believe is the probability of success? 

Why are established pharmaceutical companies spending billions on research and using complex mRNA vaccines when simply creating some peptides and adding it to a solution works just as well?

With Sam Altman (CEO of YCombinator) talking so much about AI safety and risk over the last 2-3 months, I was so sure that he was working out a deal to fund MIRI. I wonder why they decided to create their own non-profit instead.

Although on second thought, they're aiming for different goals. While MIRI is focused on safety once strong AI occurs, OpenAI is trying to actually speed up the research of strong AI.

Great analysis, thanks!

This isn't bad, though I feel like:

This I call "pretending to be Wise". Of course there are many ways to try and signal wisdom. But trying to signal wisdom by refusing to make guesses - refusing to sum up evidence - refusing to pass judgment - refusing to take sides - staying above the fray and looking down with a lofty and condescending gaze - which is to say, signaling wisdom by saying and doing nothing - well, that I find particularly pretentious.

would apply to the XKCD example, but not to the people claiming that the Lebanon attacks should've been publicized more than the Paris attacks. I hope I'm not treading too much into political territory here.