‘It became a lifestyle’: Man describes injecting himself with snake venom

CNN - May 3rd, 2025

Tim Friede, a self-taught snake enthusiast from California, has been conducting daring self-experiments by injecting himself with snake venom over 650 times across nearly two decades. His remarkable resistance to venom has drawn the attention of scientists who believe that his unique blood could be instrumental in developing a new, more effective antivenom. Friede's personal mission has been driven by a desire to advance medical science and improve treatment options for snakebite victims worldwide.

The significance of Friede's unconventional experiments lies in their potential to revolutionize the field of toxicology and antivenom research. Current antivenoms are specific to particular snake species, often making them less accessible and more expensive. By studying Friede's blood, researchers hope to understand how his immune system has adapted to tolerate a wide variety of snake venoms, potentially leading to the development of a universal antivenom. This breakthrough could have profound implications for global healthcare, particularly in regions where snakebites are a major public health issue.

Tim Friede Snake Venom Antivenom Research Self Experimentation Toxicology

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The news story about Tim Friede's self-experimentation with snake venom presents an intriguing narrative that captures public interest and highlights potential scientific advancements. However, the accuracy is affected by discrepancies in details such as Friede's location and the number of venom injections. The story lacks balance and transparency, as it does not provide a range of perspectives or disclose sources and methodologies. While the clarity and readability are strong, the overall impact and engagement are limited by the absence of in-depth analysis and expert commentary. To enhance its quality, the story would benefit from more comprehensive sourcing and exploration of the ethical and scientific dimensions involved.

Accuracy

The story presents a claim about Tim Friede injecting himself with snake venom over 650 times, which is partially accurate. While the number of injections is not fully corroborated, Friede's self-experimentation with venom is well-documented. The claim that experts hope his experiments can help develop a new antivenom is accurate, as his antibodies are being used in research. However, the story inaccurately places Friede in California, whereas other sources indicate he resides in Wisconsin. These discrepancies affect the overall accuracy score.

Balance

The story primarily focuses on Tim Friede's actions and the potential scientific benefits, lacking a broader perspective on the ethical implications or the scientific consensus regarding such self-experimentation. The narrative could be more balanced by including viewpoints from medical professionals or ethicists who might critique or support Friede's methods. This lack of additional perspectives slightly skews the story towards a positive portrayal of Friede's actions without sufficient critical analysis.

Clarity

The language and structure of the story are clear and straightforward, making the main claims easy to understand. The story succinctly presents the key points about Friede's self-experimentation and the potential scientific implications. The narrative is logically organized, allowing readers to follow the progression of ideas without confusion. However, the clarity could be slightly improved by providing more context or background information on the scientific process involved in developing antivenoms.

Source quality

The story does not explicitly cite its sources, which makes it difficult to assess the quality and reliability of the information provided. While the claims about Friede's experiments align with known facts, the absence of direct attribution to scientific studies or expert opinions weakens the source quality. A higher score would require clear references to authoritative sources or experts in the field of herpetology or toxicology.

Transparency

The story lacks transparency in its reporting, particularly in terms of sourcing and methodology. There is no explanation of how the information was obtained or whether there are any conflicts of interest. The story would benefit from a clearer disclosure of the sources of information and any potential biases that might affect the reporting. This lack of transparency limits the reader's ability to fully trust the narrative.