Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Tourist Dies From Treatment In Thailand
An anonymous reader writes "Last week, news that Costa Rica was shutting down a large stem cell clinic sparked a debate here on Slashdot about whether patients should be allowed to take the risks that come with untested treatments. Now comes news of what can happen when patients go looking for a shortcut. A patient suffering from an autoimmune disease that was destroying her kidneys went to a Bangkok clinic, where doctors injected her own adult stem cells into her kidneys. Now she's dead, and a postmortem revealed that the sites of injection had weird growths — 'tangled mixtures of blood vessels and bone marrow cells.' Researchers say the treatment almost certainly killed her."
Weird science!
She could have ended up like Kwai Chang Caine.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
It was her choice, she decided to take the risk. Adults make decisions about their own life (or death).
that's like me saying "he was absolutely, undoubtedly wrong. Maybe".
Suck it up and deal with it.
You see? This is the reality of our time. Ignorance and stupidity prevents science from advancing proper. Instead people have to go to dodgy places to get some form of treatment often provided by complete shams.
None of this would be happening if working with stem cells and bioengineering proper was legalized at large.
As long as an individual is adequately informed of the risks that individual has a right to take that risk. The Geneva convention is about the state using humans as test subjects. That is a whole different can of worms.
Geneva Conventions apply to circumstances of war, not random people going to medical clinics that are on the shady side.
There may be some international agreement or panel on the subject, but they probably go by another name.
Please keep up this type of research. We can now eliminate this method as a successful way of using stem cells. I'm sure that in 100 years people will look at this injection of blood and bone marrow with the same look of pity we display when we read about phrenology. In the meantime real scientists will find a safe way for the rest of us to benefit from stem cells.
Apparently had the treatment been in her blood stream it would probably have been ok, the shot straight to the kidneys was a totally new thing. In other words someone didn't know what they where doing and screwed up.
jaymz
Noted, thank you. I'll make sure to pay closer attention to the wording, as I'm only marginally familiar with the convention. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the doctors were somehow connected to the state.
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
For example, I have terminal cancer, although for now I feel fine. The doctors know that none of the FDA approved treatments will stop the cancer, the best they can do is slow it down some. If I saw a treatment that had a high risk of killing me, but a decent chance it would cure me, I'd go for it, even knowing it might kill me.
When you have different groups advertising conflicting "scientific" results for their own interests, it is no wonder the layman doesn't believe in science anymore. Burn the businessmen!
Eggs have less cholesterol than previously thought! We both know the world is and isn't global warming. We are/aren't on the verge of running out of oil. We have conclusive evidence that cell phones do and don't cause cancer. Pluto is no longer a planet! This is the face of science to many people.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Agreed. But the least you could do is review the accreditation of the people involved in the medical community. Not something that sounds like a corner tattoo parlor shop.
Life is not for the lazy.
I don't know how any country that calls itself free can prohibit this sort of thing.
The problem is that ppl MUST resort to going out of the nations health care because they need to take risks. The problem is that other than the majority of western nations(US, most of EU, Canada, Australia, Japan,etc), I personally would not trust other nation's health system to do the right things.
So, the solution should 2 different FDAs.
The first protects normal ppl. THat is it makes certain that we do not have more issues like we have with Tylenol, Ibuprofin, etc. Likewise, it says what procedures to risk, etc.
HOWEVER, once you have exhausted all avenues, and your life is on a thread, then you can step up to a different protocol. But ppl and companies in this arena, than have medical protection, etc., but have access to radical treatments. The idea is that FDA2 would make certain that it is not done DANGEROUSLY, at least without the patient having a good understanding.
If we are going to make advances, we NEED ppl to be allowed to take INFORMED risks, but safely.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As long as an individual is adequately informed of the risks that individual has a right to take that risk.
That's a meaningless platitude when it comes to something like this.
Many individuals with these diseases or conditions considering these treatments have no sense of risk left at all. They will do *anything* whether it has the slightest basis in science, or relies entirely on magic, astrology, mysticism, the power of crystals, aliens, jesus, snake oil... anything.
It is morally wrong to exploit someone in that position financially (or otherwise). Claiming that you disclosed the risks and they signed the waiver doesn't make it ok. In a sense they do have a gun pointed at their head... whats a raft of fine print and a 2nd mortgage when your life is on the line.
And they're promising the solution* to all your problems!!
(in 2pt font: * solution not guaranteed to solve your problems, and may actually make them worse, but there's a nother treatment we can try that will solve* that, but its a bit riskier and more expensive...)
The Geneva convention is about the state using humans as test subjects. That is a whole different can of worms.
Agreed.
Blood vessels and bone marrow all inside a kidney? This is even more hardcore than something a horror film might throw at you.
Reality pwns fiction once again.
It's dangerous enough to inject things INTO someone in Thailand as a tourist, let alone be the one injected into! :o
I'm a physician (I know, easy for an AC to say). There is nothing in the linked article to suggest that the treatment was directly linked to her death. It may or may not have contributed to her eventual renal failure but there are an untold number of people out there with nonfunctioning kidneys living for years on dialysis. Unusual tumors localized to the kidneys don't kill people. While I don't encourage patients to pursue treatments lacking in evidence of safety and efficacy, this article is just meant to spread FUD.
Maybe you don't understand how desperate a person can get when they're faced with something "incurable". Back in the 90's, I had lymphoma and thought my goose was cooked. I was lucky enough to be part of a drug trial for a medicine that is routinely used to treat the disease. Of course, it was an excellent university hospital that was doing the trial, and they gave me the very best care, not some third-world biopirate lab. I guess it was caught early enough and I was very very lucky because it's been 13 years now without a recurrence and now I'm healthy as Secretariat on his best day. I've come to believe that it wasn't as dire as I thought it was when I was diagnosed, but I was sure I was a goner at the time. Once the doc said "cancer" I couldn't hear a word and just saw my own death. The chemo was a fucking nightmare and it's taken a decade of tai chi to undo some of the neurotoxicity. Looking back I sort of sleepwalked through the ordeal, but if I'd been faced with early death or some crazy bio-soup from Thailand, I'm not sure I wouldn't roll the dice, even against big odds. I remember "helpful" family members talking to me about faith healers and shit and thank god it didn't come to me making that kind of decision.
You are welcome on my lawn.
When she first arrived in Bangkok, she was a man.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
You appear to be advocating "protecting terminally ill patients from themselves". Seeing as how they are already terminally ill that seems just a bit silly. Who better to experiment on than a terminally patient with nothing to lose who is willing to give it a shot?
Our health care choices are already far too restricted -- ever notice how the word "prescription", which actually means "recommendation" is used as if it means "license"? If you need a substance but the witch doctors who represent Big Pharma say you don't you can be imprisoned for posessing it -- now that's real insanity!
Caveat Utilitor
. . . I don't see what the problem is. Plus, the doctors learned of a potential problem with this treatment. Free markets win again!
Andrew Weil, M.D., wrote a book on the subject. There are always options, whether or not your doctor is aware of them is another matter entirely.
What kind of cancer?
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Makes all the scrutiny cannabis treatment gets seem ridiculous, no?
Researchers say the treatment almost certainly killed her
And, without treatment? Nature would have taken it's course... I'd say let people try what they want (assuming the treatment is not a total scam.)
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing. - Redd Foxx
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
This isn't the first time. I recall a story about a fellow who went to China(I believe, either way it was SE Asia) after all was lost basically. He had stem cells injected into his brain or upper spinal region. Upon post mortem they found hair and finger nails growing in his brain. Initially it seemed to help; but the cells didn't differentiate the right way. If anyone could help with a link that'd be cool. I'm to lazy to do the lookup right now; but I think it was in Scientific American. Not surprised that willy nilly injections caused a death, duh.
Bumrungrad International is managed by a team of experienced hospital administrators from the USA, Australia, Singapore, Thailand, and the UK [2]. The hospital’s medical Chairman is board certified in the United Kingdom. Its Group Medical Director is board certified in the USA. [1]
It's also internationally accredited. Why is it a corner tattoo parlor shop again?
FDA rules are pretty strong, but it would be very easy to sell snake oil cures otherwise.
How about we get Stem Cell Research in the US to a, y'know, reasonable level of advancement (something we could've done long ago if not for moral stupidity). That said, it was indeed her decision and that's fine, she should be able to make whatever decision she wants if she knows the risks.
Those were different breaths, JACKASS!
You suffer from a kind of batshit crazy called integration issues.
It should be noted for those that didn't RTFA that this case was more of a cause of bad clinic than a bad procedure.
According to the article, patients with similar kidney issues in a clinical trial in which bone marrow stem cells were injected into the blood stream showed marked improvements.
This clinic, on the other hand, injected these cells directly into the kidney rather than into her blood stream, causing the adult stem cells to try to build blood vessels in her kidney when they should have injected the stem cells into her bloodstream.
So, in other words, had the clinic done what the had been at least moderately successful in previous trials rather than haphazardly throw their own spin onto it, the patient would likely have been fine.
Noted, thank you. I'll make sure to pay closer attention to the wording, as I'm only marginally familiar with the convention. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the doctors were somehow connected to the state.
For future reference, whenever somebody tells you that "the Geneva Convention says you can/can't do X", that should immediately set off your bullshit detector. The conventions have become a kind of layperson shorthand for "international regulations", so everybody and their dog has some pretty weird notions about what they cover. People see these references to the GCs, assume the person making the reference knows better than they do, and the cycle continues.
The Geneva Conventions cover the treatment, in wartime, of prisoners, wounded, civilians and medics. That is literally all there is to them.
Now, back on to the topic at hand, medical tourism is one of those intractable problems that nobody wants to admit can't be fixed, irrespective of whether they ought to be. The US cannot control where its citizens travel, or what they do in other countries - look for example at the number of American tourists in Cuba, most of whom stopped over somewhere else en route to circumvent the restrictions on traveling there. Actually, this isn't specific to the US; no first world democracy can effectively regulate the actions of their citizens going abroad.
Thus, the only party in this whole affair who have any say in what Americans visiting Thailand can and cannot do is the Thai government. Meaning the only way Americans will stop going to Thai hospitals for dodgy untried treatments is if said hospitals are no longer allowed to offer them (either due to Thailand adopting USFDA style regulations, or by it prosecuting the purveyors of said treatments under existing laws).
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
even if they receive medical treatment. Not that I'm defending some clinic in Thailand, but we don't see a news report every time someone dies from medical treatment, even from "mainstream medicine". And that's because sometimes people die. We all know and accept it, doctors warn you about it. Some doctors even make a living out of it (oncology, any kind of non-trivial surgery, etc), there are industries based on it (if you can call insurance an "industry"). So experimental stem cell treatment is not 100% effective. What is?
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Who better to experiment on than a terminally patient with nothing to lose who is willing to give it a shot?
For only $160,000 I can will inject you with a solution containing the power of crystals dissolved in a heterogenous suspension while you receive a photon bath. It may cure terminal cancers of the liver, pancreas, or in some cases lungs.
So if I find a terminally ill patient with "nothing to lose who is willing to give it a shot", that's ok.
Even if I just inject him with salted milk while I wave a flashlight in his face?
Not as a form of detox, friend, but as a way to help me get my balance back. I had gotten to the point where I couldn't put a pair of socks on or tie my shoes without sitting down. I'd get dizzy walking up a flight of stairs.
The chemo made me weak, damaged my immune system, my stamina. Tai Chi has helped out a lot. As a form of exercise, tai chi, like other martial arts, is terrific. It's not about healing disease, it's about feeling better. There's a growing amount of research showing the benefits of Tai Chi, including over a thousand years of human trials with tens of millions of Chinese as subjects. That may not be enough "data" to satisfy you, but I've got an 85 year old instructor, Grandmaster Hsu Fun Yuen, who could kick your ass, and certainly mine, around the room right now without raising his heartrate. He says it's the tai chi that gives him longevity, vitality enough to have a 7 year old daughter, and I ain't gonna argue with him. When you see an 85 year old man execute a perfect flying kick while swinging a 3 pound broadsword (Dao) in the tai chi sword form, it's convincing as hell.
It's also fun, which makes the health benefits icing on the cake.
You are welcome on my lawn.
FYI, It is International Code of Medical Ethics of the World Medical Association - 1949 that i was thinking of. It covers the kind of things that they shouldn't be doing. Especially these lines, 3) the requirement to "observe the principles of The Declaration of Geneva", because that document requires that a doctor must not use "medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity", and 4) the requirement that a doctor must "practice his profession uninfluenced by motives of profit."]
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
What's interesting is how you extol the virtues of tai chi as a form of detox, and then go on to talk about "crazy biopirates" in the same breath.
What's interesting is how you are devious enough in trying to find a logical flaw where there is none. Tai chi, Yoga and other form of slow-mo exercises are good for dealing with impaired motor skills. That you assumed he was talking about esoteric hocus pocus says more about yourself than the poster.
When IS up to God. So if someone's life is prolonged by medical science it is God's will. And if someone gets aborted, it is also God's will. Because when you die is up to God. And remember, Gay Jesus loves you (long time).
Does this mean she is going to start eating brains now?
I'm quite certain this is Bush's fault. I mean, he banned stem cell research, right? Okay, to confuse the issue with facts, he extended Clinton's ban on stem cell research. And then he funded stem cell research with billions of dollars. But that's irrelevant. It's his fault!
I can only imagine that this is yet another problem that was inherited by the current administration.
From an M.D.: That is cancer on command here, so stupid to make that. These stem cells are supposed to make that tumor, its called Terratoma (its a cancer, weird mixture reminiscent of body pieces); Its actually a routine test for the cells if they are very "strong" stem cells - inject them into mice/human and the higher the variety of cells, the "stronger" they are stem cells. Here physician likely seemed to master to produce the "right" cells. But research is not nearly anywhere close to "direct" them in their growth in organs - they just form uncontrollable masses of cancer so far. They should have told here - may be they did. But sometimes patients are fragile and let here physician do whatever they want. And these "stem cell treatments" are just wrong doing with something that needs a lot to be developed. That was just injecting cancer, period. In this case, these *might* have clogged here essential blood vessels in the kidney.
In rocket science, they have put monkeys/dogs for a good reason into their early dangerous vessels. And here they put humans into things that are not flying straight ...and ignite.
Someone with an otherwise certainly terminal illness took a chance on experimental treatment, that ended up killing them.
And WHAT is wrong with this?
It's bad enough when people want to be my mom when I prefer to volunteer on unnecessary risks, but in cases like this leave them alone. sheesh. Like you'd prefer to force them to sit at home and die. What's it to you, and what gives you the right?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
There used to be this place where you could do almost anything you wanted, as long as it didn't hurt anyone else. It was called America.
Nowdays though, it caters to people "who know better" and want to tax, then remove, fast food, salt, light bulbs, toilets and spray cans from our lives. These are called Progressives; the opposite of Conservatives, which *used*to*be*found* in republican ranks, but not so much, during the Bush years.
In that place, we were permitted to take a hair dryer into the shower with us. We could eat building materials. We could eat food that had never been to 160 degrees. It was wonderful: no one spooking around the house or setting up lawsuits. I know it was wonderful: I was there!
Now, I don't expect that Thailand will have better medical practices, but it's from the low number of people (0) who've told me "Wow, that Thailand- a heart valve in the morning, and child sex at night!" :>
But why would *anyone* stop this?
There's an argument of going someplace to kill one's self: clearly the person's so emotionally wrecked, it's probably not in their best interest, etc.
But to stop someone from going elsewhere for a procedure? Is the UN trying to stop things like this? This just makes no sense.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Tell me again why "big pharma" wants their experimental drugs restricted from use again?
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Even if I just inject him with salted milk while I wave a flashlight in his face
That better not be homogenized milk or we'll have to have a word with you about your false advertising. Otherwise... carry on!
Since the Geneva convention has specific rules against testing on human subjects. True it is meant for forced testing but this seems like it might still apply.
If we travel down that road, anyone that has had consensual sex should be worried about being charged with rape...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Honestly, she would have died if the disease is incurable, why take her "right of taking her own chances" away ?
And nowhere did GP mentioned impaired motor skills. Mentions lymphoma, chemo, and "neurotoxicity", and how exercise helped reduce the after effects.
Are we even reading the same thread?
If someone does tai chi, and it makes them feel better, then that's fucking fantastic. However, some of what GP said could be seen as mildly hypocritical.
"should people be allowed to take the risk", but "why shouldn't they be allowed to". Personally I want to have the right to decide my treatment once I am fully informed as to the possible consequences. This especially applies to "end of life" scenarios such as debilitating illnesses that have no known cure.
I think he's talking about weed. Weed makes Big Pharma paranoid.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
You ever tried that? got any real scientific reason it won't work?
as highly untested as some procedures are, everything's got to start somewhere. why not offer it to terminally ill people? if it works, it was worth the coin. if not, they don't need it anymore, do they?
You appear to be advocating "protecting terminally ill patients from themselves". Seeing as how they are already terminally ill that seems just a bit silly. Who better to experiment on than a terminally patient with nothing to lose who is willing to give it a shot?
Why is it silly? Even if someone is terminally ill, there's a duty to try to extended a quality life for them. Even terminally ill patients that opt for medical trials are given state of the art care. They're not given placebo or Formula-409. They're given best-treatment-plus-placebo or best-treatment-plus-Forumula-409. What you're arguing for is the recklessness and effectiveness of snake oil salesmen, homeopathy, and herbal supplements. ("If Extenze didn't do something amazing could we afford to give it away?" Well yes. Your costs would be negligible. Sales do not necessarily correlate with efficacy.)
Our health care choices are already far too restricted -- ever notice how the word "prescription", which actually means "recommendation" is used as if it means "license"? If you need a substance but the witch doctors who represent Big Pharma say you don't you can be imprisoned for posessing it -- now that's real insanity!
Well no. Given that serious risks and side effects involved, there's no reason why a untrained person, especially an fool that believes that their lack expertise and training means they know better than experts should treat themselves. If you want to do that, by all means, cure your infections with a big swig of bleach or some other antibacterial cleaner.
Well, #4 certainly isn't particularly well enforced, why would you expect #3 to be?
There are rational reasons for the restrictions of some drugs. Anti-biotics being one. If you allow the public to self diagnose their aliments then sure some small group of people who would have otherwise been sick longer will get better more quickly, that is until you start building up an army of resistant microbes at which point many people become at a much higher risk. Sorry but there are things that, when you only look at one person, seem to make sense but when looked at from a broader perspective can have catastrophic consequences.
It has nothing to do with experimental.
When a drug is prescription, it costs a lot more. It's just a rule in the drug market.
Drug companies fight HARD to make sure that while the drug is patented (first 7 years) that it is prescription so they can sell it for a higher price while they have a monopoly on the product.
When the 7 years is running out and generics are about to come out, they fight HARD to make sure it is over-the-counter, because they have a better chance of beating out generics when they don't have informed pharmacists and doctors notifying patients that the generic is identical and cheaper.
It's all about the Benjamins.
It is not a hypocritical statement for someone to say that "using a wheelchair has helped me overcome the loss of my legs."
There are ways to solve a problem, without directly reversing the cause of a problem.
Because the guy who said it was watched Lost last week and made assumptions.
Drug companies fight HARD to make sure that while the drug is patented...
Was that a veiled viagra reference?
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Absolutely right! We ought not take payment from anyone who is sick! Experimental medicine? Feh! Who needs that crap! I say we should have stuck to bleeding people. However as long as we have developed some form of medicine we better not get any better at it. Also, let's be sure to treat sick people like they are babies, and other people always know better.
I mean, if I get a terminal illness I sure hope nobody is allowed to offer me any experimental cures. If it hasn't been FDA approved, and in use for at least a decade it would be far better to die then take that kind of risk!
There, fixed that for you. You cant change the position of the operator (maybe in this case) and maintain the same meaning. This way it makes more sense and conveys the original meaning. "Almost 'certainly killed' her" means you are slightly unsure that this definately killed her.
Thank you,
This has been another unwelcome education.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yes, the biggest reason we don't have extensive stem cell treatments is because we haven't finished studying them. Forget the religious loonies, they'd oppose breathing if someone said it defied the word of god, the real danger is 1. we do not fully understand the effects and 2. the people performing the procedure were not experts in it and there is little if any oversight into these clinics.
Number 2 is a big danger with Medical Tourism. Most people go to Thailand to get a nose or boob job, for the most part these work out well at a fraction of the cost of the same procedure in the west but if the doctor does screw up and you end up as a hideous freak (OK, more of a hideous freak) then you have no recourse. The family of the victim in this case will not see a damned thing, not compensation and not justice*. No western doctor wanting to keep their license would recommend medical tourism for life threatening illnesses (even though some will arrange it if explicitly asked, this happens a lot with cosmetic medical tourism).
* in Thailand there is a saying amongst expats, "if you're farang(foreign), you're wrong" the Thai side will always be taken over the foreigners.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
You should start a SEO company and use that as a business model.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
>> faith healers
>> thank god it didn't come to me making that kind of decision
I don't get it, which side are you on?
ics
Oh noes Mr X. We must introduce laws to prevent terminally ill people like you seeking treatment elsewhere. Even though our own treatments can and usually will take ten years or more to be approved and much stem cell treatment is currently being stifled by superstitious cultists. We must take away your right to do this because we believe your too stupid to make an informed decision of your own.
Sounds like American free market health insurance.
I'm neither a biologist nor a doctor, and even I have the vague idea that you cannot take a "universal growth" cell and simply inject it somewhere in the body hoping it figures out what to do.
This treatment sounds right up there with the quacks whose idea of DNA treatment involves synthesizing healthy DNA and making you drink it. (Except that should at least be harmlessly ineffective.)
Summary makes it seem as if she died on the spot.
From the article:
"Within three months she required dialysis, within a year one kidney had failed, and within two years she was dead."
about whether patients should be allowed to take the risks that come with untested treatments
That begs of the question of whether or not somebody else has the authority to make that decision for the patient. I contend that the answer is no, and that the original question is moot. An individual can choose whatever treatment they want, and if they die, well... they die. As long as no force or coercion is involved, it's fine.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Our health care choices are already far too restricted -- ever notice how the word "prescription", which actually means "recommendation" is used as if it means "license"?
If you're going to make asanine points, at least be correct when you make them. Prescription has never simply meant recommendation - especially in the legal sense. Even the obvious roots of the word - pre, "before" and script, "write" refer to the historic necessity of having a written claim to property.
Definitions are easy to come buy. Might help next time.
It does still suggest not repeating the treatment they tried, it didn't work.
Well, the confidence interval for a single test is not by any means conclusive. I wouldn't want to be the person taking the jump to be the next test subject but if someone else wanted to do it then let them. Or run a large scale animal test to see if this treatment causes this problem. Some meta analysis of any future treatments of this type might turn up something. They might not; that's science.
And nowhere did GP mentioned impaired motor skills. Mentions lymphoma, chemo, and "neurotoxicity", and how exercise helped reduce the after effects.
What the fuck do you think neurotoxicity means? I'd never heard the word before but it seemed pretty obvious from the "neuro" and of course the context.
The idea that exercise improves your overall balance and control is simply a fact. Try balancing on one foot for a minute each day and you'll soon start to see improvements. Try a martial art and you'll see even more. Quit being a douche.
which is totally what she said
Oh, you are mistaking advancement in medical research with pseudo-medicine.
The first might be slow and painful, but it does get things done. And when they come out, you are pretty sure of what they'll do and what you can expect. In fact, you can be pretty sure that the balance between potential to cure/potential side effects (including death) is positive, because otherwise the drug would not have been accepted.
Now about pseudo-medicine... It's just wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to describe it. It's the new snake-oil, only prepared to deal with marginally more informed patients. They take these new and promising concepts (buzzwords, really, like stem cells) and make it seem like they're offering you the cures from tomorrow that your big bad government won't allow today. When in reality, it's as much charlatanry as homeopathy.
Allow me to elaborate:
In this particular case, I cannot even begin to understand what was the logic behind injecting stem cells into the kidney of a person with lupus-caused kidney disease. There is no mechanism of action to think of. They took genuine science that did something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT (the trials in europe involving "stem cells" for the treatment of lupus-related kidney disease were basically a bone marrow auto-transplant) but sounded alike, and offered it as a convenient health treatment you couldn't get anywhere else.
Sure you might say the patient still should have the right to choose, and in that point I'm right there with you; but the thing is, if the patient is not a doctor, he won't be able to undertand that what they're offering is total and utter bullshit. You need to realise that the mental state a person enters when faced with their own mortality is a dangerous one in the sense that suddenly all their decision-making algorithms are thrown to the trash and replaced with "let's jump at anything that claims to be able to cure me".
Just the other day a friend of mine asked me about a mexican doctor who claimed he had a treatment for many mental conditions, from epilepsy to mental retardation, schizophrenia, autism, etc... By injecting the patients (who are all kids, of course) with bovine fibroblast growth factor; all based on a "study" HE made in 1991 where he "showed" (I quote it because I had to read said study and his methodology leaves much to be desired) doing so in rats affected by cerebral ischemia allowed some of the neurons in the ischemic penumbra to regain some function. With this pseudo-medicine in hand he travels around the country promising parents their kids will be "cured" from autism or mental retardation. I don't know wether he operates ilegally, but if I lived there i'd definitely report him to the authorities. Oh, did I mention his prices were desorbitant due to the fact that "the extraction and purification of these peptides is very expensive"? This price thing seems to be the norm with these sort of treatments, BTW. But hey, why not take out a second morgage (and leave your family with the consequences of that once you die) when you could BE CURED?!?!
The woman from TFA, BTW, had she not gone to this clinic, in all probability would have lost her kidney function, and would have had to live with dialisis for a while, and after that a kidney transplant, but she'd still be alive, and her family would be a lot less poor.
If you're going to make asanine points, at least be correct when you make them
If you're going to try to use the word asinine, at least spell it correctly.
Spelling corrections are easy to come by. Might help next time.
which is totally what she said
your too stupid
I agree with your point, but I think you're making it a bit too easy for anyone who disagrees.
which is totally what she said
The claim was closer to "using a wheelchar made my legs grow back".
Depending on your jurisdiction that might actually be a problem--rape laws are written such that in some places the woman can change her mind after the fact and it will qualify as rape.
I really do understand the pain of a dreaded diagnoses. And I also understand that a person's good judgment may be quite impaired under that kind of pressure. However I am not so certain that social organizations or governmental bodies are ever less impaired than the afflicted individuals. It certainly must be better to allow people to make their own decisions and gain or suffer accordingly.
That also applies to the Jack Kavorkian issue of suicide and assisted suicides. Families and friends will often feel that the sufferer should have stuck around and suffered more whereas there are times when it is better that sick people be allowed to arrange for their own death. Only the sufferer knows the feel of that great pain and the doom and anxiety that often goes hand in hand with disease.It is their body, their life, and their right to end it.
It's a great debate here, but whether stem cells should be used aside, the person may have had an autoimmune issue just from vitamin D deficiency (common in industrialized countries now that we all spend so much time indoors) or from poor nutrition from eating a standard western diet without enough whole foods like vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, seeds, and whole grains. Related links:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
http://www.drfuhrman.com/
Sometimes we get so focused on fancy cutting edge things that we miss the basics...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
It's my body and I'll die if I want to,
die if I want to, DIE if I WANT to,
You would die to if it happened to YOUUUUUUUUU!
Seriously, though. If the patient wants to take the risk. Let them!
I just saw a program on the BBC following some of these snake oil salesmen that operate out of China and Costa Rica, and another one from 60 minutes called 21st Century Snake Oil. Digging a little deeper and you discover the people operating these clinics have been involved in other dubious ventures and employ high pressure sales techniques for treatments that have no reasonable chance of being successful.
There are perfectly good reasons why these treatments are legal in places with few regulations. The scientific evidence that any of these treatments is going to alter a bad situation is incredibly thin to non-existent. When the research has developed a treatment, and that treatment has proven effective it will be available in the West. Until then we should be helping these people cope with the situation they are in and accept the fact there aren't any cures and pursue these so-called doctors through government and legal channels.
*cough*
"The full title is Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and it is an annexe to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949."
It's somewhat regrettable to debunk your "debunking". You had quite a bit of momentum and righteous indignation in your rant; it sounds like you have had some practice spreading this particular bit of misinformation. My guess would be that you took the common misattribution of the dumdum bullets ban to the Geneva Convention and turned it into this sweeping generalization.
Reminds me of when I used to tell people that microwave ovens operated at a resonant frequency of water, repeating what my engineering prof told us in class. Ouch... there were quite a few people I had to go around and issue a retraction to. (FYI: 2.4 GHz has absolutely nothing special wrt water--resonance, dielectric, or otherwise)
And nowhere did GP mentioned impaired motor skills.
And wtf does neurotoxicity means and does to you? Newsflash: Neurotoxicity -> motor impairment.
Mentions lymphoma, chemo, and "neurotoxicity", and how exercise helped reduce the after effects.
^^ See above.
Are we even reading the same thread?
I'm actually reading it (^^ see above wrt neurotoxicity.) Apparently you did not. Eyeballing =/= reading. I'm sure they teach that in some 1000-level course in college.
If someone does tai chi, and it makes them feel better, then that's fucking fantastic. However, some of what GP said could be seen as mildly hypocritical.
Only if you fail at reading comprehension and/or don't know what tai chi and neurotoxicity are. Again, all of this speaks more about you (wrt to your persona or reading skills) than about the poster.
It still should be her ( my ) right to take those risks if she chooses to. "Pursuit of happiness" and all that.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"The black clinics of Chiba were the cutting edge, whole bodies of technique supplanted monthly, and still they couldn't repair the damage he'd suffered in that Memphis hotel."
- William Gibson, Neuromancer
"... that would have the potential to turn into a baby if it were in a womb ..."
Thank you for explaining the details so I know which part I specifically find morally objectionable. Good info!
According to Merriam-Webster:
prescription
4 a : a written direction for a therapeutic or corrective agent; specifically : one for the preparation and use of a medicine b : a prescribed medicine c : something (as a recommendation) resembling a doctor's prescription [prescriptions for economic recovery]
IOW, it means recommendation in the context of a medical prescription. Looks like you're both smug and wrong.
Hell, it's pretty easy to sell snake oil cures now! As long as you're a major pharmaceutical company with lobbyists and your own fake peer-review pubs.
> He says it's the tai chi that gives him longevity...
As long as someone says it, it must be true!
> and I ain't gonna argue with him.
Then that makes it, almost by definition, faith.
I have no doubt your practice helped you in some physiological way and helped your balance, and it may even BE true, but the reasons you cite are not really valid scientific evidence. That said, yeah, exercise is good, I'm sure your instructor can do exactly what you say he can, and I'm very happy for you (truly) to be in the shape you are now given your illness. Godspeed, sir.
Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
It's nothing. Bangkok, you say? Nothing spectacular.
Now, in Russian medical practice there was a popular saying going approximately like this: "The autopsy has clearly shown that the patient has died of autopsy".
Compare this to regular accepted treatments and their deathrates or 'weird' results and you'll see that these kind of things happen all the time (especially in countries like thailand, but also in any western country like the US or UK)... Any medical treatment can be dangerous, just let them study what went wrong and hope we can learn something from it..
I think he's talking about weed. Weed makes Big Pharma paranoid.
They must be high.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
researchers now have a datapoint they did not have before and hopefully will save other lives.
Nobody needs recreational drugs. They do not cure terminal diseases, and their beneficial effect is the same as coke or heroin or any other drug that dulls the senses and gives a false, temporary sense of euphoria.
We have prescription painkillers that do that already, to a much greater and stronger effect than weed ever could.
And little Suzie doesn't get to go to college because Daddy blew the family savings buying quack treatments in Bangcock. Yep, I don't see anything wrong with your approach. Nothing at all!
If my first born was an entitled little shit like many of her contemporaries, I'd entitle myself to that 50 mil, and I'd even give 10 of it to Cartman.
Since my first born is a sweetheart, she gets a reprieve...
I disagree with his point, but agree with your point.
There may be some international agreement or panel on the subject, but they probably go by another name.
Yeah, I think some guy named Hippocrates helped draft it.
If we travel down that road, anyone that has had consensual sex should be worried about being charged with rape...
Yeah, next thing you know we might start implementing age of consent laws. The horror!
As long as someone says it, it must be true!
If they say it, and they've obviously done it, then it just might be true.
Then that makes it, almost by definition, faith.
It's not faith when you've got a very strong piece of evidence staring you in the face.
but the reasons you cite are not really valid scientific evidence.
That means absolutely nothing. Evidence, by itself, is never scientific. It's the repetition and measurement that are scientific.
His reasons are based on observation that his instructor is extremely fit at an age where most men are very feeble, and his own recovery has been excellent. There is no faith there, it's based on observation. According to you, there is no scientific evidence that people can read. I mean, just because someone says reading is how they extract information out of a book doesn't make it true right? Must all be faith, right?
Did he use modern scientific methodologies? No, of course not. But to say it's faith because he didn't is flat out idiotic. No fact is scientific. Ever. A fact is a fact. It is either true or it isn't. An observation is simply an observation, there is nothing in the world that makes one observation scientific and another observation non-scientific. Science is the process of generating and confirming theories about observations. Nothing more. We see X. We want to know why X exists. So we test X, and come up with theories, which should fit the pattern X gives us. If X changes (we observe something new) and the theory doesn't fit, then the science was wrong.
In other words, you're completely fucking wrong, you idiot retard.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Are we even reading the same thread?
Apparently not, the GP replied (before the P you're replying to posted) stating that chemo had left him extremely weak (it does, it's hard to say whether my grandpa died of leukemia or chemo therapy, it's a devastating treatment) and Tai Chi has allowed him to regain all his strength (and particularly his balance) back and more than he had before in the last 10 years.
He also states specifically that it was the drug that rid him of cancer in the original post, not the Tai Chi.
He posted that two hours before your reply, and a few minutes before the P's reply, so I really wonder who's reading the thread at all.
In other words, he was a little unclear, yet you automatically assumed he was talking mumbo-jumbo. You put words in his mouth he didn't say, and now you just look like a dumbass.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
I know one of the standard talking points about ESCR is the line about we should do it because the embryos will just be thrown away. However that doesn't consider embryonic stem cell nuclear transfer where you would start with an adult's DNA, shove it into an egg and develop that into an embryo. You could do that to generate stem cells and hopefully the adult who's DNA could accept these stem cells with little risk of rejection.(Which would be a big bonus) I mention this because I wouldn't be surprised if this was on of the major forms of stem cell treatment in the future and in this case the embryos are being with embryos that are not going to be just thrown away if we don't use them. (I expect if the religious nuts are mad over the case of using otherwise discarded material it's going to be a hell of alot worse when the case comes to making a new embryo which is a partial clone of the person and then pulling it apart for extra bits.) Oh well, I've got Karma to burn even though I'll get modded down for pointing out a talking point.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
You appear to be advocating "protecting terminally ill patients from themselves". Seeing as how they are already terminally ill that seems just a bit silly. Who better to experiment on than a terminally patient with nothing to lose who is willing to give it a shot?
It would be one thing if the treatment was a pro bono experimental treatment conducted at a legitimate medical institution. It's another thing if the patient's family has to go into debt to pay for it.
Also, there is a real psychological cost to being told there is hope when there is none. Instead of coming to terms with the loss and saying goodbye while the patient is alive patients and their families can live in denial, only to be devastated when these long shots fail.
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
Maybe she couldn't afford to be treated in the United States.
Given that serious risks and side effects involved, there's no reason why a untrained person, especially an fool that believes that their lack expertise and training means they know better than experts should treat themselves.
Yes, but the risks are to nobody but themselves, so who are you to tell them what an acceptable level of risk is?
If you want to do that, by all means, cure your infections with a big swig of bleach or some other antibacterial cleaner.
Well, antibiotics are a place where I would draw a line, since they involve risks to people other than those taking them due to resistance. However, in many cases people do more or less what you suggest - because for whatever reason they don't have access to a doctor, or disagree with a doctor's advice, they resort to completely improvised medicine using products completely unsuitable to the task. Instead, if prescription drugs were freely available, they would at least have access to drugs that have clear indications and data regarding side-effects, so that at least the possibility of an informed decision exists.
Sure, maybe somebody self-prescribing might not do as well as somebody acting under a doctor's advice, but they would probably do better than somebody foregoing any medical treatment whatsoever. Maybe somebody wants to take one statin over another because they like the celebrity that is promoting it, but either will work better than whatever supplement they'd end up taking instead.
Your argument is based on a false dichotomy - that people will only choose between following a doctor's order, or self-prescribing pharmaceuticals. By this logic you can block the latter, and thus people will do the former. This argument ignores the third option - that people will just improvise using substances even more dangerous or less effective than pharmaceuticals.
And little Suzie doesn't get to go to college because Daddy blew the family savings buying quack treatments in Bangcock. Yep, I don't see anything wrong with your approach. Nothing at all!
That makes more sense than some people may think.
In the U.S., with its free market health care system, some legitimate drugs are so expensive that patients decide they'd rather skip it and leave the money to their grandchildren.
The New York Times had a few stories about the new, expensive cancer drugs which cost up to $100,000 and don't cure the disease but only extend survival by about 6 months, and they quoted a few patients who decided it wasn't worth the money (and side effects). They'd rather leave the money to their grandchildren.
I aways figured it was the insurance companies, if they can get the pharma's to move something from Rx to OTC, then they don't have to pay for it anymore. Possibly it's less expense for the insurance Co. to fund the research studies on their own and push it through the FDA than to pay for the Rx rates.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I suppose that's why
, the Pharmas spent boatloads of money developing synthetics and getting them approved, because they are not as effective and safe as preexisting narcotics.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Given that serious risks and side effects involved, there's no reason why a untrained person, especially an fool that believes that their lack expertise and training means they know better than experts should treat themselves.
What *I* do to *MY* body is *MY* choice. The government shouldn't be in the business of protecting me from myself. Risks and side effects of medications should be publicly disclosed, but at that point only *I* can decide if I am okay with those risks. And if I am, it is not the government's responsibility to refuse me access because they disagree.
And nowhere did GP mentioned impaired motor skills. Mentions lymphoma, chemo, and "neurotoxicity", and how exercise helped reduce the after effects.
What the fuck do you think neurotoxicity means? I'd never heard the word before but it seemed pretty obvious from the "neuro" and of course the context. The idea that exercise improves your overall balance and control is simply a fact.
Calm down... you'll live longer. Nobody is arguing that exercise doesn't improve balance and control. The specific claim was "it's taken a decade of tai chi to undo some of the neurotoxicity". This would be clearer had PopeRatzo said "to undo some of the effects of neurotoxicity", but the specific claim was that Tai Chi undid the neurotoxicity. It wasn't until PopeRatzo clarified his statement in a follow-up reply that it was made clear he was talking about Tai Chi being used for recovering his balance.
One can hardly fault the AC for questioning the claim that Tai Chi undoes neurotoxicity.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
And nowhere did GP mentioned impaired motor skills.
And wtf does neurotoxicity means and does to you? Newsflash: Neurotoxicity -> motor impairment.
Newsflash: someone can have suffered from neurotoxicity and have their motor skills unimpaired, but suffer from headaches. The effects of neurotoxicity depend on the area of the neurological system that was affected as well as the specifics of the toxin including what kind of toxin, what the level of toxicity was, the immune response to the toxin, and so on.
However, perhaps I haven't taken the same 1000-level college courses as you have.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Age of consent usually applies to statutory rape. If a person is below the age of consent, they can not legally consent to a sexual relationship, regardless of their actual actions or feelings. In my state an adult having sex with a person under 18 is a violation of the law. Period. The lower the age of the minor, the more serious the offense. I'll tell you what's freaky, decipher Arkansas Law on the subject.
What we are talking about is a person being charged with a crime in spite of lawful consent... if it is experimental medicine or sex hardly seems to matter if lawful informed consent was given. The thread I responded to suggested a violation of the Geneva Convention may be an issue in experimental medicine... That's more than a slippery slope, it's a pitfall.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
The age of consent laws demonstrate that we as a society believe that consent cannot be given under some circumstances. We have other such laws - consent given under duress is not considered valid, and consent given under the affect of alcohol or narcotics can, likewise, be considered void. Given the above, I see no reason why we can't say that meaningful consent cannot be given by a person who is under extreme psychological and emotional stress due to the prospect of having to suffer through a painful and drawn-out death.
Hematopoietic stem cells (the basic makeup of bone marrow) can only stem blood cells, not renal tissue cells, skin cells, bone cells, brain cells... just blood cells. I know this and doctors certainly know this. There is no question that this procedure is what killed her.
Were these real doctors or doctors like Dr. Pepper is a doctor?
And as usual, you will see a lot more press about catastrophes than the many, many miracle success stories, because its just plain more profitable to report on horror. Probably this lady was going to die soon any way.
there's no reason why a untrained person, especially an fool that believes that their lack expertise and training means they know better than experts should treat themselves.
I would find that statement more credible if medical malpractice wasn't one of the top three killers in the US. I know that sounds like ravings from some loony, but it's not.
I think the exact opposite should apply. There is no more important time for a person to have the right of choice then when their quality of life is going to suffer massively. From my point of view, no one can live for another. Unless we have a mechanism for transferring the suffering and financial consequences to ourselves, we should not try to abrogate their freedom of choice. I would not choose experimental treatment unless it had met with great success and approval in many places. That being said, if a person dying wants to grasp at straws, and no one else is put in harms way, let them do it. At the very least they will serve as a warning to others, and they might just get a lucky break...
I have a neighbor that has stopped getting cancer treatments because it is advanced and at this point the treatments are worse than the cancer. He made his choice, and it could be argued that he is not in his right mind... but I would not do it, and his doctor seems to be OK with it, his kids know what he is doing. They are not happy, but they do understand.
What do you say, should we strap him down and force drugs (poison really) into his veins? If not, then why do we intercede when they decide the other way? When they decide to fight death to last breath, do we say, "You are out of your mind, just die already..."
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
I never suggested taking action against the victim, just like we don't take action against underage teens who have sex with older partners. When someone who is unable to make an informed decision gets taken advantage of, you prosecute those who are taking advantage of them.
I get that. But why is one irrational decision (to reject life saving treatment) OK but another irrational decision (to go outside the approved course of medical treatment at your own risk) not OK? The dysfunctional mental state is the same, both people are under the stress of approaching death.
"there is something extremely morbid about using the poor as medical guinea pigs due to their desperate situation."
Yes, since they are in such desperate circumstances it is better to let them die, without any hope for themselves or others.
We're so moral!
Sorry, did not mean to post as AC there...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
I get that. But why is one irrational decision (to reject life saving treatment) OK but another irrational decision (to go outside the approved course of medical treatment at your own risk) not OK? The dysfunctional mental state is the same, both people are under the stress of approaching death.
Heh. Why is it ok for a teenager to make a decision to NOT have sex with a 30 year old, but not ok for them to decide they want to do it?
Obviously there are key differences between an action and the lack of an action. I'm not sure that I want to get into a debate about those differences.
Also, I wouldn't say ANY irrational decision is "ok". However, choosing to refuse treatment isn't necessarily irrational - it depends on the circumstances. In some cases, parents have gone to jail for making decisions such as refusing medical treatment for their child on religious or "spiritual" grounds. We can and do hold people responsible when their irrational thought-process leads to the death of another. On the other hand, if I had the choice between dying 6 months from now, or spending vast amounts of money to pay for treatments which would result in horrible pain, constant vomiting, physical deformity and other types of suffering ... while allowing me to live for another year? I'd say the rational choice would be to say screw it. I'd rather live my last 6 months as best as I can, go out without a fuss, and leave some extra money for my family.
How do you even know he is really 85? Did he show you his birth certificate? Me, personally after many years I've come to believe that Eastern systems like Yoga, Tai Chi and other are just a load of BS and a way to make money of naive Westerners.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Anyone who would deny a human the right to make whatever choices he or she wants to about what goes in his or her body is a slaver. Last I recall, slavers could be executed when and where apprehended.
Social Credit would solve everything...
I think he's talking about weed. Weed makes Big Pharma paranoid.
Then Big Pharma needs to stop buying shitty Mexican schwag. I *hear* there's no shortage of fine dank in southeastern Ohio - support Appalachia, buy local weed! :)
> Among the 33 patients who died from seemingly localized RCC (localized renal cell carcinoma )...
The article you cite is in a journal of surgical pathology, and the abstract seems to be about the current methods of histology of certain renal tumors giving overly optimistic results for patient survival (and possibly, incorrect advice with respect to chemotherapy or other post-surgery treatment protocols). In other words, I read it that the 33 patients subsequently died of metastatic cancer even though the RCC was "seemingly localized" at the time of the histological exam.
I fail to see what this has to do with the GP, who is talking about tumors which are localized not being immediately fatal. What I understand the GP is saying is that given the current state of dialysis treatment, it would seem to be very, very unusual for localized tumors which have destroyed the woman's kidneys to cause her death while they were still localized. The article you cite does not seem to be at all connected with this.
What kind of medical research do you do, exactly?
my best donkey is a jackass, you insensitive clod!
Maybe you haven't found a proper teacher? A lot of people in the West teach it improperly, ruining any positive effects it can have.
and now you just look like a jackass.
FTFY
While I completely understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism, I really there is something more to it.
People who used to be proud atheists a couple of decades ago now they entitle themselves as "agnostics". And sometimes the reason is not the true meaning of it, its either fashion or simply because its more "politically correct".
You know something? Screw politically correct! My tag for agnostics? An atheist who is too much of a pussy to admit it openly.
Me, personally after many years I've come to believe that Eastern systems like Yoga, Tai Chi and other are just a load of BS and a way to make money of naive Westerners.
do one session of yoga w/ any half decent teacher and tell me it didn't feel like exercise. i, personally, feel it is better to do an hour of most types of yoga than, say, jog for an hour but both have many health benefits. or does that fact that it is 'Eastern' some how negate the benefits of exercising? That eastern exercise just doesn't help our massively superior western fed bodies, right?