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
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.
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
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.
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
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.
I don't know how any country that calls itself free can prohibit this sort of thing.
heck, if the 'doctor' says it, that must be it, so what's the fuss? & just what is the 'longcut'? chemo, opiates, painful disintegration, etc... who would ever want to risk missing all that?
never a better time for all of us to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?
greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.
"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)
"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--
"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson
no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.
consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(
boeing, boeing, gone.
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.
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.
This is a good thing for all concerned. Don't play God; you will die no matter what. When is up to God. Ahhhmmm
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.
When she first arrived in Bangkok, she was a man.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
. . . 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.
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.
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.
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!
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
Honestly, she would have died if the disease is incurable, why take her "right of taking her own chances" away ?
"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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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!
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..
researchers now have a datapoint they did not have before and hopefully will save other lives.
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 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.
Maybe she couldn't afford to be treated in the United States.
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 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!
> 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?
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.