Slashdot Mirror
Bioengineered Mouse Heart Gets a Beat Using Human Cells
cylonlover writes "Heart transplants have given new life to thousands, but are only an unfulfilled hope to thousands more due to a shortage of donor organs. With the goal of meeting this shortfall, scientists at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine have bioengineered a mouse heart in the lab that beats on its own. The mouse heart had its cells replaced with human cells, offering the potential of growing custom replacement hearts that wouldn't be rejected by the recipient."
i've been worried that we might run out of mice, but with this new technology, we can now save those mice who need heart transplants. We won't have to wait for a donar mouse to be killed in an accident any more! It's also hard to convince them to sign a donor cars, as very few of them know how to write.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Now please start working on a replacement for my liver.
Seriously though, I wonder how long it will be before brain diseases such as Alzheimer's, Pick's disease and the like are considered the most catastrophic things that can happen to you as other body parts become easier to grow and replace.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
...so this research is misguided in that sense. See: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx
The link to Dr. Fuhrman's web site says:
The findings indicated that there was no evidence that angioplasty and stent placement for coronary artery disease resulted in fewer heart attacks or deaths when compared to patients with the same level of disease who were not treated in this manner.
That's true, but irrelevant. As the Lancet reported in 2009, angioplasty and stent placement doesn't reduce deaths. Cardiologists don't use it to reduce death any more. They use it to reduce angina (pain). Of course there are unscrupulous doctors who do unnecessary surgery. Just as there are unscrupulous doctors who sell people overpriced, unnecessary vitamins and supplements, as Fuhrman is doing.
However, coronary artery bypass, which bypasses the occluded coronary arteries with grafts from arteries and veins, does reduce death. It extends life by about 6 years in one study that I read, but it depends on the patient population. One of the issues is that medical treatment (diuretics, ACE inhibitors, alpha-blockers, statins, etc.) has gotten so good that the advantage of surgery over best medical treatment has gotten smaller.
Here's one study.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/112/9_suppl/I-371.full
Surgery for Coronary Artery Disease: Comparing Long-Term Survival of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Disease After CABG or PCI
Circulation. 2005; 112: I-371-I-376 doi: 10.1161/
Adjusted long-term survival for patients with 3-vessel disease was better after CABG than PCI (HR, 0.60; P<0.01) but not for patients with 2-vessel disease (HR, 0.98; P=0.77).
Conclusions— In contemporary practice, survival for patients with 3-vessel coronary disease is better after CABG than PCI, an observation that patients and physicians should carefully consider when deciding on a revascularization strategy.
Dr. Fuhrman (selectively) quotes The Lancet to argue that angioplasty and stents don't work.
Where are the published studies in major peer-reviewed journals to show that Dr. Fuhrman's diet treatment works? I don't think there are any.
There are studies published in in JAMA and NEJM of randomized trials of various dietary interventions, like the Atkins diet and traditional Greek diets, and some of them have good results, but nowhere near what Fuhrman is claiming.
Conclusion
Come to your own conclusion.
I conclude that Fuhrman is a huckster, making misleading and probably false claims. If people drop their standard medical treatment in favor of his diets, he's killing people.
The mouse heart had its cells replaced with human cells, offering the potential of growing custom replacement hearts
The mouse will have to be rather big...
Every time I think I have to quite smoking and drinking and all those other things I do in the mornings something like this comes to the rescue.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
I know what the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association say about diet preventing cardiovascular disease. I know what those (mainstream, establishment) doctors wrote in the Washington Post about Bush's stent. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is that diet can reverse cardiovascular disease to the extent that Fuhrman claims.
This is America. We have the First Amendment. Anybody can publish a book, no matter how stupid or poorly-supported its claims are.
What I want is an article in a major peer-reviewed journal, like The Lancet, that supports Fuhrman's claims. There isn't any. Fuhrman is happy to cherry-pick The Lancet, but he can't cite an article in The Lancet or any place else that supports his claims.
Ornish and Atkins published articles in JAMA. They've demonstrated small but significant benefits from diet. However, they doesn't claim to reverse heart disease the way Fuhrman does. Fuhrman hasn't published his results in The Lancet, JAMA, or any other major journal.
I'm using your post as a teachable moment. I'm trying to explain how science works.
Scientists submit their results to peer-reviewed journals. The journals send their results out to experts in the field to review their work. If an article appears in JAMA or Cardiology, you know that at least a handful of experts have reviewed the article and decided that its methods and logic were solid, and there weren't any obvious misrepresentations.
Fuhrman can publish his own stuff in a book and say whatever he wants. He can make misleading claims about what the scientific literature says. He can confuse issues like angioplasty and coronary bypass. He can use anecdotes. That's why a book like that isn't reliable the way a peer-reviewed journal is.
I looked up Esselstyn's work on Pubmed and I read his 1999 article in American Journal of Cardiology. I'll give him credit for publishing his results. He had 24 patients and no control group. He says he gave them cholesterol-lowering drugs. (But he doesn't say what the cholesterol-lowering drugs were.) So he's mixing the effect of diet with the effect of drugs. Yes, Lipitor will lower cholesterol. Yes, some researchers (and drug companies) believe that statins can reverse atherosclerosis. But he hasn't published any data since 1999, as far as I could see. If he ever publishes something in NEJM, JAMA, Lancet or BMJ, I'll read it there.
I haven't seen anything there in any peer-reviewed journals that shows plant-based diets can reverse most heart disease.
I've never understood why the organ shortage couldn't be solved, or at least improved, by making it an "opt out" system instead of an "opt in" system. My understanding is that the organs are thrown away anyhow when the body is prepared for a funeral. If people really want to not donate that's OK, just let them opt out. Anyone know more about this and why it might not be a good idea?