Stem Cell Tourist Dies From Treatment In Thailand 451
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."
So what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
You assume she knew the risks, when it's very possible the scientists themselves didn't understand all of the risks. They also may not have disclosed the known risks.
Aim for the real problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
None of this would be happening if working with stem cells and bioengineering proper was legalized at large.
Re:So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm, Perhaps I should hold off on that sex-change operation and save up for Johns Hopkins instead.
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not ignorance or stupidity. It's morality and ethics. And before you roll your eyes, please try to remember what happens when the medical profession tries to set these aside in the name of progress(ironically more often done by self proclaimed "moral societies", but I digress). The field does not have a good track record, and that's just on the research side. The commercial side is arguably worse.
You have even less evidence of that than the doctors in this case who thought their treatment would work. The reality is the question of "if something works" and "if something should be done" are two very, very different things. And progress does not happen when you ignore either one.
The risks aren't bad for some of us. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
No bridge is necessary. The religious freaks are flat out fucking wrong. There is nothing wrong with using someones own stem cells to attempt to cure them, and only outrageous stupidity/subhumanism could make such a claim.
This won't happen until you destroy statistics. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"almodlst certainly killed her"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists and doctors are often trained not to overstate conclusions, since things are never certain. Which is partially why creationists can say "It's just a theory" and rather than just say "You're wrong and an idiot" scientists usually start explaining how they're mostly wrong, and by the third paragraph, anyone undecided lost interest and decided evolution was just a theory.
In this case, you could hypothesize that she may have been the first known victim of an extremely rare disease, independant from the lupus, that would have killed her with growths on her kidney even without the injections. Sure, that's unlikely, occam's razor comes to mind, but it would be overstating it to say it is 100% certain to be the cause. You might be able to do a test that would make it more certain, but why waste the time, it's certain enough not to suggest not doing what these "doctors" did.
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This will be interesting.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:What is needed is 2 levels of FDA (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee, I think she died of freedom of choice.
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:0, Insightful)
How do you deal with the fact that nothing truly miraculous happens? How come every miracle has some other explanation?
Here's a real miracle:
The clouds grow wings and start raining jelly beans on the ground, while every plant on earth starts singing Weezer's "Buddy Holly" while 1,000,000 Elvis's appear floating 20 feet above the ground playing accordions made of bread.
Your problem in a nutshell: you fucking religious freaks have no imagination whatsoever.
Sad lives really. Small, and sad.
You can't avoid it... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, I believe the political hysteria created over the issue has led to this woman going the lengths she did to be "cured." Stem-cell research has been heralded for years as an answer to unlimited potential ailments. It could theoretically cure everything in the world. This allows one side to paint the other side religious nuts for wanting to stop this miracle-in-waiting.
Bush didn't ban fetal stem cell research, but only federal money to it. If there were any realistic thought that they could be used to cure everything, you would think someone would fund it so they can rake in trillions from the profits. Bill Gates, T Boone Pickens, and the like do see potential profits in the alternative-energy trade, so that's where the money goes, not some pie-in-the-sky dream for medical utopia.
Re:"almodlst certainly killed her"... (Score:2, Insightful)
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science. By your logic gravity is also "only a theory". I invite you to step off the roof, because being only a theory, gravity might not affect you.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
You assume she knew the risks, when it's very possible the scientists themselves didn't understand all of the risks. They also may not have disclosed the known risks.
Welcome to the concept of 'experimental' treatment. It means they don't know exactly what it will do or all the possible risks. As TFA states the problem being 'A woman with kidney disease has died after receiving an experimental stem cell treatment... sparked lively debates around the Internet about whether patients should be able to willingly take on risks associated with experimental treatments.' I say let them if they know its experimental (and what experimental entails). If someone has something incurable that can either disable/cause death in the short term then they might be willing to try something experimental as it's at least a hope for something instead of just sitting there and either watching life pass them by/waiting to die. Best case they are part of finding out the cure, worst case they die and we learn why and they knew that death was a very possible answer.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd guess risk is a easier thing to shrug off if you're knocking on deaths door and nobody in your home country is allowed to try anything to stop it for another 43 years of review and trials.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
When one has a disease that one *knows* is going to kill you, and soon, where's the risk in trying unproven treatments? Whether the researchers knew or disclosed all of the risks is ultimately irrelevant in this case. If I were in her shoes and the researchers told me that the treatment had a 90% chance of killing me after it was applied, when I knew I was going to die in a matter of weeks or months anyway, I would make the same choice. Some chance is better than none at all.
SB
Re:This will be interesting.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you deal with the fact that nothing truly miraculous happens? How come every miracle has some other explanation?
Here's a real miracle:
The clouds grow wings and start raining jelly beans on the ground, while every plant on earth starts singing Weezer's "Buddy Holly" while 1,000,000 Elvis's appear floating 20 feet above the ground playing accordions made of bread.
According to Exodus, the Hebrew people followed a pillar of cloud and a pillar of fire in the desert for forty years, but they got used to the sight fairly quickly. No sooner did they have miraculous freedom from slavery, they thought they could order whatever they wanted like at a drive-through: "Yeah, I'd like six thousand quail fajitas please." And once they got not just meat, but also manna, they started complaining "Is YHWH really with us? Where are we going? Moses is sure taking a long time on that mountain; maybe we should melt all our gold and make a statue to worship."
Your problem in a nutshell: you fucking religious freaks have no imagination whatsoever.
Maybe because less imagination was used than even you think? Religious folk tend to believe the people witnessing those miracles were reporting what they saw, not fabricating stories.
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
You'd kill your first-born son if it meant 50 million bucks and nobody ever finding out about it.
Um, no. I wouldn't.
Has it occurred to you that you might be a sociopath?
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? And you know this how?
I guess you missed the part where the AC said "I'm a physician". Now I don't know if that is true, nor can I verify the remark about kidney tumors not being fatal. But I suspect that you can't either, which is why you did the old FUD trick of questioning the poster in a way to belittle what was said without being able to come up with a counterpoint argument. That way nobody can claim that you were wrong because you never actually said anything.
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:1, Insightful)
Soooo... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Couldn't agree more: Here's why (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:1, Insightful)
Hello, Cost-benefit analysis? [wikipedia.org] )
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you consider it to be 'morally superior' to flush the excess fertilized eggs down the drain, destroying them with absolutely no benefit, than donate them to scientists who will use them in an attempt to develop treatments for you, your children, and the rest of the human race?
I can't help but see that donating them to scientific and medical research is a fundamentally good act on par with donating your organs when you die. You certainly shouldn't be compelled to do so but everyone ought to be encouraged to think of the good of our entire society.
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey now - thanks to her and a shady lab, we have some hard data on what happens when stem cells (prob extracted from her own bone marrow) are injected willy-nilly into organs. That's data that would be impossible to come by in a normal hospital with normal experimental procedures. She gave her life for science!
Warning. The preceding was 92% sarcasm and 8% honesty, with a 15% error margin. Read at your own risk.
Re:This will be interesting.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:This will be interesting.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
According to Exodus
Of course there's no evidence [wikipedia.org] that even the non-miraculous statements of Exodus (i.e. Hebrews held as slaves in Egypt) are true. When even the most plausible parts are bupkis, there's no reason to believe in the least plausible parts.
Pretty sad when something can be shot down without even resorting to bringing up a completely incompatible "divine history."
Maybe because less imagination was used than even you think? Religious folk tend to believe the people witnessing those miracles were reporting what they saw, not fabricating stories.
Yeah, but the "miracles" today are quite lacking. I guess God used up all his good stuff 4000 years ago, and now is stuck trying to draw pictures with refried beans.
Bring back Zeus and him turning into a bull so he could fuck women. Now that was god that knew how to get shit done.
Re:The risks aren't bad for some of us. (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point, and I sympathize with you, but in this case there was precisely ZERO chance that the "treatment" would cure her.
What do you base your ZERO chance on, a study of one person with an inherently awful confidence interval and p value?
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're dying, why shouldn't you be allowed to risk everything on a las-ditch effort to save yourself? If it fails, you're no deader than you'd been had you tried nothing.
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that religious ethics were a code of conduct developed for a world where no one knew how the life of a new human actually begins - and where the infinitesimal steps before the actual birth were unknowable and therefore for all intents and purposes irrelevant.
Example:
There is an empty room with a perfectly clean and smooth floor. If you came looking, you would say "that room is clean and empty".
In the classical example, we would put in sand, grain after grain, until you decide that there's not "some sand" but "a heap of sand". But that is insufficient, because it doesn't carry a lawful penalty of doing something with it.
So here's the modified example, which is ironically the exact opposite of producing a baby:
If I were to bring in a small piece of metal that I produced in the neighboring room with tools and raw materials there, you would attest "the room is not empty anymore".
Now I am constantly bringing small pieces of metal into the room, differently shaped, but somehow they fit or connect to each other. You come looking and could tell, that the room is not only filling up, but actually some coordinated production is going on. Maybe you even recognize what I am up to, maybe you don't
I toil day and night and produce even more metal pieces and assemble them according to the plan I made. You come into the room and now you clearly recognize it just by looking at its shape. Some levers and springs of this item already work as they are supposed to. It's clearly not yet complete, but every kid would recognize it by now.
Now as I continue to work, at what point would I become liable to "possessing an unlicensed firearm"?
At which point do the assembled items constitute fit the description and intent of the law? Do plans, raw materials, tools and intent suffice? Is possession of the disassembled parts enough? Is possessing all parts relevant or only the critical ones? At which point in time did the unmachined blank became a firearm part unlawful to possess?
Shorter example: owning an 120cm rod of hardened steel and a grinder is allowed, owning a 120cm sword is not. At what point in time does the steel rod become an illegal item if I set out to produce one?
Excuse me for taking all that destructive stuff, but that's a suitable comparison, since it is assembled in infinitesimal steps with legal repercussions beyond a certain point.
Now back to the embryo: is the fertilized ovum possessing "human" rights?
Do human rights start with the first cluster of cells? With a human shape? With the first heart beat or the first brain wave, the first breath, the first word?
Even if it was to start with the fertilized egg as most religious types contest, we could not ever hope to get around this demarcationg problem. There's a high chance the fertilized egg will not take hold, so it would mean that 70% of all "humans" are dying several hours after conception. And then there's the "components" of a fertilized egg:
Wasting semen, especially when using a condom for intercourse, would be a capital sin for men - it already is for some religions. No one seems to notice that all non-pregnant, menstruating females would then be killing "humans" every month - under the same law that men shouldn't "spill their seed", they would be required to take any opportunity to get pregnant.
That inconsistency is bothering enough, but it'd get worse: if a lawfully wedded couple would use a condom to not get the female pregnant, it would be a major sin. If the same couple refused to have sex, it is not. Coitus interruptus is a catholic sin as well, the phone ring that interrupts the Coitus is not.
I believe we cannot reliably tell when human rights begin and that we must learn to deal with it. We know that semen and eggs are not really different from fingernails in growing and re-growing. We know that the newborn baby has the full rights of all humans. When these rights start in between them will be up to eternal speculation.
Eggs that
Re:So what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Ignorant people think nothing of making incorrect statements about things they have no knowledge of. To wit "Thailand isn't exactly known for health and quality medicine" when in fact Thailand is very well known as a world class medical destination, just not by this ignorant person. Family members and I have had a variety of procedure performed, at world famous Bumrungrand Hospital and other JCI certified hospitals in Thailand (list here > http://medicaltravelsite.com/blog/2010/04/30/current-list-of-jci-ceritified-hospitals-in-thailand/)
Not only are the medical care and facilities world class, the warmth and hospitality with which care is administered is wonderful. If I have my choice I will never seek care in the U.S. again.
Convincingly stated. (Score:3, Insightful)
*cough* [wikipedia.org]
"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)
Re:Couldn't agree more: Here's why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This will be interesting.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:What is needed is 2 levels of FDA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
So assume for a while that having sex without the aim of reproducing is a sin. The sin of Onan and all that.
You said it was the intent to "not reproduce" that make it a sin:
"having sex without intent to reproduce is a sin"
When one knows that one lacks the means to reproduce, is temporarily or permanently infertile, any sex performed in spite of it is by definition not aimed at reproducing.
So we have another subset:
"having sex knowing full well that one is without the MEANS to reproduce"
Which means it is a sin to
- have sex when a known pregnant woman is involved
- have sex during the menstruation period
- have sex after menopause
= basically have any male orgasm outside a fertile vagina
If sex without intent is a sin, both partners cannot simply ignore their fertility status without being complicit if they accidentally have infertile sex. Failing to check fertility would be tantamount to "sinful negligence".
So it is also a sin to have even vaginally receptive sex between a married man and woman, if it is
- outside the fertile days of the period.
- without being absolutely sure the woman is not pregnant
- without being sure with reasonable certainty that one is indeed fertile
A couple that has not produced a pregnancy despite having sex for several years would need to re-evaluate their fertility and stop having sex if unsure or never let down the straight expectation of producing offspring.
If they had sex even a single time where they expected it would NOT produce a pregnancy would be a sin as well.
In short: Strictly Catholic marriages must be blast. And they're probably still sinning all the time.
Re:Aim for the real problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
At this point that may be what we are talking about.
But once the process begins, a mechanism will come into place to efficiently collect said dead babies. Essentially it's the same as feeding a dog at the table. You give it some food, and it learns to hang out there and hope for more. Eventually, these 'tissue collection' people will become a business. They'll have their expenses to meet, and may begin to encourage the harvest of the resources they traffic in. They'll want there to be a regularly present supply, after all.