FDA Warns Against Using Young Blood As Medical Treatment (cnn.com) 169
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Tuesday against using plasma infusions from young blood donors to ward off the effects of normal aging as well as other more serious conditions. Plasma, the liquid portion of the blood, contains proteins that help clot blood. The infusions are promoted to treat a variety of conditions, including normal aging and memory loss as well as serious conditions such as dementia, multiple sclerosis, heart disease and post-traumatic stress disorder.
"There is no proven clinical benefit of infusion of plasma from young donors to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent these conditions, and there are risks associated with the use of any plasma product," FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb wrote in a statement Tuesday. "The reported uses of these products should not be assumed to be safe or effective," he added, noting that the FDA "strongly" discourages consumers from using this therapy "outside of clinical trials under appropriate institutional review board and regulatory oversight." Gottlieb said that "a growing number of clinics" are offering plasma from young donors and similar therapies, though he did not name any in particular.
"There is no proven clinical benefit of infusion of plasma from young donors to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent these conditions, and there are risks associated with the use of any plasma product," FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb wrote in a statement Tuesday. "The reported uses of these products should not be assumed to be safe or effective," he added, noting that the FDA "strongly" discourages consumers from using this therapy "outside of clinical trials under appropriate institutional review board and regulatory oversight." Gottlieb said that "a growing number of clinics" are offering plasma from young donors and similar therapies, though he did not name any in particular.
yay cheaper young blood for me (Score:2, Funny)
Hopefully this will lower young blood prices, been awhile since I've had a good drink.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully this will lower young blood prices
A drop in plasma prices is not a good thing. If billionaires like Peter Thiel [vanityfair.com] pay even less to their penurious blood boys, that just increases income inequality in America.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why it tends to be frowned upon is that a lot of people would sell parts without understanding the long term consequences. I donate blood regularly. Most of the time it is a non issue, sometimes I am worn out for a day or two. I understand that and plan for it. However for others doing it for money may give too much, and if they are doing to pay for drugs the lack of blood makes it worse. And the blood may not be donatible.
Re:yay cheaper young blood for me (Score:5, Insightful)
a medically unnecessary waste of precious lifesaving bodily tissues...
This is just silly. There is no shortage of plasma. There is only a shortage of incentives for people to donate. If Peter stops his injections, it is not like that plasma is going to someone else.
paying blood donors should be illegal anyway.
Blood donors are not paid. Plasma donors are.
Payments for plasma are illegal in most of Europe. The obvious result is that they buy plasma from America where it comes from paid donors. America is, by far, the world's biggest plasma exporter.
Lesson from economics 101: Incentives work.
Re: (Score:2)
Marketing speak for there's a plasma shortage.
1. There is no shortage of plasma. I don't know why you think there is.
2. If there is a shortage, the obvious and immediate fix is to raise the price.
Merchandising your body parts has bigger problems than simple income inequality
"Body parts"? Selling plasma is little different than selling urine. Donating is harmless.
Re: (Score:3)
2. If there is a shortage, the obvious and immediate fix is to raise the price.
That's no good, when the product's primarily donated to save lives, .
and the people who need it need it or they'll die --- and either Insurance will absorb whatever the cost was, or they can't afford it, because a unit of the donated plasma costs multiple thousands of $$$
The rich folks, however, who are willing to plunk down $10k to try it as a new aging fix, on the other hand, aren't going to be affected much by a price
Re: (Score:3)
a unit of the donated plasma costs multiple thousands of $$$ .
A donor typically gets paid about $50. So 95% of that cost is due to other factors.
The only result of paying donors is WAY more plasma available. Enough so that America can supply much of the world.
Europe's ban on payments is idiotic. They do it on health grounds, because supposedly "free" plasma is healthier (based on no evidence), but they get so few donors, that they end up buying plasma from paid donors in America. How does that make any sense?
Re: yay cheaper young blood for me (Score:1)
In the US, you might get $50 for each of your first few "donations", but it quickly drops to $20 - 25 after the new donor bonuses run out. Oh, and a free Gatorade. By law, you're limited to two bleedings per week.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Europe's ban on payments is idiotic.
There is no ban in Europe. How do you come to that retarded idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Want mine? Open your checkbook. I don't buy in to your communistic approach to products (plasma) that I generate with my body.
Especially since there are companies making good money on selling blood and plasma. It's only reasonable if the actual donor gets a cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad. Obviously if there's a shortage you need to convince more people to offer up plasma..
Well... I do have an idea.. Plasma Taxation. Simple:
Attach some essential privileges like maintaining a driver's license to donating at least 1 unit of blood once per year, or 1 unit of plasma at least once every 3 years.
Don't want to donate? Fine. But you cannot have a driver's license, and X other privileges,
unless you can show a proven medical reason that makes you ineligible to donate blood/plasma.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you'd rather use the full force of government against them and until you force them
No such thing.... I am not suggesting forcing them in any way, and we're not talking about preventing access to any essential things, or any essential liberties even so important as food, water, etc.
My proposal would not run afoul of anything like the US Constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc. There is nothing any more communist or authoritarian than that I suggested than what the state already does
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're running around with your holier-than-thou bullshit and
Nope. I've presented a logical more-efficient option than what the US is currently doing. Incentivize donations by attaching some desirable privileges, instead of by burning cash.
On the other hand... You have failed to present a single reasonable argument.
Your posts consist primarily of name-calling and Ad Hominem attacks. That is what we call abusive behavior: that is your inability to participate in a civil discussion and reason about
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're offering to strip away liberty. Our current system removes drivers licenses from people who commit crimes or have advanced in age to the point they can't safely drive anymore
No... Our current system also denies driver's licenses to MANY other people, showing it is definitely considered a privilege, not a basic liberty, including: Don't have or won't provide a permanent residential street address (people who don't own or rent a house or apartment) -- having PO Box is not sufficient; people who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Body parts"? Selling plasma is little different than selling urine. Donating is harmless.
It is not.
You get hit by a truck the moment after donating, or a few days later, you wished you had not donated.
Re: yay cheaper young blood for me (Score:2)
Wow you're a moron. Plasma donation involves time, wnergy, and a minor risk to the donator. As such, without incentives, not nearly as many people would donate. Economics 101. As an aside, did you attend the same econ courses as AOC?
Re: (Score:1)
"Plasma donation involves time, wnergy, and a minor risk to the donator." That's mostly bullshit. I donate both blood and platelets, the latter takes about 15 minutes longer or so. Overdraw risk is comparable either way.
It's no more painful or risky or anything like that. Almost entirely bullshit. And because they need plasma at such a clip and lightly encourage that, I give plasma mostly now. For free of course. Paying for tissues is sick.
Besides, you really think the people who need $30 to live an
Re: (Score:2)
There's all kinds of risks in taking just anyone's blood products.
For blood, yes. For plasma, no.
Blood is alive, and can harbor diseases. Plasma has no living tissue, and is sterilized before infusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Plasma has no living tissue, and is sterilized before infusion.
That is double wrong.
It is not sterilized, what would be the point of that?
And yes it has living "tissue", otherwise it would be completely pointless to donate and infuse it. E.g. thrombocytes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Plasma donation involves time, wnergy, and a minor risk to the donator." That's mostly bullshit. I donate both blood and platelets, the latter takes about 15 minutes longer or so. Overdraw risk is comparable either way. It's no more painful or risky or anything like that. Almost entirely bullshit. And because they need plasma at such a clip and lightly encourage that, I give plasma mostly now. For free of course. Paying for tissues is sick.
Besides, you really think the people who need $30 to live and feed themselves are taking proper care of their plasma? There's all kinds of risks in taking just anyone's blood products. Frankly the screening is inadequate. Paying people doesn't solve that problem either. It just incentivizes the lowest agency of society to be your almost exclusive donor pool.
The cost and scarcity will increase until artificial blood is a reality, and we're a pretty long way from that as a viable long-term option. So give if you care and are healthy and if you need $30... get a job? Selling blood is a ridiculously bad idea all around even given the small artificial boost advertising a small financial incentive brings. Which is why most civilized places ban that. YMMV.
Economics 102, it doesn't stop at 101 derp.
I'm with the other guy, if you want my blood or plasma or whatever then show me the cash. I'm not dragging myself down to where ever and going through that for a warm fuzzy.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Payments for plasma are illegal in most of Europe.
That is nonsense.
Blood donors are not paid. Plasma donors are.
While it is still called "donation", all donors are payed. About 25EURO per donation.
And "blood donors" get a slightly higher pay, but can only donate about every 6 weeks, while plasma donors can donate more often (I believe 4 weeks).
Re: (Score:1)
Why is it that a lot of rich old men seem to be unnaturally interested in the fluids of young teenage boys?
Especially those on the Religious Right. The more they preach Jesus and Moral Values, the more likely they are to have an interest in these young boys. Injecting their blood is one of the least perverse things these guys are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully this will lower young blood prices
A drop in plasma prices is not a good thing. If billionaires like Peter Thiel [vanityfair.com] pay even less to their penurious blood boys, that just increases income inequality in America.
Just seems like a good way to get yourself aids or hepatitis or god knows what other disease if you ask me.
what next (Score:4, Funny)
Government needs to keep their nose out of my business. What next, are they going to tell me I shouldn't eat the hearts of my enemies to gain their powers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the government should supply free cocaine to the masses.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's what America needs. More self-righteous, overconfident narcissists.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the FDA is this quick to be adamantly against it, then it must be something good and beneficial.
Their opposition is actually pretty wishy-washy. They say the benefits "aren't proven", but there haven't been any rigorous clinical trials, so that is at best a neutral statement. Meanwhile, there are several animal trials that showed a clear benefit to the transfusions.
Re: (Score:1)
" but there haven't been any rigorous clinical trials" You didn't even look at all, stop asserting bullshit moron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_blood_transfusion
In experiments like this, researchers found that some of these mice died quickly (11 out of 69 in one experiment) for reasons the scientists could not explain, but described as possibly some form of rejection.[1] Amy Wagers, a researcher who coauthored several mouse studies on young blood transfusion, has said that her papers do not provid
Re: (Score:2)
Considering those Wikipedia references are a blog saying parabiotic effects are really interesting, but there's no evidence in humans, maybe in 10 or 20 years, and a review/opinion article with the title "Younger blood from older donors: Admitting ignorance and seeking stronger data and clinical trials" I think your response "stop asserting bullshit moron" might be a little bit too strong?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When my mom was Stage 3-4+ with metatstatic breast cancer, she got a few blood transfusions. It was like the equivalent of a video game med pack. She had so much more energy and vitality, it was like a glimpse of her when she wasn't sick.
I think the last 2 we even requested within about 4-6 weeks of her death so she could attend a couple of last hurrahs with the extended family and not just be a total zombie.
I think this might have been whole blood and not just plasma, though.
Risks (Score:2, Insightful)
>" FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb wrote in a [statement] Tuesday. "
At this time, that link for the statement is broken.
Do be warned- there are, indeed, serious risks with infusing foreign blood. All kinds of blood-borne diseases can be transmitted, as well risk of injection site infections. You can also have severe allergic or other auto-immune reactions. At those *crazy* costs ($8k for just a single treatment of 1 liter), one would think you would be blood typed matched carefully to blood produc
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I suffered terrible Anemia a couple of years back due to an undiagnosed internal hemorage from an ulcer. Twice I had been taken in , in a stretcher, and twice I refused blood infusions and went for the iron infusion instead (Which actually work really well).
In my view the risks just where not worth it. If the Anemia was much worse, I might not have had a choice in it, but at that point I was still within range that an Iron infusion was sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
there are, indeed, serious risks with infusing foreign blood.
They aren't infusing blood, just plasma.
All kinds of blood-borne diseases can be transmitted
... from blood. Not from plasma.
Re:Risks (Score:4, Interesting)
Plasma is the stuff in blood that's not red blood cells. It's basically everything else other than the oxygen bearing red cells, this includes minerals, salts, proteins, sugars and vitamins along with blood clotting factors anti-bodies and a ton of other stuff. Any blood born pathogens are in the plasma, NOT in the red blood cells themselves (you can count on one hand the number of pathogens that could be inside a red blood cell).
The plasma is also the area where things like antibodies and immune system components are contained. Usually the centrifuge that removes the red blood cells also takes the white cells out too but the risk of a allergic reaction is still high because of all the other components that are unique to the person that generated the plasma.
Apparently you are under the misguided impression that the red blood cells are the only thing in blood and that is where pathogens are. This is not the case, red blood cells have pretty much a single purpose and that's to move oxygen. Everything else is moved in the plasma surrounding the blood cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the virus. That gift that keeps on giving.
Re: (Score:2)
Frequent transfusions have been proven to give you iron overload at least, and the iron chelation pills are nasty pieces of shit. Wish it made my dad young again, but all they do is keep his anemia under control. Anemia I suspect is related to blood shock he got from a transfusion after surgery.
People are playing with fire.
What the hell is going on the world? (Score:5, Insightful)
One ridiculous medical quack cure after another, this one is from the *middle ages*, for God's sake.
Eat from the food pyramid, get some exercise, take medicine only when necessary, and you will maximize your chances.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a brave new world, no doubt.
Re: (Score:1)
Umm...this treatment has recently been proven to work. I can't be bothered looking it up but it's not hard to find.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm...this treatment has recently been proven to work. I can't be bothered looking it up but it's not hard to find.
When you make a claim at odds with the main point of the article which is cited and comes from a reputable source the onus is on you to provide a citation. Not doing so make you look like a pointless twat.
Why did you even post?
Re: (Score:2)
One ridiculous medical quack cure after another, this one is from the *middle ages*, for God's sake.
Except they tried it on lab rodents and it seems to work very well.
Researchers are now trying to figure out what blood components are involved, to see if the gain can be had with synthetic compounds rather than whole plasma transfusions, and whether any of them will work on humans.
Eat from the food pyramid, get some exercise, take medicine only when necessary, and you will maximize your chances.
Wrong. The fo
Not really surprising (Score:3)
Modern social media is a way for the clueless masses to quickly spread (mis)information via word of mouth.
During the interim period, we had broadcasting - a few people communicating to many, via books, newspapers, radio, and finally TV. These forms of communication cost money, so they were only available to people or organizations willing and able to pay for it. That meant what they were saying usually had
Re: food pyramid was wrong (Score:1)
The food pyramid we all learned in the 80s is totally wrong because it puts too much emphasis on grains / carbs.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this one is from Methuselah's Children, by Robert A. Heinlein.
Re:What the hell is going on the world? (Score:4, Interesting)
So the traditional food pyramid is actually a lot more bunk then people realise, but also you can say that without being the worst kind of creature on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
"Eat from the food pyramid," - Ok, so that's an instant fail.
You do know they nominally fixed the food pyramid before moving on to a circular "plate", yeah? It was no longer based on shotgunning carbohydrates, although it was ludicrously fat-averse.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbohydrates is exactly what you need if you work for a living.
Overly simplistic. You need carbs throughout the day for ready energy, fats for long term energy, and protein in between. Hence the idea of a balanced diet. The old school food pyramid was maybe suitable for farm workers, but most of us aren't one of those.
Re: (Score:1)
Carbohydrates is exactly what you need if you work for a living.
If you sit on your ass like an accountant then sure you have eat roast chicken every day, and possibly afford it.
A balance is what you need, regardless of how you work.
The Mexicans who pick our produce work harder than almost any of us, and they also have horrible problems with weight and diabetes (higher than the national average) because their diets are chock full of beans, rice, soda, and other things carb-heavy. Carbs are cheap, though, cheaper than quality vegetables.
I couldn't agree more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The other angle (Score:5, Funny)
I take geezer blood. I can kick kids off my lawn so fast now they're dizzy when they land. And my COBOL coding is faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, do I have a product for you!
Re: (Score:2)
Then replace her with something young and you'll see the problem disappear.
It's Safe (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What of the donor safety?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for the endorsement, Mr Cheney
Hemochromatosis (Score:4, Interesting)
If folks really find this 'treatment' beneficial, find someone with hemochromatosis, and offer them a low payment for regular donation.
For those that don't know, it's a condition where a persons gut is sort of out-of-control in terms of how much iron it absorbs, leading to a slight excess of iron. This slight extra iron can build up to unsafe levels if not removed for several decades- and the most convenient option for removal is simple: Draining about a blood donation worth of blood twice a week, until the levels are 'normal', then less frequently to maintain.
The body replaces the blood just fine, and the blood is perfectly find for almost every use, since a slightly elevated iron level is rarely an issue for 99% of cases.
Unfortunately, lots of blood organizations refuse to draw blood from folks with this condition for free - and want to charge for the regular blood donation as 'treatment' - and will even pour the blood out rather than use it to help anyone, with no clear reason other than unmentioned greed as motivations.
So, if this 'treatment' becomes fashion, then I hope it leads to a less crazy situation for folks with that condition - though it is still crazy to use blood this way too. Perhaps in this case, two crazy situations make a sane result?
Ryan Fenton
Is it just me (Score:2)
Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like the sort of comically evil plot Montgomery Burns might try, sending Smithers to tap kids' arms while they sleep?
Simpsons Did It (Score:4, Informative)
Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like the sort of comically evil plot Montgomery Burns might try, sending Smithers to tap kids' arms while they sleep?
You're probably subconsciously thinking of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Feud_(The_Simpsons) [wikipedia.org]
This is just silly (Score:4, Funny)
Plasma infusions don't make you youthful. For that, you have to drink the blood while it's still warm, fresh from the source.
Doing so might make you very sensitive to sunlight, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Correction: it makes you a politician.
If you don't like politics you can always go and work in Disney's legal department.
Re: (Score:3)
You can tell by where the word comes from, politics, as in poly, greek for many and tics, as in little bloodsucking critters.
(yes. It is a joke. A bad one. I know. Don't make me whoosh you!)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but reheated blood is kinda yucky. And it gets that skin like cheap soup.
The 19th century just called! (Score:2)
I don't know . . . (Score:3)
It definitely worked for the Skeksis.
Fuck FDA ... (Score:2)
... either ban the practice or shut the fuck up.
Get your Vampire on (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How many people will die of old age before research into preventing aging becomes legal?
Oh vanity of vanities - you want to live forever and you want to have children too. What could possibly go wrong? You should be content that you can now live almost twice as long as most people did in the middle ages.
Right now all medical research is banned, unless it is to prevent or cure a disease, and aging doesn't count.
This is simply not true. Life extension research exists and is carried out by Harvard and UCLA to name a few.
Re: (Score:2)
The fun bit is where they reject science because it supposedly tries to force them how and what to think instead of allowing freedom to think for themselves, then they turn around and parrot the same bullshit (usually even verbatim) they hear somewhere else.
I'm dead serious, if I had a buck for every flattard talking about how "water always finds its level", usually EXACTLY with these words, I could buy Apple.
Re: (Score:1)
It sounds like a reasonably Modest Proposal to solve the overpopulation problem as well.