The Gene-Edited Pig Heart Given To a Dying Patient Was Infected With a Pig Virus (technologyreview.com) 45
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: The pig heart transplanted into an American patient earlier this year in a landmark operation carried a porcine virus that may have derailed the experiment and contributed to his death two months later, say transplant specialists. [...] In a statement released by the university in March, a spokesperson said there was "no obvious cause identified at the time of his death" and that a full report was pending. Now MIT Technology Review has learned that Bennett's heart was affected by porcine cytomegalovirus, a preventable infection that is linked to devastating effects on transplants.
The presence of the pig virus and the desperate efforts to defeat it were described by Griffith during a webinar streamed online by the American Society of Transplantation on April 20. The issue is now a subject of wide discussion among specialists, who think the infection was a potential contributor to Bennett's death and a possible reason why the heart did not last longer. The heart swap in Maryland was a major test of xenotransplantation, the process of moving tissues between species. But because the special pigs raised to provide organs are supposed to be virus-free, it now appears that the experiment was compromised by an unforced error. The biotechnology company that raised and engineered the pigs, Revivicor, declined to comment and has made no public statement about the virus. "It was surprising. That pig is supposed to be clean of all pig pathogens, and this is a significant one," says Mike Curtis, CEO of eGenesis, a competing company that is also breeding pigs for transplant organs. "Without the virus, would Mr. Bennett have lived? We don't know, but the infection didn't help. It likely contributed to the failure."
The presence of the pig virus and the desperate efforts to defeat it were described by Griffith during a webinar streamed online by the American Society of Transplantation on April 20. The issue is now a subject of wide discussion among specialists, who think the infection was a potential contributor to Bennett's death and a possible reason why the heart did not last longer. The heart swap in Maryland was a major test of xenotransplantation, the process of moving tissues between species. But because the special pigs raised to provide organs are supposed to be virus-free, it now appears that the experiment was compromised by an unforced error. The biotechnology company that raised and engineered the pigs, Revivicor, declined to comment and has made no public statement about the virus. "It was surprising. That pig is supposed to be clean of all pig pathogens, and this is a significant one," says Mike Curtis, CEO of eGenesis, a competing company that is also breeding pigs for transplant organs. "Without the virus, would Mr. Bennett have lived? We don't know, but the infection didn't help. It likely contributed to the failure."
Re:Some law firm will love this! (Score:5, Funny)
Unless the person signed a waver, you can bet there will be a lawsuit.
Totally would not have been asked to consent to a waiver. Who would even think of such a thing for such routine surgery?
Re: (Score:2)
Or experimental, you're gonna die if we don't, research surgery even.
Re: (Score:2)
It's basically the textbook example of a heroic measure [wikipedia.org]. Something you do knowing that you WILL cause a lot of trouble and has a very, very slim chance of success, but you also know if you don't do it, it's game over.
If you need a sports metaphor, you find it here [wikipedia.org].
Re: Some law firm will love this! (Score:2)
You'll die soon, but we have an untested procedure that might work.
So why not try a new procedure? There's nothing to lose.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So actually, they weren't extremely careful. They didn't use the most sensitive assay.
This is a stupid argument, because it comes down to what an entirely subjective word; "extremely," means to you. Therefore, it is false to claim they weren't extremely careful merely based on what the word means to you. Instead, you'd have to ask them if they agree. And if they disagree, you'd have to find something else to accuse them of, because they're subject-matter experts and you won't be able to disprove whatever their standard for "extreme care" would be.
And why would the standard for heroic care be
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the person signed a waver, you can bet there will be a lawsuit.
I have no idea where this quote is coming from as I can't find a post before this and the response that quotes it was correctly marked as "Funny", which it was, but I have a serious comment on this. I'm not a lawyer, but I have lots of friends who are. That means if you aren't a lawyer, I do probably know a lot more about how the law really works in the USA than you do.
This is what non-lawyers in America think:
Well, he signed a waiver, so he's screwed. Case closed. Can't sue. Can't be done.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, signing a waiver can mean absolutely nothing in terms of giving up your rights to sue. People ask others to sign them because non-lawyers don't know their rights, so they will assume it's "game over" once they sign. But you can still sue. Your lawyer will argue that you were compelled to sign under duress and had no choice about it and if that argument holds, the lawsuit is on.
Or argue that such terms are unconscionable in a contract of adhesion for whatever reason, or argue that no contract can waive liability if the other party broke the law or behaved in a grossly negligent manner, or....
The purpose of those sorts of waivers isn't to guarantee that the company can't be sued, but rather to make people believe that they gave up the right to sue so that they won't contact a lawyer in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to be they made him sign something that could pretty much summed up with "we'll do what we want and you will love it"?
pig-man can take the bus (Score:2)
Unless the person signed a waver, you can bet there will be a lawsuit.
I can't help but think the hospital bears some responsibility to compensate the other, still living "victim", of this horrendous, horrendous tragedy.
An experimental surgery patient plummeted tragically to his ultimate demise... and you greedily, callously try to profit from it.
Well, profit. I think you'll see from my Karma bonus modifier that I'm notreally profiting that much. The "Funny" Score might be a little high, but..
I assume this will still continue (Score:5, Insightful)
With a dozen people dying every day while waiting on a donor list (in the US along), I'm sure the industry could weather hundreds of deaths like this in the pursuit of a working solution. This will save thousands of lives worldwide as soon as they can get it to work consistently.
Re:I assume this will still continue (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody makes a mountain of loot from one-time, unsuccessful surgeries on critically ill patients. They only make mountains of loot if the intervention works well enough that it is (relatively) commonly used.
Re: (Score:1)
Revivicor has other experiments lined up, you can read about them. Companies can make a mountain of money on a series of failed experiments and investor hype and a trail of dead bodies.
You are very naiive.
Re: Pig virus (Score:2)
Sorry, useless link. Region blocked.
Other parts (Score:2)
I hope they did not waste the rest of the pig. Gene edited or not, it is still edible, isn't it?
Re: (Score:1)
I, for one... (Score:2, Insightful)
In the distant past, humans hunted & and ate wild pigs, because they had to for survival. Until killed, those wild pigs could move around freely. Then we moved onto pigs held in captivity, but often with some space to let pigs move around & 'enjoy life as a pig'. Then we moved on to industrial scale, farming pigs as if they'r
Re:I, for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
If yes, please explain why.
I can give the explanation. But I am neither endorsing it nor rejecting it.
Yes, most humans believe that they have a right to life which animals do not. They consider animals lesser beings, and as such a resource that can be harvested. Many recognize that animal suffering is real, so they go so far as to require the use of pain killers and compassionate (quick and non-torturous) slaughtering for experimentation and/or food harvesting, but that's pretty much it.
There is also religious precedent for this, as the great religions that primarily contributed to western culture (Christianity and Judaism) hold doctrinal positions that God set humans above the animals and allowed such use of animals. According to doctrine, humans have souls but animals do not. Done. There are a few specific sects that practice vegetarianism, but they are in the minority. Of course, this religious precedent means little to atheists, but they are still dwelling in the culture that has this ethical framework as its foundation, and are influenced by it.
Lastly, humans are predators (omnivores, properly, which has always included predation) so it is historically/evolutionarily natural for us to see animals primarily as food (and, by extension, as a means to our ends).
One last point about medical experimentation: since, according to this ethical framework, animals are resources that are free to be consumed by humans, it would be unethical to abstain from using animals to save human lives. Common ethics don't merely allow the use of animals for medical experimentation, they basically demand it.
So, that's why.
Obviously, you hold a different position on this issue. That's fine, I have no incentive to talk you out of it. But there isn't some sort of obvious hypocrisy or logical contradiction here, it's just that the most common set of values held in our culture specifically maintain that animals are resources, not equals.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you started your post with "most humans believe" rather than "the entire animal kingdom works like".
I have always been a great advocate for getting a hungry lion and letting it lose in the offices of PETA and seeing if the lion will afford the same "think of the animals" mentality towards their human counterparts.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't eat lettuce without sacrificing a bunch of animals. You may not know that, probably because you've never looked at the lettuce with a microscope. And if there aren't a bunch of little people living there, it's because somebody else already killed them.
These sort of broad moralisms were an interesting debate 2500 years ago, when Jain and Siddhartha disagreed over action vs intent, but the microscope completely destroys the claim that your actions can be other than to sacrifice creatures for your
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
So do you feel sorry for carnivorous animals when something bad happens to them? I mean, you've seen what they do .. right? Why would you feel empathy for a lion and not a human? The human is not allowed to be instinct driven is that it?
Re: (Score:2)
A sentence without meaning (Score:3, Interesting)
What a completely meaningless statement, in an information theoretical sense.
It's also true that without the transplant, the patient would probably not have lived very long either.
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of the first clinical use of the red-back spider bite anti-venom in Australia in the 70s. The doctor wrote in the medical report: "It didn't kill him, but it didn't do him any bloody good either".
It is all coming into clear view (Score:2)
Another piece of the puzzle of how Bill Gates plans to reduce world population to 500,000,000.
Re: (Score:3)
One thing for sure, people with your attitude won't fill that gap. Misanthropes aren't helpful.
bad ideas (Score:1)
Ignorant question (Score:2)
Is it a reasonable assumption that a human immune system would struggle to deal with a Xeno-originated virus, and that anti-rejection drugs would make it even worse?
I'm admittedly a layman here (Score:2)
But does this sort of thing sound like it has the potential to be the origin of another COVID species crossing/exposure virus to my fellow Slashdotters who know more on the subject?