5 ms·

The comments on the corresponding Reddit thread suggest this shouldn't be trusted. Relevant comments include: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/4kct

by Zarel 10y ago

The comments on the corresponding Reddit thread suggest this shouldn't be trusted. Relevant comments include: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/4kctsl/blind_woman_sees_again_after_stem_cells_treatment/d3egavx https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/4kctsl/blind_wo... > This is an advertisement puff piece about a "treatment" that nobody believes to work. There's not even a plausible mechanism as to how a retro bulbar injection of mesenchymal stem cells could regenerate axons. It is the ophthalmology equivalent to "one weird trick to lose belly fat". https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/4kctsl/blind_woman_sees_again_after_stem_cells_treatment/d3e8l3g https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/4kctsl/blind_wo... > Weiss is not following the usual steps of clinical studies. Among other things, he didn't test his treatment theories first on lab animals or using computer models, or randomize his trials by using either stem cells or placebos in study participants. He didn't test the procedure for safety on a small group before moving to a larger trial.

tim333 10y ago
It seems to have worked for the girl in this case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVYi4sdEKeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVYi4sdEKeQ No one's claiming she's making it up as far as I can tell. I think it's a shame these kind of things aren't tried more.
- daveguy 10y ago
  You don't have to claim the girl is making it up for the result to be untrustworthy. There is a reason placebo controlled double blind trials are used in modern medicine. That amount of rigor is required to be certain that the observed effect wouldn't have just happened. People can get better because the human body is good at self-regulation. The placebo effect is also a real effect. The standard set for modern medicine is that the treatment must be better than the placebo effect.
  - tim333 10y ago
    In this case where she couldn't see for five years and then suddenly could after the stem cells it seems unlikely to be a placebo effect.
    - daveguy 10y ago
      Unlikely, but you still have an N=1. This is a case study, not proof of efficacy. It was an unknown ocular pressure that caused the blindness and could very well be an unknown and unrelated reaction that caused the recovery. Just because one event happens after another event does not mean one event caused the other. Very interesting, and worth attention and further study, but not proof.
icelancer 10y ago
The fact no one is following the usual steps of clinical studies doesn't mean the treatment is guaranteed to be quackery. Not saying he's a legit doctor but that criticism is a separate problem.
- gruez 10y ago
  But the parent comment never claimed that the treatment is guaranteed to be a quack, only that the claim shouldn't be trusted in it's current state. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. By not following proper procedures for the trial, that evidence isn't there.
  - icelancer 10y ago
    Someone going from "blind" to "not that blind" is definitely something worth investigating.
narrator 10y ago
There's a epistemology problem in modern science. There was a reddit AMA a while back about some guy who was paralyzed and got stem cell treatments in China and can walk now[1]. In the thread nobody believed him, especially all the people chiming in with lots of credentials. The thread is really sad. The rule seems to be, if the U.S gatekeepers didn't approve it, it doesn't exist, no matter the empirical evidence. Liz Parrish's gene therapy to increase her telomeres is another example of this. No matter how many labs measured her telomeres before and after, in some people's minds it's not science because it didn't go through the relevant gatekeepers. [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/k1hts/i_am_a_28yr_old_american_who_went_to_china_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/k1hts/i_am_a_28yr_old...
- raverbashing 10y ago
  > The rule seems to be, if the U.S gatekeepers didn't approve it, it doesn't exist, no matter the empirical evidence. This, as they say, they measure it by peer-review and empirical results. Which is fine if access to journals was easy enough for Chinese results to get everywhere. And don't make any mistake, the NIH syndrome is hard in science. Any paper from outside of US/Canada,Australia/NZ and Western Europe is more likely to become a cup holder than anything else
- zer00eyz 10y ago
  This list includes a few nobel prize winners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-experimentation_in_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-experimentation_in_medici... The fact that these folks driven to test on them selves is a fair indication of how bounded the box can be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Forssmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Forssmann and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall Are two great examples of folks going way out of the box to prove a point, and seeing reward for it.

by Zarel 10y ago

tim333 10y ago

It seems to have worked for the girl in this case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVYi4sdEKeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVYi4sdEKeQ No one's claiming she's making it up as far as I can tell. I think it's a shame these kind of things aren't tried more.

daveguy 10y ago
You don't have to claim the girl is making it up for the result to be untrustworthy. There is a reason placebo controlled double blind trials are used in modern medicine. That amount of rigor is required to be certain that the observed effect wouldn't have just happened. People can get better because the human body is good at self-regulation. The placebo effect is also a real effect. The standard set for modern medicine is that the treatment must be better than the placebo effect.
- tim333 10y ago
  In this case where she couldn't see for five years and then suddenly could after the stem cells it seems unlikely to be a placebo effect.
  - daveguy 10y ago
    Unlikely, but you still have an N=1. This is a case study, not proof of efficacy. It was an unknown ocular pressure that caused the blindness and could very well be an unknown and unrelated reaction that caused the recovery. Just because one event happens after another event does not mean one event caused the other. Very interesting, and worth attention and further study, but not proof.

icelancer 10y ago

The fact no one is following the usual steps of clinical studies doesn't mean the treatment is guaranteed to be quackery. Not saying he's a legit doctor but that criticism is a separate problem.

gruez 10y ago
But the parent comment never claimed that the treatment is guaranteed to be a quack, only that the claim shouldn't be trusted in it's current state. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. By not following proper procedures for the trial, that evidence isn't there.
- icelancer 10y ago
  Someone going from "blind" to "not that blind" is definitely something worth investigating.

narrator 10y ago

There's a epistemology problem in modern science. There was a reddit AMA a while back about some guy who was paralyzed and got stem cell treatments in China and can walk now[1]. In the thread nobody believed him, especially all the people chiming in with lots of credentials. The thread is really sad. The rule seems to be, if the U.S gatekeepers didn't approve it, it doesn't exist, no matter the empirical evidence. Liz Parrish's gene therapy to increase her telomeres is another example of this. No matter how many labs measured her telomeres before and after, in some people's minds it's not science because it didn't go through the relevant gatekeepers. [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/k1hts/i_am_a_28yr_old_american_who_went_to_china_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/k1hts/i_am_a_28yr_old...

raverbashing 10y ago
> The rule seems to be, if the U.S gatekeepers didn't approve it, it doesn't exist, no matter the empirical evidence. This, as they say, they measure it by peer-review and empirical results. Which is fine if access to journals was easy enough for Chinese results to get everywhere. And don't make any mistake, the NIH syndrome is hard in science. Any paper from outside of US/Canada,Australia/NZ and Western Europe is more likely to become a cup holder than anything else
zer00eyz 10y ago
This list includes a few nobel prize winners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-experimentation_in_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-experimentation_in_medici... The fact that these folks driven to test on them selves is a fair indication of how bounded the box can be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Forssmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Forssmann and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall Are two great examples of folks going way out of the box to prove a point, and seeing reward for it.