5 ms·

> Somebody has to be first to get a treatment. You don't really know whether it will work until you try it. Also mentioned in the article are the cases where tr

by tbrake 10y ago

> Somebody has to be first to get a treatment. You don't really know whether it will work until you try it. Also mentioned in the article are the cases where treatments worked as they were supposed to or better. Other treatment mentioned != the "treatment" these 3 ladies got. Those clinics are, for want of a better phrase, peddling stem cell snake oil.

kobeya 10y ago
First point doesn't contradict what I said. Your second point is unsubstantiated. Nothing in medical science is absolutely certain beforehand. Sometimes we have good reason to think a treatment might work, but it fails upon trial. That is learning from a negative result, not peddling snake oil.
- lawless123 10y ago
  >Nothing in medical science is absolutely certain beforehand. >In one report, researchers document the cases of three elderly women who were blinded after getting stem cells derived from fat tissue at a for-profit clinic in Florida. The treatment was marketed as a treatment for macular degeneration, the most common cause of blindness among the elderly. Each woman got cells injected into both eyes. This doesn't sound like an experiment however, it sounds like they told these women it was a valid tested treatment. Why else would they get both eyes done simultaneously?
- Retric 10y ago
  We don't do procedures in both eyes at the same time for many very good reasons.
- tbrake 10y ago
  > Your second point is unsubstantiated They're touting the use of adult stem cells [edit: from a separate source in the body] which have never been shown to provide the kind of results that embryonic stem cells have. That is snake oil. At best it wouldn't have made anything worse but also not made anything better. When your best case scenario is "you won't be any worse off than you started" you lose the right to call that a treatment. Of course I somehow doubt it was explained to those women that way. > Sometimes we have good reason to think a treatment might work, but it fails upon trial. Given the nature of the source of the stem cells, no one would have had good reason to expect this to work.
  - chroem- 10y ago
    >They're touting the use of adult stem cells which have never been shown to provide the kind of results that embryonic stem cells have Actually that is false. As someone who is currently losing their eyesight due to retinal degeneration (and in their 20's no less), I've done quite a bit of reading on this subject. Most of the stem cell treatments and gene therapy that I've seen rely on the patient's own cell cultures in order to prevent autoimmune rejection. Normally the retina has immune privilege, but as it breaks down it becomes vulnerable to attack by the immune system, which adds an extra level of complication. Honestly, this whole thread has me pretty worried that I might be cut off from access to experimental treatments just because they're not guaranteed. I know you all mean well, but going blind with your whole life ahead of you and no treatment whatsoever is a really scary thing. These women made a fair trade, and honestly I would accept the same risks that they did. Having a chance at not being blind is better than for sure going blind.

by tbrake 10y ago

kobeya 10y ago

First point doesn't contradict what I said. Your second point is unsubstantiated. Nothing in medical science is absolutely certain beforehand. Sometimes we have good reason to think a treatment might work, but it fails upon trial. That is learning from a negative result, not peddling snake oil.

lawless123 10y ago
>Nothing in medical science is absolutely certain beforehand. >In one report, researchers document the cases of three elderly women who were blinded after getting stem cells derived from fat tissue at a for-profit clinic in Florida. The treatment was marketed as a treatment for macular degeneration, the most common cause of blindness among the elderly. Each woman got cells injected into both eyes. This doesn't sound like an experiment however, it sounds like they told these women it was a valid tested treatment. Why else would they get both eyes done simultaneously?
Retric 10y ago
We don't do procedures in both eyes at the same time for many very good reasons.
tbrake 10y ago
> Your second point is unsubstantiated They're touting the use of adult stem cells [edit: from a separate source in the body] which have never been shown to provide the kind of results that embryonic stem cells have. That is snake oil. At best it wouldn't have made anything worse but also not made anything better. When your best case scenario is "you won't be any worse off than you started" you lose the right to call that a treatment. Of course I somehow doubt it was explained to those women that way. > Sometimes we have good reason to think a treatment might work, but it fails upon trial. Given the nature of the source of the stem cells, no one would have had good reason to expect this to work.
- chroem- 10y ago
  >They're touting the use of adult stem cells which have never been shown to provide the kind of results that embryonic stem cells have Actually that is false. As someone who is currently losing their eyesight due to retinal degeneration (and in their 20's no less), I've done quite a bit of reading on this subject. Most of the stem cell treatments and gene therapy that I've seen rely on the patient's own cell cultures in order to prevent autoimmune rejection. Normally the retina has immune privilege, but as it breaks down it becomes vulnerable to attack by the immune system, which adds an extra level of complication. Honestly, this whole thread has me pretty worried that I might be cut off from access to experimental treatments just because they're not guaranteed. I know you all mean well, but going blind with your whole life ahead of you and no treatment whatsoever is a really scary thing. These women made a fair trade, and honestly I would accept the same risks that they did. Having a chance at not being blind is better than for sure going blind.