Other treatment mentioned != the "treatment" these 3 ladies got. Those clinics are, for want of a better phrase, peddling stem cell snake oil.
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.
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.
>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?
THAT'S how you do "you don't really know whether it will work until you try it" on humans.
The clinic in Florida used a different type of cell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesenchymal_stem_cell These are far easier to obtain (centrifuge and wash liposuctioned fat -- voila!), but have more limited uses. They can become muscle, fat, bone, cartilage, and blood cells, among a few other things, and they help repair injury -- awesome stuff! They CANNOT become eye cells. We already know that. Do not inject them into your eyes. You will go blind. Those stem cells do not belong in eyes.
What the clinic did was tremendously irresponsible. This is not a matter of "someone has to be the first" There's just no evidence at all that this would work.
True. But not before scientific due diligence is performed. Animal studies, toxicology studies, efficacy studies, safety studies etc etc etc.
Not just injecting stem cells into old ladies eyes to see what happens and make some cash while doing so.
There is such a thing as medical experimentation under informed consent.
My reasons are that (as others have pointed out), one does not start medical trials on humans; I am unaware of any plausible reason for why this would help in the first place (stem cells are not magic); they apparently did not follow proper protocols for eye treatments (start with one eye instead of both); the women were clearly not informed of the risks; and finally, this was a paid treatment.
For more, see these two blog posts I pointed out in another comment: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alzheimers-and-... and http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/more-stem-cell-...
Not that any proper risk assessment existed in the first place.
That's very likely what these "doctors" were thinking.
I cannot identify any statement or section within the article where the journalist themselves makes a claim or assertion as to the validity of the treatment, but instead just numerous citations and reports from other agencies and persons who are qualified to comment on it.
Can you please clarify what you are discussing?
Any a layman could make it through?
It's safe to say a child could evaluate that blinding someone is an invalid outcome.
Sure, it only lasts a couple of years. But, when you are 80+ years old, that may be all you need.
My mother has macular degeneration and the only thing they even said was possible so far is injections with Eylea, Lucentis or Macugen.
I guess she manages currently, but it's interesting to see that there are other options
The headline is a bit misleading because the 3 ladies in question were already going blind. The treatment was supposed to reverse the disease but failed. You could write the same headline about other treatments that are considered safe enough to try: "3 patients killed by chemotherapy treatments that failed to eliminate their cancer."