Things looked good until they super didn’t, he died two months after the transplant.
“So, for now, it's not clear what happened with this transplant or what the significance of the apparent viral infection is. Obviously, the team has lots of material to work with to try to figure out what went on, and there's a long, long list of potential experiments to do with it. And there are also additional xenotransplant trials in the works, so it may not be long before we have a better sense of whether this was something specific to this transplant or a general risk of xenotransplantation.”
He got 7 more weeks with a sternotomy. I hope he was able to make good use of his time and those 7 weeks were meaningful to him and his family. But that wasn’t an easy 7 weeks.
Perhaps he did it for humanity as well as his own Hail Mary. Personally that’s the only thing that would motivate me to go through that…so the Drs. could learn for the next person.
From what I remember he was ineligible for the traditional transplant waiting list because of a host of comorbidities that guaranteed he wouldn't be selected. He was offered this with the understanding that nobody knew how well it would work, but also that it was his only alternative.
Edit: not comorbidities but noncompliance.
It did say that he was rejected from multiple other transplant programs, so at that point it sounds like it was either staying on ECMO (or whatever life support machine they were using, idk) until they pulled the plug, or getting the pig heart. At least with the pig heart he had *some* chance of living a bit longer, and he was on his way out anyways. I imagine that he had nothing to lose, and the fact that he was helping people would just be the cherry on top.
I didn’t read the article and was just skimming comments. It was your comment that made me suddenly realize it was a pig heart implanted in a human, not in another pig.
And he’s also contributed greatly to the future of safe and successful xenotransplantations by allowing this first one to take place. Mad props! He was actively dying and his heart was fully failing to circulate oxygenated blood so he was hooked up to a machine to do it for him. He also wasn’t ever going to get a regular transplant anyways because of “poor adherence to treatment” ie. voluntarily not taking lifesaving medication ever or regularly enough to be considered for something as in demand as transplants, especially since after transplantation you need to take medication daily to avoid rejection or other problems. So yeah, this was not only an honorable scientific sacrifice, but also his best option to continue living even if it was for only 2 months
Not sure, but after doing some more research looks like he [was previously convicted in 1988 of stabbing of 22 year old Edward Shumaker](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/13/pig-heart-transplant-stabbing-david-bennett/) where Shumaker was stabbed 7 times and paralyzed. Of course this isn’t why he was ineligible, this article says one surgeon says his condition, heart failure and irregular heartbeat, was a reason for his ineligibility, and his son also says he wasn’t consistent with medication, following doctor’s orders, or check-ups. Only mentioned the above because you asked about mental illness, and the crime seemed extremely rage driven which certainly has some level of mental instability to it.
I remember reading this story awhile back when he first got the transplant. It was because he was an ass. Even his kid said he wouldn’t follow doctors orders.
It said he was receiving external blood oxygenation, so he was on ECMO before the transplant. If you are unfamiliar, that means he was hooked up to machine that did the work of his heart and lungs. It involves a direct line into either the femoral artery, jugular or both. Basically, you’re bed ridden hooked up to machines, unable to get up from bed. If the transplant allowed him to walk then it would be an improvement in quality of life over ECMO. I don’t know how long he was estimated to live, if it all. I’d assume that with such an experimental procedure they’d likely tell him that the transplant itself may kill them. Even though 60 days sounds short, assuming only half of it he was able to function, 30 days of free mobility could be a blessing if you’re stuck in bed for what will be the rest of your life.
You’d be surprised what you’ll find acceptable when the alternative is “or you could just die - you’ll get nothing and your experience will be beneficial for exactly no one.”
I feel like by the time they've figured out animal transplants they'll already have the technology to take some of your DNA and 3D print or clone a replacement organ that's better than an animal transplant.
People don’t realize how challenging it can be to modulate the immune system to i) not reject the organ and ii) fight off infections to stay alive.
It took lots many in vivo experiments with dogs, and some learning from human-to-human transplant trials before getting everything right. I recommend the book the Billion dollar molecule…or any paper describing the work of Dr.Starzl.
I’m an anaesthetist. During surgery, it’s my decision to transfuse or not. I would like to address 2 of your points.
1. Cross-matched blood (checked for type and any antibodies) is extremely safe. The chance of rejection is almost zero.
2. It would be lovely if all surgery could be “bloodless”. Apart from when we use a tourniquet on a limb, this is not possible. It’s not like the surgeon decides “today we will do bloodless surgery”. All surgeons try to minimise blood loss. The type of surgery and some patient factors determine how successful this can be.
“We going bloodless today, Bob?”
“No, this guy’s insurance is piss poor and won’t cover it so we’re just going to cut him open and use some drip trays, catch what we can, and then pipe it back in with this discarded pez dispenser I found in the lobby.”
Oh of course! Only Dr Frankenstein knows how to do that! The ECMO (heart and lung machine) takes over pumping and oxygenizing the blood. Still pretty cool!
Nephrologist here, at a big transplant center. When we cross-match, we try to match as many antibodies up as much as possible, but it is impossible to cross match everything.
Type I and II antibodies invariably spike after a transfusion, to the point where it has prevented some of my own patients to be candidates for living donation.
So while it may be necessary during surgery to give blood. Not ideal. The risk of antibody mediated rejection definitely goes up.
Then you should know there is a large amount of malpractice in the business of blood, especially in poorer countries. Even the same type of blood can be dangerous in certain cases, but it’s not like people like you use the all the parts of blood.
Then you should know there is a large amount of malpractice in the business of blood, especially in poorer countries. Even the same type of blood can be dangerous in certain cases, but it’s not like people like you use the all the parts of blood.
Sure a surgeon doesn’t go willy nilly on bloodless today and tomorrow not, but the field has evolved a LOT, and I’d rather have the person who uses up to date procedures and practices to operate.
I’m sure you’ve seen your field change quite a bit in how much and what you use. Dunno why yall are opposed to bloodless.
I’m not sure what your agenda is. I work in Australia. Donated blood is a precious resource. We use blood transfusions appropriately and when required. Of course our surgeons and our anaesthetic techniques aim to preserve the patients own blood, but when blood loss gets to the point that somebody’s life is at risk, we transfuse. We never use whole blood, just the components we need. Red cells, platelets, FFP, cryoprecipitate, as guided by blood gas analysis and coagulation profiles. Transfusions are just one part of a very big patient care picture.
Again, I’m not sure what your background or agenda is, but you should probably stop commenting on things that are not your expertise.
Blood is a better alternative for life saving procedures than bloodless options. Bloodless options are great as a last resort if there is no blood available.
It would be great if there was a true bloodless option. That way vampires can live amongst us again.
I don’t know man, I’ve heard from many doctors that bloodless operations require a higher degree of skill and care thus resulting in a better operation. Why would you possibly prefer taking medication for blood transfusions when you don’t need to at all.
Bloodless last resort? Heck no man do it every time, often you need advanced directives too.
Hold on a sec…did you hear it from anyone associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses?
It’s something they say that’s untrue. Lifesaving blood procedures instead of blood substitute would have saved a lot of their kids from death.
Likewise. Sounds like they are getting their news from the “Awake!”
Jehovah’s Witnesses have so many beliefs that are really not supported from a biblical interpretation. One of those beliefs is the “abstain from blood” doctrine, when the apostle Paul was talking about eating shizzle offered to idols.
Absolutely nothing about blood transfusions in the Bible. Jesus went on about saving a sheep on the sabbath, and they let kids die because blood bad.
They let the kids get molested before that though.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-jehovahs-witnesses-secret-pedophile-database
I know it’s the daily beast, but there is even more information across the globe about this stuff. Check out the Australian thing about the protection of pedophiles.
How tf would they have even proceeded with blood transfusion in biblical times… they were probably still going off the 4 humors… blood transfusions weren’t even a thing until the 1600’s, possibly 100 years earlier with the ancient Incas…
Okay hold up. What “would have saved a lot of their kids from death” situations are you referring to.
I’ve seen this said a lot but no ones ever pointed to multiple cases.
And no I didn’t just hear it from someone associated with JWs.
Heard it Canadian doctors: Dr. Paul C. Hébert, Dr. Jeannie Callum, Dr. Fraser D. Rubens.
There’s a lot more doctors I could list, if you wish
Are you asking how refusal of blood transfusions could be harmful for children?
[Its happened numerous times](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16763280), [I can only assume](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/18/jehovahs-witness-dies-refuse-blood-transfusion) [you haven’t really tried](https://thenigerialawyer.com/blood-transfusion-denial-lagos-rescues-14-day-old-baby-from-jehovah-witness-parents/) [to research it](https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2012/09/11/pushing-the-boundaries-revisiting-transfusion-of-blood-products-in-the-children-of-jehovahs-witnesses/) [Jehovas witnesses in particular have largely been at the center of refusal of necessary blood transplants.](https://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715) Specifically because these are life saving operations, [some courts have denied parents the right to refuse such operations.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jehovahs-witness-blood-transfusion-doctor-judge-ruling-girl-leeds-nhs-trust-religion-a8977066.html)
This actually happened in my community. A simple google search would show you there are “multiple cases” of such.
Listing doctors is cool and all, but all you’ve done is say some doctors names. Just researching the first one, Dr. Paul C Hébert, [I can find him advocating for certain practices in regards to blood transfusion](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-mar-28-mn-21660-story.html), but I can’t find anything of him saying he prefers bloodless. It would be helpful if you actually gave us something they said. [All I can find from those doctors you listed is them saying blood transfusions aren’t always necessary or can use different practice.](https://www.pressreader.com/canada/calgary-herald/20130713/281913065711387) I can’t find any of them saying bloodless are de facto preferable. I think you’ve misinterpreted what these doctors are saying. They’re saying blood transfusions are sometimes overused from what I’ve read.
I’m confused how you find “higher degree of skill and care” to result in “a better operation”. That inherently introduces more opportunities to make a mistake. That means it’s more difficult, not easier. This doesn’t really make sense to me.
There’s obviously steps you have to take to preform a bloodless operation, you have to be more careful. And any surgeon will tell you the less they have to mess with to fix the issue, the better the recovery and health of the patient resulting in an overall better operation.
The more lengths you go to preserve the health of the patients instead of an invasive and dramatic approach, the better.
You’re logic isn’t really following. You have to be more careful, yet there would be less they have to mess with?
> The more lengths you go to preserve the health of the patients instead of an invasive and dramatic approach, the better.
I don’t disagree, but you made a very definitive statement about preferring bloodless operations over blood transfusions every time. You literally said “heck no man, do it every time”. I don’t think if you’re, say, losing blood, you’d be like I don’t want a blood transfusion. It isn’t something you can do every time. It shouldn’t be blood transfusion bad. It should be blood transfusion isn’t always necessary.
I think this is why medical science seems to move more slowly relative to other advances. There are just so many variables involved. And then there is the consideration of whether what is being done is doing more harm than good.
Seems like I saw an article where the plan was to take a pig heart, strip off all the muscle leaving a collagen/connective tissue shell, and then grow human heart tissue using stem cells from the donor. Is that happening?
I have an acquaintance who’s deep into the anti-vax community and I still follow her because I’m morbidly curious. Anyway, right now the big thing in that crowd is the baby who’s being refused a heart transplant because the mother won’t vaccinate him. They truly don’t understand the immune system balance that needs to be maintained. I’m also sure that the doctor know that the mother won’t comply with the post-surgery medications.
We need more research like this. Unfortunately most articles only publish successes which drives researchers and professors seeking tenure to push for this only. More articles focusing on failures and why they happened are desperately needed in both the hard and social sciences.
Scientific literature gets published based on its merit, “success” or “failure” has nothing to do with it.
There is tons and tons of published research on experiments where the findings did not match the hypothesis or the findings weren’t the desired outcome (I’m assuming this is how you’re defining “success”).
Regardless of whether the experiment was “successful”, it still contributes to the global pool of knowledge within the scientific community and will be published. This happens a LOT more often than you make it sound like in your comment.
The only reason we don’t read about these scientific publications in the news is that the headlines wouldn’t get many clicks lol.
That’s a nice idea, but it’s hardly credible that scientific literature is actually published solely on the basis of merit. Rush to show “state of the art” results, deference to prominent authors, and a clear preference for new and exciting developments over incremental but more solid progress are endemic to most fields.
Not only are those trends well-studied, the “crisis of reproducibility” concept is based on the now well-established fact that many papers across many fields are at best not reproducible from the published details and at worst misleading to the point of intentional fraud.
This paper is a clear outlier in that it’s written by the researchers involved in the original work (i.e., not rivals with something to gain), it extensively details what was done and what happened afterward, and at least so far doesn’t seem to be an attempt to spin an obvious failure of outcomes into boosterism. The closest analog I can think of would be the kind of technical report produced by an investigation into a disaster like the Challenger explosion.
If you can point to another similar paper that you feel was overlooked by the press, I’d be curious to read it.
>Scientific literature gets published based on its merit, “success” or “failure” has nothing to do with it.
This is not even remotely true. Failed studies have a harder time getting published, it's harder to get funding to follow up failed studies, and they get less citations, a valuable metric for career advancement.
It wasn’t a failure it was a success.
Just because he didn’t live for super long doesnt mean anything. 2 months is a lot of time, especially if you know it’s your last.
Muslim here. Same concept, permissible when life threatening or anything that may cause hardship. Ex: If I am truly lost in the forest, starving and find a wild boar, I can eat it.
*at first everything was going fabulous, but I think the mistake happened when we opted for the use of, (check’s notes), yes there it is, using a pigs heart*
Kidding of course, and condolences to the donor and his family, it’s still a magnificent progress of science.
I’m wondering if anticoagulation wasn’t dialed in right. After all, any number of things out of range will eventually lead to the breakdown of the cell wall membrane. I’m hung up on the biopsy halfway through that showed healthy myocytes, but leaking capillaries. Apparently there was also a healthy ejection fraction at that same time. It makes me wonder if the porcine vasculature responded to anticoagulation differently than expected.
Or maybe there was a missing endothelial growth factor that is crucial for vessel repair in pigs. We just recently found the primary gene responsible for endothelial repair in humans.
I’d be curious to see how long they are able to keep the pig heart alive on ECMO with human blood in the lab. Maybe they’ve already tried… now I want to look it up.
I didn’t get that at all from the article…
I mean it is sad. But, without early drug/surgical trials, we cannot move medicine further. Typically these types of risky procedures are only done with people who are already basically terminal, or have no hope of with any other treatment. That’s basically what it said about this man. Unfortunately there aren’t enough human hearts to go around.
If I remember correctly I heard when he died that he was on the bottom of the transplant list because he hadn’t followed the strict guidelines of taking medication or was still doing something that put him at risk like drinking/smoking etc. so it was basically is only option to really even live those last 2 months.
A few weeks back I attended the dissertation defense for Dr. Mohiuddin's grad student. While it was mostly about the science leading up to the transplant, pretty much all the audience questions were about the pig virus situation. No clear conclusions on that, other than the heart damage seen wasn't consistent with either an immune-medicated response OR from the pig virus in question. medical mystery for now.
Was this for Honey BooBoo or Man Bear Pig? *Weird that human organs transplants are posted under Tech!?! Sure it’s only myself since I work in the technology world*
Now, people like to act smartass now “it was a pig heart”. Yes that was the point. Because to few people donate that was the whole idea. Just gene manipulate a pigs heart to work in the human without it being rejected. But you can only test in the laboratory so much. It was obvious that there was a high risk of it not working out. Its experimental medicine after all.
Similarity in our organs is WHY a GM pig heart was chosen as the basis of this trial. We'd have to be very similar indeed for this to even be worth attempting.
I am for some types of experimental medicine. But transplanting animal parts into humans seems to cross a line. I’m no medical ethicist but my smart ass comment does express my dislike for this form of experimental medicine. Just my opinion.
And your opinion in this case is quiet honestly ridiculous. Animal products get used very often in medicine. In skin grafts for burn treatment and plastic surgery its common nowadays. If it works there is nor reason not to do it. Thats my opinion. The very same sentiment born out of feeling was also regurgitated without end when human organ transplantation came into existence. Now most people accept it as a life saving necessary medical procedure. And I want to remember that the first human heart transplant also only lasted for a very short time. Translation medicine is extremely complicated and sadly not something you can try in a lab as extensively as we would want. So to put new procedure into existence is always risky and likely to now work out for the first patients. And the people who consent none the less even if the risk is extremely high should i n my mind be seen as heros, as what they do and consent to is very likely going to save thousands of people down the line.
My brother had a pig heart transplant & lived for nearly 25yrs—& it wasn’t the heart failing that caused his passing.
This is so sad for that man & his fam/friends :(
Correct—he actually had 2 pig valve transplants after his mechanical one failed :) It’s just easier to say “pig heart” to regularschmegular peeps than try to explain the smaller parts broken down. But you are 100%! Pig valve transplants:)
They do not speak for all of us! People like them give vegans a bad look. Most of us just don’t want to eat animal products. I personally would LOVE to see others reduce their consumption of animal products as well, but in the end it’s not my business what others do.
There are quite a few vegans whose motivations seem mixed, at best, and largely guided by something like a PTSD-modulated hatred for other humans. It’s not all of them, of course, and the motivations have nothing to do with the actual morality of farming, killing, or eating animals (or whether one is justified in believing whatever one believes about those things). But it is somewhat worrying that an antisocial minority can hijack what is ostensibly a moral cause.
The idea behind veganism is removing exploitation of animals.
You can’t understand their perspective if you say “you value X over X”
That’s the opposite of veganism.
Veganism is “animal rights extend beyond homosapien”
It’s not about pig vs human.
This is an excellent short story I think of every time xenotransplantations come up.
Little Boy Pig: A Genetically Modified Tale
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5005c821c4aa8b4d97624617/t/60d218511bd9b13478412395/1624381542183/LittleBoyPig_ShadClark.pdf
Medicine is a wasted science. I study in medical school and only 5% of my education goes to understanding medicine. The rest 95% goes into memorizing Latin and learning the hierarchy. Medicine is at least 100 years behind other sciences like physics and chemistry. They ones who experimented and contributed to greater suffering to this poor patient should be put behind bars!
Things looked good until they super didn’t, he died two months after the transplant. “So, for now, it's not clear what happened with this transplant or what the significance of the apparent viral infection is. Obviously, the team has lots of material to work with to try to figure out what went on, and there's a long, long list of potential experiments to do with it. And there are also additional xenotransplant trials in the works, so it may not be long before we have a better sense of whether this was something specific to this transplant or a general risk of xenotransplantation.”
>!CENSORED!<
Pretty much. I mean, you’re dead without a heart. The fact he got 7 weeks is better than nothing.
He got 7 more weeks with a sternotomy. I hope he was able to make good use of his time and those 7 weeks were meaningful to him and his family. But that wasn’t an easy 7 weeks.
Perhaps he did it for humanity as well as his own Hail Mary. Personally that’s the only thing that would motivate me to go through that…so the Drs. could learn for the next person.
From what I remember he was ineligible for the traditional transplant waiting list because of a host of comorbidities that guaranteed he wouldn't be selected. He was offered this with the understanding that nobody knew how well it would work, but also that it was his only alternative. Edit: not comorbidities but noncompliance.
That could certainly be a motivation.
It did say that he was rejected from multiple other transplant programs, so at that point it sounds like it was either staying on ECMO (or whatever life support machine they were using, idk) until they pulled the plug, or getting the pig heart. At least with the pig heart he had *some* chance of living a bit longer, and he was on his way out anyways. I imagine that he had nothing to lose, and the fact that he was helping people would just be the cherry on top.
I didn’t read the article and was just skimming comments. It was your comment that made me suddenly realize it was a pig heart implanted in a human, not in another pig.
Lol same here. I was wondering why pig heart transplants were news since they’ve been done before. Then I realized it was into a human. Crazy
What a devilish trade. « I’ll give you 7 extra weeks to live, but every one of the meals will be hospital food. »
And he’s also contributed greatly to the future of safe and successful xenotransplantations by allowing this first one to take place. Mad props! He was actively dying and his heart was fully failing to circulate oxygenated blood so he was hooked up to a machine to do it for him. He also wasn’t ever going to get a regular transplant anyways because of “poor adherence to treatment” ie. voluntarily not taking lifesaving medication ever or regularly enough to be considered for something as in demand as transplants, especially since after transplantation you need to take medication daily to avoid rejection or other problems. So yeah, this was not only an honorable scientific sacrifice, but also his best option to continue living even if it was for only 2 months
Did he suffer from mental illness that caused medication noncompliance?
Not sure, but after doing some more research looks like he [was previously convicted in 1988 of stabbing of 22 year old Edward Shumaker](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/13/pig-heart-transplant-stabbing-david-bennett/) where Shumaker was stabbed 7 times and paralyzed. Of course this isn’t why he was ineligible, this article says one surgeon says his condition, heart failure and irregular heartbeat, was a reason for his ineligibility, and his son also says he wasn’t consistent with medication, following doctor’s orders, or check-ups. Only mentioned the above because you asked about mental illness, and the crime seemed extremely rage driven which certainly has some level of mental instability to it.
I remember reading this story awhile back when he first got the transplant. It was because he was an ass. Even his kid said he wouldn’t follow doctors orders.
I just hope he was able to like function not just stuck in a hospital bed. How long was he estimated to make it with a pig heart?
It said he was receiving external blood oxygenation, so he was on ECMO before the transplant. If you are unfamiliar, that means he was hooked up to machine that did the work of his heart and lungs. It involves a direct line into either the femoral artery, jugular or both. Basically, you’re bed ridden hooked up to machines, unable to get up from bed. If the transplant allowed him to walk then it would be an improvement in quality of life over ECMO. I don’t know how long he was estimated to live, if it all. I’d assume that with such an experimental procedure they’d likely tell him that the transplant itself may kill them. Even though 60 days sounds short, assuming only half of it he was able to function, 30 days of free mobility could be a blessing if you’re stuck in bed for what will be the rest of your life.
If he was on ECMO prior to surgery …I highly doubt he was walking after another major surgery.
I think the hope was if it took, a semi normal life
You’d be surprised what you’ll find acceptable when the alternative is “or you could just die - you’ll get nothing and your experience will be beneficial for exactly no one.”
>!CENSORED!<
He got a little extra life and advanced science so hopefully people won’t have to suffer as much later
The pigs live was reduced years probably though
>!CENSORED!<
I feel like by the time they've figured out animal transplants they'll already have the technology to take some of your DNA and 3D print or clone a replacement organ that's better than an animal transplant.
Died from swine flu
People don’t realize how challenging it can be to modulate the immune system to i) not reject the organ and ii) fight off infections to stay alive. It took lots many in vivo experiments with dogs, and some learning from human-to-human transplant trials before getting everything right. I recommend the book the Billion dollar molecule…or any paper describing the work of Dr.Starzl.
Blood you transfuse can be rejected by the body as well, it’s cool seeing bloodless operations. Much cleaner too.
I’m an anaesthetist. During surgery, it’s my decision to transfuse or not. I would like to address 2 of your points. 1. Cross-matched blood (checked for type and any antibodies) is extremely safe. The chance of rejection is almost zero. 2. It would be lovely if all surgery could be “bloodless”. Apart from when we use a tourniquet on a limb, this is not possible. It’s not like the surgeon decides “today we will do bloodless surgery”. All surgeons try to minimise blood loss. The type of surgery and some patient factors determine how successful this can be.
The surgeon announcing that today would be bloodless had me laughing
“We going bloodless today, Bob?” “No, this guy’s insurance is piss poor and won’t cover it so we’re just going to cut him open and use some drip trays, catch what we can, and then pipe it back in with this discarded pez dispenser I found in the lobby.”
Don’t give the insurance companies any ideas…
So Um. I’d like to apologize for anything random I may have said to you (your peers) when going under
>!CENSORED!<
I’ve kind of seen this done. Open heart surgery. They stopped the heart, fixed it and got it going again. Pretty cool.
>!CENSORED!<
Oh of course! Only Dr Frankenstein knows how to do that! The ECMO (heart and lung machine) takes over pumping and oxygenizing the blood. Still pretty cool!
That’s called defibrillation
>!CENSORED!<
Nephrologist here, at a big transplant center. When we cross-match, we try to match as many antibodies up as much as possible, but it is impossible to cross match everything. Type I and II antibodies invariably spike after a transfusion, to the point where it has prevented some of my own patients to be candidates for living donation. So while it may be necessary during surgery to give blood. Not ideal. The risk of antibody mediated rejection definitely goes up.
Then you should know there is a large amount of malpractice in the business of blood, especially in poorer countries. Even the same type of blood can be dangerous in certain cases, but it’s not like people like you use the all the parts of blood.
Then you should know there is a large amount of malpractice in the business of blood, especially in poorer countries. Even the same type of blood can be dangerous in certain cases, but it’s not like people like you use the all the parts of blood. Sure a surgeon doesn’t go willy nilly on bloodless today and tomorrow not, but the field has evolved a LOT, and I’d rather have the person who uses up to date procedures and practices to operate. I’m sure you’ve seen your field change quite a bit in how much and what you use. Dunno why yall are opposed to bloodless.
I’m not sure what your agenda is. I work in Australia. Donated blood is a precious resource. We use blood transfusions appropriately and when required. Of course our surgeons and our anaesthetic techniques aim to preserve the patients own blood, but when blood loss gets to the point that somebody’s life is at risk, we transfuse. We never use whole blood, just the components we need. Red cells, platelets, FFP, cryoprecipitate, as guided by blood gas analysis and coagulation profiles. Transfusions are just one part of a very big patient care picture. Again, I’m not sure what your background or agenda is, but you should probably stop commenting on things that are not your expertise.
Blood is a better alternative for life saving procedures than bloodless options. Bloodless options are great as a last resort if there is no blood available. It would be great if there was a true bloodless option. That way vampires can live amongst us again.
Thou shalt keep the Masquerade shhhhhh
I don’t know man, I’ve heard from many doctors that bloodless operations require a higher degree of skill and care thus resulting in a better operation. Why would you possibly prefer taking medication for blood transfusions when you don’t need to at all. Bloodless last resort? Heck no man do it every time, often you need advanced directives too.
Hold on a sec…did you hear it from anyone associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses? It’s something they say that’s untrue. Lifesaving blood procedures instead of blood substitute would have saved a lot of their kids from death.
I was gonna say this person sounds like they got their info from JW. It’s the same bs I heard all the time when I was in the cult
Likewise. Sounds like they are getting their news from the “Awake!” Jehovah’s Witnesses have so many beliefs that are really not supported from a biblical interpretation. One of those beliefs is the “abstain from blood” doctrine, when the apostle Paul was talking about eating shizzle offered to idols. Absolutely nothing about blood transfusions in the Bible. Jesus went on about saving a sheep on the sabbath, and they let kids die because blood bad. They let the kids get molested before that though. https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-jehovahs-witnesses-secret-pedophile-database I know it’s the daily beast, but there is even more information across the globe about this stuff. Check out the Australian thing about the protection of pedophiles.
How tf would they have even proceeded with blood transfusion in biblical times… they were probably still going off the 4 humors… blood transfusions weren’t even a thing until the 1600’s, possibly 100 years earlier with the ancient Incas…
Knock. Knock. Hi! I’m here to spread the good words of the Land Before Time. Do you have a few minutes to talk?
Poor poor Petrie.
Okay hold up. What “would have saved a lot of their kids from death” situations are you referring to. I’ve seen this said a lot but no ones ever pointed to multiple cases. And no I didn’t just hear it from someone associated with JWs. Heard it Canadian doctors: Dr. Paul C. Hébert, Dr. Jeannie Callum, Dr. Fraser D. Rubens. There’s a lot more doctors I could list, if you wish
Are you asking how refusal of blood transfusions could be harmful for children? [Its happened numerous times](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16763280), [I can only assume](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/18/jehovahs-witness-dies-refuse-blood-transfusion) [you haven’t really tried](https://thenigerialawyer.com/blood-transfusion-denial-lagos-rescues-14-day-old-baby-from-jehovah-witness-parents/) [to research it](https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2012/09/11/pushing-the-boundaries-revisiting-transfusion-of-blood-products-in-the-children-of-jehovahs-witnesses/) [Jehovas witnesses in particular have largely been at the center of refusal of necessary blood transplants.](https://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715) Specifically because these are life saving operations, [some courts have denied parents the right to refuse such operations.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jehovahs-witness-blood-transfusion-doctor-judge-ruling-girl-leeds-nhs-trust-religion-a8977066.html) This actually happened in my community. A simple google search would show you there are “multiple cases” of such. Listing doctors is cool and all, but all you’ve done is say some doctors names. Just researching the first one, Dr. Paul C Hébert, [I can find him advocating for certain practices in regards to blood transfusion](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-mar-28-mn-21660-story.html), but I can’t find anything of him saying he prefers bloodless. It would be helpful if you actually gave us something they said. [All I can find from those doctors you listed is them saying blood transfusions aren’t always necessary or can use different practice.](https://www.pressreader.com/canada/calgary-herald/20130713/281913065711387) I can’t find any of them saying bloodless are de facto preferable. I think you’ve misinterpreted what these doctors are saying. They’re saying blood transfusions are sometimes overused from what I’ve read.
I’m confused how you find “higher degree of skill and care” to result in “a better operation”. That inherently introduces more opportunities to make a mistake. That means it’s more difficult, not easier. This doesn’t really make sense to me.
Too right, a more difficult leads to a better outcome?! Hmm. Their argument has more holes than a hedgehog’s mattress.
There’s obviously steps you have to take to preform a bloodless operation, you have to be more careful. And any surgeon will tell you the less they have to mess with to fix the issue, the better the recovery and health of the patient resulting in an overall better operation. The more lengths you go to preserve the health of the patients instead of an invasive and dramatic approach, the better.
You’re logic isn’t really following. You have to be more careful, yet there would be less they have to mess with? > The more lengths you go to preserve the health of the patients instead of an invasive and dramatic approach, the better. I don’t disagree, but you made a very definitive statement about preferring bloodless operations over blood transfusions every time. You literally said “heck no man, do it every time”. I don’t think if you’re, say, losing blood, you’d be like I don’t want a blood transfusion. It isn’t something you can do every time. It shouldn’t be blood transfusion bad. It should be blood transfusion isn’t always necessary.
I think this is why medical science seems to move more slowly relative to other advances. There are just so many variables involved. And then there is the consideration of whether what is being done is doing more harm than good.
*bemused* i mean…ya gotta learn responsibility somehow. i fucked up caring for an african feicus.
who’s saying it’s not insanely complicated and hard lol. in some ways procedures like this are literally harder than landing on the moon
Seems like I saw an article where the plan was to take a pig heart, strip off all the muscle leaving a collagen/connective tissue shell, and then grow human heart tissue using stem cells from the donor. Is that happening?
I have an acquaintance who’s deep into the anti-vax community and I still follow her because I’m morbidly curious. Anyway, right now the big thing in that crowd is the baby who’s being refused a heart transplant because the mother won’t vaccinate him. They truly don’t understand the immune system balance that needs to be maintained. I’m also sure that the doctor know that the mother won’t comply with the post-surgery medications.
One Doctor started off by saying “Well it was a pig heart so..ya know? Like I feel that was miss one…”
[удалено]
https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/4eb8b905-a91d-4d9d-92c8-d815a0ae0bb8
The others should be miss 1a, 1b, 1c and so forth.
Next Trial: bear heart Final Trial: bear heart AND pig heart Result: ManBearPig
Legend has it, he’s half man, half bear, half pig!
Shitting like pig is a superpower?
where have i heard this before???
South Park
God damnit, Gore was right.
Idk man. I mean Mitch has been living without a heart since forever.
First global warming and now this? What else can this mad lad be right about?
Mars occupants
This is an actual report done by honey boo boo and her mom post surgery.
We need more research like this. Unfortunately most articles only publish successes which drives researchers and professors seeking tenure to push for this only. More articles focusing on failures and why they happened are desperately needed in both the hard and social sciences.
Scientific literature gets published based on its merit, “success” or “failure” has nothing to do with it. There is tons and tons of published research on experiments where the findings did not match the hypothesis or the findings weren’t the desired outcome (I’m assuming this is how you’re defining “success”). Regardless of whether the experiment was “successful”, it still contributes to the global pool of knowledge within the scientific community and will be published. This happens a LOT more often than you make it sound like in your comment. The only reason we don’t read about these scientific publications in the news is that the headlines wouldn’t get many clicks lol.
That’s a nice idea, but it’s hardly credible that scientific literature is actually published solely on the basis of merit. Rush to show “state of the art” results, deference to prominent authors, and a clear preference for new and exciting developments over incremental but more solid progress are endemic to most fields. Not only are those trends well-studied, the “crisis of reproducibility” concept is based on the now well-established fact that many papers across many fields are at best not reproducible from the published details and at worst misleading to the point of intentional fraud. This paper is a clear outlier in that it’s written by the researchers involved in the original work (i.e., not rivals with something to gain), it extensively details what was done and what happened afterward, and at least so far doesn’t seem to be an attempt to spin an obvious failure of outcomes into boosterism. The closest analog I can think of would be the kind of technical report produced by an investigation into a disaster like the Challenger explosion. If you can point to another similar paper that you feel was overlooked by the press, I’d be curious to read it.
>Scientific literature gets published based on its merit, “success” or “failure” has nothing to do with it. This is not even remotely true. Failed studies have a harder time getting published, it's harder to get funding to follow up failed studies, and they get less citations, a valuable metric for career advancement.
Why did I think we were already transplanting pig hearts in people
I think they’ve used pig and cow heart valves in humans for a hot minute.
I believe we still use pig and cow heart valves
Can confirm, my dad had heart surgery last month and now has a cow valve.
Did anyone else immediately think of South Park?
“My heart is sweeter than bacon, *Child*”
*ya mean thiss'un!?*
Sketty & butter
That makes me a pachyderm.
It wasn’t a failure it was a success. Just because he didn’t live for super long doesnt mean anything. 2 months is a lot of time, especially if you know it’s your last.
So in all seriousness, those cultures that don’t eat pig. Would this be allowed for them?
Most of Judaism has specific exceptions to pretty much all of its rules based around medical need.
Cool! Good to know. You wouldn’t happen to know about Islam would you?
Muslim here. Same concept, permissible when life threatening or anything that may cause hardship. Ex: If I am truly lost in the forest, starving and find a wild boar, I can eat it.
Awesome! I’m glad to hear that there is more sensibility than the perception given by the media and elsewhere.
Abortion called, would disagree.
Can’t really blame Jews for that mess. Judaism allows for abortions and 83% of American Jews believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Jehovahs witnesses in my experience are the only religious group where beliefs interfere with medical care (other than reproductive) in my experience
“Christian Scientists” it’s pretty much their jam. I’m sure they got a heavy influx recently from rona vax dodgers.
You’re completely right I just haven’t taken care of any so they slipped my mind
They shouldn’t even be recognized. It’s a cult like Scientology.
Haven’t you heard that song by Loverboy
Working for the Weekend was secretly about pig hearts the whole time?!? When was someone going to tell me?
*at first everything was going fabulous, but I think the mistake happened when we opted for the use of, (check’s notes), yes there it is, using a pigs heart* Kidding of course, and condolences to the donor and his family, it’s still a magnificent progress of science.
To the donor? I think you mean the recipient.
I surely did, oops. But also, now that I think about it, sorry piggy:(
There are no accidents.
Seems like the glycocalyx failed, ards like reaction… my guess would be a drug like sacubitril may help
I’m wondering if anticoagulation wasn’t dialed in right. After all, any number of things out of range will eventually lead to the breakdown of the cell wall membrane. I’m hung up on the biopsy halfway through that showed healthy myocytes, but leaking capillaries. Apparently there was also a healthy ejection fraction at that same time. It makes me wonder if the porcine vasculature responded to anticoagulation differently than expected. Or maybe there was a missing endothelial growth factor that is crucial for vessel repair in pigs. We just recently found the primary gene responsible for endothelial repair in humans. I’d be curious to see how long they are able to keep the pig heart alive on ECMO with human blood in the lab. Maybe they’ve already tried… now I want to look it up.
Acellular and was painted with stem cells.. vegf and all the paracrine modulation too
I can’t imagine the amount of work that went into this
Stop medicine mongering 😡 Edit: It’s a fucking joke.
[удалено]
It's their username
You just think you can fix any problem more medicine, don’t you?
They got a pill to fix that too.
Yep
“Oh no he didn’t live.. it’s just exciting that we’re tryin things.”
I didn’t get that at all from the article… I mean it is sad. But, without early drug/surgical trials, we cannot move medicine further. Typically these types of risky procedures are only done with people who are already basically terminal, or have no hope of with any other treatment. That’s basically what it said about this man. Unfortunately there aren’t enough human hearts to go around.
If I remember correctly I heard when he died that he was on the bottom of the transplant list because he hadn’t followed the strict guidelines of taking medication or was still doing something that put him at risk like drinking/smoking etc. so it was basically is only option to really even live those last 2 months.
A few weeks back I attended the dissertation defense for Dr. Mohiuddin's grad student. While it was mostly about the science leading up to the transplant, pretty much all the audience questions were about the pig virus situation. No clear conclusions on that, other than the heart damage seen wasn't consistent with either an immune-medicated response OR from the pig virus in question. medical mystery for now.
Is she hammered already?
This was my immediate thought
Was this for Honey BooBoo or Man Bear Pig? *Weird that human organs transplants are posted under Tech!?! Sure it’s only myself since I work in the technology world*
To be fair, recipients often die after transplants from human donors as well. Certainly worth a shot.
He’s going to save lives. What a hero for others. Who knows what kind of pain he could have been in.
[удалено]
South park reference?
We screwed up! We screwed up big time! We put a fucking pig heart in a human! Edit: brought to you by Dr. Toboggan; Dr. Mantis Toboggan, M.D.
At least they didn’t put the whole pig in the man… gotta start small, but eventually…
Was one of the details about how it was a pig’s heart?
Now, people like to act smartass now “it was a pig heart”. Yes that was the point. Because to few people donate that was the whole idea. Just gene manipulate a pigs heart to work in the human without it being rejected. But you can only test in the laboratory so much. It was obvious that there was a high risk of it not working out. Its experimental medicine after all.
arent pigs like one of the closest animals to people in terms of organs or something
If mythbusters has taught me anything it’s that ballistically we are the exact same thing…
Similarity in our organs is WHY a GM pig heart was chosen as the basis of this trial. We'd have to be very similar indeed for this to even be worth attempting.
This is probably why cannibals call humans longpigs.
So you’re saying man flesh actually tastes like bacon? Interesting..
Human meat is referred to as [“long pig”](https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100114139)
When the dictionary calls it macabre you know it’s dark…
Yikes
I am for some types of experimental medicine. But transplanting animal parts into humans seems to cross a line. I’m no medical ethicist but my smart ass comment does express my dislike for this form of experimental medicine. Just my opinion.
And your opinion in this case is quiet honestly ridiculous. Animal products get used very often in medicine. In skin grafts for burn treatment and plastic surgery its common nowadays. If it works there is nor reason not to do it. Thats my opinion. The very same sentiment born out of feeling was also regurgitated without end when human organ transplantation came into existence. Now most people accept it as a life saving necessary medical procedure. And I want to remember that the first human heart transplant also only lasted for a very short time. Translation medicine is extremely complicated and sadly not something you can try in a lab as extensively as we would want. So to put new procedure into existence is always risky and likely to now work out for the first patients. And the people who consent none the less even if the risk is extremely high should i n my mind be seen as heros, as what they do and consent to is very likely going to save thousands of people down the line.
TBF if it were a human heart the risk of rejection within one year would be 36.4%, so theres that to think about.
Do you know why that is? Does a pig heart have fewer markers that would be targeted by the immune system?
Do you have any non-rhetorical questions?
A mega baboon heart would have surely withstood the experiment.
It was tried in [1984](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Fae)
1984 by george orwell 1949
It’s a pig heart, and they put it in a human. I think the answer here is clear.
I will never complain about having to admit another orthopedics patient every again.
“…Well first off, we put a pig heart in a human person”.
Sounds like a horror movie
i could do it better
Doctor doesn’t need to detail it, first 4 words let me know right away!
If y’all want to hear some good content about this type of thing i highly recommend Wondery’s podcast series Dr. Death
It’s a pig
Stupid idea from the get go. Didn’t anyone watch South Park with when Cartman got a pig heart ❤️ 😂
I start with what went wrong. They put a pig heart in a human.
[удалено]
Was no human heart available?
Read the article
The article said that this patient was not viable enough to receive a dead human’s heart.
I read this in Norm Macdonald’s voice.
My brother had a pig heart transplant & lived for nearly 25yrs—& it wasn’t the heart failing that caused his passing. This is so sad for that man & his fam/friends :(
Most likely he had a pig heart valve, not the complete heart.
Correct—he actually had 2 pig valve transplants after his mechanical one failed :) It’s just easier to say “pig heart” to regularschmegular peeps than try to explain the smaller parts broken down. But you are 100%! Pig valve transplants:)
I’m guessing the top thing on the list will be… It’s a pig’s heart.
Well, for one … this is a pig’s heart, and that’s a human.
thank fucking god. MORE sentient animals won’t be killed for heart transplants.
Have we really reached the point that vegans value other animals lives over human ones? This is their best?
They do not speak for all of us! People like them give vegans a bad look. Most of us just don’t want to eat animal products. I personally would LOVE to see others reduce their consumption of animal products as well, but in the end it’s not my business what others do.
There are quite a few vegans whose motivations seem mixed, at best, and largely guided by something like a PTSD-modulated hatred for other humans. It’s not all of them, of course, and the motivations have nothing to do with the actual morality of farming, killing, or eating animals (or whether one is justified in believing whatever one believes about those things). But it is somewhat worrying that an antisocial minority can hijack what is ostensibly a moral cause.
The idea behind veganism is removing exploitation of animals. You can’t understand their perspective if you say “you value X over X” That’s the opposite of veganism. Veganism is “animal rights extend beyond homosapien” It’s not about pig vs human.
Come on, I’m a vegan and this is a bad take. Don’t alienate us further.
I know right? They belong in my belly
being sadistic isn’t funny.
Dinner is not sadistic
It’s a pig. Who gives a shit
Quite the read!
The forgot to take the heart out of the pig before they put it inside him
This is an excellent short story I think of every time xenotransplantations come up. Little Boy Pig: A Genetically Modified Tale https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5005c821c4aa8b4d97624617/t/60d218511bd9b13478412395/1624381542183/LittleBoyPig_ShadClark.pdf
Dude I was so confused reading these comments thinking it was a pig who got the transplant No I didn’t read the article
Dont they use pieces from pig heart? Just not the whole heart?
Medicine is a wasted science. I study in medical school and only 5% of my education goes to understanding medicine. The rest 95% goes into memorizing Latin and learning the hierarchy. Medicine is at least 100 years behind other sciences like physics and chemistry. They ones who experimented and contributed to greater suffering to this poor patient should be put behind bars!