Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 241 posts

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#81

Post by als0 »

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #62
MPSimmons wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably know this, but for anyone else reading - I have an Apple watch that has the EKG. It is a two-contact EKG, so it's limited in what it can see. It also requires you to actively look at it (you have to touch the crown while it's reading). It did successfully diagnose a bout of bigeminy that I had, but unfortunately my cardiologist didn't think it was important, and I ended up having a heart attack anyway. B…

Isn't that something that you could sue for?

I do wonder how it must feel to be a doctor who is one bad call away from being sued or revoked.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#82

Post by mateo1 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #72

> Exactly what has happened since and the precise cause of Mr Bennett's death is not clear. Which is the most useful information (next to the actual end of a human life here). Did he die because the heart was ultimately rejected, or did he die from underlying complications that had made him ineligible for a human heart transplant in the first place? If the latter, I'd still call this whole story a significant success…

Yeah, I hate the clickbaity choice of putting this information near the end of the article. This is bbc, I expect better.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#83

Post by thaway2839 »

robbiep wrote: post #75
pkaye wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no real medical need for an ‘annual physical’ it is a creation of the American medical-industrial complex and creates more problems than it solves. What problems does it create? Isn't preventive care a good thing? Also Japan does annual physicals much more rigorous that in the US. I wish what is done in the US was more rigorous because it would have caught the autoimmune disease that caused my kidney failu…

Preventative care is different from the concept of all round comprehensive annual physical as it has been propagated through the culture from the American experience (I practice in Australia, so am talking from what I see from time working there, and the trickle through effect culturally of Australians thinking this is something they ‘have’ to have). Preventative care consists of positive health messages (smoking ces…

Annual checkups are just that. 1) Body weight measurements. 2) The doctor talking to you about whether you have any medical or life concerns. 3) The doctor sharing advice on diet improvements, smoking improvements, exercise plans, including providing resources for them. 4) Recommended screenings based on age. 5) 1-2 vials of blood to get basic health information such as glucose levels, vitamin levels, etc. 6) Urine samples are only required if you're sexually active with multiple partners to screen for STDs and is completely optional.

That's been my experience. Through the annual physical I've been able to handle several minor issues, which have materially improved my life, and identified a major diagnosis that goes undiagnosed in the majority of people throughout their lives, and leads to them living significantly worse lives than they would have otherwise. By identifying it early, I have a chance for a much better lifestyle, and reducing the odds of an early death greatly.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#84

Post by Jabbles »

phkahler wrote: post #44
slowhand09 wrote: post #5

My friend was a member of the transplant team at Johns Hopkins. "They" said he was near multiple organ failure prior to the transplant. And he survived significantly longer than expected. Recovery under those circumstances was a very long shot already. Kudos to him for undergoing the procedure, and furthering the research. Condolences to he and his family.

Well that really raises the question of what did he die from? If not from the heart, how do they proceed with the research? Gotta do the next one on a person whose not already nearly gone. That seems like a highly sensitive line, no doubt it's a big discussion to move it.

"What people die of" seems like the sort of question the medical community should be quite good at answering.

People are waiting for human heart transplants and dying from the wait. I don't think there will be a shortage of patients who we can ethically treat whilst researching this new technique. It certainly isn't binary with a hard "sensitive line".

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#85

Post by ben_w »

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #64
jjtheblunt wrote: post #43

this is sad. it's kind of bizarre from a mile high view, but all so normal too, that no one comments on the sacrifice of a pig, i found myself observing.

I would also be happy to go vegan, but I don't see a way to be healthy that way, so..

If it’s specifically pigs up for discussion, vegan and vegetarian are the same, and vegetarian is easier — I’m vegetarian, and AFAIK there’s no food made from pig’s milk (certainly nothing I’ve seen in the local supermarket).

But as for healthy? That’s the easy part, there are so many healthy vegan options it’s silly. Food cravings however, that’s hard (and also why I’m only vegetarian, not vegan — I’m looking forward to improvements to vegan cheese[0] in particular given everything else on sale around here now has good enough non-dairy alternatives — though the other part is that I’m not hugely concerned about the ethics of free-range no-kill eggs).

[0] smoked tofu slices is good for sandwiches, but it doesn’t melt nicely on pasta

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#86

Post by maewsa »

MPSimmons wrote: post #53
msrenee wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wikipedia page cites a documentary as the source, which may be correct, but doesn't seem like an appropriate source. Here's a paper that I skimmed the abstract of claiming ~9 years: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15280687/

I don't know what the documentary source is, but this paper is from 2004, and it's likely that procedures have improved reliability since then.

Documentary cited is from 2007 so that's a marked improvement for 2-3 years...

I'd personally lean towards trusting published medical journal.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#87

Post by sobren »

msrenee wrote: post #23
momenti wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heart transplant recipients survive 15 years on average: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_transplantation

The Wikipedia page cites a documentary as the source, which may be correct, but doesn't seem like an appropriate source. Here's a paper that I skimmed the abstract of claiming ~9 years: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15280687/

Here's a 2015 article from the Journal of Thoratic Disease. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4387387/.It doesn't calculate the exact average, but 21% of patients are alive after 20 years. Survival rates have definitely rapidly increased over the last two decades.

> Survival after heart transplantation is excellent, particularly if it is compared with the natural course of end-stage HF. The most recent data of the registry of the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation indicates a current 1-year survival of 84.5% and a 5-year survival of 72.5% (5). This has significantly improved as compared to the 76.9% 1-year survival and 62.7% 5-year survival in the 1980s. The development of new immunosuppressive drugs which allow a variety of immunosuppressive regimens, tailored to the individual patient, has contributed to this success, since rejection and the adverse effects of immunosuppression could be better controlled. After 20 years, ca. 21% of patients are still alive, according to the international registry (5). In some experienced centers, long-term survival is reported to be even higher (6-9). The University Hospital Zurich has achieved a 20-year survival rate of 55.6% (10).

>The improvement in outcome over the decades is related mainly to an increase in survival over the first year. After this period, the attrition rate of ca. 3-4% per year has remained similar over the different eras. This might be attributable to the fact that it was not possible to reduce the incidence of long-term complications after heart transplantation, such as chronic allograft vasculopathy (CAV) and malignancies, which account for ca. 35% of all deaths after 10 to 15 years (5).

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#88

Post by gpm »

Jabbles wrote: post #84
phkahler wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that really raises the question of what did he die from? If not from the heart, how do they proceed with the research? Gotta do the next one on a person whose not already nearly gone. That seems like a highly sensitive line, no doubt it's a big discussion to move it.

"What people die of" seems like the sort of question the medical community should be quite good at answering. People are waiting for human heart transplants and dying from the wait. I don't think there will be a shortage of patients who we can ethically treat whilst researching this new technique. It certainly isn't binary with a hard "sensitive line".

> "What people die of" seems like the sort of question the medical community should be quite good at answering.

Does it? I'm definitely not a doctor, but it seems like a very difficult question to answer.

Even with perfect information, it seems unlikely there is always a simple/single answer. I would naively expect things like (and I'm making a bit up here, because I'm really not a doctor) "not enough oxygen reached his cells, because his lungs were bad at refreshing the air in them, his heart was bad at pumping blood in circles, his veins and arteries were in bad shape due to diet, and he wasn't moving around much because he had a cold further reducing circulation".

But also, we don't have perfect information. We have this set of measurements we could make without harming the patient, or consuming too much time on really expensive equipment like MRIs. Many of those measurements are no doubt themselves subject to some degree of interpretation error and confounding factors.

Maybe I underestimate our doctors, or overestimate the problem, but it doesn't sound easy to me.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#89

Post by cannaceo »

Jabbles wrote: post #84
phkahler wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that really raises the question of what did he die from? If not from the heart, how do they proceed with the research? Gotta do the next one on a person whose not already nearly gone. That seems like a highly sensitive line, no doubt it's a big discussion to move it.

"What people die of" seems like the sort of question the medical community should be quite good at answering. People are waiting for human heart transplants and dying from the wait. I don't think there will be a shortage of patients who we can ethically treat whilst researching this new technique. It certainly isn't binary with a hard "sensitive line".

They're not. Attribution is difficult.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#90

Post by cbg0 »

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #62
MPSimmons wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably know this, but for anyone else reading - I have an Apple watch that has the EKG. It is a two-contact EKG, so it's limited in what it can see. It also requires you to actively look at it (you have to touch the crown while it's reading). It did successfully diagnose a bout of bigeminy that I had, but unfortunately my cardiologist didn't think it was important, and I ended up having a heart attack anyway. B…

Isn't that something that you could sue for?

Is it just me or is this such a stereotypical American comment?
Post reply on HN