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

Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy

#41

Post by openasocket »

h4nkoslo wrote: post #17
tossedaway334 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there is a startup opportunity to sell spare kidneys, and even lungs and liver-halfs too! Maybe even a cash-for-corpses business, we need to get rid of these ridiculous self-serving medical regulations. DISRUPT!

Blood is renewable, and is already a buyable/sellable item. Discovering a new use for it would simply boost demand.

You can sell plasma, can you still sell your blood in the US? I know you could on one point, but people with blood-borne illnesses shouldn't give blood, and with a financial incentive there were problems with people lying about it.

Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy

#42

Post by h4nkoslo »

openasocket wrote: post #41
h4nkoslo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blood is renewable, and is already a buyable/sellable item. Discovering a new use for it would simply boost demand.

You can sell plasma, can you still sell your blood in the US? I know you could on one point, but people with blood-borne illnesses shouldn't give blood, and with a financial incentive there were problems with people lying about it.

Yes. It ends up being unprofitable to buy from donors directly, but it is still legal. There is also a thriving secondary market in selling donated blood, the Red Cross for instance makes a large amount of money selling blood.

http://newsok.com/article/4985779

Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy

#43

Post by akiselev »

alexmingoia wrote: post #4

Is it typical for clinical trials to charge participants thousands of dollars? For something as simple as an IV transfusion? It seems like the clinical trial is just an excuse to get around medical regulations, so they can sell snake oil to gullible rich people.

No. In order to get permission to transport what you're testing and administer it to patients you need to file an Investigational New Drug application and approval stipulates that you don't market or charge for anything related to the clinical trials until the final New Drug Application is approved.

The problem is that "young blood" isn't some new drug it's just blood. Once the FDA approves something, they have almost no control over how a legally practicing doctor administers the treatment. Various ethics and medical boards, depending on the jurisdiction, have authority to ban the doctor from practicing medicine but blood transfusions are such a common thing and liability is always enforceable so it's hard to justify here. Done properly the risk of complications is small and there are proven treatments to many of the rare issues. I think this treatment is ridiculous but whether it is clearly unethical I think falls to a matter of opinion.

Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy

#44

Post by RichardHeart »

reasonattlm wrote: post #9

This popular science piece is characteristic of a prevalent and hostile view of the growing practice of patient-funded clinical trials. In this model the patient pays a sizable portion of the costs, which certainly makes it a lot easier to gather larger amounts of data, as the trial organizers don't have to seek the funding themselves. On the other hand, it tends to rule out the ability to carry out a blind trial in…

reasonattlm, you're the man. I think lots of your good posts go unread because the paragraphs are too long. If you hit enter one more time than usual per paragraph, I think you'll 4x or better the posts read/understood.

Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy

#47

Post by barry-cotter »

hughes wrote: post #18
tossedaway334 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there is a startup opportunity to sell spare kidneys, and even lungs and liver-halfs too! Maybe even a cash-for-corpses business, we need to get rid of these ridiculous self-serving medical regulations. DISRUPT!

When you can grow back your kidneys, lungs, and livers, this will be a sensible extension of the idea. I initially wanted to make this comment sarcastically, but really, if we become capable of regrowing organs within your body you could legitimately make a business case for it.

Liver tissue does grow back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_transplantation#Living_d...

In a typical adult recipient LDLT, 55 to 70% of the liver (the right lobe) is removed from a healthy living donor. The donor's liver will regenerate approaching 100% function within 4–6 weeks, and will almost reach full volumetric size with recapitulation of the normal structure soon thereafter. It may be possible to remove up to 70% of the liver from a healthy living donor without harm in most cases. The transplanted portion will reach full function and the appropriate size in the recipient as well, although it will take longer than for the donor.

Post reply on HN