GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: Young blood is probably snake oil, says FDA

domingo, 24 de febrero de 2019

BioEdge: Young blood is probably snake oil, says FDA

BioEdge: Young blood is probably snake oil, says FDA

Bioedge

Young blood is probably snake oil, says FDA

by Michael Cook | 24 Feb 2019 |

Beware of unscrupulous con men selling rejuvenation through infusions of “young blood”, the US Food and Drug Administration said in a press release this week.

Simply put, we’re concerned that some patients are being preyed upon by unscrupulous actors touting treatments of plasma from young donors as cures and remedies. Such treatments have no proven clinical benefits for the uses for which these clinics are advertising them and are potentially harmful. There are reports of bad actors charging thousands of dollars for infusions that are unproven and not guided by evidence from adequate and well-controlled trials.
The warning was aimed squarely at a start-up company called Ambrosia, which has been touting the benefits of blood transfusions from donors between 16 and 25. Accordingly, the company immediately ceased patient treatments. It had been charging US$8,000 for 1 litre of young blood, or $12,000 for 2 litres. According to Business Insider, as of last September, Ambrosia had infused close to 150 people, ranging in age from 35 to 92, with young blood.

The idea of using young blood to reverse or slow ageing has been kicking around for a few years, but there has been no scientific proof of its effectiveness, or of its safety.

It’s hard to think of a more volatile topic than transgender transitions for children entering puberty. The number of kids demanding puberty-blockers so that they can transition to the opposite sex is exploding all over the developed world. It’s a mysterious and poorly understood phenomenon which involves a range of bioethical issues.

Is gender dysphoria really a medical issue at all? Or is it just a waystation on a spectrum of sexualities? How do we decide? Is it ethical to offer treatments which have yet to prove their efficacy? Is it ethical to offer treatments which will have negative side-effects? How can children make decisions which will affect their whole lives without understanding the medical, sexual and psychological implications? There is enough here to fill a library with contending points of view.

But this is far from being a theoretical issue. Children with gender dysphoria are suffering now. Who is to decide how can they be best cared for? A bioethicist writing in the American Journal of Bioethics effectively argues that parents are not the best judges. (See article below.) They are in the same position as loving, well-intentioned parents who want to use herbal remedies for their child’s cancer. Doctors, backed by governments, should decide. The state has to step in to save the child from suffering and even death.

It’s a controversial, even incendiary, point of view. But that is the way the debate is heading. We can expect to hear more, much more, in the future.