![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Young blood transfusion.
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
complementary and alternative medicine, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
|
|
It has just been found that it is not the young-blood that is beneficial, but rather, it is the dilution of the bad stuff in the old blood that reduces effects of ageing: https://newatlas.com/medical/diluted-blood-plasma-reverse-aging-in-mice/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.72.26 ( talk) 01:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
What does this mean? Did they do any research with human young blood? I can't access the article right now. Natureium ( talk) 00:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Recent studies shed light on an unexpected issue in transfusion medicine and blood collection: not all donors may be equal relative to the quality of their blood and the transfusion outcome in patients. Young and female donors’ blood may be poorer than male and older donors’ [1]. This was indeed unexpected as experimental work—though unrelated to the transfusion field—suggested rejuvenation factors in young individuals’ plasma, at least in mice and as applied to neuronal plasticity [2,3]. </ref>
Roxy the dog, this is an old, inactive, completed discussion. This talk page is filled with old and finished discussions. I would like to archive them to clean up the talk page. 210.6.209.89 ( talk) 08:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Roxy the dog, that is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. I would like to archive these old, finished discussions. I have reviewed wikipedia's policy on archiving. Meters has threatened to block me for archiving these discussions. Respond, so that we can have a discussion, otherwise you are acting in an authoritarian manner, which is not consistent with wikipedia's policies. 210.6.209.89 ( talk) 08:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I've said all I need to. What happens next is up to you. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
In my view the following should not be included in the article, per WP:NOTGOSSIP. What do others think. We can have an RfC if there is no clear consensus here.
Jeff Bercovici wrote in Inc. that "life-extension science is a popular obsession" in Silicon Valley and that regenerative medicine was a fad which started in the 2000s. Bercovici states that there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood". Technology entrepreneur Peter Thiel has an interest in Ambrosia. [1] [2] News media have widely reported such practices using hyperbole, making hugely-exaggerated claims likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. [3] [4] Others have related it to stories of vampires. [5] [6]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Most of it is "reporting" recentist gossip, and the only putatively substantial part, about Thiel's "interest" is also gossip, per this piece in Tech Crunch
-- Jytdog ( talk) 00:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I skimmed this; you're right.
I don't think this is gossip which is basically rumour. If something is sourced in a reliable source then it becomes journalism :O). Because this is not just about some obscure research but has been reported in the popular press, we should note that, so this is fine. "News media have widely reported such practices using hyperbole, making hugely-exaggerated claims likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life"( Littleolive oil ( talk) 14:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC))
Does anybody think that the Medium source even meets WP:RS? I can bring this to RSN if there is no clear consensus here.
The source is
"Young Blood Transfusions - The Elixir Of Youth?". Medium. 1 November 2017. Retrieved 6 May 2018. {{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
The citation omits the author, which btw, is "Immortal Coin". Jytdog ( talk) 00:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
In addition to being unreliable, none of the references cited even supported the material it was citing (that the media were using "hyperbole"), so I've removed that piece entirely. If someone wants to say media coverage is "hyperbolic", the specific claim of hyperbole will need to be backed by references saying so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
These diffs are not an improvement. Jytdog ( talk) 02:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
This is some of the content which indicates there may be more than just a claim of snake oil:
What is the current state of the science in terms of parabiosis and anti-aging effects? Any specific health claims for humans is definitely unproven at this time, but the research is intriguing (i.e., perfect for snake oil).
We are in the preliminary research stage. In order to truly answer these questions we need to do carefully-controlled clinical research in humans. As of right now, young blood transfusions as the next elixir of youth is enjoying its 15 minutes of fame. The science is genuinely interesting, and seems deserving of further research. What is clearly needed is high quality clinical research, before any clinical claims are made.
Given history, however, it is likely that young transfusions, or even some form of parabiosis, will now also take on a life of its own as the latest snake oil product.
I'm fine with the lede as written now. However, I have a few thoughts. Summarizing a source accurately can't be a promotional action. While I agree we don't want to give the sense that there is support for this procedure we also have a commitment to note what is in the sources. If we accept that an author is reliable for pejorative content per our standards, he logically must also reliable for the other stuff too. We can't cherry pick just the parts of the article that support the view that we are writing about something that is fringe. The author says specifically the research to date has been intriguing and is worth looking at further. I have no desire to get into a discussion about whether this content should be included but I do want to make a clear point here and for later, that summarizing a source in its entirety is what we do. If there is something positive in the article and its is clearly an aspect of the article we are bound to report it like it or not. This topic gives me the shivers and makes me think of some of the post apocalyptical movies I've seen. I hate the idea whether it works or not so I sure don't want to promote it, but as a Wikipedia editor I am bound to deal with all of the source faithfully. What we have to do is make sure it is weighted properly per other content. I'm not sure how to do that in this case as I said above but its what we're supposed to do.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC))
Add: This (below) would be good. Remove the mouse content and leave the rest. Per MOS the lede doesn't need sources since lede content is summarizing content sourced in the rest of the article.
There are no human trials on the technique and the lack of evidence and rigorous test environments means that the scientific community remains highly skeptical and considers the practice as little more than snake oil. Furthermore, contradictory evidence suggests that young blood may have a reduced impact compared to other sources.
So
So Karmazin was somewhat surprised to get a message from Jason Camm, chief medical officer at Thiel Capital, who expressed interest in what the company was doing."
That sounds like Karmazin told the reporter that Camm actually reached out to him.
The story reported that Thiel Capital medical director Jason Camm (who is also an angel investor) had even contacted a startup called Ambrosia that was harvesting the blood of teens.
In short order, Vanity Fair, Gawker and numerous other media sites repeated the story. Ambrosia received so much press attention that founder Jesse Karmazin was even invited to talk about his work at Recode’s recent Code Conference. Meanwhile, an episode of HBO’s “Silicon Valley” poked fun at the unsettling idea.
But the story that took shape, that Thiel was looking to harvest the blood of the young, simply isn’t true according to Karmazin, who told us when asked that he was never contacted by Thiel or anyone associated with Thiel Capital. “I wish I did know Peter Thiel,” he said. “He’s not even a patient. If he were, I would have to say ‘We can’t disclose that information.’ But he’s not even a patient so I can tell you, he’s not a patient’.”
here, Karmazin is cited as saying the opposite.
So why does the article act as thought the 2nd ref doesn't exist?
Again this is pure gossip and should not be in the article. It is not as though Thiel actually invested (which is what this page actually
said when it was nominated for DYK - namely Billionaire Peter Thiel is a prominent investor in Ambrosia
.)
This chunk of content is all about whether X talked to Y which is not even certain.
This passage is not "accepted knowledge" and has nothing to do with our mission. Again, WP:NOTGOSSIP.
If we need to go to an RfC I will do that, but i cannot imagine that community would find the current content even close to OK. Jytdog ( talk) 04:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
So the lead has been reverted. Now it has the same citation three times in a row despite leads not needing citations. The lead I wrote summarised the article without, I think, promoting any viewpoint. It was reverted with the comment "we do not hype rodent studies. Ever." Well to me that's a blatant example of systemic bias. This article isn't supposed to be all about the effect in humans - current research has been focused on rodents. It's mentioned significantly in the article and should be in the lead too. violet/riga [talk] 00:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog. If there is content in the article on mouse studies then the lede which summarizes the body of the article can also mention in a summarized form the mouse studies. You keep citing the mouse studies as if they were added to show that what happens in mice could also happen in human beings.I keep telling you, that isn't what's being added and I don't see that in the source. You seem fixated on this point. Of course there are studies which create health benefits in animals which do not effect human beings in the same way. I repeat no one is trying to say that the mouse studies showed usefulness in human beings.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 02:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC))
Littleolive oil makes the point above that the article could be written in sections to highlight the difference between testing in rodents and testing in humans. This is indeed something that needs to be made clear in the article. In fact, that's exactly what there was before Jytdog came and messed around with everything. violet/riga [talk] 10:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Doc James: Your addition of a section titled "Availability" makes this article seem more commercially focused. I think if we divide out a section on commercial availability, we need to create sections for the other information. Anyone disagree? Natureium ( talk) 03:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
When comparing blood from mice of different ages it has been observed that the amount of some proteins in the young mouse blood exceed that in older mice.
This is taken from a source that Jytdog favours yet he refuses to have it mentioned in the article. This is the exact meaning of this article!! Stop being so human-centric! You claim that there aren't any human trials so you want to remove the only studies that have been concluded?!
violet/riga
[talk] 22:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Stop adding the reference to snake oil. The source does not call young blood transfusion that - the mention in the source relates to parabiosis which is different! violet/riga [talk] 01:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article define what it is. The second sentence should explain the mainstream scientific opinion on this practice. IMO the following sentence sums it up well.
Option 1: The scientific community currently views the practice as little more than snake oil.
The source in question says:
This ref says it
IMO this supports the text in question. Please feel free to add you suggestion below. Once we have collected the suggestion we can start the RfC. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Despite Jytdog's attempts to silence the 'opposition' there actually remains very little content that is disputed. I am going to assume that the article as it stands now is accepted by Jytdog given how quickly opposed content has been removed. I will try to summarise the differences between the article now and the version I have worked on in user space. Hopefully these can be looked at separately rather than a bulk dismissal. violet/riga [talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The inclusion of Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray leads a team of researchers
. I think that naming one of the lead researchers in the field is beneficial.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It has been said that we should not have too much content about mice. I maintain that this topic is almost entirely focussed on lab tests in mice and that it is not a problem to refer to them when no human tests are available as long as it is not presented in a way which implies that the same results are expected in humans. Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray leads a team of researchers at Stanford University investigating the use of young blood transfusions in mice. A study published by them in 2014 detailed the results of several tests including parabiosis in mice; as part of their investigations they sutured two mice of different ages together, with both animals sharing a circulatory system. The study concluded that the blood from the younger mouse contributed to improved synaptic plasticity in the older mouse and this consequently led to a perceived improvement in learning and memory. They also demonstrated that a transferral of a young mouse's blood plasma into an older mouse allowed the latter to significantly improve in certain tasks related to learning and memory
I believe that this comes from a decent source (
Scientific American) and it links to the
2014 study as published in Nature.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
In 2017 a further study by Wyss-Coray and his team was published in Nature. This showed that older mice could benefit from blood transfused from human umbilical cords. They claim that this appears to "rejuvenate an old brain and make it work more like a younger one".
Again from Scientific American.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
In a 2017 article published in The Economist the effects in mice were labelled "spectacular" but the author made the point that the reason why this happened was not clear.
This again clearly refers to mice and does not suggest that such things are likely in human trials.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
In 2018 a study by Dr. Saul Villeda, an assistant professor at the University of California, published new findings in journal Cell Reports. Villeda suggests that old brains may have "dormant plasticity" which can be utilised. "Young blood" has the ability to stimulate significant changes in DNA as regulated by the TET2 enzyme. Older brains have lower levels of TET2 with the hippocampus, the area of the brain associated with memory and learning, being particularly deficient. Villeda believes that DNA manipulation might in the future allow scientists to "make an organism younger again".
This gives info about a potential reason why mouse studies have shown positive results. I am not particularly in favour of this section as it does sound like it is suggesting potential success in humans despite referring to "organism[s]".
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The current version uses an MIT Technology Review reference three times. I believe that this could also be included: Amy Maxmen writing for the MIT Technology Review warned of the dangers of such trials, noting that transfusions are generally considered safe but can have side effects including deadly infections.
This explicitly warns of (one of) the dangers of this treatment so I'm unsure why this is not acceptable.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Given the lack of opposition I plan to include this sentence to highlight that transfusions are generally dangerous. violet/riga [talk] 18:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
It is widely accepted (
New York Times
NewYorker
Wired
Smithsonian
Financial Times) that Silicon Valley has some fascination with
life extension. Young blood transfusions have been called a "current trend" in regenerative medicine, with significant Silicon Valley investment in "life extension". Jeff Bercovici wrote for Inc. that it is "a popular obsession" and that there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood".
I think that this is vital in reporting that some people are obsessed with it when such reports are commonplace. I don't believe that this is a BLP issue as claimed because nobody is identified by the general statement. It does not imply that the 'treatment' works, merely that some people are spending stupid amounts of money on this very thing.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Longevity and life extension research has always interested the public and the scientific community. In Silicon Valley interest in life extension was crystallized in 2013 by the founding of Calico by Bill Maris, who ran Google Ventures. This interest included the results of parabiosis research. Tom Rando, from whose lab at Stanford Alkahest was founded, told a reporter from the New Yorker: “I’ve had a lot of meetings with young billionaires in Silicon Valley, and they all, to varying degrees, want to know when the secrets are coming out, both so they can get in on the next big thing and so they can personally take advantage of them. I say, ‘This is not an app. If you come at biology from a tech point of view, you’re going to be disappointed, because the pace is much slower.’”. [1]
Nothing is real until it has been parodied. The practice was referenced in a 2017 episode of comedy series Silicon Valley in which the boss of a technology company uses transfusions from a "blood boy" in an attempt to stay young and live longer.
This lends weight to the fact that it is a widely-reported trend in Silicon Valley. It could be rewritten to make it clear that it's satirical.
violet/riga
[talk] 10:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
News media have widely reported such practices using far-fetched analogies, likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. Others have related it to stories of vampires.
To paraphrase a source, the vampire analogies write themselves. Because this rumoured practice is so prevalent I think it is fine to say that it is being reported in an overly-hyped way.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Editorial/argumentative. Jytdog ( talk) 18:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
While media reports liken the potential to the fountain of youth and the elixir of life no evidence of success has been found in any human trial.
hype is at risk of taking over an area of translational researchand does talk of the fountain of youth. ScienceAlert says
Despite the hype, giving dementia patients the blood of young donors hasn't turned out to be the silver bullet in the heart of Alzheimer's - not yet, at any ratebut I don't really like the false hope of "not yet". Economist says
anti-ageing research is dogged by cycles of hype and …but now it's locked behind the paywall. It's going to be difficult to have a decent source that specifically says that these terms are used. Incidentally, the reason I want to include them is to decry them. violet/riga [talk] 19:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
violetriga, I'm subscribed to The Economist, so if you'd like me to take a look at a particular story of theirs please let me know. But we really should have referencing for criticism of the media coverage. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Options for wording of the first sentence:
1) "from a young person into an older person"
2) "from a young animal into an older recipient"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed this straw poll. I've already changed:
Young blood transfusion refers to transfusing blood specifically from a young animal into an older recipient with the intention of creating a medicinal benefit.to:
Young blood transfusion refers to transfusing blood specifically from a young person into an older one with the intention of creating a medicinal benefit.
because there is nothing in the sources suggesting that blood transfusions in mice are done for the "medicinal benefit" of the mice. I'm sorry, James but I don't see that there is any option here. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Human trials are reported to be underway in China and Korea but with very little detail about what is actually involved. [2]
References
So what Inc says, exactly is:
That practice is known as parabiosis, and, according to Thiel, it's a potential biological Fountain of Youth--the closest thing science has discovered to an anti-aging panacea. Research into parabiosis began in the 1950s with crude experiments that involved cutting rats open and stitching their circulatory systems together. After decades languishing on the fringes, it's recently started getting attention from mainstream researchers, with multiple clinical trials underway in humans in the U.S. and even more advanced studies in China and Korea.
So a few things.
So - the source is not OK, and unsurprisingly it gets the science wrong. The content also misled the reader. This sentence and source should not be in the article. I will see what I can find from MEDRS sources about ongoing research. Jytdog ( talk) 17:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The mention of David Wright does not say why any of it relates to young blood transfusion rather than simply being an IV treatment. Physician David Wright is involved with doing intravenous treatments of vitamins and antibiotics for "non traditional" purposes.
This should be clarified or removed.
violet/riga
[talk] 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
PMID 29722305, found by Jytdog, states:
"One pilot human study found that young donor plasma infusion protocols for adults with Alzheimer's disease were safe and feasible; however, no statistically significant improvements in cognition were detected. There is a need to conduct additional placebo-controlled human studies in larger samples. Future studies should focus on identifying an "optimal age" at which an intervention in humans may yield significant cognitive enhancement, as well as determining the types of transfusions with the best efficacy and tolerability profiles."
This could be added in the following way to the final paragraph after the mention of Alkahest: The use of young donor plasma is noted as a "safe and feasible" potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease but there remains no discernible cognitive improvements from the single published study in humans. A review of the study recommends that future research should focus on discovering the "optimal age" at which a person receives the treatment in order to measure any enhancement of cognitive function.
Suggestions welcome. violet/riga [talk] 19:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's somewhat significant that Alkahest itself says that there's no significant effect in its early results. I'm not sure how to phrase it so as not to give the impression that it is MEDRS. Kavigupta ( talk) 05:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, I can see why you reverted this edit (reading it over it does look promotional, though this was not my intent) but I do think that the fact that Ambriosa is making fairly extreme claims is significant in understanding why people might want to give them lots of money. It also is significant that they are making such extreme claims in the absence of evidence, which suggests a less-than-scientific approach.
Do you have a better phrasing? Perhaps describing their claims in more clinical language that suggests less endorsement? Kavigupta ( talk) 05:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist. |
As of 2018 another organization, the Young Blood Institute, run by Mark Urdahl, Founder & CEO, was promoting young blood transfusion. The Young Blood Institute's trial has been promoted by Bill Faloon, [1] who founded the Life Extension Foundation, [2] which was raided by the FDA In 1987 for illegally importing medicine in a later-dropped case. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehogsrock ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC (UTC)
References
sciam
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Therefore, the proposed claims cannot be verified and no changes are necessary with the standing version of the article's claims.
Regards,
Spintendo 22:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Notes
Dipnarine Maharaj was running the trial;) It doesn't say running a trial -- Hedgehogsrock ( talk) 15:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You should mention Alex Bogdanov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4150:880:AA00:F877:2881:17E5:8EDE ( talk) 06:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Requested Edits1. "The scientific community currently views the practice as essentially pseudoscientific, with comparisons to snake oil." This needs to change. It is not the entire scientific community, rather a small number of people with business conflicts of interest. There are multiple companies working in this space and not all of them have been called snake oil. If someone has called one of the company's products snake oil, these criticisms should be moved to the appropriate subheading. There is real science behind Ambrosia's treatments, for instance, as they conducted a registered, approved clinical trial. 2. "There are also concerns of harm. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in 2019, cautioned "consumers against receiving young donor plasma infusions" stating that they are an "unproven treatment"." Ambrosia has reported that the FDA did not research their announcement, which is an important fact which should be added to the article if the FDA announcement is going to be kept. If there are concerns of harm, what concerns and who expressed them should be included. 3. "Parabiosis experiments are difficult to generalize, as the circulatory systems of the mice are fully joined and it is unclear whether the benefits come from the sharing of blood or the older mouse's access to the younger mouse's organs." That is not correct. There have been numerous mouse studies showing it is the young blood itself, and molecules in the young blood, which are responsible for the effect. This needs to be updated. 4. "A study conducted at UC Berkeley found that blood from older mice hurt younger mice, while older mice were not benefited by the blood of younger mice." This is misleading. Every other parabiosis author has concluded that parabiosis produces improvements, and there are many such publications. Even Conboy's previous publications say improvements were found. This evidence needs to be included so that readers can understand the full picture. 5. "In experiments like this, researchers found that some of these mice died quickly (11 out of 69 in one experiment) for reasons the scientists could not explain, but described as possibly some form of rejection." This information is from the same biased article. Also, it is not relevant. In parabiosis, two animals are surgically connected via their flanks. Transfusions are an IV infusion. What the reporter is describing is parabiotic disease which is due to the direct connection of the animals. There is a pattern of bias in this article. 6. "Amy Wagers, a researcher who coauthored several mouse studies on young blood transfusion, has said that her papers do not provide a scientific basis for some of the existing human trials." Amy Wagers has a business conflict of interest, in the company Elevian. Readers need this information if this criticism is going to be included at all. 7. "Evidence from two large studies in 2017 showed that the transfusion of blood from younger donors to older people led to outcomes that were either no different from, or led to worse outcomes than, blood from older donors." These are not prospective trials. Ambrosia conducted a prospective trial and that is considered a higher standard of scientific results. The results posted on Ambrosia's website should be included. 8. "Research on blood transfusion outcomes has been complicated by the lack of careful characterization of the transfusion products that have been used in clinical trials; studies had focused on how storage methods and duration might affect blood, but not on the differences among lots of blood themselves." This is not relevant. The cited study is examining blood storage duration, while young blood transfusions refers to the age of the donor. It should be removed. To be continued in a second post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 ( talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the actual content of this request, I suspect that none of us volunteers has the time to write an overarching reply to all the points, but let me address the first one. The term "snake oil" is used in multiple places by multiple people. It is not exactly a scientific term but it clearly reflects the scientific consensus, and I think it works well. The only people who have a business interest here are the representatives of the companies peddling these treatments. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Requested Edits 29. The first section under Commercial development describes the FDA's unresearched announcement. If this is going to be included at all, perhaps it should be moved to another section, and this section would focus on the commercial development, not the regulator's response. 10. "A startup company, Ambrosia, has been selling "young blood transfusions" for $8,000 since 2016 under the guise of running a clinical trial, to see if such transfusions lead to changes in the blood of recipients." There is no reason to put quotes around "young blood transfusion", the article title is already young blood transfusion. The word guise is biased and is not a neutral point of view. 11. "The clinical trial has no control arm and so is neither randomized nor blind." This is incorrect. The clinical trial included a control group, but it did not include a placebo. This is not written from a neutral point of view. Many clinical studies are non-randomized and open label. 12. "The company was started by Jesse Karmazin, a medical school graduate without a license to practice medicine." This is misleading. All of the doctors who have provided Ambrosia's treatments have been fully licensed. Healthcare CEOs do not typically have licensed to practice medicine. 13. "David Wright is the licensed doctor overseeing the clinical trial; in his practice he administers intravenous treatments of vitamins and antibiotics for nontraditional purposes and was disciplined by the California Medical Board for the latter in 2015." This should be removed. Dr. Wright no longer works with Ambrosia and most of Ambrosia's treatments have been delivered by other physicians at this point. He was removed before the end of the clinical trial, which successfully concluded in 2018. 14. "Jonathan Kimmelman, a bioethicist from McGill University, suggests that Ambrosia is running this as a trial as they would be unable to get FDA approval to sell this treatment otherwise." This is incorrect. Blood products are approved drugs in the United States. Once the FDA approves a drug, doctors are free to prescribe it according to their judgment. 15. "On February 19, 2019, Ambrosia announced it stopped testing the treatment, responding to concerns from the FDA." Ambrosia has stated it paused treatments, and has since restarted treating patients in the same year, 2019. The word "testing" makes no sense since their clinical trial ended successfully in 2018. This needs to be updated as it misleads readers; Ambrosia is currently open for business and treating patients. 16. Young Blood Institute This entire section should be removed. Despite their name, the Young Blood Institute does not offer young blood transfusions. They offer plasma exchange. Perhaps this section should be moved to an article on plasma exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 ( talk) 06:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not being disruptive.Please see multiple posts above and on your talk page explaining to you why and how the edits you made were disruptive. (What I cannot find is a single instance where anyone other than you has talked about banning – it is not the same thing as blocking, as I'm sure you are aware, since you say you have been reading up on Wikipedia's policies.) Again, it is up to you whether you want to edit in a collaborative manner or not, and this is my final comment in this discussion, as it does not belong on an article talk page (it is unfortunate that you remove all user talk page messages instead of letting the behavioural discussion happen there, but that is also your choice). -- bonadea contributions talk 09:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Requested edits: continued discussion from User talk:YorkshireLadMoving discussion here from User talk:YorkshireLad (see archive), as requested by User:210.6.209.89. @ 210.6.209.89: I do understand the difference between a control, a control arm and a placebo, though thank you for offering to explain. I believe, however, that I have provided sufficient sources to support the claim that there was no control group (synonymous with "control arm") in the study, as listed earlier in the discussion on my talk page. I can add one of these to the article, but more than that would be overkill. YorkshireLad ( talk) 09:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog: Ooh, thank you, I did not know that! :-) @ Mr. Vernon: The editor definitely seems to have an agenda; however, I have to (somewhat reluctantly) admit that they're right that the section on the YBI mostly isn't on the YBI at all. If nobody has any objection, I might fix that (though it is not really my priority either—as I said to the IP editor, this isn't really a topic I enjoy editing, and I only got involved by being on WP:RCP). YorkshireLad ( talk) 17:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
As I suggested above, I've tried to fix the YBI section. It seems that what's happened is that the author Daily Beast source [5] got confused, describing the YBI while linking to (and attributing a claim to) the SciAm source [6]—which, if you actually read it, doesn't mention the YBI or the people involved with it at all. All the other sources in that section are then daisy-chained along from the people mentioned in SciAm, so that actually none of that section related to the YBI.
I've split the section in two: one describing the trial referenced in SciAm, and the other a (very short) section on the YBI. I'm not convinced the new "Maharaj/Faloon trial" section is particularly NPOV (I didn't change the wording, other than to remove references to the YBI); as far as I can tell, the facts check out, but it reads as if someone's trying too hard to connect the people involved to shady goings-on unrelated to blood transfusion. Anyway, I'll leave that for someone else to fix, should they wish. YorkshireLad ( talk) 00:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to assist with editing this page. How do I do so? AE3yia1AJeQ ( talk) 13:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Returning to the original topic - AE made a bold edit. It was reverted. A discussion ensued here. A consensus should be attempted here before any more edits are made to the article. Personally, I STRONGLY (yes capitalized) disagree with the edit by AE as an attempt to remove valid criticism of the "Young Blood"'s utter lack of scientific evidence. Strong medical claims require strong evidence. Instead, there is no valid evidence whatsoever. WP:MEDRS applies. David notMD ( talk) 15:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
For that one publication, not only was it an uncontrolled clinical trial (not WP:MEDRS), but it reported no measures of mental function, only extent of adverse events. David notMD ( talk) 18:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a frequent editor so I wanted to start a discussion rather than just making a potentially contentious change myself: From the body of the article it seems like there's not sufficient consensus in the cited sources to claim either that this is pseudoscience or that it's a useful treatment in humans.
Maybe a more neutral term would be something like "proposed", "unvalidated", "unproven", "experimental", "conjectured", or "theoretical"?
Also: sorry if "subtitle" is the wrong term here; I'm not actually sure what to call that piece of the article structure! If there's somewhere obvious I should have looked for "what are the parts of a Wikipedia article called", I would welcome corrections.
Matthewavant (
talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Young blood transfusion.
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
complementary and alternative medicine, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
|
|
It has just been found that it is not the young-blood that is beneficial, but rather, it is the dilution of the bad stuff in the old blood that reduces effects of ageing: https://newatlas.com/medical/diluted-blood-plasma-reverse-aging-in-mice/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.72.26 ( talk) 01:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
What does this mean? Did they do any research with human young blood? I can't access the article right now. Natureium ( talk) 00:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Recent studies shed light on an unexpected issue in transfusion medicine and blood collection: not all donors may be equal relative to the quality of their blood and the transfusion outcome in patients. Young and female donors’ blood may be poorer than male and older donors’ [1]. This was indeed unexpected as experimental work—though unrelated to the transfusion field—suggested rejuvenation factors in young individuals’ plasma, at least in mice and as applied to neuronal plasticity [2,3]. </ref>
Roxy the dog, this is an old, inactive, completed discussion. This talk page is filled with old and finished discussions. I would like to archive them to clean up the talk page. 210.6.209.89 ( talk) 08:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Roxy the dog, that is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. I would like to archive these old, finished discussions. I have reviewed wikipedia's policy on archiving. Meters has threatened to block me for archiving these discussions. Respond, so that we can have a discussion, otherwise you are acting in an authoritarian manner, which is not consistent with wikipedia's policies. 210.6.209.89 ( talk) 08:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I've said all I need to. What happens next is up to you. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
In my view the following should not be included in the article, per WP:NOTGOSSIP. What do others think. We can have an RfC if there is no clear consensus here.
Jeff Bercovici wrote in Inc. that "life-extension science is a popular obsession" in Silicon Valley and that regenerative medicine was a fad which started in the 2000s. Bercovici states that there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood". Technology entrepreneur Peter Thiel has an interest in Ambrosia. [1] [2] News media have widely reported such practices using hyperbole, making hugely-exaggerated claims likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. [3] [4] Others have related it to stories of vampires. [5] [6]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Most of it is "reporting" recentist gossip, and the only putatively substantial part, about Thiel's "interest" is also gossip, per this piece in Tech Crunch
-- Jytdog ( talk) 00:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I skimmed this; you're right.
I don't think this is gossip which is basically rumour. If something is sourced in a reliable source then it becomes journalism :O). Because this is not just about some obscure research but has been reported in the popular press, we should note that, so this is fine. "News media have widely reported such practices using hyperbole, making hugely-exaggerated claims likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life"( Littleolive oil ( talk) 14:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC))
Does anybody think that the Medium source even meets WP:RS? I can bring this to RSN if there is no clear consensus here.
The source is
"Young Blood Transfusions - The Elixir Of Youth?". Medium. 1 November 2017. Retrieved 6 May 2018. {{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
The citation omits the author, which btw, is "Immortal Coin". Jytdog ( talk) 00:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
In addition to being unreliable, none of the references cited even supported the material it was citing (that the media were using "hyperbole"), so I've removed that piece entirely. If someone wants to say media coverage is "hyperbolic", the specific claim of hyperbole will need to be backed by references saying so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
These diffs are not an improvement. Jytdog ( talk) 02:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
This is some of the content which indicates there may be more than just a claim of snake oil:
What is the current state of the science in terms of parabiosis and anti-aging effects? Any specific health claims for humans is definitely unproven at this time, but the research is intriguing (i.e., perfect for snake oil).
We are in the preliminary research stage. In order to truly answer these questions we need to do carefully-controlled clinical research in humans. As of right now, young blood transfusions as the next elixir of youth is enjoying its 15 minutes of fame. The science is genuinely interesting, and seems deserving of further research. What is clearly needed is high quality clinical research, before any clinical claims are made.
Given history, however, it is likely that young transfusions, or even some form of parabiosis, will now also take on a life of its own as the latest snake oil product.
I'm fine with the lede as written now. However, I have a few thoughts. Summarizing a source accurately can't be a promotional action. While I agree we don't want to give the sense that there is support for this procedure we also have a commitment to note what is in the sources. If we accept that an author is reliable for pejorative content per our standards, he logically must also reliable for the other stuff too. We can't cherry pick just the parts of the article that support the view that we are writing about something that is fringe. The author says specifically the research to date has been intriguing and is worth looking at further. I have no desire to get into a discussion about whether this content should be included but I do want to make a clear point here and for later, that summarizing a source in its entirety is what we do. If there is something positive in the article and its is clearly an aspect of the article we are bound to report it like it or not. This topic gives me the shivers and makes me think of some of the post apocalyptical movies I've seen. I hate the idea whether it works or not so I sure don't want to promote it, but as a Wikipedia editor I am bound to deal with all of the source faithfully. What we have to do is make sure it is weighted properly per other content. I'm not sure how to do that in this case as I said above but its what we're supposed to do.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC))
Add: This (below) would be good. Remove the mouse content and leave the rest. Per MOS the lede doesn't need sources since lede content is summarizing content sourced in the rest of the article.
There are no human trials on the technique and the lack of evidence and rigorous test environments means that the scientific community remains highly skeptical and considers the practice as little more than snake oil. Furthermore, contradictory evidence suggests that young blood may have a reduced impact compared to other sources.
So
So Karmazin was somewhat surprised to get a message from Jason Camm, chief medical officer at Thiel Capital, who expressed interest in what the company was doing."
That sounds like Karmazin told the reporter that Camm actually reached out to him.
The story reported that Thiel Capital medical director Jason Camm (who is also an angel investor) had even contacted a startup called Ambrosia that was harvesting the blood of teens.
In short order, Vanity Fair, Gawker and numerous other media sites repeated the story. Ambrosia received so much press attention that founder Jesse Karmazin was even invited to talk about his work at Recode’s recent Code Conference. Meanwhile, an episode of HBO’s “Silicon Valley” poked fun at the unsettling idea.
But the story that took shape, that Thiel was looking to harvest the blood of the young, simply isn’t true according to Karmazin, who told us when asked that he was never contacted by Thiel or anyone associated with Thiel Capital. “I wish I did know Peter Thiel,” he said. “He’s not even a patient. If he were, I would have to say ‘We can’t disclose that information.’ But he’s not even a patient so I can tell you, he’s not a patient’.”
here, Karmazin is cited as saying the opposite.
So why does the article act as thought the 2nd ref doesn't exist?
Again this is pure gossip and should not be in the article. It is not as though Thiel actually invested (which is what this page actually
said when it was nominated for DYK - namely Billionaire Peter Thiel is a prominent investor in Ambrosia
.)
This chunk of content is all about whether X talked to Y which is not even certain.
This passage is not "accepted knowledge" and has nothing to do with our mission. Again, WP:NOTGOSSIP.
If we need to go to an RfC I will do that, but i cannot imagine that community would find the current content even close to OK. Jytdog ( talk) 04:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
So the lead has been reverted. Now it has the same citation three times in a row despite leads not needing citations. The lead I wrote summarised the article without, I think, promoting any viewpoint. It was reverted with the comment "we do not hype rodent studies. Ever." Well to me that's a blatant example of systemic bias. This article isn't supposed to be all about the effect in humans - current research has been focused on rodents. It's mentioned significantly in the article and should be in the lead too. violet/riga [talk] 00:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog. If there is content in the article on mouse studies then the lede which summarizes the body of the article can also mention in a summarized form the mouse studies. You keep citing the mouse studies as if they were added to show that what happens in mice could also happen in human beings.I keep telling you, that isn't what's being added and I don't see that in the source. You seem fixated on this point. Of course there are studies which create health benefits in animals which do not effect human beings in the same way. I repeat no one is trying to say that the mouse studies showed usefulness in human beings.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 02:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC))
Littleolive oil makes the point above that the article could be written in sections to highlight the difference between testing in rodents and testing in humans. This is indeed something that needs to be made clear in the article. In fact, that's exactly what there was before Jytdog came and messed around with everything. violet/riga [talk] 10:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Doc James: Your addition of a section titled "Availability" makes this article seem more commercially focused. I think if we divide out a section on commercial availability, we need to create sections for the other information. Anyone disagree? Natureium ( talk) 03:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
When comparing blood from mice of different ages it has been observed that the amount of some proteins in the young mouse blood exceed that in older mice.
This is taken from a source that Jytdog favours yet he refuses to have it mentioned in the article. This is the exact meaning of this article!! Stop being so human-centric! You claim that there aren't any human trials so you want to remove the only studies that have been concluded?!
violet/riga
[talk] 22:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Stop adding the reference to snake oil. The source does not call young blood transfusion that - the mention in the source relates to parabiosis which is different! violet/riga [talk] 01:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article define what it is. The second sentence should explain the mainstream scientific opinion on this practice. IMO the following sentence sums it up well.
Option 1: The scientific community currently views the practice as little more than snake oil.
The source in question says:
This ref says it
IMO this supports the text in question. Please feel free to add you suggestion below. Once we have collected the suggestion we can start the RfC. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Despite Jytdog's attempts to silence the 'opposition' there actually remains very little content that is disputed. I am going to assume that the article as it stands now is accepted by Jytdog given how quickly opposed content has been removed. I will try to summarise the differences between the article now and the version I have worked on in user space. Hopefully these can be looked at separately rather than a bulk dismissal. violet/riga [talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The inclusion of Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray leads a team of researchers
. I think that naming one of the lead researchers in the field is beneficial.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It has been said that we should not have too much content about mice. I maintain that this topic is almost entirely focussed on lab tests in mice and that it is not a problem to refer to them when no human tests are available as long as it is not presented in a way which implies that the same results are expected in humans. Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray leads a team of researchers at Stanford University investigating the use of young blood transfusions in mice. A study published by them in 2014 detailed the results of several tests including parabiosis in mice; as part of their investigations they sutured two mice of different ages together, with both animals sharing a circulatory system. The study concluded that the blood from the younger mouse contributed to improved synaptic plasticity in the older mouse and this consequently led to a perceived improvement in learning and memory. They also demonstrated that a transferral of a young mouse's blood plasma into an older mouse allowed the latter to significantly improve in certain tasks related to learning and memory
I believe that this comes from a decent source (
Scientific American) and it links to the
2014 study as published in Nature.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
In 2017 a further study by Wyss-Coray and his team was published in Nature. This showed that older mice could benefit from blood transfused from human umbilical cords. They claim that this appears to "rejuvenate an old brain and make it work more like a younger one".
Again from Scientific American.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
In a 2017 article published in The Economist the effects in mice were labelled "spectacular" but the author made the point that the reason why this happened was not clear.
This again clearly refers to mice and does not suggest that such things are likely in human trials.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
In 2018 a study by Dr. Saul Villeda, an assistant professor at the University of California, published new findings in journal Cell Reports. Villeda suggests that old brains may have "dormant plasticity" which can be utilised. "Young blood" has the ability to stimulate significant changes in DNA as regulated by the TET2 enzyme. Older brains have lower levels of TET2 with the hippocampus, the area of the brain associated with memory and learning, being particularly deficient. Villeda believes that DNA manipulation might in the future allow scientists to "make an organism younger again".
This gives info about a potential reason why mouse studies have shown positive results. I am not particularly in favour of this section as it does sound like it is suggesting potential success in humans despite referring to "organism[s]".
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The current version uses an MIT Technology Review reference three times. I believe that this could also be included: Amy Maxmen writing for the MIT Technology Review warned of the dangers of such trials, noting that transfusions are generally considered safe but can have side effects including deadly infections.
This explicitly warns of (one of) the dangers of this treatment so I'm unsure why this is not acceptable.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Given the lack of opposition I plan to include this sentence to highlight that transfusions are generally dangerous. violet/riga [talk] 18:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
It is widely accepted (
New York Times
NewYorker
Wired
Smithsonian
Financial Times) that Silicon Valley has some fascination with
life extension. Young blood transfusions have been called a "current trend" in regenerative medicine, with significant Silicon Valley investment in "life extension". Jeff Bercovici wrote for Inc. that it is "a popular obsession" and that there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood".
I think that this is vital in reporting that some people are obsessed with it when such reports are commonplace. I don't believe that this is a BLP issue as claimed because nobody is identified by the general statement. It does not imply that the 'treatment' works, merely that some people are spending stupid amounts of money on this very thing.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Longevity and life extension research has always interested the public and the scientific community. In Silicon Valley interest in life extension was crystallized in 2013 by the founding of Calico by Bill Maris, who ran Google Ventures. This interest included the results of parabiosis research. Tom Rando, from whose lab at Stanford Alkahest was founded, told a reporter from the New Yorker: “I’ve had a lot of meetings with young billionaires in Silicon Valley, and they all, to varying degrees, want to know when the secrets are coming out, both so they can get in on the next big thing and so they can personally take advantage of them. I say, ‘This is not an app. If you come at biology from a tech point of view, you’re going to be disappointed, because the pace is much slower.’”. [1]
Nothing is real until it has been parodied. The practice was referenced in a 2017 episode of comedy series Silicon Valley in which the boss of a technology company uses transfusions from a "blood boy" in an attempt to stay young and live longer.
This lends weight to the fact that it is a widely-reported trend in Silicon Valley. It could be rewritten to make it clear that it's satirical.
violet/riga
[talk] 10:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
News media have widely reported such practices using far-fetched analogies, likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. Others have related it to stories of vampires.
To paraphrase a source, the vampire analogies write themselves. Because this rumoured practice is so prevalent I think it is fine to say that it is being reported in an overly-hyped way.
violet/riga
[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Editorial/argumentative. Jytdog ( talk) 18:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
While media reports liken the potential to the fountain of youth and the elixir of life no evidence of success has been found in any human trial.
hype is at risk of taking over an area of translational researchand does talk of the fountain of youth. ScienceAlert says
Despite the hype, giving dementia patients the blood of young donors hasn't turned out to be the silver bullet in the heart of Alzheimer's - not yet, at any ratebut I don't really like the false hope of "not yet". Economist says
anti-ageing research is dogged by cycles of hype and …but now it's locked behind the paywall. It's going to be difficult to have a decent source that specifically says that these terms are used. Incidentally, the reason I want to include them is to decry them. violet/riga [talk] 19:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
violetriga, I'm subscribed to The Economist, so if you'd like me to take a look at a particular story of theirs please let me know. But we really should have referencing for criticism of the media coverage. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Options for wording of the first sentence:
1) "from a young person into an older person"
2) "from a young animal into an older recipient"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed this straw poll. I've already changed:
Young blood transfusion refers to transfusing blood specifically from a young animal into an older recipient with the intention of creating a medicinal benefit.to:
Young blood transfusion refers to transfusing blood specifically from a young person into an older one with the intention of creating a medicinal benefit.
because there is nothing in the sources suggesting that blood transfusions in mice are done for the "medicinal benefit" of the mice. I'm sorry, James but I don't see that there is any option here. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Human trials are reported to be underway in China and Korea but with very little detail about what is actually involved. [2]
References
So what Inc says, exactly is:
That practice is known as parabiosis, and, according to Thiel, it's a potential biological Fountain of Youth--the closest thing science has discovered to an anti-aging panacea. Research into parabiosis began in the 1950s with crude experiments that involved cutting rats open and stitching their circulatory systems together. After decades languishing on the fringes, it's recently started getting attention from mainstream researchers, with multiple clinical trials underway in humans in the U.S. and even more advanced studies in China and Korea.
So a few things.
So - the source is not OK, and unsurprisingly it gets the science wrong. The content also misled the reader. This sentence and source should not be in the article. I will see what I can find from MEDRS sources about ongoing research. Jytdog ( talk) 17:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The mention of David Wright does not say why any of it relates to young blood transfusion rather than simply being an IV treatment. Physician David Wright is involved with doing intravenous treatments of vitamins and antibiotics for "non traditional" purposes.
This should be clarified or removed.
violet/riga
[talk] 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
PMID 29722305, found by Jytdog, states:
"One pilot human study found that young donor plasma infusion protocols for adults with Alzheimer's disease were safe and feasible; however, no statistically significant improvements in cognition were detected. There is a need to conduct additional placebo-controlled human studies in larger samples. Future studies should focus on identifying an "optimal age" at which an intervention in humans may yield significant cognitive enhancement, as well as determining the types of transfusions with the best efficacy and tolerability profiles."
This could be added in the following way to the final paragraph after the mention of Alkahest: The use of young donor plasma is noted as a "safe and feasible" potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease but there remains no discernible cognitive improvements from the single published study in humans. A review of the study recommends that future research should focus on discovering the "optimal age" at which a person receives the treatment in order to measure any enhancement of cognitive function.
Suggestions welcome. violet/riga [talk] 19:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's somewhat significant that Alkahest itself says that there's no significant effect in its early results. I'm not sure how to phrase it so as not to give the impression that it is MEDRS. Kavigupta ( talk) 05:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, I can see why you reverted this edit (reading it over it does look promotional, though this was not my intent) but I do think that the fact that Ambriosa is making fairly extreme claims is significant in understanding why people might want to give them lots of money. It also is significant that they are making such extreme claims in the absence of evidence, which suggests a less-than-scientific approach.
Do you have a better phrasing? Perhaps describing their claims in more clinical language that suggests less endorsement? Kavigupta ( talk) 05:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist. |
As of 2018 another organization, the Young Blood Institute, run by Mark Urdahl, Founder & CEO, was promoting young blood transfusion. The Young Blood Institute's trial has been promoted by Bill Faloon, [1] who founded the Life Extension Foundation, [2] which was raided by the FDA In 1987 for illegally importing medicine in a later-dropped case. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehogsrock ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC (UTC)
References
sciam
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Therefore, the proposed claims cannot be verified and no changes are necessary with the standing version of the article's claims.
Regards,
Spintendo 22:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Notes
Dipnarine Maharaj was running the trial;) It doesn't say running a trial -- Hedgehogsrock ( talk) 15:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You should mention Alex Bogdanov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4150:880:AA00:F877:2881:17E5:8EDE ( talk) 06:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Requested Edits1. "The scientific community currently views the practice as essentially pseudoscientific, with comparisons to snake oil." This needs to change. It is not the entire scientific community, rather a small number of people with business conflicts of interest. There are multiple companies working in this space and not all of them have been called snake oil. If someone has called one of the company's products snake oil, these criticisms should be moved to the appropriate subheading. There is real science behind Ambrosia's treatments, for instance, as they conducted a registered, approved clinical trial. 2. "There are also concerns of harm. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in 2019, cautioned "consumers against receiving young donor plasma infusions" stating that they are an "unproven treatment"." Ambrosia has reported that the FDA did not research their announcement, which is an important fact which should be added to the article if the FDA announcement is going to be kept. If there are concerns of harm, what concerns and who expressed them should be included. 3. "Parabiosis experiments are difficult to generalize, as the circulatory systems of the mice are fully joined and it is unclear whether the benefits come from the sharing of blood or the older mouse's access to the younger mouse's organs." That is not correct. There have been numerous mouse studies showing it is the young blood itself, and molecules in the young blood, which are responsible for the effect. This needs to be updated. 4. "A study conducted at UC Berkeley found that blood from older mice hurt younger mice, while older mice were not benefited by the blood of younger mice." This is misleading. Every other parabiosis author has concluded that parabiosis produces improvements, and there are many such publications. Even Conboy's previous publications say improvements were found. This evidence needs to be included so that readers can understand the full picture. 5. "In experiments like this, researchers found that some of these mice died quickly (11 out of 69 in one experiment) for reasons the scientists could not explain, but described as possibly some form of rejection." This information is from the same biased article. Also, it is not relevant. In parabiosis, two animals are surgically connected via their flanks. Transfusions are an IV infusion. What the reporter is describing is parabiotic disease which is due to the direct connection of the animals. There is a pattern of bias in this article. 6. "Amy Wagers, a researcher who coauthored several mouse studies on young blood transfusion, has said that her papers do not provide a scientific basis for some of the existing human trials." Amy Wagers has a business conflict of interest, in the company Elevian. Readers need this information if this criticism is going to be included at all. 7. "Evidence from two large studies in 2017 showed that the transfusion of blood from younger donors to older people led to outcomes that were either no different from, or led to worse outcomes than, blood from older donors." These are not prospective trials. Ambrosia conducted a prospective trial and that is considered a higher standard of scientific results. The results posted on Ambrosia's website should be included. 8. "Research on blood transfusion outcomes has been complicated by the lack of careful characterization of the transfusion products that have been used in clinical trials; studies had focused on how storage methods and duration might affect blood, but not on the differences among lots of blood themselves." This is not relevant. The cited study is examining blood storage duration, while young blood transfusions refers to the age of the donor. It should be removed. To be continued in a second post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 ( talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the actual content of this request, I suspect that none of us volunteers has the time to write an overarching reply to all the points, but let me address the first one. The term "snake oil" is used in multiple places by multiple people. It is not exactly a scientific term but it clearly reflects the scientific consensus, and I think it works well. The only people who have a business interest here are the representatives of the companies peddling these treatments. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Requested Edits 29. The first section under Commercial development describes the FDA's unresearched announcement. If this is going to be included at all, perhaps it should be moved to another section, and this section would focus on the commercial development, not the regulator's response. 10. "A startup company, Ambrosia, has been selling "young blood transfusions" for $8,000 since 2016 under the guise of running a clinical trial, to see if such transfusions lead to changes in the blood of recipients." There is no reason to put quotes around "young blood transfusion", the article title is already young blood transfusion. The word guise is biased and is not a neutral point of view. 11. "The clinical trial has no control arm and so is neither randomized nor blind." This is incorrect. The clinical trial included a control group, but it did not include a placebo. This is not written from a neutral point of view. Many clinical studies are non-randomized and open label. 12. "The company was started by Jesse Karmazin, a medical school graduate without a license to practice medicine." This is misleading. All of the doctors who have provided Ambrosia's treatments have been fully licensed. Healthcare CEOs do not typically have licensed to practice medicine. 13. "David Wright is the licensed doctor overseeing the clinical trial; in his practice he administers intravenous treatments of vitamins and antibiotics for nontraditional purposes and was disciplined by the California Medical Board for the latter in 2015." This should be removed. Dr. Wright no longer works with Ambrosia and most of Ambrosia's treatments have been delivered by other physicians at this point. He was removed before the end of the clinical trial, which successfully concluded in 2018. 14. "Jonathan Kimmelman, a bioethicist from McGill University, suggests that Ambrosia is running this as a trial as they would be unable to get FDA approval to sell this treatment otherwise." This is incorrect. Blood products are approved drugs in the United States. Once the FDA approves a drug, doctors are free to prescribe it according to their judgment. 15. "On February 19, 2019, Ambrosia announced it stopped testing the treatment, responding to concerns from the FDA." Ambrosia has stated it paused treatments, and has since restarted treating patients in the same year, 2019. The word "testing" makes no sense since their clinical trial ended successfully in 2018. This needs to be updated as it misleads readers; Ambrosia is currently open for business and treating patients. 16. Young Blood Institute This entire section should be removed. Despite their name, the Young Blood Institute does not offer young blood transfusions. They offer plasma exchange. Perhaps this section should be moved to an article on plasma exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 ( talk) 06:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not being disruptive.Please see multiple posts above and on your talk page explaining to you why and how the edits you made were disruptive. (What I cannot find is a single instance where anyone other than you has talked about banning – it is not the same thing as blocking, as I'm sure you are aware, since you say you have been reading up on Wikipedia's policies.) Again, it is up to you whether you want to edit in a collaborative manner or not, and this is my final comment in this discussion, as it does not belong on an article talk page (it is unfortunate that you remove all user talk page messages instead of letting the behavioural discussion happen there, but that is also your choice). -- bonadea contributions talk 09:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Requested edits: continued discussion from User talk:YorkshireLadMoving discussion here from User talk:YorkshireLad (see archive), as requested by User:210.6.209.89. @ 210.6.209.89: I do understand the difference between a control, a control arm and a placebo, though thank you for offering to explain. I believe, however, that I have provided sufficient sources to support the claim that there was no control group (synonymous with "control arm") in the study, as listed earlier in the discussion on my talk page. I can add one of these to the article, but more than that would be overkill. YorkshireLad ( talk) 09:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog: Ooh, thank you, I did not know that! :-) @ Mr. Vernon: The editor definitely seems to have an agenda; however, I have to (somewhat reluctantly) admit that they're right that the section on the YBI mostly isn't on the YBI at all. If nobody has any objection, I might fix that (though it is not really my priority either—as I said to the IP editor, this isn't really a topic I enjoy editing, and I only got involved by being on WP:RCP). YorkshireLad ( talk) 17:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
As I suggested above, I've tried to fix the YBI section. It seems that what's happened is that the author Daily Beast source [5] got confused, describing the YBI while linking to (and attributing a claim to) the SciAm source [6]—which, if you actually read it, doesn't mention the YBI or the people involved with it at all. All the other sources in that section are then daisy-chained along from the people mentioned in SciAm, so that actually none of that section related to the YBI.
I've split the section in two: one describing the trial referenced in SciAm, and the other a (very short) section on the YBI. I'm not convinced the new "Maharaj/Faloon trial" section is particularly NPOV (I didn't change the wording, other than to remove references to the YBI); as far as I can tell, the facts check out, but it reads as if someone's trying too hard to connect the people involved to shady goings-on unrelated to blood transfusion. Anyway, I'll leave that for someone else to fix, should they wish. YorkshireLad ( talk) 00:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to assist with editing this page. How do I do so? AE3yia1AJeQ ( talk) 13:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Returning to the original topic - AE made a bold edit. It was reverted. A discussion ensued here. A consensus should be attempted here before any more edits are made to the article. Personally, I STRONGLY (yes capitalized) disagree with the edit by AE as an attempt to remove valid criticism of the "Young Blood"'s utter lack of scientific evidence. Strong medical claims require strong evidence. Instead, there is no valid evidence whatsoever. WP:MEDRS applies. David notMD ( talk) 15:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
For that one publication, not only was it an uncontrolled clinical trial (not WP:MEDRS), but it reported no measures of mental function, only extent of adverse events. David notMD ( talk) 18:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a frequent editor so I wanted to start a discussion rather than just making a potentially contentious change myself: From the body of the article it seems like there's not sufficient consensus in the cited sources to claim either that this is pseudoscience or that it's a useful treatment in humans.
Maybe a more neutral term would be something like "proposed", "unvalidated", "unproven", "experimental", "conjectured", or "theoretical"?
Also: sorry if "subtitle" is the wrong term here; I'm not actually sure what to call that piece of the article structure! If there's somewhere obvious I should have looked for "what are the parts of a Wikipedia article called", I would welcome corrections.
Matthewavant (
talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)