Does anyone know the process that would take this from pig to human?
Pre-clinical studies on animals, then the usual clinical trial series from Phase I to III on humans. And depending on the sample size required by authorities for approval, and how fast they can produce and transplant lungs, it could take 10 years or likely longer.
Edit: we just had to warn you about this a few hours ago. We ban accounts that do this repeatedly, so would you please review the guidelines and use the site as intended? The idea is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
If I'm reading this correctly, a donor is still needed, and the main advance is that the lung is less likely to be rejected because the cells match the recipient.
So we go from a couple thousand lung transplants a year with 50% mortality to potentially unlimited and much lower mortality (don't really know the mortality rate here but so far looks promising and better than).
If pig lungs are a good enough a fit.
Looks like the age of chimeras is upon us.
There are more pigs in Australia than people, comprised of about 24 million feral pigs and about 4.5 million pigs produced each year for consumption.
Australia's population is currently about 25 million.
We’re not talking about xenotransplantation of living tissues though.
Still, there would probably be a non-zero chance of xenoinfection from non-human non-cellular scaffold use in bioengineered organs.
You’re probably right that if this were to become a use case for non-human parts the source probably wouldn’t be regular far animals.
Not sure how compatible this is w/ the protocol used in the OP.
You would want to start with a healthy organ before decellularising and reseeding.
Stem cell science must above all avoid another Jesse Gelsinger case. Superstar researchers will always want to take chances, but the risks have to be strictly managed by the community or else there will be a backlash and progress will be set back by decades.
This journal article suggests a median survival rate of 5.8 years:
Lung transplants are great but most lung disease occur decades later after a long career especially blue collar jobs where a person is exposed to many irritants not toxic but cause cumulative damage. Although anecdotal sailors (Navy, Coast Guard) for some reason have an unusually high rates of lung disease mainly COPD and IPF.
Lung transplants if possible cut certain nerves and the transplant recipient no longer has a cough reflex due to cutting vagal nerve fibers. But it seems it's possible it can recover, maybe only for younger patients.
I think the recent articles about mitochondria transfer from muscle tissue to damaged tissue is more promising. It would be nice to see some studies on that involving lung tissue.
Investing trillions in universal health care would just be wasted money on a shitty system, like trying to make horses faster rather than inventing the car and plane. The solution to affordable healthcare will be a combination of AI for diagnosis and surgery plus cloning and stem cells for organ transplants.
People need to be patient and put things in perspective, 100 years ago the richest person on earth could die from an infected scratch because we didn't have antibiotics. We've come very far in a short period of time.
The public pays higher taxes for free education for example so our future doctors aren't 500k in debt when they graduate.
Students entering the programs understand this, hence when they graduate they make lower salaries and then pay onto the next generations future.
Taxes are an investment in society, you get positive return on them.
Just lol at the completely broken US system of education, health care and social services. You live in a third world country, I honestly feel bad for you.
(In my country we have a relatively-to-the-US wonderful UHC system, and we still see a lot of research, experiments, competition and innovation)
Also worth noting that the US is essentially the profit center for the entire world's pharma industry. If that was eliminated investment would be reduced globally, not just the US. US citizens are currently subsidizing European countries public healthcare.
I live a rural area a 3hr drive (including ferry time) from a major city centre, but have a nice public health clinic 15 minutes from my house. Ambulances can reach my home in 8 minutes. We have a quite capable hospital 45 minutes drive away which has air evac capability. Advanced healthcare (eg cancer, cardiac care) is available at regional hospitals, with no-cost transport for care.
I had a heart attack a couple of months ago, and received world-class care including open-heart surgery. During that time of extreme stress for me and my family, not for one minute did I think about the financial consequences other than missing some income while I was unable to work.
I don't think of our medical system as being 'free' - I paid for that care through my taxes and a modest premium (today around $75/month per person - BC is I think the last province to still have user-paid premiums and they're scheduled to be phased out over the next couple of years).
I'm really happy with the value for $ spent. Our health care system costs taxpayers just over $4,000 CAD per person per year. Other figures put the total health care spending (including other services such as dental, chiropractic care, etc) at about $6,000 CAD /person/year. OECD sourced figures put the U.S at about $12,000 CAD /person/year. The statement that universal health care must be more expensive than a privately administered system ("money would be stuffed into an inefficient system") is simply a myth.
Again, it seems like your comments are nothing but fear-mongering. Perhaps you honestly believe them. Please consider that you might be simply repeating the arguments you've been given by those with a vested interest in keeping the U.S. system as it is now in place.
To be fair: our Canadian system isn't perfect. Some people fall through the cracks. Some people fight with their insurer (the government) about coverage for rare chronic conditions. Not everyone is completely happy with the system or the treatment they receive. I'm pretty certain that those same statements can be made of any health care system in the world. But for the vast majority of our citizens, including those like me that live in fairly rural areas, it functions pretty well.
Please can you explain the principle behind certificates of need, used in the US?
Because they seem to imply that greater supply will increase, not decrease, cost.
Wait. I do blame you. I also want to remind you that people die in civilised countries of illnesses which can be cured but they can't afford it. And it's because of people which are full of ignorance.
We've gone from borderline stone-age medical treatment where basic surgery was impossible and simple infections untreatable to where we are today in less than a century. Is everything perfect right now? No, but it's improving steadily and I think with the current advances affordable health care will be possible within the next 10-20 years without government mandating it.
The US produces a disproportionate amount of new drugs, other countries mostly create cheaper and easier to make follow on drugs. Get rid of the profit motive and new drug creation grinds to a halt.
This says Western Europe alone is responsible for
22% of pharma revenue, as opposed to 33% from all of the United States: https://www.statista.com/statistics/784420/share-of-worldwid...