Duke Has Quietly Discontinued a Costly, Unproven Autism Treatment
By Anna Merlan,
Vice
| 04. 17. 2023
For several years, parents of autistic children have paid between $10,000 and $15,000 to have their children undergo unproven stem cell and cord blood treatments at Duke University, through what’s called an expanded access program, or EAP. That practice has attracted criticism from observers and ethicists in the stem cell field, who have asked why Duke was charging money for a service when its own clinical trials have not been very promising. In recent months, Duke has sent letters informing parents that this program is no longer available to autistic children—raising new questions about what those parents, who’d been led to believe the treatment might be a panacea for their kids, will do instead.
One of the more urgent questions is whether parents who can’t access the treatment though Duke will instead go to a for-profit partner with ties to the school. That would be Cryo-Cell International, which previously announced that it had entered into a licensing agreement with Duke allowing it to offer the same stem cell infusions in private, for-profit clinics the company has said it plans to...
Related Articles
Image courtesy National Human Genome Research Institute
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to encourage effective medical advances while also ensuring that patients and research subjects are protected. This dual mandate demands tricky judgment calls that are made more difficult by outside pressures of several kinds, political, judicial, and especially commercial. This April story at Bloomberg examines one deeply troubling pattern of regulatory capture:
Americans Are Paying Billions to Take Drugs That Don’t Work
Companies are increasingly...
By Sarah Kliff and Azeen Ghorayshi, The New York Times | 07.15.2024
By Katie LaGrone, WPTV | 06.28.2024
Image by National Cancer Institute from Unsplash
TAMPA, Fla. — A Tampa jury recently found the now-defunct Lung Institute in Tampa guilty of engaging in “deceptive or unfair practices” while it offered customers “valueless” stem cell therapy to treat incurable...
By Peter Aldhous, Scientific American | 07.02.2024
In June a notice posted on the website of the journal Nature set a new scientific record. It withdrew what is now the most highly cited research paper ever to be retracted.
The study, published in 2002 by Catherine Verfaillie...