Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By Ascended
  • 2 Post By icewendigo

Thread: The Trial

  1. #1 The Trial 
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    In Italy, Davide Vannoni made an astonishing claim: he could cure fatal illnesses with stem-cell therapy.
    Yet, Nature News reports:
    "Well over 100 people with conditions ranging from Parkinson's to motor neuron disease to coma — nearly half of them children — have already signed up to participate in the government-sponsored trial, despite there being no published evidence that the therapy could be effective. (...)

    Last year, the US Patent Office issued a ‘pre-final’ rejection of Vannoni's patent — one that allows re-submission, although Vannoni has not yet resubmitted. The rejection noted that the application included insufficient details on methodology, that differentiation was unlikely to occur during the very short incubation time described, and that the appearance of nerve-like cells in the culture is likely to “reflect cytotoxic changes”.


    Furthermore, in the patent (which is far from complete), the images are not new.
    They are taken from a scientific paper (Schegel'skaya, E. A. et al., 2003), although the patent lacks the reference. Plagiarism?

    The trial, which will test Vannoni's method, has been postponed three times because the medical entrepreneur has not yet revealed his method.
    As such, a committee cannot start the trial that is intended to show the efficacy of this therapy.

    It seems that the fuzz Mr. Vannoni created, should not be taken seriously. It merely fakes a last resort for dying children and adults.
    If it turns out to be a scam, must this individual be punished according to you?


    Source:
    Italian stem-cell trial based on flawed data : Nature News & Comment


    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Assuming it is fraud:

    A class action lawsuit would be deserved, nothing beyond that though... It sets a weird precedent, all it means is that you've effectively established a system where things like this are reviewed case-by-case - just to see if the circumstances even qualify for legal proceedings: Just a waste of time and additional resources. The distinctions between what is legal and what is not would just be too convoluted, ie: Homeopathy. What's important is that whatever his reputation was, you can be sure of what it would become.

    Edit: Apparently this precedent has already been set... Still wishy-washy though.


    Last edited by stander-j; July 4th, 2013 at 01:13 PM.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    It does perhaps a little odd that people seem able to claim what ever they wish, quite often without ever having to had actually demonstrate anything. Perhaps it would be good to have a global standard for everyone wishing to make scientific claims must first satisfy. This way when someone comes out with a new claim the public can actually have confidence rather than either getting conned by charlatans or ignoring real genius. I can't help feeling a little resentful towards those who make medical claims though without really demonstrating them as it prevents others picking up the mantle or helping other people, that's if the claims are even genuine. But when these claims are false or misleading it is even worse as people believe and waste their time and money on frauds, it's in cases like this prison terms seem appropriate.
    wegs likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Im in favor of transparency, with initial data, methodology and results being accessible. Imo the primary goal should be the free flow of information, people should be informed that there is not yet any evidence the technique works (with a potential warning [unproven, potential misrepresentation or fraud]), and have the researcher person make his methodology accessible for review/improvement, and have the people decide based on this information if they want to go ahead with the test. Then if the researcher is shown to have broken laws in the process, he should be punished according to these.

    If a method is to be published with data to prove it works, that usually means that there needs to be a test before it is proven, so I have no problem with a untested "test" (within reason).

    There is no laws against "being" a charlatan or a dubious scoundrel, but laws against specific actions that a given society does not wish to allow, in this case, he should be punished according to laws in place (anti-false representation, fraud, consumer protection, etc) if he breaks any of those.

    The problem I have with preventing a trial in a manner that could be too expedited/premature, is that a discovery can be counter intuitive and not explained from the framework of existing understanding.
    Lets say acupuncture does work for a number of uses and that we dont "really" know exactly why that is, or worse there is a fanciful laughable explanation that is false. It could look like new age crack-pottery, but to be sure we need tests. If the test are successful, you can categorize the treatment as "valid for undetermined reasons".


    EDIT: There are a number of instances where scientific authorities and or the best theories available said an experiment could not be/was impossible/etc and then experiments proved them wrong, though these are rare they are also often important in expanding our understanding or application of technologies. If these had been prevented on the grounds they go against conventional understanding or current consensus we would not be were we are now.
    Last edited by icewendigo; July 4th, 2013 at 04:32 PM.
    Ascended and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Update:

    The trials that were meant to test the claims of the Stamina Foundation, are halted by Ms. Lorenzin (Italy's Health Minister):
    "Acknowledging the concerns of a number of scientists in Italy, the country’s health minister, Beatrice Lorenzin, agreed to put a stop to a controversial stem cell clinical trial. “This is the end of the matter,” Luca Pani, president of the Italian Medicines Agency, told Nature. “And we are very happy.”"
    (cf. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...Trial-Stopped/)

    Rumors say Mr. Vannoni and his foundation are planning to set up trials in China.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 The Trial 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Qatar
    Posts
    2
    forget to say, you can see with the pics of the front wheel bay, on the front panel you can se the resin on the edge of it....thats what happend when you paint the panels on the resin block...an then see that the way they attache the pieces isnt on the border...but partly over it....so youll have to cut an erase....but then have part of the piece unpainted......thats the Aires view of the thing.....so now ive got the retouch all of these things.....so funny Pat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    /deleted post
    Last edited by wegs; November 22nd, 2013 at 11:07 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    It seems that the story did not end with the ruling of the scientific committee.

    From Nature News:
    "The regional administrative court of Lazio, Italy, today ruled unlawful the scientific committee that had advised the health minister not to proceed with a planned €3 million [$4.000.000] clinical trial of a controversial stem-cell therapy. That gives the Brescia-based Stamina Foundation, headed by Davide Vannoni, a second chance to push for the government-sponsored trial which the committee had declared as lacking a scientific basis and potentially dangerous."
    (cf. Italian court rules science advisors unlawful : Nature News & Comment)

    Let us hope that a second scientific committee will end this matter.
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; December 6th, 2013 at 12:42 PM.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Update:

    The second scientific committee reached the same conclusion as the previous committee: the stem-cell therapy proposed by Davide Vannoni is ineffective and possibly dangerous:
    "The Italian health minister Beatrice Lorenzin declared on 2 October that her government will not support a clinical trial of a controversial stem cell therapy that it promised last year. (...) A committee of experts concluded in October last year that the treatment was phoney, but in December a court ruled that committee illegally biased. Lorenzin established a new committee earlier this year which has now drawn the same conclusion as its predecessor."
    (cf. End of the road for rogue stem-cell therapy in Italy : Nature News Blog)
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Update:

    The second scientific committee reached the same conclusion as the previous committee: the stem-cell therapy proposed by Davide Vannoni is ineffective and possibly dangerous:
    "The Italian health minister Beatrice Lorenzin declared on 2 October that her government will not support a clinical trial of a controversial stem cell therapy that it promised last year. (...) A committee of experts concluded in October last year that the treatment was phoney, but in December a court ruled that committee illegally biased. Lorenzin established a new committee earlier this year which has now drawn the same conclusion as its predecessor."
    (cf. End of the road for rogue stem-cell therapy in Italy : Nature News Blog)
    Well, for the time being, stem cell treatments are very restricted. Not much to show for. No wonder crooks and hacks are quick to take advantage of all the media hoopla surrounding the field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Well, for the time being, stem cell treatments are very restricted. Not much to show for. No wonder crooks and hacks are quick to take advantage of all the media hoopla surrounding the field.

    Certainly, but people who oppose (embryonic) stem cell research are also a factor that leads to scientists spending less time in the lab and more time in court or in the media and internet.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Well, for the time being, stem cell treatments are very restricted. Not much to show for. No wonder crooks and hacks are quick to take advantage of all the media hoopla surrounding the field.

    Certainly, but people who oppose (embryonic) stem cell research are also a factor that leads to scientists spending less time in the lab and more time in court or in the media and internet.
    I don't think that there are many people opposing, there is a Nobel prize winner who predicted zero to negligible results who is the main opponent but other than that, not much opposition. You cannot attribute the lack of results to "opposition", so far billions of dollars have been poured into stem cell research.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. trial and error
    By parag29081973 in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 26th, 2013, 05:39 AM
  2. Scientists on trial: At fault?
    By rossbalch in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2011, 04:10 PM
  3. How Do You Do a Trial When You Don't Have $$$$$ to Spend?
    By Chester in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: May 25th, 2011, 07:16 PM
  4. Scientology in French trial.
    By Cat1981(England) in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 13th, 2008, 04:15 PM
  5. Galileo's trial-positive or negative impact?
    By kingwinner in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 11th, 2007, 09:43 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •