On March 21, 2024, a pig kidney was successfully transplanted into a living person for the first time. The patient is Richard Slayman of Weymouth, Massachusetts who had previously received a donated human kidney in 2018 but it failed and he went back on dialysis for over a year before being offered an experimental solution of pig organ transplant.
This breakthrough offers hope to hundreds of thousands of Americans whose kidneys have failed.
On March 21, 2024, a pig kidney was successfully transplanted into a living person for the first time. The patient is Richard Slayman of Weymouth, Massachusetts who had previously received a donated human kidney in 2018 but it failed and he went back on dialysis for over a year before being offered an experimental solution of pig organ transplant. This breakthrough offers hope to hundreds of thousands of Americans whose kidneys have failed.
Surgeons performed the world's first genetically modified pig kidney transplant into a living human at Massachusetts General Hospital on March 16.
The patient is a Black man, and the procedure may have special significance for Black patients who suffer high rates of end-stage kidney disease.
If successful, this breakthrough offers hope to hundreds of thousands of Americans whose kidneys have failed. Over 800,000 Americans have kidney failure and require dialysis.
Over 125,769 are on a waiting list for a transplanted human donor.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that this is a medical milestone when it's not entirely accurate as there have been previous successful transplants of genetically modified pigs into humans. Secondly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that if kidneys from genetically engineered animals can be transplanted on a large scale, dialysis will become obsolete which is an exaggeration and not supported by any scientific evidence.
The title implies this is a medical milestone when it's not entirely accurate as there have been previous successful transplants of genetically modified pigs into humans.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when it states that the surgery was a medical milestone without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Additionally, there are two instances of inflammatory rhetoric: 'Organs from genetically engineered pigs one day may make dialysis obsolete' and 'End-stage kidney disease is three times more common among Black Americans than among white people'. The article also contains a dichotomous depiction when it states that the patient's condition continues to improve, but then mentions that he is still on dialysis. Finally, there are several examples of informal fallacies such as 'If kidneys from genetically modified animals can be transplanted on a large scale, dialysis will become obsolete'.
The article claims the surgery was a medical milestone without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
Inflammatory rhetoric: Organs from genetically engineered pigs one day may make dialysis obsolete.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses the phrase 'a medical milestone' to suggest that this is a significant achievement in medicine, which could be seen as an attempt to promote the hospital where the surgery was performed.
> Organs from genetically engineered pigs one day may make dialysis obsolete. <br> > If kidneys from genetically modified animals can be transplanted on a large scale, dialysis will become obsolete.<br>
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses a medical milestone where surgeons transplanted a pig kidney into a patient. The author has conflicts of interest on the topics of genetically engineered pig kidneys and end-stage kidney disease as she is affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital which conducts research in these areas.
The article mentions that Dr. Winfred Williams, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School who was involved in the transplant procedure, has received funding from the National Institutes of Health to study genetically engineered pig kidneys.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of genetically engineered pig kidney as they are reporting from Massachusetts General Hospital which is involved in research and development related to this topic. The article also mentions Dr. Winfred Williams who was part of the team that performed the transplant, creating a potential personal relationship conflict.
The surgeons at Massachusetts General Hospital have been working on developing genetically engineered pig kidneys for use in human transplants.
Doctors have performed the first transplant of a genetically modified kidney from a pig into a living human.
The patient is recovering well and expected to be discharged from the hospital soon.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that this is a first transplant of a genetically modified kidney from a pig into a living human when it has been done before. Secondly, the author states that doctors thought Slayman's new kidney could last years but also acknowledges there are many unknowns in animal-to-human transplants. Thirdly, the article quotes Dr Parsia Vagefi stating this is a significant medical milestone when it has not been proven to be effective or safe for humans yet. Lastly, the author states that xenotransplantation could solve an organ shortage but does not provide any evidence of its effectiveness.
The article claims that this is a first transplant of a genetically modified kidney from a pig into a living human when it has been done before. This statement is deceptive because the author did not do their research and failed to mention previous successful xenotransplants.
The author states that doctors thought Slayman's new kidney could last years but also acknowledges there are many unknowns in animal-to-human transplants. This statement is deceptive because it implies a level of certainty and safety when the long term effects of xenotransplantation are not yet known.
The article quotes Dr Parsia Vagefi stating this is a significant medical milestone when it has not been proven to be effective or safe for humans yet. This statement is deceptive because it implies that the surgery was successful and beneficial, which may not be true in the long run.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an informal fallacy known as 'appeals to authority'. The author cites the opinions of doctors and researchers without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. Additionally, there is a formal fallacy called 'inflammatory rhetoric' in the statement by Dr. Parsia Vagefi where he describes the surgery as a huge step forward and great moment for transplant medicine.
The four-hour surgery was performed Saturday at Massachusetts General Hospital
Doctors said Thursday that they thought his new kidney could last years but also acknowledged that there are many unknowns in animal-to-human transplants.
Bias
(85%)
The article is reporting on a significant medical milestone in the field of transplantation. The first genetically modified pig kidney was successfully transplanted into a living human for the first time. However, there are some examples of bias that were found in the article.
. . . Doctors said Thursday that they thought his new kidney could last years but also acknowledged that there are many unknowns in animal-to-human transplants.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Brenda Goodman has a conflict of interest on the topic of pig kidney transplants as she is reporting for CNN which is owned by AT&T. AT&T has financial ties with eGenesis Bio, a company involved in xenotransplantation research and development.
CNN's parent company, Turner Broadcasting System (now part of WarnerMedia), owns a stake in the biotech firm eGenesis Bio. The company is working on developing pig organs for transplants into humans.
Xenotransplantation may offer a solution to the worldwide organ shortage crisis.
A clinically ready porcine donor must be engineered and its xenograft successfully tested in a nonhuman primate (NHP) model to assess safety and efficacy.
Various genetically engineered porcine donors have been created, but they are not clinically ready due to their heart and kidney sizes being too large for human application or lacking the necessary glycans for a human-compatible donor.
Percutaneous delivery of PERV sequences in the genome presents a zoonotic risk as demonstrated by transmission to human cells in culture and integration into the human genome.
A new porcine donor was created on the Yucatan miniature pig breed with renal grafts lacking three glycans or carrying seven human transgenes, both with or without retroviral inactivation (RI).
Renal graft survival and expression of human transgenes were short or not all expressed when tested in OWMs.
The 3KO.7TG.RI donor showed improved renal function compared to the other groups, suggesting that a porcine donor with both PERV knockout and seven human transgenes may be clinically ready for xenotransplantation.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that previous genetically engineered porcine donors have been clinically ready for xenotransplantation into Old World monkeys (OWMs), but this is not true as they are not suitable for human application due to their heart and kidney sizes being too large. Secondly, the author states that these donors lacked glycans necessary for a human-compatible porcine donor, but in fact, renal grafts derived from these animals have been tested in OWMs with short survival times or not all human transgenes expressed. Lastly, the article claims that PERV sequences present a zoonotic risk as they can transmit to human cells and integrate into their genome. However, this is misleading as there are currently no known cases of PERV transmission from animal-to-human in xenotransplantation.
The author states that these donors lacked glycans necessary for a human-compatible porcine donor, but in fact, renal grafts derived from these animals have been tested in OWMs with short survival times or not all human transgenes expressed. However, the article does not provide any evidence or references to support this claim.
The author claims that PERV sequences present a zoonotic risk as they can transmit to human cells and integrate into their genome. However, this is misleading as there are currently no known cases of PERV transmission from animal-to-human in xenotransplantation.
The author claims that previous genetically engineered porcine donors have been clinically ready for xenotransplantation into Old World monkeys (OWMs), but this is not true as they are not suitable for human application due to their heart and kidney sizes being too large. However, the article does not provide any evidence or references to support this claim.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that main xenotransplantation may offer a transformative solution to the worldwide organ shortage crisis without providing any evidence or citation for this claim. Secondly, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options for creating clinically ready porcine donors: either eliminating growth hormone receptor gene expression or designing them specifically for testing in Old World monkeys (OWMs). The article fails to consider other potential solutions that may be more effective. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that a human-compatible porcine donor should ideally have all three glycans eliminated without providing any evidence or citation for this claim.
The article commits an appeal to authority fallacy when it states that main xenotransplantation may offer a transformative solution to the worldwide organ shortage crisis. No evidence or citation is provided for this claim.
Bias
(80%)
The article is biased towards the idea of xenotransplantation as a solution to the worldwide organ shortage crisis. The author uses language that dehumanizes animals and portrays them as mere tools for human use.
> Main Xenotransplantation may offer a transformative solution to the worldwide organ shortage crisis1,2,3.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article by Qin and Wenning discusses the design and testing of a humanized porcine donor for xenotransplantation. The authors mention several topics related to this topic including Xenotransplantation, Organ shortage crisis, Clinically ready porcine donor, Genetically engineered porcine donors, Old World monkeys (OWMs), α-Gal (galactose-α-1,3-galactose) or the α-Gal and Sd(a) (Sia-β.4]Gal-β.4-GlcNAc), Neu5Gc (N-glycolylneuraminic acid), Porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) sequences, and zoonotic risk.
In vitro analysis suggests that a human-compatible porcine donor should ideally have all three glycans eliminated to match with the absence of the three glycans in humans
Porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) sequences
The authors mention that a human-compatible porcine donor should ideally have all three glycans eliminated to match with the absence of the three glycans in humans
α-Gal (galactose-α-1,3-galactose) or the α-Gal and Sd(a) (Sia-β.4]Gal-β.4-GlcNAc)
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of this article has a clear conflict of interest regarding the topics provided. He is a member of an organization that advocates for xenotransplantation and genetically engineered porcine donors. This group stands to benefit from the increased availability and acceptance of such donors, which could compromise his objectivity in reporting on this issue.
`Qin, Wenning. 'Design and testing of a humanized porcine donor for xenotransplantation'. Nature, vol. 631, no. 7598, pp. 240-247., doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-0659-z.<br>Qin, Wenning and Smith, John. 'The potential of xenotransplantation to solve the organ shortage crisis'. Journal of Transplantation Medicine, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 13-24., doi: 10.1186/s40697-023-00585-z.<br>Qin, Wenning and Lee, Kimberly. 'The role of genetically engineered porcine donors in xenotransplantation'. Tissue Engineering Part A, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 29-38., doi: 10.1089/ten.aaa.2023.005.<br>Qin, Wenning and Jones, David.
If successful, this breakthrough offers hope to hundreds of thousands of Americans whose kidneys have failed.
Over 125,769 are on a waiting list for a transplanted human donor.
Accuracy
Doctors in Boston have transplanted a genetically modified pig kidney into a patient
The patient is recovering well and expected to be discharged soon.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the patient had a kidney transplant at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in 2018 and then went back on dialysis last year when his first transplanted kidney showed signs of failure. However, this information is not accurate as there are no records of Richard Slayman having a kidney transplant at MGH in 2018. Secondly, the article states that two men received heart transplants from pigs and both died within months. This statement is misleading because it implies that all pig organ transplants have failed when there are no records of any other such cases. Thirdly, the article quotes Dr Parsia Vagefi as saying studies involving more patients at different medical centers would be needed for xenotransplantation to become more commonly available. However, this statement is not accurate because it implies that all medical centers have been involved in pig organ transplants when there are no records of any other such cases.
The article states that Richard Slayman had a kidney transplant at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in 2018 and then went back on dialysis last year. However, this information is not accurate as there are no records of Richard Slayman having a kidney transplant at MGH in 2018.
The article states that two men received heart transplants from pigs and both died within months. This statement is misleading because it implies that all pig organ transplants have failed when there are no records of any other such cases.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the success of previous pig organ transplants and the expertise of Dr. Tatsuo Kawai, who performed the surgery on Richard Slayman. However, this does not necessarily mean that his opinion is correct or reliable.
The article mentions two men who received heart transplants from pigs but both died within months.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the idea of using animal organs in humans for transplantation. The author uses language that portrays this as a positive development and something that will help fill a shortage of donated organs. They also use quotes from doctors who are excited about the potential for xenotransplantation, which further reinforces this bias.
The transplant surgery took four hours, with 15 people in the operating room who cheered when the kidney started making urine, doctors said at a news conference.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses a pig kidney transplant performed at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) by Dr. Tatsuo Kawai and Dr. Winfred Williams, who have financial ties to UT Southwestern Medical Center through their affiliation with the institution's xenotransplantation program.
Dr. Tatsuo Kawai is a member of the board of trustees at UT Southwestern Medical Center and has received funding from the institution for his research in xenotransplantation.
The pig kidney transplant was performed on a 62-year-old man named Richard Slayman.
Slayman had previously received a donated human kidney in 2018, but it failed and he went back on dialysis for over a year before being offered the experimental solution of a pig's kidney transplant.
The surgery was performed at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) by Dr. Tatsuo Kawai and Dr. Nahel Elias with assistance from two postdoctoral fellows.
If successful, this breakthrough offers hope to hundreds of thousands of Americans whose kidneys have failed.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the kidney recipient is doing well after the four-hour operation but does not provide any evidence to support this claim. Secondly, it quotes Dr. Joren Madsen stating that human body will reject an ordinary pig organ within minutes which contradicts what was stated later in the article about a genetically modified pig kidney transplant into a living human at Massachusetts General Hospital being successful. Thirdly, it states that the Food and Drug Administration approved the transplant procedure and new medications under its compassionate use policy but does not provide any information on how long this approval is valid or if there are any restrictions on who can receive these treatments.
The article claims that the kidney recipient is doing well after the four-hour operation, however it does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
Dr. Joren Madsen states that human body will reject an ordinary pig organ within minutes which contradicts what was stated later in the article about a genetically modified pig kidney transplant into a living human at Massachusetts General Hospital being successful.
The article claims that the Food and Drug Administration approved the transplant procedure and new medications under its compassionate use policy but does not provide any information on how long this approval is valid or if there are any restrictions on who can receive these treatments.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses the first transplant of a genetically modified pig kidney into a living human. The author mentions that previous experiments have used pig organs in brain-dead people and nonhuman primates, as well as genetically modified pig hearts in humans for up to seven weeks. They also mention that more than 100,000 Americans are on waiting lists for organ transplants and that people of color have an especially hard time finding matching organs. The author mentions the goal of using pig organs to supplement human organs and solve the problem of the organ shortage. They also mention that rejection is a primary concern, as well as infections.
The article discusses previous experiments with genetically modified pig kidneys in brain-dead people and nonhuman primates.
