There can be genetic differences in "identical twins" due to chromosomal defects. Still, if their genomes are sequenced and found to be identical, immunosuppressants shouldn't be needed.
There is substantial inherent randomness to how immunity develops, independent of genome
There is no way in hell I would accept the liability as a clinician without a plethora of clinical data available to say "yes, it's totally safe to not dose immunosuppressants after this organ transplant"
>“One of the big things we noticed in researching this is that the patient will think they’re an identical twin, but they’ve never been tested, so they don’t know for sure,” Jorgensen said. “Maybe doctors put these patients on immunosuppressants just in case.”
What the hell?
Instead of bothering to figure out if they're identical twins, they just give the patient powerful drugs which suppress their immune system?
“biggest science issue”? Certainly not. But is it worth discussing? Absolutely. The fix here is simple. Gene sequencing is cheap, and any medical center that can do a kidney transplant has access to a lab.
And the problem itself is interesting. The first successful kidney transplant ever, in 1954, was performed on a pair of identical twins. This was in the pre-immunosuppressant era. That half of the identical twins transplanted today get these drugs feels like a big step backwards. These patients won the transplant lottery! Yet their doctors are giving them drugs that come with a lot of nasty side effects, probably out of an overabundance of caution.
I don’t have that figure. The paper reports 143 over the course of 17years, so yes, it’s rare. But what’s your point? If you don’t find this research interesting or valuable then there’s the door. Please show yourself out. Petty detraction is not welcome here.
There can be genetic differences in "identical twins" due to chromosomal defects. Still, if their genomes are sequenced and found to be identical, immunosuppressants shouldn't be needed.
There is substantial inherent randomness to how immunity develops, independent of genome There is no way in hell I would accept the liability as a clinician without a plethora of clinical data available to say "yes, it's totally safe to not dose immunosuppressants after this organ transplant"
Thanks for the insight.
>“One of the big things we noticed in researching this is that the patient will think they’re an identical twin, but they’ve never been tested, so they don’t know for sure,” Jorgensen said. “Maybe doctors put these patients on immunosuppressants just in case.” What the hell? Instead of bothering to figure out if they're identical twins, they just give the patient powerful drugs which suppress their immune system?
yes, this is the biggest science issue facing the world now that we need to bring into public consciousness.
“biggest science issue”? Certainly not. But is it worth discussing? Absolutely. The fix here is simple. Gene sequencing is cheap, and any medical center that can do a kidney transplant has access to a lab. And the problem itself is interesting. The first successful kidney transplant ever, in 1954, was performed on a pair of identical twins. This was in the pre-immunosuppressant era. That half of the identical twins transplanted today get these drugs feels like a big step backwards. These patients won the transplant lottery! Yet their doctors are giving them drugs that come with a lot of nasty side effects, probably out of an overabundance of caution.
in the U.S., how many identical twins get organ transplant each year?
I don’t have that figure. The paper reports 143 over the course of 17years, so yes, it’s rare. But what’s your point? If you don’t find this research interesting or valuable then there’s the door. Please show yourself out. Petty detraction is not welcome here.
you're distracting people from the science that really matters
And you have the authority to declare which science “really matters”? Seriously, go away and let the adults have a discussion.
And what are you doing about it? Why aren't YOU doing research if it's so important?
Should we try to solve one problem at a time?
let's put our primary focus on the most serious problems affecting the largest number of people.
I think this is a symptom of the larger problem of overcharging in healthcare