The University of Southampton

Month: April 2024

DermaGro: It has to Derma-Go!

Posted on by

Look younger, look natural, look flawless. In modern society, the pressure to reach an ever-more-unattainable level of youth and beauty as one ages is constant. There is a nonstop barrage of anti-ageing creams and pills advertised on TV and treatments and therapies available by estheticians and plastic surgeons. It all sends a clear message: ageing is offensive and ugly, and something to be prevented by all means possible, not embraced. 

Another treatment joining the legion of other anti-ageing therapies is DermaGro—a ‘miracle’ stem cell technology that has been claimed to treat wounds and burns, relieve eczema, and reverse the visible signs of ageing. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve likely encountered the buzz around DermaGro. Its aggressive social media marketing and the heated debates about its efficacy and ethics have been hard to miss. Here’s a quick rundown on how DermaGro is purported to work: 

Images from DermaGro’s website.

You sign up for their services online (and pay a hefty fee for the privilege), and soon after go to one of their clinics to have stem cell samples taken for culture. Once these are screened, selected, converted to selectively mutated and cultured, they are sent to you along with your starter kit (for yet another fee), followed by repeating deliveries of stem cells as and when you need them on a subscription basis (which if you haven’t guessed yet, comes with more fees and hidden charges!). You then keep your stem cells in the freezer until you need to apply them, which is done by loading them into the ‘gun’ and applying them to the wound. Easy enough right? They’re your own stem cells in your own home; how can there be any issues?

But there are issues aplenty… even if we ignore the ridiculous fees (you’re coming up to £3000 for just a month of treatment), there are still logistical issues. It is well known throughout stem cell research and bioscience in general that stem cells must be cryogenically preserved at -80 to below -150 degrees Celsius for them to be properly preserved and remain viable. However, DermaGro claims it is perfectly fine to store samples in a regular household freezer which only reaches temperatures of about -18 degrees Celcius, far too high for proper storage of stem cells.

Additionally, DermaGro claims to offer a ‘donor service’ where another person’s allogenic stem cells are used as a replacement for the customer whose stem cells cannot be used. However, no one fully knows where these stem cells come from. Not even DermaGro’s CEO will answer the question when asked (I directly contacted DermaGro, the CEO’s personal email and asked via their Instagram stories to no avail). Although DermaGro implies otherwise, some people have theorised that they are excess cells taken non-consensually from other patient’s samples. This raises massive ethical issues as patients do not consent to their cells being used for other people’s treatments when they sign up, and they receive no compensation for assisting other people’s treatments. Another more theatrical theory is that, much like the Hwang affair, researchers within DermaGro labs and clinicians within their donation centres are being pressured to donate their tissue to increase the supply of allogeneic stem cells, although the proof for this is still yet to come to the surface.

Although rather lengthy, this video and its sequel give a good explanation of the Hwang scandal and, thus, the implications of the DermaGro allegations.

Finally, and most damningly, there have been reports that some early DermaGro trial patients were given a cocktail of drugs to support their treatments, and upon the initial signs of the stem cells being rejected, immunosuppressants were added to the mix. This is absolutely absurd. It displays a deeply horrifying and frightening lack of medical duty and basic ethics by DermaGro. In what world is looking younger or healing a wound faster worth risking cancer? Ultimately, DermaGro is a scam—an expensive, immoral and dangerous scam at that and one which targets the superficial insecurities of ageing women. I certainly won’t let these predatory frauds ‘get under [my] skin’, but I hope this article will get under theirs. We’re now left with only one question: How long until someone dies from DermaGro?

Please note that this blog post is not for marking, and rather is a part of the group project assignment.

Unpacking the Nuremberg Code’s Legacy in Medical Research

Posted on by

Since 1947, a set of ten standards has existed to prevent harm to human subjects during clinical trials, following the infamous Nazi human experiments that took place during World War II in concentration camps. These horrific trials left many dead, and almost all survivors experienced permanent severe injuries. The crimes included transplantation, amputation, starvation, freezing and sterilization amongst others, and any victims who stood against the doctors were sent to the gas chambers. As much as it can be unanimously agreed that this is one of the greatest examples of brutal medical malpractice, it can be surprisingly difficult to unpack the ethics of using the collected knowledge in the 21st century for the advancement of modern health.

Jadwiga Dzido showing her scars from medical experiments

There are two major arguments against using the data obtained from the experiments. Over the years, the data has been used in multiple fields. I would like to focus on the Dachau freezing experiments, which are possibly the most controversial due to their prevalence in 20th-century research publications into the treatment of hypothermia. This involved ‘participants’ being submerged in tanks of ice water, some anesthetised, others conscious, to induce hypothermia, so that rewarming techniques could be tested on their efficacy and bodily responses. I use the term ‘participants’ extremely loosely, since this was done without consent, usually forced or under the false pretence of release from concentration camps.

Argument one considers the actual value of the data collected regardless of its ethics. Physician-scientist Andrew Ivy declared ‘Nazi experiments on humans were of no medical value’ at the Nuremberg war crime trials. However, recently, several investigators have suggested the Dachau study did produce credible data. Understandably, there is no ethical way to generate the data produced from this study, and important understandings on treating hypothermia could be life-saving. This is where argument two gains significance. The data gathered could potentially be considered ethically usable if it is for the greater good.

“The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature“

– The Nuremberg Code

Conclusion

Now, the Dachau experiments completely go against all but one of the ten postulates of the Nuremberg Code. There was no informed voluntary consent, injury and suffering was certainly not avoided and there was absolutely no opportunity for the human subjects to terminate the trials. In every sense of the word, these experiments were not ethical. Whether they should have occurred is not up for debate. But since replication of these experiments is off the table, and lives could be saved with this knowledge, could it be suggested that the saving of lives is almost … honouring those who died and suffered? Equally, however, it could be argued that continuing to revoke their ability to consent is entirely dishonourable. In my opinion – in an ideal world, these experiments would never have happened. The 15,754 documented victims died needlessly. Despite this, if it can be agreed that the data collected is of scientific relevance and value, could be used for the greater good, and cannot be ethically replicated, this data should not go to waste, along with the legacy of the victims.