Very proud of SUNY Environmental Science and Forestry: https://www.esf.edu/chestnut/about.asp

That's such a good example. Due to the name "organ on a chip" people often think these are purely some type of computer chip, when in reality they are small microfluidic devices containing live human cells.

I think you've missed my point. Healthcare pricing in the U.S. is certainly out of whack due to a fractured, bureaucratic system, which makes coverage through insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare important for patients.

My intention was to show the motte-and-bailey fallacy, which was the following:

A1: This medical advancement will just bankrupt families for generations.

B: I don't see why. People will be able to get it like they do organ transplants (or any other medical procedure because it will be covered by insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare).

A2: Well insulin is overpriced...

A1 and A2 are not the same argument. The fact that A2 is correct does not make A1 correct. Additionally, B has not been disproven.

I think your comment is an example of a somewhat common motte-and-bailey fallacy on Reddit. People will often assert that a potential medical advancement will only be accessible to the super-rich in the U.S. When provided a reason the therapy would be broadly deployed, they may respond that the sticker price of insulin is much higher than in other countries, which makes purchasing it financially difficult for an important portion of diabetics.

The initial argument ("this will only be affordable to the super-rich" - the bailey) is later obfuscated by an accurate yet different fact ("insulin pricing in the U.S. causes difficulties for an important number of diabetics" - the motte).

The U.S. healthcare system certainly has crucial problems to fix or ameliorate. I don't think the hyper cynicism of the original commenter is productive, and insulin (although an especially important topic) is a very different example from the initial argument, which is a motte-and-bailey fallacy.

> it will bankrupt your family for a generation?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Why do you think this procedure wouldn't be covered by insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare?

LyGenesis will soon begin a clinical trial for patients with end-stage liver disease who are not able to receive a transplant. The intervention is a simple out-patient procedure that injects liver cells into one or more lymph nodes, which serve as bioreactors to grow one or more new, functional mini-organs. The procedure has worked in mice, dogs, and pigs. LyGenesis uses cells from discarded organs not used for transplant, and a single organ can provide cells for potentially dozens of patients. The whole clinical trial is likely to take about two years.

As with traditional organ transplants, patients will need to take immunosuppressants to not reject the donor cells. However, LyGenesis has partnered with iTolerance to find ways to transplant cells and tissue without lifelong need for immunosuppressants.

LyGenesis's pipeline also includes the thymus, pancreas, and kidneys.

I've heard that too. Even if the improvement is in the lower estimates of 3% - 10%, it seems an opt-out system is worth it and doesn't really have any drawbacks.

>Under the most conservative estimate, it would have reduced the number of people taken off the list due to illness or death by between 3% and 10%. And under ideal circumstances, it might have decreased waitlist removals by 52%

That's very true. The article does mention that human trials have begun with LyGenesis. The liver is their main focus now, but the pancreas, thymus and kidneys are also in their pipeline: https://www.lygenesis.com/pipeline/

I noticed the article mentioned LyGenesis's approach of growing mini-organs in lymph nodes and that human trials began last month. I'm very curious to see how the human trials turn out over the next year or so.

This explanatory video from LyGenesis was linked in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnCnkIJ53zY