Life-threatening illness like cancer often makes patients and families cling to the tiniest bit of hope. Especially when conventional treatments fall short, they search for anything that promises a chance at survival.
Unfortunately, this desperation makes them vulnerable to providers offering unproven therapies and they end up risking their health and wealth.
The recent death of six cancer patients after undergoing an experimental treatment is a stark reminder of the dangers of untested medical interventions.
Let’s understand what happened and how a million-dollar company jeopardized patients’ lives.
The risk of unproven cancer treatments (and why people are willing to try them)
Despite advancements in cancer treatment, options remain limited for patients with advanced cancer. When standard therapies such as chemotherapy and radiation fail to offer a cure, many turn to alternative or experimental options.
Patients and their families become desperate to explore any potential hope that can cure or even prolong their lifespan.
This search for hope leads them to providers who operate outside strict regulatory environments. These unproven and often costly treatments place significant financial burdens on them.
Furthermore, research indicates that patients who choose complementary or alternative cancer treatments are more likely to forgo conventional medical care, leading to a higher risk of death.
While these therapies may not directly cause harm, the danger lies in their use as substitutes for scientifically validated treatments.
One such unproven hopeful treatment was blood filtration treatment in Antigua by a company called ExThera, as reported by the New York Times.
ExThera and its product, the Seraph 100 Blood Filter
ExThera Medical Corporation specializes in blood filtration technology. Their Seraph 100 Microbind Affinity Blood Filter is designed to remove pathogens and harmful substances from the bloodstream.
While it has received CE Mark approval in the European Union for bloodstream infections and Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA for COVID-19, it does not have general FDA approval.
The company also developed the ONCObind Procedure Hemoperfusion Filter for cancer treatment by capturing circulating tumour cells (CTCs). However, data on its effectiveness remains limited, and claims about its capabilities have not been independently verified.
What led to the deaths: The deadly gamble at Antigua
Looking for new applications after the pandemic, ExThera explored using the filter to capture CTCs in cancer patients, hoping to prevent metastasis.
Early lab results were promising, leading ExThera to partner with Quadrant Clinical Care, a company owned by investor Michael Quasha, to offer the treatment in Antigua.
Quadrant’s clinic in Antigua, however, raised concerns. The clinic was ill-equipped, and the doctor in charge, a surgeon, performed procedures without proper imaging or anaesthesia.
ExThera employees voiced concerns over patient safety, the absence of clinical trials, and exaggerated claims that the filter could cure cancer. Despite these warnings, ExThera continued supplying the filters.
ExThera’s board member, John Preston, promoted the treatment to potential patients, citing early, unverified results from a small Croatian study.
He even suggested that it could cure cancer, which was not supported by any published data. Notably, the treatment had not received FDA approval for cancer care.
Tragic Consequences
Hoping for a last chance at survival, several terminal cancer patients paid $45,000 each for the procedure in Antigua. However, complications soon arose:
- Some patients suffered severe blood loss during treatment.
- Others experienced rapid cancer progression or the emergence of new tumours.
- Three patients died within weeks of undergoing the therapy.
Family members expressed anguish and outrage, with one widow suspecting that the treatment accelerated her husband’s decline, while another felt exploited in her family’s desperate search for hope.
The third patient, while initially showing some signs of improvement, also experienced disease progression and required further chemotherapy.
“I feel so duped by all these people. The way this was spun up and the way it was explained, they got me.”
Ms. Hudlow, wife of a patient who underwent the treatment, told The New York Times.
“I’m angry. They preyed on our desperation.”
Ms. Bowen, wife of another patient who underwent the treatment, told The New York Times.
Of 20 patients who underwent the experimental treatment, the New York Times identified at least six who died. While only one woman seemed to have shown signs of recovery, for most patients, the cancer grew exponentially after the treatment.
The deaths raise serious questions about the safety and efficacy of the unproven cancer treatment and the ethical implications of offering it.
Lessons and future implications
The Antigua case highlights the dangers of experimental treatments introduced without rigorous scientific validation. Experts stress that while complementary medicine can support conventional therapies, it should never replace evidence-based care.
This tragedy underscores the need for:
- Stricter oversight of experimental treatments, particularly those offered in loosely regulated settings.
- Greater transparency in clinical trials and treatment efficacy claims.
- Ethical responsibility among medical and business professionals to protect vulnerable patients from unproven therapies.
True progress in cancer care relies on robust research and clinical trials, not on exploiting vulnerable patients’ desperation.
While innovation is crucial, it must be grounded in sound science and ethical practice to ensure that hope is not misplaced and patients are protected from harm.
-By Rohini Kundu and the AHT Team
