02-02-2012 08:37 CCSVI Symposium 2011 - Second Annual Meeting Crowne Plaza Hotel Times Square, Manhattan New York, NY July 15-17, 2011 http://www.ccsvicare.com Stem Cell Therapy L. Grozdinski, MD Angiology Sector Chief Tokuda Hospital Sofia, Bulgaria [38 out of 46 videos]
Here is the original post:
L. Grozdinski, MD [Stem Cell Therapy | CCSVI Symposium 2011 - 38 of 46] - Video
The phase I trial follows promising studies on mice showing that such transplants were able to rebuild the structures of the inner ear, and some anecdotal evidence from humans, sparking hope of a cure for some forms of deafness.
One of those people is two-year-old Finn McGrath, who suffered brain damage after being deprived of oxygen during a prolonged and complicated delivery, according to his mother, Laura.
"His doctors told us he was at high risk for cerebral palsy, vision issues, hearing problems and mental retardation," she said in an interview with AFP.
Finn's early days were an all-out struggle to survive, so for his parents, learning that he had failed his hearing tests and had damaged hair cells -- the sensory receptors in the inner ear that pick up sounds -- was almost an afterthought.
He had organ failure, breathing problems, and his cerebral palsy left him unable to roll, crawl or walk, hold his head up, talk or eat.
As his parents searched for ways to help him, they came upon stories online that told of studies using cord blood to help children with cerebral palsy and other disorders.
Prior to his birth, the McGraths had arranged to privately bank his umbilical cord blood, a procedure that costs around $2,000 plus storage fees, and remains controversial among pediatricians.
Private companies such as the Cord Blood Registry, which is funding the Texas study on hearing loss, urge expecting parents to bank their umbilical cord blood and reserve it for personal use as a way to protect their family.
That advice runs counter to the guidelines issues by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2007, which calls such claims "unsubstantiated" and says banking for personal or family use "should be discouraged" but is "encouraged" if it is to be stored in a bank for public use.
Since Finn's parents had already banked his, they enrolled him in cord blood trial for cerebral palsy in North Carolina and he received his first transplant in November 2009 when he was about seven weeks old.
A second transfusion followed and by May, his parents began to notice a change.
Nighttime noises, like an alarm on his food pump or the sound of ripping medical tape, would suddenly startle him awake, his mother recalled.
"He started vocalizing sounds and we could tell that he was anticipating things that we would say. Like, if he had heard a story a number of times or a song, he would smile like he recognized the song or the story."
Finn had a third infusion in September 2010, when he was one year old. Four months later, an otoacoustic emissions test (OAE), which plays a sound and picks up vibrations in the cochlea and hair cells, came back normal.
The early hearing tests that showed hearing loss were not exactly the same as the later tests that came back normal, so McGrath is cautious about comparing them directly, but she believes the cord blood transfusions may have helped.
"All I can tell you is anecdotally he was not able to hear for probably the first three or four months of his life, and then when he was about six to eight months old, he started hearing."
The hearing trial in Texas aims to take a first step in testing the safety, and later the efficacy, of transfusing cord blood in children age six weeks to 18 months who have sustained post-birth sensorineural hearing loss.
Some reasons that children lose their hearing at or after birth may include oxygen deprivation, head injury, infection, strong doses of antibiotics or loud noises.
Sensorineural hearing loss affects approximately six per 1,000 children, and there is no available medical treatment. Hearing aids or cochlear implants are typically offered to boost the ability of the damaged tissues.
"Stem cell therapy may potentially repair the damaged structures of the inner ear and restore normal hearing," lead investigator Sami Fakhri told AFP.
"We are at the initial stages of this process and the results are looking promising," Fakhri added.
Research using stem cells in cord blood, known as hematopoietic cells, is already under way on some types of brain injury, cerebral palsy, juvenile diabetes, kidney and lung disease, he said.
The new study at Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center is being funded by the Cord Blood Registry, a private bank, and those eligible must have already banked their own umbilical cord blood with CBR.
But to Stephen Epstein, an otolaryngologist in Maryland, that does not pose a conflict of interest, because separate medical institutions in Texas and Georgia are conducting the Food and Drug Administration-approved research.
"If both of them can reproduce the same results then I would say it has some validity to it," said Epstein, who is not involved in the study.
"This is certainly a welcome, acceptable experiment, but it should be looked at with caution and time will tell."
One patient is already enrolled and the study, which runs for one year, has room for nine more.
While Finn McGrath still faces many challenges due to his cerebral palsy, his mother is grateful for the things he can do.
"I don't know how much worse off he would have been without the stem cell transfusion," McGrath said, pointing to his normal cognition, lack of seizures, good hearing and vision.
"We remain hopeful that he will continue to improve."
(c) 2012 AFP
Read the rest here:
US begins stem cell trial for hearing loss
McMaster University is on its way to moving stem cell research “from the bench to the bedside” thanks to a $30 million boost from a local family.
The Marta and Owen Boris Foundation made the large donation to establish a human stem cell therapy centre and a unique clinic for patients with complex health conditions.
Owen, the founder of Mountain Cablevision, was in talks with McMaster about investing in their work before he died last April. His children and wife contacted the university a month later and carried out his vision, firming up their commitment last November.
The Boris Family Centre in Human Stem Cell Therapies will be developed as part of the McMaster Stem Cell and Cancer Research Institute using $24 million of the funds.
“It’s getting over that chasm from the bench to the bedside that this (donation) is going to allow us to do,” the institute’s scientific director Dr. Mick Bhatia said.
The centre will give scientists the resources to focus on converting McMaster’s breakthroughs — such as the ability to make blood or types of neural cells with stem cells — into clinical applications through investigative trials, Bhatia said.
“In the absence of this donation, I think we would not be in the position to move our discoveries forward,” he said. “This is a huge leg-up. I’m hoping what it’s really going to do is have a ripple effect to change the way McMaster views translating basic science.”
They plan on developing human stem cell therapies targeting leukemia and possibly neural diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, said Dr. John Kelton, dean and vice-president of the faculty of health sciences.
The remaining $6 million will go toward building a clinic in partnership with Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS) where patients with complex health issues can see specialists and undergo tests in one visit.
This was a result of his parents’ frustrating experiences in recent years with co-ordinating specialists and getting diagnostic testing done in Canada, said Owen’s son, Les Boris.
They ended up going to Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., where they had a case manager who co-ordinated their appointments with specialists and made sure testing was done in-house, he said. “They like the idea of a one-stop shop … (My father) said: ‘This is the kind of model we need here in this country.’”
Kelton said the medical clinic, which will be built in the university’s medical centre, will look for rapid turnaround times and avoid duplications of lab tests. McMaster and HHS will also evaluate the clinic’s success and keep an electronic medical record that patients could access, he said.
Kelton and Owen met three years ago and had their last meeting about the projects three days before the philanthropist died.
Owen had worked on the Avro Arrow and was frustrated with Canada’s lost opportunity of making jet planes for the world, Kelton said.
“He said, ‘Tell me about some opportunities (that) – if we invested in it – could make Hamilton and McMaster world-class. What are some of the areas like an Avro Arrow?’”
The funds for the human stem cell therapy centre will go toward hiring a research chair in blood stem cells and a research chair in neural stems cells, setting up several fellowships and technician positions, and building the facility.
Bhatia says they hope to bring in new scientists and fellows by the early summer.
The Boris family previously donated $6 million to addiction research at St. Joseph’s Healthcare for its new mental health hospital being built on the Mountain and another $5 million for the da Vinci SI Surgical Robotic System.
“We’re very appreciative that we’re in a position to be doing something for the community,” Les said. “And it was the community that put us in the position to do this.
905-526-2468 | @WongatTheSpec
Go here to read the rest:
$30 million donation from Boris family will help McMaster turn stem cell research into therapy
20-01-2012 16:12 A conversation Dr. CC King, Ph.D., Associate Research Scientist at the UC, San Diego Pediatric Diabetes Research Center, about his work on stem cell therapy for type 1 (and type 2) diabetes.
Follow this link:
Stem Cell Therapy for Type 1 Diabetes (UCSD, PDRC) - Video
Suzanne Somers, a breast cancer survivor who’s become known for her controversial advice against chemotherapy, has done something that other women can truly find hope in. She turned to stem-cell techniques to successfully reconstruct her breasts.
The actress, 65, underwent a lumpectomy and radiation 12 years ago, and since then, she says, she wasn’t happy with the appearance of her breasts. The radiation, she told “People” magazine, "left what breast I had flatter and flatter. I had a Double D on one side and on the other side I could hardly fill a B."
Dissatisfied with conventional breast-reconstruction procedures, the “Three’s Company” veteran researched further and discovered that Dr. Kotaro Yoshimura, a Japanese surgeon, had developed stem-cell breast reconstruction in 2004. After talking with Yoshimura, Somers was convinced and decided to go with an American doctor for the operation.
So she began a clinical trial that has been ongoing at Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center. The first patient to participate, Somers had fat removed from her stomach via liposuction. Then her surgeon, Dr. Joel Aronowitz, harvested stem cells from half the fat and combined it with the remaining amount.
After that, Aronowitz injected the mixture back into Somers’ breast until it matched her left one in size. (Somers had reduced her DD left breast to a C.)
Somers said she’s thrilled with the result and the implications for other breast-cancer survivors. I am so ensconced in what's cutting edge," she told “People.” "I get my thrill out of passing on information to women so they can have a better quality of life."
The rest is here:
Suzanne Somers Uses Stem Cell Therapy for Breast Reconstruction
Interview with Dr. Zannos Grekos Grekos contests that his office has done ...
The state took action against Dr. Zannos Grekos because of the death of a 69-year-old breast cancer patient April 4, 2010, after undergoing the treatment at his Bonita Springs practice, at 9500 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 310.
BONITA SPRINGS — Dr. Zannos Grekos may not have an attorney representing him at a hearing next month against a state complaint that he performed an unauthorized stem cell procedure on a patient who later died.
Or maybe the Bonita Springs cardiologist will have new counsel for the three-day administrative hearing scheduled to begin March 20.
His original attorney, Greg Chaires of Orlando, withdrew from the case Jan. 24, less than two months before the hearing. He's been Grekos' attorney since the state filed an administrative complaint against the doctor a year ago.
Grekos couldn't be reached for comment at his practice, Regenocyte Therapeutic, 9500 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 310.
Chaires stated in his withdrawal notice to the judge that he had good cause to stop representing him, but didn't elaborate.
Florida health department spokeswoman Jennifer Hirst said this past week that Grekos has two weeks to hire a new attorney "and regardless of whether he does or not, the trial date will not change."
The case, which stems from events in early 2010, culminated a year later on Feb. 22, 2011, when the health department imposed an emergency restriction against his license. The restriction prohibits him from doing any procedures with bone marrow or stem cells in his practice.
If the administrative law judge sides with the state, Grekos could face sanctions or permanent restriction or revocation of his license.
At issue was Grekos' treatment of a 69-year-old woman who went to him for a consult on Feb. 25, 2010, for numbness and tingling in her arms and legs after chemotherapy.
Grekos ordered imaging of her carotid arteries and her brain and later injected her own aspirated bone marrow into her cerebral circulatory system.
At home that evening, she fell and was hospitalized. She had suffered a severe brain stem injury and was taken off life support on April 2, 2010.
Licensed in Florida since 1992, Grekos' cardiology practice in recent years has focused more on stem cell therapy to repair damaged heart muscle, lungs and other tissue.
He sends a sample of a patient's lung to Israel to cultivate new stem cells and the blood gets sent to a clinic or hospital in the Dominican Republic. The patient travels to the Dominican Republic, where the stem cells are injected into the damaged tissue.
Grekos has established a relationship with doctors and clinicians in the Dominican Republic who do the injections on his behalf; he isn't licensed to practice medicine there.
The case has captured widespread attention among Grekos' supporters who swear their once-chronic illnesses have undergone dramatic improvement since having the therapy through him. Detractors say he is taking advantage of a vulnerable population with congestive heart failure, lung failure and other illnesses for which conventional treatments no longer are effective.
Original post:
Bonita stem cell doctor's attorney quits, state hearing still scheduled
The Cancer Stem Cell Consortium (CSCC) is a partner in the 2012 Large-Scale Applied Research Project Competition of Genome Canada, in collaboration with the first phase of the Personalized Medicine Signature Initiative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Genome Canada is leading the research competition. An excerpt from Fact Sheet: The Potential of Personalized Medicine:
Funding of $67.5M will come from Genome Canada ($40 million), CIHR ($22.5 million) and the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium ($5 million). Projects will be funded for a maximum of four years. To qualify for funding, researchers must obtain matching funding that at is least equal to that provided through the competition, which will bring the total investment in this research area to close to $140 million. Matching funding is typically derived from provincial, academic, private sector or international sources.
Details about the competition are available here.
Press releases, dated January 31, 2012, about the federal government's support for personalized medicine, are available here and here.
Source:
http://cancerstemcellnews.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Source:
http://intlstemcell.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
The blue-ribbon panel examining the performance of the $3 billion California stem cell agency is midway through its public process and is yet to hear from a single independent witness during its open sessions.
The panel's report and recommendations are due this fall and are expected to have a major impact on the seven-year-old agency and its future.
So far, the IOM panel has heard only from employees or directors of the agency and persons representing institutions that have received $418 million in CIRM cash.
The panel of scientists and academics was put together by the prestigious Institute of Medicine under a $700,000 contract with the stem cell agency itself. At the 2010 meeting during which agency directors approved the contract, they expressed hope that the IOM panel's findings would bolster public support for another multibillion dollar bond measure for the agency, which expects to run out of funds for new grants in 2017.
Last week, the California Stem Cell Report asked the IOM about its plans to gather independent or critical information about the stem cell agency's performance. With only one more California public meeting scheduled, the IOM said that it is seeking the "full range of perspectives" but did not respond directly to questions about the specifics of how it is going to fulfill that task.
None of the four organizations in California that have an independent perspective on CIRM have been contacted by the IOM, the California Stem Cell Report has been told. They are the state's Little Hoover Commission, the Center for Genetics and Society, Consumer Watchdog and the Citizens Financial Accountability and Oversight Committee, which is the only state body specifically charged with oversight of CIRM and its directors and which is chaired by the state's top fiscal officer, Controller John Chiang. A spokeswoman for the IOM panel said, however, it plans to touch base with at least some of the four.
In response to questions from the California Stem Cell Report, Christine Stencel, the IOM spokeswoman, said the IOM also wants to hear comments from businesses whose applications have been rejected by CIRM. However, she said the panel is still working on "ways to get them." She did not respond directly to questions about how many of such businesses would be interviewed or how they would be selected. The tiny number of CIRM grants to business is a sore spot with industry. Even directors and CIRM's own "external review" panel have said much more is needed.
In response to a question about complaints about conflicts of interest on the part of CIRM reviewers, Stencel was also non-specific, saying only that the panel wants to "obtain all relevant insights." She did not respond directly to a question about whether the panel would examine "private complaints" filed with CIRM by rejected applicants.
Currently the IOM has forms posted online that interested parties, if they know about the existence of the forms, can use to comment on CIRM. We asked whether the panel plans to do more than passively post the forms, specifically whether it plans to email them to all CIRM applicants who were rejected. We also asked about IOM plans to follow up to generate an adequate response. Stencel said the IOM is "proactively working" to get survey responses but did not say what specific steps it was taking.
Our comment?
The IOM has a well-deserved reputation for rigor and thoroughness. However, the IOM is all but unknown to 99 pecent of the public, which will be the ultimate consumer of its findings on the stem cell agency. The fact that the IOM is being paid $700,000 by CIRM will undoubtedly raise questions in the minds of some about IOM's own objectivity. The panel itself consists of persons who have like-minded interests and sympathy with CIRM and its 485 grant recipients. No member of the panel is likely to publicly discourage more scientific research, even if CIRM is deemed to be failing to fulfill the voters expectations in 2004 when they created the agency. All the more reason to aggressively seek out those with contrary views about CIRM's performances, if the IOM's report is to have maximum credibility.
Earlier this week we heard from a knowledgeable and longtime observer of the research scene, who said that the IOM looks at things "differently than regular people" and views scientists who receive funding from CIRM as "independent." The IOM's Stencel responded by reiterating that the IOM is seeking the full range of information from the full range of sources.
The IOM evaluation of CIRM's performance is much too far along not to have progressed further with its attempts to hear from independent and critical voices about CIRM. Generalizations to the effect that "we are going to get to it" do not serve the panel well. The IOM should lay out publicly and quite specifically its plans to aggressively seek thoughtful analysis from parties that do not have financial or professional links to CIRM, as well as from those who feel they have received a short shrift from the $3 billion enterprise.
You can read the full text of the questions from the California Stem Cell Report and the IOM responses here.
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
The Center for Genetics and Society has filed a brief statement with the Institute of Medicine panel examining the performance of the California stem cell agency, expressing the hope that the inquiry will include "a broader range of sources."
Marcy Darnovsky, associate executive director of the Berkeley group, said that "a meaningful review by (the IOM) committee could make an important contribution to needed changes at the agency." Darnovsky's organization has followed the stem cell effort since its inception.
She noted that CIRM is "a public agency spending increasingly scarce public resources" and has raised the possibility of seeking another multibillion dollar bond measure from voters.
The IOM inquiry has finished half of its public process and is yet to hear an independent analysis of the stem cell agency, which is paying $700,000 for the study.
Earlier Darnovsky told the California Stem Cell Report that the Institute of Medicine has not contacted her organization for comments, although she has spoken with the public relations person for the IOM.
Here is the text of Darnovsky's statement sent to the IOM.
"The Center for Genetics and Society is a public interest organization working to ensure responsible uses and effective societal governance of human genetic and reproductive technologies. We support embryonic stem cell research, but have been concerned for some years about a number of aspects of the field, and of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine in particular.
"We have been closely following CIRM since the campaign for Proposition 71 that established it in 2004. We have attended numerous meetings of the agency’s governing board and Standards Working Group, worked with other public interest groups who share our concerns about CIRM, written frequently about CIRM in our publications, and been cited dozens of times in articles about CIRM in key state and national news outlets.
"In 2006, we published The California Stem Cell Program at One Year: A Progress Report, which assessed CIRM's performance to that date and offered recommendations. See http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/downloads/200601report.pdf
"In 2008, CGS policy analyst Jesse Reynolds gave invited testimony to the Little Hoover Commission’s hearing on CIRM. See http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=4386
"We are encouraged that the Institute of Medicine is undertaking an independent assessment of CIRM, though we hope that you will invite input from a broader range of sources than were represented at the meeting last month in San Francisco. With key questions about the future of CIRM unresolved, and its leadership contemplating a campaign for another bond measure.
"As I wrote in a recent commentary that expressed our disappointment with the roster of speakers at last month’s hearing,
"Ballot measure or no ballot measure, CIRM will continue to disperse the public money it controls – another billion and a half dollars. This is a public agency spending increasingly scarce public resources. It is funding a field of research in which we place great hopes for medical and scientific advances. These factors make it all the more crucial that CIRM follow the basics of good governance and public accountability, and eschew the hyperbole and exaggerated promises that have tainted stem cell research for so long.
"See http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=6045
"Please let us know if we can be of help. We would be very glad to share our insights and recommendations."
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
The prestigious journal Nature today said that asking California voters for more billions for stem cell research in a few years "may strike residents as a luxury that they can ill afford."
The comment came in a piece by Erika Check Hayden dealing with the future of the California stem cell agency, which is expected to run out of money for new grants in about 2017. She wrote,
"Given that California is facing severe budget shortfalls, several billion dollars more for stem-cell science may strike residents as a luxury that they can ill afford. It may also prove difficult for CIRM’s supporters to point to any treatments that have emerged from the state’s investment. So far, the agency has funded only one clinical trial using embryonic stem cells, and that was halted by its sponsor, Geron of Menlo Park, California, last November.
"Yet the institute has spent just over $1 billion on new buildings and labs, basic research, training and translational research, often for projects that scientists say are crucial and would be difficult to get funded any other way. So the prospect of a future without CIRM is provoking unease. 'It would be a very different landscape if CIRM were not around,' says Howard Chang, a dermatologist and genome scientist at Stanford University in California."
Chang was a scheduled witness recently at a public meeting in California of the blue-ribbon Institute of Medicine panel examining the performance of the Golden State's $3 billion stem cell research effort. Chang is the recipient of $3.2 million in CIRM funding. Hayden wrote,
"Chang has a CIRM grant to examine epigenetics in human embryonic stem cells, and is part of another CIRM-funded team that is preparing a developmental regulatory protein for use as a regenerative therapy. Both projects would be difficult to continue without the agency, he says. Federal funding for research using human embryonic stem cells remains controversial, and could dry up altogether after the next presidential election (see Nature 481, 421–423; 2012). And neither of Chang’s other funders — the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland — supports his interdisciplinary translational work. Irina Conboy, a stem-cell engineer at the University of California, Berkeley, who draws half of her lab’s funding from CIRM, agrees that in supporting work that has specific clinical goals, the agency occupies a niche that will not easily be filled by basic-research funders. 'The NIH might say that the work does not have a strong theoretical component, so you’re not learning anything new,' she says."
Conboy was also a scheduled witness at the IOM hearing. She holds $2.2 million in CIRM grants.
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Here is the text of questions from the California Stem Cell Report and answers from the Institute of Medicine concerning its plans to secure independent perspectives during the IOM's examination of the California stem cell agency. So far, the IOM has not heard publicly from any independent sources.
Christine Stencel, a spokeswoman for the IOM, responded for the IOM. She first gave an overall statement. Then she answered the specific queries. We have inserted the questions from the California Stem Cell Report into her text in order to make the Q&A easier to follow.
The IOM's general comment:
"The committee and staff are planning their next info gathering sessions. Specifics of these events haven't all been worked out yet, but one overall point is that the committee believes it is important to hear the full range of perspectives and experiences with CIRM and the committee members are actively pursuing sources of information that will allow them to adequately answer the questions they've been tasked to explore. The study is ongoing and there are still a lot of people and resources to tap and information to learn.
"To your specific questions:"
California Stem Cell Report:
"Does the IOM have plans to talk with or seek statements from such groups as the Little Hoover Commission and the Center for Genetics and Society or state Controller John Chiang?"
IOM response:
"Yes. And the committee is reading all the past reviews of CIRM."
California Stem Cell Report:
"Does the IOM plan to seek comments from grant applicants rejected by CIRM, particularly businesses? If so how many? How would such applicants be selected by the IOM for interviews or comments?"
IOM response:
"Yes, the committee wishes to hear these perspectives and is seeking ways to get them."
California Stem Cell Report:
"Does the IOM plan to do more than passively post forms for comment from others? Does it plan to email those forms, for example, to all CIRM grant recipients and applicants who were rejected? Does it plan to follow up to be sure an adequate response is generated?"
IOM response:
"The IOM is proactively working to get survey responses and encouraging people to respond."
California Stem Cell Report:
"What does the IOM mean by 'industry partners' on its (online) forms for comment?"
IOM response:
"Industry partners means CIRM investigators representing for-profit companies."
California Stem Cell Report:
"Does the IOM plan to examine both public and private complaints about conflicts of interest on the part of CIRM grant reviewers? By private, I mean written complaints to CIRM that the agency retains but has not made public."
IOM response:
"The committee is looking into the grants review process and working to make sure that the members obtain all relevant insights and information. The committee members intend to invite people who can provide a broad range of experiences with and perspectives of CIRM to the upcoming meeting in April."
The California Stem Cell Report later asked the IOM if it wanted to comment on a quote that we were considering using, which said,
"In the eyes of the IOM, scientists who draw funding from CIRM and other sources are 'independent.' They look at these things differently than regular people would."
The IOM responded,
"As to the quote you sent, as a response we would just reiterate that the committee is methodically going about its task and during the course of the study aims to gather the full range of information, experiences, and insights relevant to CIRM from a full range of sources."
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
The Cancer Stem Cell Consortium (CSCC) is a partner in the 2012 Large-Scale Applied Research Project Competition of Genome Canada, in collaboration with the first phase of the Personalized Medicine Signature Initiative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Genome Canada is leading the research competition. An excerpt from Fact Sheet: The Potential of Personalized Medicine:
Funding of $67.5M will come from Genome Canada ($40 million), CIHR ($22.5 million) and the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium ($5 million). Projects will be funded for a maximum of four years. To qualify for funding, researchers must obtain matching funding that at is least equal to that provided through the competition, which will bring the total investment in this research area to close to $140 million. Matching funding is typically derived from provincial, academic, private sector or international sources.
Details about the competition are available here.
Press releases, dated January 31, 2012, about the federal government's support for personalized medicine, are available here and here.
Source:
http://cancerstemcellnews.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Source:
http://intlstemcell.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
The blue-ribbon panel examining the performance of the $3 billion California stem cell agency is midway through its public process and is yet to hear from a single independent witness during its open sessions.
The panel's report and recommendations are due this fall and are expected to have a major impact on the seven-year-old agency and its future.
So far, the IOM panel has heard only from employees or directors of the agency and persons representing institutions that have received $418 million in CIRM cash.
The panel of scientists and academics was put together by the prestigious Institute of Medicine under a $700,000 contract with the stem cell agency itself. At the 2010 meeting during which agency directors approved the contract, they expressed hope that the IOM panel's findings would bolster public support for another multibillion dollar bond measure for the agency, which expects to run out of funds for new grants in 2017.
Last week, the California Stem Cell Report asked the IOM about its plans to gather independent or critical information about the stem cell agency's performance. With only one more California public meeting scheduled, the IOM said that it is seeking the "full range of perspectives" but did not respond directly to questions about the specifics of how it is going to fulfill that task.
None of the four organizations in California that have an independent perspective on CIRM have been contacted by the IOM, the California Stem Cell Report has been told. They are the state's Little Hoover Commission, the Center for Genetics and Society, Consumer Watchdog and the Citizens Financial Accountability and Oversight Committee, which is the only state body specifically charged with oversight of CIRM and its directors and which is chaired by the state's top fiscal officer, Controller John Chiang. A spokeswoman for the IOM panel said, however, it plans to touch base with at least some of the four.
In response to questions from the California Stem Cell Report, Christine Stencel, the IOM spokeswoman, said the IOM also wants to hear comments from businesses whose applications have been rejected by CIRM. However, she said the panel is still working on "ways to get them." She did not respond directly to questions about how many of such businesses would be interviewed or how they would be selected. The tiny number of CIRM grants to business is a sore spot with industry. Even directors and CIRM's own "external review" panel have said much more is needed.
In response to a question about complaints about conflicts of interest on the part of CIRM reviewers, Stencel was also non-specific, saying only that the panel wants to "obtain all relevant insights." She did not respond directly to a question about whether the panel would examine "private complaints" filed with CIRM by rejected applicants.
Currently the IOM has forms posted online that interested parties, if they know about the existence of the forms, can use to comment on CIRM. We asked whether the panel plans to do more than passively post the forms, specifically whether it plans to email them to all CIRM applicants who were rejected. We also asked about IOM plans to follow up to generate an adequate response. Stencel said the IOM is "proactively working" to get survey responses but did not say what specific steps it was taking.
Our comment?
The IOM has a well-deserved reputation for rigor and thoroughness. However, the IOM is all but unknown to 99 pecent of the public, which will be the ultimate consumer of its findings on the stem cell agency. The fact that the IOM is being paid $700,000 by CIRM will undoubtedly raise questions in the minds of some about IOM's own objectivity. The panel itself consists of persons who have like-minded interests and sympathy with CIRM and its 485 grant recipients. No member of the panel is likely to publicly discourage more scientific research, even if CIRM is deemed to be failing to fulfill the voters expectations in 2004 when they created the agency. All the more reason to aggressively seek out those with contrary views about CIRM's performances, if the IOM's report is to have maximum credibility.
Earlier this week we heard from a knowledgeable and longtime observer of the research scene, who said that the IOM looks at things "differently than regular people" and views scientists who receive funding from CIRM as "independent." The IOM's Stencel responded by reiterating that the IOM is seeking the full range of information from the full range of sources.
The IOM evaluation of CIRM's performance is much too far along not to have progressed further with its attempts to hear from independent and critical voices about CIRM. Generalizations to the effect that "we are going to get to it" do not serve the panel well. The IOM should lay out publicly and quite specifically its plans to aggressively seek thoughtful analysis from parties that do not have financial or professional links to CIRM, as well as from those who feel they have received a short shrift from the $3 billion enterprise.
You can read the full text of the questions from the California Stem Cell Report and the IOM responses here.
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
The Center for Genetics and Society has filed a brief statement with the Institute of Medicine panel examining the performance of the California stem cell agency, expressing the hope that the inquiry will include "a broader range of sources."
Marcy Darnovsky, associate executive director of the Berkeley group, said that "a meaningful review by (the IOM) committee could make an important contribution to needed changes at the agency." Darnovsky's organization has followed the stem cell effort since its inception.
She noted that CIRM is "a public agency spending increasingly scarce public resources" and has raised the possibility of seeking another multibillion dollar bond measure from voters.
The IOM inquiry has finished half of its public process and is yet to hear an independent analysis of the stem cell agency, which is paying $700,000 for the study.
Earlier Darnovsky told the California Stem Cell Report that the Institute of Medicine has not contacted her organization for comments, although she has spoken with the public relations person for the IOM.
Here is the text of Darnovsky's statement sent to the IOM.
"The Center for Genetics and Society is a public interest organization working to ensure responsible uses and effective societal governance of human genetic and reproductive technologies. We support embryonic stem cell research, but have been concerned for some years about a number of aspects of the field, and of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine in particular.
"We have been closely following CIRM since the campaign for Proposition 71 that established it in 2004. We have attended numerous meetings of the agency’s governing board and Standards Working Group, worked with other public interest groups who share our concerns about CIRM, written frequently about CIRM in our publications, and been cited dozens of times in articles about CIRM in key state and national news outlets.
"In 2006, we published The California Stem Cell Program at One Year: A Progress Report, which assessed CIRM's performance to that date and offered recommendations. See http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/downloads/200601report.pdf
"In 2008, CGS policy analyst Jesse Reynolds gave invited testimony to the Little Hoover Commission’s hearing on CIRM. See http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=4386
"We are encouraged that the Institute of Medicine is undertaking an independent assessment of CIRM, though we hope that you will invite input from a broader range of sources than were represented at the meeting last month in San Francisco. With key questions about the future of CIRM unresolved, and its leadership contemplating a campaign for another bond measure.
"As I wrote in a recent commentary that expressed our disappointment with the roster of speakers at last month’s hearing,
"Ballot measure or no ballot measure, CIRM will continue to disperse the public money it controls – another billion and a half dollars. This is a public agency spending increasingly scarce public resources. It is funding a field of research in which we place great hopes for medical and scientific advances. These factors make it all the more crucial that CIRM follow the basics of good governance and public accountability, and eschew the hyperbole and exaggerated promises that have tainted stem cell research for so long.
"See http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=6045
"Please let us know if we can be of help. We would be very glad to share our insights and recommendations."
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
The prestigious journal Nature today said that asking California voters for more billions for stem cell research in a few years "may strike residents as a luxury that they can ill afford."
The comment came in a piece by Erika Check Hayden dealing with the future of the California stem cell agency, which is expected to run out of money for new grants in about 2017. She wrote,
"Given that California is facing severe budget shortfalls, several billion dollars more for stem-cell science may strike residents as a luxury that they can ill afford. It may also prove difficult for CIRM’s supporters to point to any treatments that have emerged from the state’s investment. So far, the agency has funded only one clinical trial using embryonic stem cells, and that was halted by its sponsor, Geron of Menlo Park, California, last November.
"Yet the institute has spent just over $1 billion on new buildings and labs, basic research, training and translational research, often for projects that scientists say are crucial and would be difficult to get funded any other way. So the prospect of a future without CIRM is provoking unease. 'It would be a very different landscape if CIRM were not around,' says Howard Chang, a dermatologist and genome scientist at Stanford University in California."
Chang was a scheduled witness recently at a public meeting in California of the blue-ribbon Institute of Medicine panel examining the performance of the Golden State's $3 billion stem cell research effort. Chang is the recipient of $3.2 million in CIRM funding. Hayden wrote,
"Chang has a CIRM grant to examine epigenetics in human embryonic stem cells, and is part of another CIRM-funded team that is preparing a developmental regulatory protein for use as a regenerative therapy. Both projects would be difficult to continue without the agency, he says. Federal funding for research using human embryonic stem cells remains controversial, and could dry up altogether after the next presidential election (see Nature 481, 421–423; 2012). And neither of Chang’s other funders — the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland — supports his interdisciplinary translational work. Irina Conboy, a stem-cell engineer at the University of California, Berkeley, who draws half of her lab’s funding from CIRM, agrees that in supporting work that has specific clinical goals, the agency occupies a niche that will not easily be filled by basic-research funders. 'The NIH might say that the work does not have a strong theoretical component, so you’re not learning anything new,' she says."
Conboy was also a scheduled witness at the IOM hearing. She holds $2.2 million in CIRM grants.
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Here is the text of questions from the California Stem Cell Report and answers from the Institute of Medicine concerning its plans to secure independent perspectives during the IOM's examination of the California stem cell agency. So far, the IOM has not heard publicly from any independent sources.
Christine Stencel, a spokeswoman for the IOM, responded for the IOM. She first gave an overall statement. Then she answered the specific queries. We have inserted the questions from the California Stem Cell Report into her text in order to make the Q&A easier to follow.
The IOM's general comment:
"The committee and staff are planning their next info gathering sessions. Specifics of these events haven't all been worked out yet, but one overall point is that the committee believes it is important to hear the full range of perspectives and experiences with CIRM and the committee members are actively pursuing sources of information that will allow them to adequately answer the questions they've been tasked to explore. The study is ongoing and there are still a lot of people and resources to tap and information to learn.
"To your specific questions:"
California Stem Cell Report:
"Does the IOM have plans to talk with or seek statements from such groups as the Little Hoover Commission and the Center for Genetics and Society or state Controller John Chiang?"
IOM response:
"Yes. And the committee is reading all the past reviews of CIRM."
California Stem Cell Report:
"Does the IOM plan to seek comments from grant applicants rejected by CIRM, particularly businesses? If so how many? How would such applicants be selected by the IOM for interviews or comments?"
IOM response:
"Yes, the committee wishes to hear these perspectives and is seeking ways to get them."
California Stem Cell Report:
"Does the IOM plan to do more than passively post forms for comment from others? Does it plan to email those forms, for example, to all CIRM grant recipients and applicants who were rejected? Does it plan to follow up to be sure an adequate response is generated?"
IOM response:
"The IOM is proactively working to get survey responses and encouraging people to respond."
California Stem Cell Report:
"What does the IOM mean by 'industry partners' on its (online) forms for comment?"
IOM response:
"Industry partners means CIRM investigators representing for-profit companies."
California Stem Cell Report:
"Does the IOM plan to examine both public and private complaints about conflicts of interest on the part of CIRM grant reviewers? By private, I mean written complaints to CIRM that the agency retains but has not made public."
IOM response:
"The committee is looking into the grants review process and working to make sure that the members obtain all relevant insights and information. The committee members intend to invite people who can provide a broad range of experiences with and perspectives of CIRM to the upcoming meeting in April."
The California Stem Cell Report later asked the IOM if it wanted to comment on a quote that we were considering using, which said,
"In the eyes of the IOM, scientists who draw funding from CIRM and other sources are 'independent.' They look at these things differently than regular people would."
The IOM responded,
"As to the quote you sent, as a response we would just reiterate that the committee is methodically going about its task and during the course of the study aims to gather the full range of information, experiences, and insights relevant to CIRM from a full range of sources."
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
23-11-2011 02:11 For instance, neural cells in the brain and spinal cord that have been damaged can be replaced by stem cells. In the treatment of cancer, cells partially damaged by radiation or chemotherapy can be replaced with new healthy stem cells that adapt to the affected area, whether it be part of the brain, heart, liver, lungs, or wherever. Dead cells of almost any kind, no matter the type of injury or disease, can be replaced with new healthy cells thanks to the amazing flexibility of stem cells.
Read more from the original source:
stem cell therapy mexico, Successfully Results - Video
31-01-2012 21:38 http://www.StemCellTreatment.org Jaime Chiriboga was an active adult and ended up in a motorcycle accident and left a quadriplegic. Before receiving stem cell treatment he could not move his limbs. After his stem cell therapy he was able to move his limbs and got back almost 100% sensitivity in his body! We are very happy with the results and even more important Jaime is happy with his results! Please look at our website for more information!
Read more:
Stem Cell Treatment Paraplegic - Video
