Stem Cell Therapy – StemCell Therapy

California Legislation Removing Ban on Payments for Eggs for Research Heads to Governor

♫ Sunday, July 14th, 2013

Legislation to allow women in
California to be paid for their eggs for scientific research is on
its way to Gov. Jerry Brown following final legislative approval last
week.

Sponsors of the bill, a national
fertility industry organization, expect the governor later this month
to sign the measure, which would go into effect next year.

The measure, AB 926 by Assemblywoman
Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, would repeal a ban on payments to women who
provide eggs for scientific research. However, the measure would not
affect the ban on payments to egg providers in research funded by the
$3 billion California stem cell agency. That ban is covered by a
separate legal provision. Stem cell researchers around the country have complained that they they cannot get eggs without payment.

Women in California can be paid for
providing eggs for reproductive purposes. According to a legislative analysis, payments can run as high as $50,000 for women with special
characteristics but average around $9,000 for each session, which can
generate more than one egg.

The sponsor of the legislation is the
American Society for Reproductive Medicine of Alabama, whose members
represent a wide swath of the $5 billion-a-year fertility business.
The measure would open new business avenues for the industry.

Bonilla argues that the measure allows women to be treated on the same footing as men who provide sperm for
research and would encourage more research into reproductive health issues.

Opponents argue that the safety of the
egg production procedures has not been well-established including
their long-term impact. They also argue that allowing payment would
lead to exploitation of poor and minority women.

The bill received its final
legislative approval on July 1 when the Senate passed it on a 24-9
vote.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/2FyX5YnnQHA/california-legislation-removing-ban-on.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | | Comments Off»

Purtier NZ Live Stem Cell Therapy presented by Dr Chen – Video

♫ Tuesday, July 9th, 2013

Purtier NZ Live Stem Cell Therapy presented by Dr Chen
For Live demo and discussion: Call John 90036287 / Daphne 91455217.

By: petty joy

Visit link:
Purtier NZ Live Stem Cell Therapy presented by Dr Chen - Video

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

Challenge to WARF hESC Patents Cites Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision

♫ Sunday, July 7th, 2013

Patents on human embryonic stem cells
are being challenged in a new legal filing that cites the recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision that barred the patenting of human genes.

The stem cell case involves the
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), which holds the patents on the
much-heralded work performed by Jamie Thomson at the University of Wisconsin. The lawsuit was filed
by the Public Patent Foundation of New York City on behalf of
Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group in Santa Monica, Ca. Jeanne
Loring, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at the
Scripps Research Institute, is also involved along with Alan
Trounson, president of the California stem cell agency. The agency
itself is not a party.

This week's filing follows the
so-called Myriad decision last month by the nation's highest court which said,

“Myriad did not create anything. To
be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that
gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of
invention.”

This week's stem cell suit said,

"WARF did not create or alter the
properties inherent in stem cells any more than Myriad created or
altered the genetic information encoded in the DNA it claimed.”

The legal filing came in an appeal of
an earlier decision by the U.S. Patent Office. The Public Patent
Foundation, which was a successful party in the Myriad case, did the earlier legal work on the challenge to the WARF patents as well as this
week's appeal.

The appeal, prepared by Dan Ravicher,
said the WARF patents have "put a severe burden on taxpayer-funded
research in California.”

Trounson released a statement saying,

“We don't want to do anything that
gets in the way of finding treatments for some of the biggest killers
today, so we feel that all patients with all kinds of diseases
deserve to have access to these kinds of cells.”

Loring was quoted in a Consumer Watchdog press release as saying,

"Human embryonic stem cells hold
great promise for advancing human health, and no one has the ethical
right to own them.”

John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog
said,

“The best course if WARF truly
cares about scientific advancement would be to
simply abandon these over-reaching patent claims.”

A story by Bradley Fikes in the San
Diego U-T cited intellectual property attorney Lisa Haile of DLA
Piper as saying,

“A successful use of the Myriad case
as a precedent for throwing out the foundation’s patent would open
the door to similar challenges in just about any biotech product
using material derived from life.”

WARF made no immediate comment.

Other stories on the WARF challenge
appeared in the Milwaukee Journal, Genomeweb and the LaCross Tribune.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/LuLuZLLjyDo/challenge-to-warf-hesc-patents-cites.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

California Legislation, Human Egg Sales and Profits

♫ Sunday, July 7th, 2013

California legislation to allow women
to be paid for their eggs for scientific research is sailing toward
final passage literally swaddled in motherhood and apple pie
arguments. Missing from the debate is a key reason behind
the bill – building profits for what some call the “baby
business.”

The legislation is touted as providing
equal treatment for women, permitting them to be paid for supplying
eggs for stem cell and other research, much as men are paid for
sperm. It also would put women who sell their eggs for research on an
equal economic footing with women who sell their eggs for fertility
treatments, which is currently permitted under state law. Payments to
those women range from an average of $9,000 to as much as $50,000,
according to a legislative analysis of the bill.

Assemblywoman Susan Bonillla,
D-Concord, author of the bill(AB926), says,

“It is time to let women, just as any
other research subject, make an informed decision as to
participation, and justly compensate them for doing so.”

She also says that the ban on payments
has had serious impact on fertility research. In a legislative bill analysis, she says,

“It has led to a de facto prohibition
on women’s reproductive research in California, adversely
impacting the same women that the ban intended to protect. With few
oocytes donated, fertility research and fertility preservation
research has been at a standstill. This greatly affects women
suffering from fertility issues and women facing cancer who would
like to preserve their oocytes.”

Bonilla is carrying the measure on
behalf of an industry group, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine of Alabama. The fertility or baby business, which is largely
unregulated, brings in about $5 billion annually in the United
States from something like 500 clinics. It has grown rapidly over the
last couple of decades, but is likely heading for a soft spot.

Little public information is available
on the Internet discussing the industry's economic challenges.
However, demographic studies show that the size of the key market
for fertility services is stagnating. A 2012 report by the federal
government projects that the number of women in the 35 to 44 age
group, prime consumers of fertility services, is likely to grow only
0.5 percent from 2010 to 2020. And since that forecast was made, the
Census Bureau has downgraded its projections for total population
growth.

Bonilla's legislation effectively adds
a new, potential revenue stream for the industry. Fertility clinics
would be able to buy the eggs and then resell them to researchers,
adding premiums for eggs from women with special characteristics. The bill would also add a tool for bringing down the cost of fertility
treatments, which can run as much as $12,000 to $17,000 a round or
more and require several rounds, according to the NIH. Clinics could discount those prices for some women, bringing in
new customers, if they agree to authorize the use of excess eggs for
scientific research.

None of this appears necessarily
pernicious. What is pernicious is the absence of discussion of the
economics of the legislation. Without a full understanding of all
that is at stake, including economic issues and motivations,
legislators, the governor and the public are hard-pressed to make
good decisions about a significant change in California law.

Opponents of the legislation have
raised serious questions about the treatment of women by fertility
clinics, noting that the bill would turn egg providers into “vendors”
– not patients of the clinics. The Center for Genetics and Society
in Berkeley has captured the arguments in opposition including
testimony before a Senate committee hearing early in June.

Jennifer Schneider, a physician who
lost a 31-year-old daughter to cancer seven years after the younger
woman sold her eggs three times, told lawmakers,

“Unlike infertile women who are
considered patients, egg donors are treated as vendors( (her italics).
When they walk out of the IVF clinic, no one keeps track of them.
My daughter’s death was not reported. The long-term risks of egg
donation are unknown."

Sindy Wei, a former egg provider and
now a physician with a Ph.D. in biology, testified that she wound up
in an intensive care unit after 60 eggs were extracted from her in
2001. She said,

“I fear that cases like mine are
buried deep by fertility centers concerned about their image. An
industry thriving on profits and reputation has little incentive to
report adverse events, or protect the health and medical rights of
donors.”

Where is the $3 billion California stem
cell agency on all this? The agency has not taken a position on the
bill nor have any major research organizations. The measure does not
change the law affecting agency-funded research, which bans the use of
compensation for eggs in its research. Enactment of the law, however, would
create a two-tier stem cell research standard in California, one for
scientists not constrained by the payment ban and another for those
who could use the full range of research tools. Some stem cell
researchers may well think that they have become disadvantaged as a
result.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this article said the IVF business generated $4 billion in revenues annually. More recent estimates place it at $5 billion.)

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/0ke5iLQwGdA/california-legislation-human-egg-sales.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

California Legislation, Human Egg Sales and Profits

♫ Sunday, July 7th, 2013

California legislation to allow women
to be paid for their eggs for scientific research is sailing toward
final passage literally swaddled in motherhood and apple pie
arguments. Missing from the debate is a key reason behind
the bill – building profits for what some call the “baby
business.”

The legislation is touted as providing
equal treatment for women, permitting them to be paid for supplying
eggs for stem cell and other research, much as men are paid for
sperm. It also would put women who sell their eggs for research on an
equal economic footing with women who sell their eggs for fertility
treatments, which is currently permitted under state law. Payments to
those women range from an average of $9,000 to as much as $50,000,
according to a legislative analysis of the bill.

Assemblywoman Susan Bonillla,
D-Concord, author of the bill(AB926), says,

“It is time to let women, just as any
other research subject, make an informed decision as to
participation, and justly compensate them for doing so.”

She also says that the ban on payments
has had serious impact on fertility research. In a legislative bill analysis, she says,

“It has led to a de facto prohibition
on women’s reproductive research in California, adversely
impacting the same women that the ban intended to protect. With few
oocytes donated, fertility research and fertility preservation
research has been at a standstill. This greatly affects women
suffering from fertility issues and women facing cancer who would
like to preserve their oocytes.”

Bonilla is carrying the measure on
behalf of an industry group, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine of Alabama. The fertility or baby business, which is largely
unregulated, brings in about $5 billion annually in the United
States from something like 500 clinics. It has grown rapidly over the
last couple of decades, but is likely heading for a soft spot.

Little public information is available
on the Internet discussing the industry's economic challenges.
However, demographic studies show that the size of the key market
for fertility services is stagnating. A 2012 report by the federal
government projects that the number of women in the 35 to 44 age
group, prime consumers of fertility services, is likely to grow only
0.5 percent from 2010 to 2020. And since that forecast was made, the
Census Bureau has downgraded its projections for total population
growth.

Bonilla's legislation effectively adds
a new, potential revenue stream for the industry. Fertility clinics
would be able to buy the eggs and then resell them to researchers,
adding premiums for eggs from women with special characteristics. The bill would also add a tool for bringing down the cost of fertility
treatments, which can run as much as $12,000 to $17,000 a round or
more and require several rounds, according to the NIH. Clinics could discount those prices for some women, bringing in
new customers, if they agree to authorize the use of excess eggs for
scientific research.

None of this appears necessarily
pernicious. What is pernicious is the absence of discussion of the
economics of the legislation. Without a full understanding of all
that is at stake, including economic issues and motivations,
legislators, the governor and the public are hard-pressed to make
good decisions about a significant change in California law.

Opponents of the legislation have
raised serious questions about the treatment of women by fertility
clinics, noting that the bill would turn egg providers into “vendors”
– not patients of the clinics. The Center for Genetics and Society
in Berkeley has captured the arguments in opposition including
testimony before a Senate committee hearing early in June.

Jennifer Schneider, a physician who
lost a 31-year-old daughter to cancer seven years after the younger
woman sold her eggs three times, told lawmakers,

“Unlike infertile women who are
considered patients, egg donors are treated as vendors( (her italics).
When they walk out of the IVF clinic, no one keeps track of them.
My daughter’s death was not reported. The long-term risks of egg
donation are unknown."

Sindy Wei, a former egg provider and
now a physician with a Ph.D. in biology, testified that she wound up
in an intensive care unit after 60 eggs were extracted from her in
2001. She said,

“I fear that cases like mine are
buried deep by fertility centers concerned about their image. An
industry thriving on profits and reputation has little incentive to
report adverse events, or protect the health and medical rights of
donors.”

Where is the $3 billion California stem
cell agency on all this? The agency has not taken a position on the
bill nor have any major research organizations. The measure does not
change the law affecting agency-funded research, which bans the use of
compensation for eggs in its research. Enactment of the law, however, would
create a two-tier stem cell research standard in California, one for
scientists not constrained by the payment ban and another for those
who could use the full range of research tools. Some stem cell
researchers may well think that they have become disadvantaged as a
result.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this article said the IVF business generated $4 billion in revenues annually. More recent estimates place it at $5 billion.)

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/0ke5iLQwGdA/california-legislation-human-egg-sales.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | | Comments Off»

Challenge to WARF hESC Patents Cites Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision

♫ Sunday, July 7th, 2013

Patents on human embryonic stem cells
are being challenged in a new legal filing that cites the recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision that barred the patenting of human genes.

The stem cell case involves the
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), which holds the patents on the
much-heralded work performed by Jamie Thomson at the University of Wisconsin. The lawsuit was filed
by the Public Patent Foundation of New York City on behalf of
Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group in Santa Monica, Ca. Jeanne
Loring, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at the
Scripps Research Institute, is also involved along with Alan
Trounson, president of the California stem cell agency. The agency
itself is not a party.

This week's filing follows the
so-called Myriad decision last month by the nation's highest court which said,

“Myriad did not create anything. To
be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that
gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of
invention.”

This week's stem cell suit said,

"WARF did not create or alter the
properties inherent in stem cells any more than Myriad created or
altered the genetic information encoded in the DNA it claimed.”

The legal filing came in an appeal of
an earlier decision by the U.S. Patent Office. The Public Patent
Foundation, which was a successful party in the Myriad case, did the earlier legal work on the challenge to the WARF patents as well as this
week's appeal.

The appeal, prepared by Dan Ravicher,
said the WARF patents have "put a severe burden on taxpayer-funded
research in California.”

Trounson released a statement saying,

“We don't want to do anything that
gets in the way of finding treatments for some of the biggest killers
today, so we feel that all patients with all kinds of diseases
deserve to have access to these kinds of cells.”

Loring was quoted in a Consumer Watchdog press release as saying,

"Human embryonic stem cells hold
great promise for advancing human health, and no one has the ethical
right to own them.”

John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog
said,

“The best course if WARF truly
cares about scientific advancement would be to
simply abandon these over-reaching patent claims.”

A story by Bradley Fikes in the San
Diego U-T cited intellectual property attorney Lisa Haile of DLA
Piper as saying,

“A successful use of the Myriad case
as a precedent for throwing out the foundation’s patent would open
the door to similar challenges in just about any biotech product
using material derived from life.”

WARF made no immediate comment.

Other stories on the WARF challenge
appeared in the Milwaukee Journal, Genomeweb and the LaCross Tribune.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/LuLuZLLjyDo/challenge-to-warf-hesc-patents-cites.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | | Comments Off»

Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Dopamine Responsive Dystonia by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India. – Video

♫ Friday, July 5th, 2013

Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Dopamine Responsive Dystonia by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India.
Improvement seen after Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Dopamine Responsive Dystonia by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India. After Stem Cell Therapy 1. His neck and trunk control has improved. 2....

By: neurogenbsi

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for DuchenneMuscular Dystrophy by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India. – Video

♫ Friday, July 5th, 2013

Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for DuchenneMuscular Dystrophy by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India.
Improvement seen in just 5 day after Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for DuchenneMuscular Dystrophy by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India. After Stem Cell Therapy 1. Stair climbing is easy now. 1....

By: neurogenbsi

More here:
Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for DuchenneMuscular Dystrophy by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India. - Video

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

Flax Day 0 Stem cell Therapy 360p – Video

♫ Friday, July 5th, 2013

Flax Day 0 Stem cell Therapy 360p

By: WichitaEquineSm

See the article here:
Flax Day 0 Stem cell Therapy 360p - Video

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

Cost of a Stem Cell Therapy? An Estimated $512,000

♫ Sunday, June 30th, 2013

The likely costs of potential stem cell therapies
and cures receive almost no attention in the media as well as
publicly from scientists and the biotech firms.

Usually any public discussion is
obliquely framed in the context of “reimbursement,” as if
industry is owed something instead of making a business decision
about what will make a profit. Euphemisms and jargon cloak unpleasant realities such as astronomical patient costs. But what reimbursement really involves are, in fact, pricing decisions and profit margins along with
lobbying campaigns for inclusion of
therapies in normal coverage of health insurance and Medicare.

And today a singular figure – $512,000
for one stem cell treatment – appeared in the Wall Street
Journal . The story by Kosaku Narioka and Phred Dvorak dealt
with what would be the first-ever human study of a treatment that
uses reprogrammed adult stem cells.

They reported that the study received
preliminary approval on Wednesday from a key panel of the Japan
Health Ministry. The treatment involves a form of age-related macular
degeneration, which has also been targeted by the California stem
cell agency with different approaches.

Buried deep in the Wall Street Journal
article, with little other discussion, was this sentence:

“One eventual obstacle, even if tests
go well, could be cost: (Masayuki) Yamato (of Tokyo Women's Medical
University) says initial estimates for the treatment run around ¥50
million ($512,000) per person."

The subject of costs for potential stem
cell treatments has rattled around in the background for years
without much deep public discussion. One reason is that high costs of
treatments are controversial and can trigger emotional debate.
Another reason is that it is very early in the therapy development
process and estimates are not likely to be entirely reliable.

A few years ago, however, the California stem
cell agency commissioned a study involving costs of stem cell therapies. The UC Berkeley report said,

“The cost impact of the therapy is
likely to be high, because of a therapy’s high cost per patient,
and the potentially large number of individuals who might benefit
from the therapy. This expense would put additional stress on
the Medicare and Medicaid budgets, cause private
insurance health premiums to increase, and create an incentive for
private plans to avoid covering individuals eligible for a therapy.”

The findings did not seem to be exactly
welcomed. The agency sat on the 2009 study for seven months until it
was uncovered by the California Stem Cell Report in April 2010. Then
the agency was careful to say that the study did not reflect the view
of CIRM management or board leadership.

Their wariness of being out in front on the issue could be well-advised. The pharmaceutical industry received some unpleasant attention this spring when more than 100 influential cancer specialists from more than 15 countries publicly denounced the cost of cancer drugs that exceed more than $100,000 a year.

Nonetheless pricing is critical
to both patient accessibility and therapy development. If companies
cannot make a profit on a possible therapy, it is virtually certain
not to appear in the marketplace.

While the subject remains in the
background, it does not mean there is a lack of interest. The copy of
the Berkeley stem cell cost study that was posted online by the California
Stem Cell Report has been read 11,701 times since it was made
available in April 2010 on scribd.com.

A copy of the study can be found below.

Stem Cell Therapy
Costs by DavidJensen

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/IObtHBtAe_E/cost-of-stem-cell-therapy-estimated.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

Bluebird and Banking: Media Pluses for California Stem Cell Agency

♫ Sunday, June 30th, 2013

The California stem cell agency scored
a couple of favorable publicity points last week as the result of a
successful stock offering by an award recipient and another piece
about creation of a stem cell bank in Northern California.

The IPO by bluebird bio (the company's
preferred spelling) of Massachusetts was a big winner for the
company, raising millions of dollars more than anticipated.

The Boston Globe wrote,

“Shares of the Cambridge life
sciences company bluebird bio Inc. soared almost 60 percent on their
first day of trading (last) Wednesday, an impressive debut for a
business that endured years of stagnation and another encouraging
sign for the biotechnology industry.

“The local gene therapy company
raised $101 million in an initial public offering priced at $17 per
share, higher than the $14 to $16 estimated by investment bankers.
Bluebird shares closed at $26.91 per share on Wednesday.”

The stock continues to trade around $25
a share at the time of this writing, which is good news generally for
the biotech industry.

The company received a $9.4 million
award last fall from the $3 billion stem cell agency. The company has yet to receive any actual cash from the agency as both parties work
out final details of an agreement, a spokesman for the agency said
last week.

The stem cell agency touted the
successful IPO in a blog item by that said,

“Bluebird Bio, one of the oldest
companies in the struggling gene therapy field, is having an
outstanding first day in the stock market today, and largely by
marrying its gene therapy technology with stem cell science. The
company’s financial milestone brings hope and excitement to both
fields.”

However, the news stories about the IPO
failed to mention the stem cell agency's involvement, which would
have been nice for the agency but was to be expected given the way
news is covered.

The story about the stem cell bank
appeared on Xconomy, an Internet news service dealing with
technology. Written by Bernadette Tansey, a former San Francisco
Chronicle reporter, the piece dealt with the both business and science of stem cell banking. She wrote,

“One of the main goals of
California’s $3 billion stem cell research agency is to draw
companies into the state so they can vie for a share of the funding.

"With a recently funded $32 million
initiative, the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM) has attracted two of
the biggest US players in stem cell banking to Novato, CA, to form
one of the largest biobanks of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS
cells) in the world.”

The stem cell bank effort has become a
minor staple in recent news coverage of CIRM, surfacing in a number
of articles since the awards were approved. One of the reasons for that is that the project has a relatively straight-forward story line compared to many research efforts and the concept of "banking" is familiar to editors, writers and readers.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/6WeU6kIIs6E/bluebird-and-banking-media-pluses-for.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

Bluebird and Banking: Media Pluses for California Stem Cell Agency

♫ Sunday, June 30th, 2013

The California stem cell agency scored
a couple of favorable publicity points last week as the result of a
successful stock offering by an award recipient and another piece
about creation of a stem cell bank in Northern California.

The IPO by bluebird bio (the company's
preferred spelling) of Massachusetts was a big winner for the
company, raising millions of dollars more than anticipated.

The Boston Globe wrote,

“Shares of the Cambridge life
sciences company bluebird bio Inc. soared almost 60 percent on their
first day of trading (last) Wednesday, an impressive debut for a
business that endured years of stagnation and another encouraging
sign for the biotechnology industry.

“The local gene therapy company
raised $101 million in an initial public offering priced at $17 per
share, higher than the $14 to $16 estimated by investment bankers.
Bluebird shares closed at $26.91 per share on Wednesday.”

The stock continues to trade around $25
a share at the time of this writing, which is good news generally for
the biotech industry.

The company received a $9.4 million
award last fall from the $3 billion stem cell agency. The company has yet to receive any actual cash from the agency as both parties work
out final details of an agreement, a spokesman for the agency said
last week.

The stem cell agency touted the
successful IPO in a blog item by that said,

“Bluebird Bio, one of the oldest
companies in the struggling gene therapy field, is having an
outstanding first day in the stock market today, and largely by
marrying its gene therapy technology with stem cell science. The
company’s financial milestone brings hope and excitement to both
fields.”

However, the news stories about the IPO
failed to mention the stem cell agency's involvement, which would
have been nice for the agency but was to be expected given the way
news is covered.

The story about the stem cell bank
appeared on Xconomy, an Internet news service dealing with
technology. Written by Bernadette Tansey, a former San Francisco
Chronicle reporter, the piece dealt with the both business and science of stem cell banking. She wrote,

“One of the main goals of
California’s $3 billion stem cell research agency is to draw
companies into the state so they can vie for a share of the funding.

"With a recently funded $32 million
initiative, the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM) has attracted two of
the biggest US players in stem cell banking to Novato, CA, to form
one of the largest biobanks of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS
cells) in the world.”

The stem cell bank effort has become a
minor staple in recent news coverage of CIRM, surfacing in a number
of articles since the awards were approved. One of the reasons for that is that the project has a relatively straight-forward story line compared to many research efforts and the concept of "banking" is familiar to editors, writers and readers.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/6WeU6kIIs6E/bluebird-and-banking-media-pluses-for.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | | Comments Off»

Cost of a Stem Cell Therapy? An Estimated $512,000

♫ Sunday, June 30th, 2013

The likely costs of potential stem cell therapies
and cures receive almost no attention in the media as well as
publicly from scientists and the biotech firms.

Usually any public discussion is
obliquely framed in the context of “reimbursement,” as if
industry is owed something instead of making a business decision
about what will make a profit. Euphemisms and jargon cloak unpleasant realities such as astronomical patient costs. But what reimbursement really involves are, in fact, pricing decisions and profit margins along with
lobbying campaigns for inclusion of
therapies in normal coverage of health insurance and Medicare.

And today a singular figure – $512,000
for one stem cell treatment – appeared in the Wall Street
Journal . The story by Kosaku Narioka and Phred Dvorak dealt
with what would be the first-ever human study of a treatment that
uses reprogrammed adult stem cells.

They reported that the study received
preliminary approval on Wednesday from a key panel of the Japan
Health Ministry. The treatment involves a form of age-related macular
degeneration, which has also been targeted by the California stem
cell agency with different approaches.

Buried deep in the Wall Street Journal
article, with little other discussion, was this sentence:

“One eventual obstacle, even if tests
go well, could be cost: (Masayuki) Yamato (of Tokyo Women's Medical
University) says initial estimates for the treatment run around ¥50
million ($512,000) per person."

The subject of costs for potential stem
cell treatments has rattled around in the background for years
without much deep public discussion. One reason is that high costs of
treatments are controversial and can trigger emotional debate.
Another reason is that it is very early in the therapy development
process and estimates are not likely to be entirely reliable.

A few years ago, however, the California stem
cell agency commissioned a study involving costs of stem cell therapies. The UC Berkeley report said,

“The cost impact of the therapy is
likely to be high, because of a therapy’s high cost per patient,
and the potentially large number of individuals who might benefit
from the therapy. This expense would put additional stress on
the Medicare and Medicaid budgets, cause private
insurance health premiums to increase, and create an incentive for
private plans to avoid covering individuals eligible for a therapy.”

The findings did not seem to be exactly
welcomed. The agency sat on the 2009 study for seven months until it
was uncovered by the California Stem Cell Report in April 2010. Then
the agency was careful to say that the study did not reflect the view
of CIRM management or board leadership.

Their wariness of being out in front on the issue could be well-advised. The pharmaceutical industry received some unpleasant attention this spring when more than 100 influential cancer specialists from more than 15 countries publicly denounced the cost of cancer drugs that exceed more than $100,000 a year.

Nonetheless pricing is critical
to both patient accessibility and therapy development. If companies
cannot make a profit on a possible therapy, it is virtually certain
not to appear in the marketplace.

While the subject remains in the
background, it does not mean there is a lack of interest. The copy of
the Berkeley stem cell cost study that was posted online by the California
Stem Cell Report has been read 11,701 times since it was made
available in April 2010 on scribd.com.

A copy of the study can be found below.

Stem Cell Therapy
Costs by DavidJensen

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/IObtHBtAe_E/cost-of-stem-cell-therapy-estimated.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | | Comments Off»

International team submits IND application

♫ Sunday, June 23rd, 2013

On 18 June 2013, there was an announcement at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto. There was also a post on the California stem cell agency blog entitled: Clinical trial to thwart cancer stem cells may begin soon. An excerpt from the post:

The Prince Margaret Center announced the FDA filing, called an Investigational New Drug application (IND), at an event in Toronto recognizing the private donors. A press release about the announcement was picked up at this biotech news site.

The Principal Investigators present for the announcement were Dr. Tak Mak of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Dr. Dennis Slamon of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). What they have done is summarized in another excerpt from the blog post:

By working first to understand the various proteins that drive cells to divide, particularly in cancer, they were able to pinpoint an enzyme, that if blocked, could be the key to keeping cancer in check. They then discovered that this enzyme, called PLK4, can be derailed by a new drug they developed. In the lab, it has been shown to inhibit the growth of breast, ovarian, colorectal, lung, pancreatic and prostate cancer, as well as melanoma.

Information about the human PLK4 protein is available here.

Some background: In June 2008, it was announced that a partnership had been formed between Canada’s Cancer Stem Cell Consortium (CSCC) and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) for international collaboration to advance cancer stem cell research. An excerpt from the CSCC's announcement:

It is proposed that one of the first initiatives to be launched by the CSCC will be a collaboration between Canadian and Californian scientists through CIRM's upcoming Disease Team Research Awards Competition, which will support multi-disciplinary teams of scientists in pursuit of therapies for specific diseases.The goal is to fund teams that will develop therapy or diagnostics for a particular disease or serious injury.Successful proposals will likely include a description of a path to an Investigational New Drug filing at the end of the four-to-five year grant.

Note the intent to file an IND by the end of the term of the grant.

The results of the Disease Team Research Awards Competition were announced on October 28, 2009. The award to Drs. Slamon and Mak is Grant number DR1-01477. See: Therapeutic Opportunities to Target Tumor Initiating Cells in Solid Tumors. As was stated in a page about Cancer Stem Cells on the website of the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), this award was to one of two multi-disciplinary research teams co-led by Canadian and Californian scientists. The other team is co-led by Dr. John Dick of the University Health Network and Dr. Dennis Carson of the University of California, San Diego. My blog post (October 29, 2009) about the awards is entitled: Disease Team awards announced. The post ends with this Disclosure:

I'm a member of the Board of the CSCC, but also a staff member (emeritus) at the University Health Network. So, I was in conflict of interest, and was absent during all of the discussions, by the CSCC Board, about which Canadian applications should be considered for the Disease Team awards.

Source:
http://cancerstemcellnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/international-team-submits-ind.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

Pay-For-Eggs Legislation Draws More Media Attention

♫ Sunday, June 23rd, 2013

California legislation to allow women
to be paid for their eggs for scientific research generated several news articles this week as the measure neared final legislative
approval.

The coverage included both pro and con
but did not amount to major attention from the mainstream media. And,
with one exception, the articles failed to report that the
legislation did not apply to research funded by the $3 billion
California stem cell agency, which bans compensation for egg
providers.

The proposal (AB926) is now on the
state Senate floor with a vote possibly coming as early as next
Thursday. A spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine in Birmingham, Ala., an industry group sponsoring the bill,
said unequivocally that the Gov. Jerry Brown is expected to sign the
measure. (See the Senate floor bill analysis here and a press release on the bill here.)

Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla
Photo Source -- Bonilla's office

The articles about the legislation by
Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, have appeared in the journal
Nature, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Huffington Post over the
past few days.

Alice Crisci, a California patient
advocate writing on the Huffington Post, yesterday remarked that
women egg providers should be treated the same as men involved in
scientific experiments.

“After all, aren't we past the days
when we treat women like they are less capable than men of making
sound decisions for their own well-being? It's my body and my choice
if I want to donate a dozen of my eggs to science. Who knows -- maybe
it's my egg that will be used to find a cure for cancer.”

Debra Saunders, writing a column in the
Chronicle on Sunday, said,

“That sperm-egg parity argument is so
bogus. When men donate sperm, they risk second thoughts about
unknown, random offspring, but they do not risk serious medical side
effects. Egg donation, on the other hand, can be hazardous to your
health. The New York Times reports, "Egg donors can suffer
serious side effects from the powerful hormones needed to generate
multiple eggs." And: "The most significant risk is ovarian
hyper-stimulation syndrome, which can cause bloating, abdominal pain
and, rarely, blood clots, kidney failure and other life-threatening
ailments."

Charlotte Schubert, writing in Nature
on Tuesday, said,

“In practical terms, the bill would
bump up payments from hundreds to thousands of dollars. In Oregon —
which, like most states, does not have regulations governing egg
donation — women recently received $3,000–7,000 each for eggs
used in a study that created stem-cell
lines from cloned human embryos.”

Prices for eggs can run substantially higher depending on the characteristics of the supplier.

Bonilla's office said the bill did not
come up for a vote during today's Senate floor session but could come
up next Thursday.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/O3i-n3NxdnA/pay-for-eggs-legislation-draws-more.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

International team submits IND application

♫ Sunday, June 23rd, 2013

On 18 June 2013, there was an announcement at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto. There was also a post on the California stem cell agency blog entitled: Clinical trial to thwart cancer stem cells may begin soon. An excerpt from the post:

The Prince Margaret Center announced the FDA filing, called an Investigational New Drug application (IND), at an event in Toronto recognizing the private donors. A press release about the announcement was picked up at this biotech news site.

The Principal Investigators present for the announcement were Dr. Tak Mak of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Dr. Dennis Slamon of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). What they have done is summarized in another excerpt from the blog post:

By working first to understand the various proteins that drive cells to divide, particularly in cancer, they were able to pinpoint an enzyme, that if blocked, could be the key to keeping cancer in check. They then discovered that this enzyme, called PLK4, can be derailed by a new drug they developed. In the lab, it has been shown to inhibit the growth of breast, ovarian, colorectal, lung, pancreatic and prostate cancer, as well as melanoma.

Information about the human PLK4 protein is available here.

Some background: In June 2008, it was announced that a partnership had been formed between Canada’s Cancer Stem Cell Consortium (CSCC) and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) for international collaboration to advance cancer stem cell research. An excerpt from the CSCC's announcement:

It is proposed that one of the first initiatives to be launched by the CSCC will be a collaboration between Canadian and Californian scientists through CIRM's upcoming Disease Team Research Awards Competition, which will support multi-disciplinary teams of scientists in pursuit of therapies for specific diseases.The goal is to fund teams that will develop therapy or diagnostics for a particular disease or serious injury.Successful proposals will likely include a description of a path to an Investigational New Drug filing at the end of the four-to-five year grant.

Note the intent to file an IND by the end of the term of the grant.

The results of the Disease Team Research Awards Competition were announced on October 28, 2009. The award to Drs. Slamon and Mak is Grant number DR1-01477. See: Therapeutic Opportunities to Target Tumor Initiating Cells in Solid Tumors. As was stated in a page about Cancer Stem Cells on the website of the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), this award was to one of two multi-disciplinary research teams co-led by Canadian and Californian scientists. The other team is co-led by Dr. John Dick of the University Health Network and Dr. Dennis Carson of the University of California, San Diego. My blog post (October 29, 2009) about the awards is entitled: Disease Team awards announced. The post ends with this Disclosure:

I'm a member of the Board of the CSCC, but also a staff member (emeritus) at the University Health Network. So, I was in conflict of interest, and was absent during all of the discussions, by the CSCC Board, about which Canadian applications should be considered for the Disease Team awards.

Source:
http://cancerstemcellnews.blogspot.com/2013/06/international-team-submits-ind.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | | Comments Off»

Pay-For-Eggs Legislation Draws More Media Attention

♫ Sunday, June 23rd, 2013

California legislation to allow women
to be paid for their eggs for scientific research generated several news articles this week as the measure neared final legislative
approval.

The coverage included both pro and con
but did not amount to major attention from the mainstream media. And,
with one exception, the articles failed to report that the
legislation did not apply to research funded by the $3 billion
California stem cell agency, which bans compensation for egg
providers.

The proposal (AB926) is now on the
state Senate floor with a vote possibly coming as early as next
Thursday. A spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine in Birmingham, Ala., an industry group sponsoring the bill,
said unequivocally that the Gov. Jerry Brown is expected to sign the
measure. (See the Senate floor bill analysis here and a press release on the bill here.)

Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla
Photo Source -- Bonilla's office

The articles about the legislation by
Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, have appeared in the journal
Nature, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Huffington Post over the
past few days.

Alice Crisci, a California patient
advocate writing on the Huffington Post, yesterday remarked that
women egg providers should be treated the same as men involved in
scientific experiments.

“After all, aren't we past the days
when we treat women like they are less capable than men of making
sound decisions for their own well-being? It's my body and my choice
if I want to donate a dozen of my eggs to science. Who knows -- maybe
it's my egg that will be used to find a cure for cancer.”

Debra Saunders, writing a column in the
Chronicle on Sunday, said,

“That sperm-egg parity argument is so
bogus. When men donate sperm, they risk second thoughts about
unknown, random offspring, but they do not risk serious medical side
effects. Egg donation, on the other hand, can be hazardous to your
health. The New York Times reports, "Egg donors can suffer
serious side effects from the powerful hormones needed to generate
multiple eggs." And: "The most significant risk is ovarian
hyper-stimulation syndrome, which can cause bloating, abdominal pain
and, rarely, blood clots, kidney failure and other life-threatening
ailments."

Charlotte Schubert, writing in Nature
on Tuesday, said,

“In practical terms, the bill would
bump up payments from hundreds to thousands of dollars. In Oregon —
which, like most states, does not have regulations governing egg
donation — women recently received $3,000–7,000 each for eggs
used in a study that created stem-cell
lines from cloned human embryos.”

Prices for eggs can run substantially higher depending on the characteristics of the supplier.

Bonilla's office said the bill did not
come up for a vote during today's Senate floor session but could come
up next Thursday.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/O3i-n3NxdnA/pay-for-eggs-legislation-draws-more.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | | Comments Off»

American Health Journal PBS Special Laminine Stem Cell Therapy Full Version – Video

♫ Thursday, June 20th, 2013

American Health Journal PBS Special Laminine Stem Cell Therapy Full Version
http://www.LaminiNHealth.com/dc/ Doctors are interviewed about Fibroblast Growth Factor, Laminin, Cortisol, Serotonin Do-It-Yourself Stem Cell Therapy - La...

By: David Dolores

More here:
American Health Journal PBS Special Laminine Stem Cell Therapy Full Version - Video

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

Compensation for Human Eggs Approved by Key California Senate Committee, But Not For CIRM Researchers

♫ Sunday, June 16th, 2013

Legislation that would permit women in
California to be paid for their eggs for scientific research
yesterday cleared a key state Senate committee and is likely headed
for the governor's desk.

The measure by Assemblywoman Susan
Bonilla, D-Concord, was approved on a 6-1 vote by the Senate Health
Committee and now goes to the Senate floor. Earlier, it passed the
Assembly on a 54-20 vote.

Some stem cell researchers and other
scientists have chafed under state restrictions that bar compensation
for eggs while that the same time fertility clinics are paying an average of $9,000 a session for eggs, with some prices going as high as $50,000.

However, the legislation will not
affect researchers using grants from the $3 billion California stem
cell agency. The agency's regulations bar compensation for eggs in
the research that it funds. That means that at least a two-tiered
research system would exist in California not to mention another tier
created by federal regulations that differ from both those of the
stem cell agency and those set by the legislation.

CIRM's restrictions are required by
Proposition 71, which created the agency in 2004, and cannot be
changed without a 70 percent vote of the legislature. Bonilla's bill
requires only a majority vote.

Bonilla's legislation is sponsored by
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the chief industry
group for the largely unregulated fertility industry.

The analysis prepared for yesterday's
committee session summarized Bonilla's arguments for the measure in
this fashion:

“This bill seeks to create equity in
the field of medical research compensation by removing the
prohibition on compensation for women participating in oocyte (egg)
donation for medical research. All other research subjects are
compensated for their time, trouble, and inconvenience involved in
participating in research. AB 926 ensures that women are treated
equally to all other research subjects - allowing them to actively
evaluate their participation in research studies. Unfortunately, the
ban on compensation has had serious unintended consequences. It has
led to a de facto prohibition on women’s reproductive research in
California, adversely impacting the same women that the ban intended
to protect. With few oocytes donated, fertility research and
fertility preservation research has been at a standstill. This
greatly affects women suffering from fertility issues and women
facing cancer who would like to preserve their oocytes.”

A number of organizations are opposed
to the bill including the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley
and the Catholic Church. The bill analysis summarized some of the
opposition arguments in this fashion:

“Egg harvesting exposes healthy young
women to multiple synthetic hormones in order to produce many times
the normal number of eggs per cycle. One of the potential harms is
OHSS, which has resulted in hospitalizations and at least a few
documented deaths. These groups state that many experts remain
concerned about the long-term risks of these drugs, especially
their potential impact on infertility and various cancers.
Follow-up research on egg providers, which could establish the
frequency and severity of these adverse outcomes, is widely
recognized to be grossly inadequate.”

In addition to risk and religious
objections, opponents also argue that poor and minority women are
likely to be exploited by enterprises seeking their eggs to resell at
a profit.

No major stem cell research
organizations, including the California stem cell agency, have taken
a position on the bill. The legislation has received little public
attention, although The Sacramento Bee carried an article last March.
Ruha Benjamin, author of "People's Science" and assistant professor at Boston
University, also wrote about the measure in April on the Huffington
Post. Benjamin said,

“UC Berkeley professor Charis
Thompson compares egg
donation to 'other kinds of physically demanding service work,'
arguing for a 'salary negotiation between the state agency (or
relevant employer) and the donor.' This, she contends, is a 'sensible
and dignified recognition of [the donor's] work, time, and effort.'
And instead of refusing compensation to women, Thompson suggests that
we 'direct our efforts to understanding and minimizing' the risks.

“Indeed. Now more than ever, we must
redouble our efforts, because the market in eggs appears to be
expanding from private reproduction to public research, and
increasingly overseas, if the surrogacy
industry is any indication of how 'cheaper' women become a
reserve army of bio-labor in less regulated regions.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/SVuriAz87l0/compensation-for-human-eggs-approved-by.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

Merksamer Makes Only Bid For Stem Cell Agency Lobbying Contract

♫ Sunday, June 16th, 2013

Only one of California's lobbying firms
is interested in working for the California stem cell agency – at
least interested enough to put in a bid.

However, that is likely more of a
function of the small size of the contract – $65,000 – and the
entrenched nature of CIRM's existing lobbyist – Nielsen, Merksamer,
Parrinello, Gross & Leoni LLP – one of the state Capitol's
larger lobbying firms with $5 million in billings last year.

The firm touted its longstanding
connection to the $3 billion agency in its 21-page proposal in
response to a CIRM RFA this spring. The firm has been with CIRM since
2005.

Nielsen Merksamer's proposal also noted
a couple of other interesting aspects of the continuing arrangement.
CIRM will run out of money for new grants in 2017, and Nielsen
Merkasamer said,

“Furthermore, as a premier
legislative advocacy and (Nielsen's italics) ballot measure
law ?rm, Nielsen Merksamer can actively and effectively assist CIRM
as it contemplates returning to the voters for additional funding.”

The proposal also suggested that it can
conceal information that normally would be public record. The firm
said,

“Another unique advantage offered by
Nielsen Merksamer is that, unlike the vast majority of lobbying ?rms,
since we are a full-service law ?rm, our relationships with our
clients are subject to the attorney-client privilege.”

CIRM used such a technique in 2012 and 2008 in matters involving its budget and PR advice.

Nielsen Merksamer also said,

“(N)o one understands CIRM’s 'total
picture' better than Nielsen Merksamer. Not only has Nielsen
Merksamer been representing CIRM before the Legislature for the past
decade, but Nielsen Merksamer was also one of the principal drafters
of the aforementioned Proposition 71—which brought CIRM to life.
The depth of Nielsen Merksamer’s familiarity with, and
understanding of, CIRM’s mission and structure, the challenges it
faces, and the promise it holds simply cannot be matched by any other
legislative advocate.”

The firm said it would not need the
$65,000 offered by CIRM but would charge only $49,200 annually, about the same as
it has been paid for several years. Steve Merksamer and Gene Erbin,
who drafted portions of Proposition 71, would handle most of CIRM's
affairs. John Moffatt and Missy Johnson would also be available.

The firm's proposal outlined several
instances where it successfully killed legislation opposed by CIRM.
You can read about them in their proposal below.

Merskamer 2013
Lobbying Proposal by DavidJensen

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/kTRN6kUuSDk/merksamer-makes-only-bid-for-stem-cell.html

♫ Posted in Stem Cell Therapy | | Comments Off»

StemCell Therapy

Archive for the ‘Stem Cell Therapy’ Category

California Legislation Removing Ban on Payments for Eggs for Research Heads to Governor

Purtier NZ Live Stem Cell Therapy presented by Dr Chen – Video

Challenge to WARF hESC Patents Cites Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision

California Legislation, Human Egg Sales and Profits

California Legislation, Human Egg Sales and Profits

Challenge to WARF hESC Patents Cites Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision

Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Dopamine Responsive Dystonia by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India. – Video

Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for DuchenneMuscular Dystrophy by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India. – Video

Flax Day 0 Stem cell Therapy 360p – Video

Cost of a Stem Cell Therapy? An Estimated $512,000

Bluebird and Banking: Media Pluses for California Stem Cell Agency

Bluebird and Banking: Media Pluses for California Stem Cell Agency

Cost of a Stem Cell Therapy? An Estimated $512,000

International team submits IND application

Pay-For-Eggs Legislation Draws More Media Attention

International team submits IND application

Pay-For-Eggs Legislation Draws More Media Attention

American Health Journal PBS Special Laminine Stem Cell Therapy Full Version – Video

Compensation for Human Eggs Approved by Key California Senate Committee, But Not For CIRM Researchers

Merksamer Makes Only Bid For Stem Cell Agency Lobbying Contract

Categories

Archives

Recommended Sites

Recent Posts