header logo image


Page 54«..1020..53545556..6070..»

Archive for the ‘Stem Cell Therapy’ Category

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

Read more here:
Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Dopamine Responsive Dystonia by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India. - Video

Read More...

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

Read More...

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

Read More...

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.

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

Read More...

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

Read More...

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

Read More...

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.

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

Read More...

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

Read More...

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

Read More...

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

Read More...

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

Read More...

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

Read More...

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

Read More...

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.

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

Read More...

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

Read More...

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.

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

Read More...

Cellular Dynamics: California Stem Cell Agency Recipient Plans $57 Million IPO

Sunday, June 9th, 2013
A Wisconsin firm that is the
beneficiary of more than $16 million from the California stem cell
agency today announced that it intends to go public to raise $57.3
million for its iPS cell ventures.
Jamie Thomson
UCSB photo
The firm is Cellular Dynamics
International, Inc.
, and was co-founded by internationally known stem
cell scientist Jamie Thomson of the University of Wisconsin, who is
currently the company's chief scientific officer. Thomson is also a professor
at UC Santa Barbara, where he is co-director of the Center for Stem
Cell Biology and Engineering.
In March, the California stem cell
agency awarded a $16 million grant to Cellular Dynamics to derive
three iPS cell lines from 3,000 individuals as part of the agency's
stem cell banking initiative. (Here is a link to the grant review summary.)
The company said in its SEC
filings that it also will be the prime subcontractor on a $10 million
grant that the Coriell Institute for Medical Research of Camden,
N.J., received in the agency's stem cell banking round. Cellular Dynamics said
some of the funds from the IPO will be used to complete its
California laboratory in leased space at the Buck Institute in
Novato, north of San Francisco.
Cellular Dynamics was founded in 2004
and sold its first commercial product in 2010. It reported revenues
of $6.6 million in 2012 and losses of $22.3 million. It has 115
full-time and part-time employees worldwide.
The company said,

“During 2011 and 2012, we had three
large biopharmaceutical customers that individually accounted for
greater than 10% of our total revenue in one or both years. Eli Lilly
and Company (Lilly)
accounted for 10% of total revenue in 2011 and
18% of total revenue in 2012. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (Roche)
accounted for 13% of total revenue in 2011 and GlaxoSmithKline plc
(GSK)
accounted for 11% of our total revenue in 2012.”

Cellular Dynamics also said in its
filings,

“Our total revenue grew from $2.6
million in 2011 to $6.6 million in 2012, an increase of 154%. This
growth was driven by a 247% increase in sales of our iCell products
which grew from $1.5 million in 2011 to $5.2 million in 2012. At
December 31, 2011, our backlog of revenue expected to be recognized
in 2012 was $1.1 million. At December 31, 2012, our backlog of
revenue expected to be recognized in 2013 had grown to $4.1 million.

“For the three months ended March 31,
2013 our total revenue was $2.4 million, an increase of 109% over the
corresponding period in 2012. This growth was driven primarily by an
increase in iCell product sales, which grew from $0.6 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2012 to $1.8 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2013, an increase of 173%.”

Paul Knoepfler of UC Davis, writing on his blog, touched on some of the aspects of the IP issues involving
Cellular Dynamics and  Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka, who won the Nobel Prize last year for discovering how to reprogram adult stem cells into pluripotent cells (the iPS process).
 Knoepfler wrote,

"A
recent question is the issue of who has the intellectual property
(IP) rights to iPS cell technology.
People have told me in the
past that they wondered if Cellular Dynamics has unambiguous rights
to develop all of these iPS cell-based products."

Knoepfler also wrote,

 “This (the IPO) looks to
be very interesting and could transform the field as it develops.”

News coverage today of the IPO filing
was light, but is more expected to surface tomorrow. Here is a link to the only story that had surfaced as of this writing. 

No price or date has yet been set for
the offering.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/0oup8hU2FGE/cellular-dynamics-california-stem-cell.html

Read More...

Light Coverage of Cellular Dynamics IPO But One Exec Says It’s Good for Stem Cell Biz

Sunday, June 9th, 2013
A handful of media outlets today
carried stories about the public stock offering announced yesterday
by Cellular Dynamics International, Inc., a Wisconsin firm that will
benefit to the tune of $16 million-plus from the California stem cell agency.
Kathleen Gallagher of the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel
described the company, founded by stem cell pioneer
Jamie Thomson, as in the business of making “fully functioning human cells in industrial quantities.”
Judy Newman of the Wisconsin State
Journal
in Madison, where the company is based, quoted Beth Donley,
chief executive of Stemina
Biomarker Discovery
, as saying,

“It can’t help but increase the
value of other stem cell companies.”

Thomson is a professor both at the
University of Wisconsin in Madison and at UC Santa Barbara, and we
queried Dennis Clegg, co-director of the Center for Stem Cell
Biology and Engineering at UC Santa Barbara, about the school's
ties to Cellular Dynamics, which hopes to take in $57 million in its public offering.
He replied in an email that Santa
Barbara has a collaboration with Cellular Dynamics and the University
of Wisconsin to develop a vision-restoring, stem-cell-based therapy
for people with advanced retinal diseases. That $900,000 effort is financed by the Foundation Fighting Blindness.
The California stem cell agency grant
to Cellular Dynamics is for work at the stem cell bank being created
at the Buck Institute in Novato, north of San Francisco.
The Milwaukee Business Journal and
Genomeweb also carried stories on the IPO.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/iGlLbdQVr0Y/light-coverage-of-cellular-dynamics-ipo.html

Read More...

Pomeroy on Doing the Right Thing and Foster Care

Sunday, June 9th, 2013
Claire Pomeroy
CIRM photo
On Claire Pomeroy's last day as a
member of the governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell
agency, she also published an essay on the Huffington Post in which
she discussed fleeing from an abusive home at age 14.
Pomeroy, former vice chancellor and
dean of the medical school at UC Davis and now president of the Lasker Foundation in New York,  wrote last month,

“For some children, the uncertainty
of life on the street is better than certainty of violence at home.
It was for me. At age 14, I escaped from an abusive home with no
money, nowhere to go and only the clothes I was wearing. I remember
staring into the night, standing somewhere between fear and freedom.
I became one of the millions of homeless teens, yet I was lucky
because foster care ultimately saved me.”

“However, after an emergency
placement and three foster homes, the challenges were not over. At 17
I aged out of the foster care system early when my foster parents
moved out of state. On my own again, I had to find a job, a place to
live and finish high school. Then I climbed the next mountain to
graduate from college and medical school.”

Pomeroy said she only recently began
publicly talking about her foster care experience. She said she is
doing so because “many  people lack an understanding of
the harsh statistics and their impact on the country's future. The
nation faces a crisis that demands a call to action to start truly
caring about foster youth before it is too late.”
She said that she was “lucky” in the
foster care system but said that many children, particularly minorities among others such as the disabled, were not as fortunate and “were failed by the system and society.” Pomeroy called them
“throwaway children” who were “robbed of their ideals, gave up
hope and struggled to find a reason to live.”
Less than half of the foster children
who “age out” of the system graduate from high school, she wrote. Only 3
percent to 11 percent earn a bachelor's degree. More than
400,000 children were in foster care in 2011 and have a one in 11 chance
of being homeless.
Pomeroy called for expansion and
improvement of foster care across the country. “It is time to stop
forcing children to be the heroes of their own survival,” she
wrote. “Now is the time to do the right the right thing.”
------
On a personal note, we have four
grandchildren, one of whom was adopted out of foster care as a
toddler. The other was adopted at birth. Some of the siblings of
those two African-American children remain in foster care today.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/zancriHTUC4/pomeroy-on-doing-right-thing-and-foster.html

Read More...

Cellular Dynamics: California Stem Cell Agency Recipient Plans $57 Million IPO

Sunday, June 9th, 2013
A Wisconsin firm that is the
beneficiary of more than $16 million from the California stem cell
agency today announced that it intends to go public to raise $57.3
million for its iPS cell ventures.
Jamie Thomson
UCSB photo
The firm is Cellular Dynamics
International, Inc.
, and was co-founded by internationally known stem
cell scientist Jamie Thomson of the University of Wisconsin, who is
currently the company's chief scientific officer. Thomson is also a professor
at UC Santa Barbara, where he is co-director of the Center for Stem
Cell Biology and Engineering.
In March, the California stem cell
agency awarded a $16 million grant to Cellular Dynamics to derive
three iPS cell lines from 3,000 individuals as part of the agency's
stem cell banking initiative. (Here is a link to the grant review summary.)
The company said in its SEC
filings that it also will be the prime subcontractor on a $10 million
grant that the Coriell Institute for Medical Research of Camden,
N.J., received in the agency's stem cell banking round. Cellular Dynamics said
some of the funds from the IPO will be used to complete its
California laboratory in leased space at the Buck Institute in
Novato, north of San Francisco.
Cellular Dynamics was founded in 2004
and sold its first commercial product in 2010. It reported revenues
of $6.6 million in 2012 and losses of $22.3 million. It has 115
full-time and part-time employees worldwide.
The company said,

“During 2011 and 2012, we had three
large biopharmaceutical customers that individually accounted for
greater than 10% of our total revenue in one or both years. Eli Lilly
and Company (Lilly)
accounted for 10% of total revenue in 2011 and
18% of total revenue in 2012. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (Roche)
accounted for 13% of total revenue in 2011 and GlaxoSmithKline plc
(GSK)
accounted for 11% of our total revenue in 2012.”

Cellular Dynamics also said in its
filings,

“Our total revenue grew from $2.6
million in 2011 to $6.6 million in 2012, an increase of 154%. This
growth was driven by a 247% increase in sales of our iCell products
which grew from $1.5 million in 2011 to $5.2 million in 2012. At
December 31, 2011, our backlog of revenue expected to be recognized
in 2012 was $1.1 million. At December 31, 2012, our backlog of
revenue expected to be recognized in 2013 had grown to $4.1 million.

“For the three months ended March 31,
2013 our total revenue was $2.4 million, an increase of 109% over the
corresponding period in 2012. This growth was driven primarily by an
increase in iCell product sales, which grew from $0.6 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2012 to $1.8 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2013, an increase of 173%.”

Paul Knoepfler of UC Davis, writing on his blog, touched on some of the aspects of the IP issues involving
Cellular Dynamics and  Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka, who won the Nobel Prize last year for discovering how to reprogram adult stem cells into pluripotent cells (the iPS process).
 Knoepfler wrote,

"A
recent question is the issue of who has the intellectual property
(IP) rights to iPS cell technology.
People have told me in the
past that they wondered if Cellular Dynamics has unambiguous rights
to develop all of these iPS cell-based products."

Knoepfler also wrote,

 “This (the IPO) looks to
be very interesting and could transform the field as it develops.”

News coverage today of the IPO filing
was light, but is more expected to surface tomorrow. Here is a link to the only story that had surfaced as of this writing. 

No price or date has yet been set for
the offering.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/0oup8hU2FGE/cellular-dynamics-california-stem-cell.html

Read More...

Page 54«..1020..53545556..6070..»


2024 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick