Stem Cell Therapy Worldwide
http://www.placidway.com/ - Looking for best and affordable stem cell therapy? Placidway offers best and most affordable stem cell therapy with the top docto...
By: placidways #39;s channel
Read this article:
Stem Cell Therapy Worldwide - Video
LaViv stem cell therapy for acne scars
Dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon Dr. Melanie Palm of http://www.artofskinmd.com discusses and demonstrates the use of LaVIV, the first available personalized stem...
By: melaniepalm
Read the rest here:
LaViv stem cell therapy for acne scars - Video
Oregon's stem cell cloning achievement
has triggered some discussion about whether it could be replicated
legally in California, which bans paying for eggs as was done in
Oregon.
“SCNT worked with eggs from
healthy young volunteers (paid of course). IVF patients (whether paid
or not) have reproductive health problems and may not provide
acceptable quality eggs for SCNT.”
"Not true. They did
it with nearly 40 percent efficiency, which does not require paying
for eggs, just use leftovers from IVF clinics."
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/IimgOYxndkg/replicating-oregon-cloning-in.html
The good news out of Oregon is that
some diligent scientists in the Beaver State have accomplished a
major advance in stem cell research --- the cloning of human stem
cells.
“Keep in mind that on day one of the
iPS cell era in the stem cell field we had a huge number of
misconceptions because we simply had so much to learn. Same is true
here.”
Stanford researcher Irv Weissman says it
is “not true” that Oregon's stem cell research could not be done
legally in California.
"Not true. They did
it with nearly 40 percent efficiency, which does not require paying
for eggs, just use leftovers from IVF clinics."
The Robert Klein-StemCells, Inc.,
affair has taken another turn with the disclosure that a vice
chairman of the California stem cell agency was paid at least $31,000
over a two-year period by Klein and also voted on behalf of Klein's
effort to win approval of a $20 million award for StemCells, Inc.
 |
| Art Torres, center, with Bob Klein, left, at Klein's last meeting in 2011 as chairman of the California stem cell agency. Incoming chairman Jonathan Thomas is at right. |
The 29-member board of the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is formally
known, narrowly voted 7-5 last September for the award. It was the
first time that the board has approved an application rejected twice
by its scientific reviewers. It was also the first time that Klein
has lobbied the board on behalf of a specific application since
stepping down in June 2011. He was elected chairman in 2005 as the
agency was just beginning its work and is an iconic figure to many in
the California stem cell community.
"My decision to support an award
to StemCells, Inc. to explore the use of neural stem cell
transplantation to treat Alzheimer's disease was based on the merits
of the application and the hope it offers to patients who suffer from
Alzheimer's, a disease that affects millions, including Bob Klein's
late mother. I have no financial interest in StemCells, Inc. nor does
Bob Klein, and my decision to support the award has no connection
whatsoever to the work I do with Bob Klein."
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/7zwWISe_LMA/klein-stemcells-inc-and-31000-in.html
As the California stem cell agency
pushes ever more aggressively to turn research into cures, the second
largest share of its awards, in terms of numbers of grants, has gone
to efforts involving induced pluripotent cells, also known as
reprogrammed adult cells.
“All the talk and the slew of
publications about potentially using iPS cells to develop therapies
to help patients is exciting in theory, but unfortunately the reality
is that it is not entirely clear if most researchers are, from a
legal standpoint, even allowed to develop and commercialize iPS
cell-based therapies at all.
“The patent landscape for iPS cells
is complicated to put it mildly. A
Google patent search for “induced pluripotent stem cells”
produced almost 200,000 results.
“A search for “cellular
reprogramming produced more than 1,000
results.
I’m not sure all of these results are
really separate patents, but still….that’s a big complicated
mess.…..
“It is no exaggeration to say
there are likely dozens of institutions around the world wanting to
commercialize iPS cell-based products.
“Will they all have to pay expensive
licensing fees or end up in court?
…or will the patent holders
voluntarily and freely allow others to commercialize iPS cell-based
medical treatments?
“I don’t think so.
“This could get really messy.”
“I must take issue with your entry,
'Robert Klein Gives $21,630 to the California Stem Cell Agency,' May
05, 2013.
“When
Bob Klein donated $21,630 to the California stem cell program (to
allow scientists to attend a research conference in Japan) he was
doing exactly what he always does: advancing research to ease
suffering and save lives. The scientists needed a way to attend
a top-level conference. Believing in the benefits of researchers
sharing thoughts, Bob paid for their trip.
“Unfortunately,
your article appears to imply corrupt motivations.
“'A
seemingly innocuous…gift…generated a wave of special favors for
(Klein) that stretched out to include a gold mining multimillionaire
from Canada.'.
A 'wave of special favors?' The article
states that 'Klein wanted to meet with the six science officers…'
and to get their impressions on the conference.
“Is
that not natural? First, would it not be helpful to hear from the
scientists if the trip was worth the time and expense? Second, Bob
Klein works in real estate, a full-time job. He does not have the
scientist’s automatic involvement to keep him up to speed on
everything new in regenerative research. But he wants to know the
latest: what is working, what is not. He is always eager for a chance
to speak one-on-one with an expert.
“He met with a Canadian
millionaire? Why is this shocking? The millionaire supports stem cell
research; so does Bob. California is working closely with Canada on
several projects; they pay their scientists, we pay ours; more bang
for the buck. If there is a person with the resources and will to
advance Canadian research, it is natural that Bob would want to
develop a deeper interest in the shared research.
“And why
should Klein be criticized for supporting a research project
attempting to alleviate Alzheimer’s? He saw his own mother die of
the disease, after losing the ability to recognize her own son.
I am familiar with that particular Alzheimer’s project, and
it had some amazing results, restoring memory to laboratory rats.
This was a water maze test, and the rats recovered the memory of a
pathway out of the water, which they had forgotten. To the best of my
knowledge, no one else in the world had achieved memory return, and
the project deserved the most serious consideration. Yes, the
board of directors voted against the Grants Working Group; it is not
only their right but their responsibility to exercise judgment, and
not merely be a rubber stamp for the GWG.
“There is also the
matter of free speech. Anybody else in California can come to the
meetings of the program and voice their opinion—why should Klein be
denied the right to voice his opinion?
“Bob Klein owns no
stem cell stock, no biomedical enterprises. Financially, supporting
stem cell research has cost him a great deal. This is the man who led
the fight to build the California stem cell program, donating roughly
six million dollars, taking out loans on his house to help finance
Proposition 71. And, for six years (without salary) he worked
full-time as Chair of the Board of the oversight committee.
Physically and emotionally, it has been an exhausting decade for him.
He has not profited in any way, except to see the advancement of
research for cure.
“Passing a $3 billion stem cell program
in the midst of a recession was like relocating Mount
Everest—seemingly impossible, but he did it anyway. He moved the
mountain. Thousands of people helped, but one man made it possible.
Without Bob Klein, California would not have the greatest stem cell
program in the world: challenging diseases considered incurable since
the dawn of time. That he should continue to support it, with his
dollars, time, energy and creativity, is commendable.
“Sometimes
a good deed is just that: no sinister motivations, no secret
agendas-- just a positive action which benefits all.”
Last week UC Davis stem cell researcher
Paul Knoepfler and Scripps researcher Jeanne Loring engaged in an
online Q&A that touched on patents and how they can stifle
research and discourage development of therapies.
“Dan Ravicher is the lawyer behind
several big patent cases, including the recent Supreme Court case
challenging human gene patenting (Myriad), and a challenge to
Monsanto's restrictive enforcement of its patents on genetically
modified seeds.
“I'm lucky that he is also the lawyer
working with John M. Simpson (of Consumer Watchdog) and me to
challenge the WARF patents. Currently, we are getting ready for
another year of appeals and counter-appeals on the third of WARF's
three patents that give them control over all human embryonic stem
cells.
“This is Dan's summary of the current
situation:
"'We filed challenges at the
Patent Office to all three of WARF's hESC patents. During those
challenges, WARF agreed to narrow all three of the patents, and
they also loosened their licensing requirements. But, even
though the patents were narrowed, we still think they're invalid, and
thus disagree with the Patent Office's decision to re-issue them in
the narrowed forms. Unfortunately, due to the age of the patents and
changes in the law, we were only allowed to appeal one of the three
decisions, and that appeal is now pending at the Court of Appeals in
Washington. But, we expect the decision in our appeal will affect
the validity of the other two patents, since they're all basically
on the same technology."
“The 'narrowing' of the patents has
had an unexpected consequence. Before the narrowing, WARF's
patents would have covered iPSCs as well as hESCs. After the
narrowing, they can only claim hESCs.”
“Patents
on fundamental things --
genes, human embryonic stem cells, iPS cells --
allow the patent holder to have a monopoly, preventing anyone else
from using whatever they’ve patented.
“Patents
are supposed to stimulate investment in development. Why, as
Justice Scalia said last week, would anyone have the incentive to
study a gene and, for example, develop diagnostic tests, if they
couldn’t prevent everyone else from working on that gene?
“But
patents also stifle competition and the advances that come from
having many different groups studying the genes or cells. One
of the main reasons I returned to academia was so I could have
freedom to study human ES cells without worrying about getting
threatening letters from a patent holder, demanding that I either
stop working on the cells or pay a steep licensing fee.
“There
will inevitably be problems commercializing iPSC-based therapies and
assays, because at least three institutions own patents on aspects of
iPSCs. I’m paying attention to the patent 'landscape,'
but have decided to deal with those problems when they arise, and
hope that the iPSC patent holders realize that the potential of these
cells is too great to keep to themselves. It would be better
for all of us if the issue of stem cell patents never has to be
decided in the Supreme Court.”
Oregon's stem cell cloning achievement
has triggered some discussion about whether it could be replicated
legally in California, which bans paying for eggs as was done in
Oregon.
“SCNT worked with eggs from
healthy young volunteers (paid of course). IVF patients (whether paid
or not) have reproductive health problems and may not provide
acceptable quality eggs for SCNT.”
"Not true. They did
it with nearly 40 percent efficiency, which does not require paying
for eggs, just use leftovers from IVF clinics."
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/IimgOYxndkg/replicating-oregon-cloning-in.html
Stanford researcher Irv Weissman says it
is “not true” that Oregon's stem cell research could not be done
legally in California.
"Not true. They did
it with nearly 40 percent efficiency, which does not require paying
for eggs, just use leftovers from IVF clinics."
The good news out of Oregon is that
some diligent scientists in the Beaver State have accomplished a
major advance in stem cell research --- the cloning of human stem
cells.
“Keep in mind that on day one of the
iPS cell era in the stem cell field we had a huge number of
misconceptions because we simply had so much to learn. Same is true
here.”
As the California stem cell agency
pushes ever more aggressively to turn research into cures, the second
largest share of its awards, in terms of numbers of grants, has gone
to efforts involving induced pluripotent cells, also known as
reprogrammed adult cells.
“All the talk and the slew of
publications about potentially using iPS cells to develop therapies
to help patients is exciting in theory, but unfortunately the reality
is that it is not entirely clear if most researchers are, from a
legal standpoint, even allowed to develop and commercialize iPS
cell-based therapies at all.
“The patent landscape for iPS cells
is complicated to put it mildly. A
Google patent search for “induced pluripotent stem cells”
produced almost 200,000 results.
“A search for “cellular
reprogramming produced more than 1,000
results.
I’m not sure all of these results are
really separate patents, but still….that’s a big complicated
mess.…..
“It is no exaggeration to say
there are likely dozens of institutions around the world wanting to
commercialize iPS cell-based products.
“Will they all have to pay expensive
licensing fees or end up in court?
…or will the patent holders
voluntarily and freely allow others to commercialize iPS cell-based
medical treatments?
“I don’t think so.
“This could get really messy.”
The Robert Klein-StemCells, Inc.,
affair has taken another turn with the disclosure that a vice
chairman of the California stem cell agency was paid at least $31,000
over a two-year period by Klein and also voted on behalf of Klein's
effort to win approval of a $20 million award for StemCells, Inc.
|
| Art Torres, center, with Bob Klein, left, at Klein's last meeting in 2011 as chairman of the California stem cell agency. Incoming chairman Jonathan Thomas is at right. |
The 29-member board of the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is formally
known, narrowly voted 7-5 last September for the award. It was the
first time that the board has approved an application rejected twice
by its scientific reviewers. It was also the first time that Klein
has lobbied the board on behalf of a specific application since
stepping down in June 2011. He was elected chairman in 2005 as the
agency was just beginning its work and is an iconic figure to many in
the California stem cell community.
"My decision to support an award
to StemCells, Inc. to explore the use of neural stem cell
transplantation to treat Alzheimer's disease was based on the merits
of the application and the hope it offers to patients who suffer from
Alzheimer's, a disease that affects millions, including Bob Klein's
late mother. I have no financial interest in StemCells, Inc. nor does
Bob Klein, and my decision to support the award has no connection
whatsoever to the work I do with Bob Klein."
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/7zwWISe_LMA/klein-stemcells-inc-and-31000-in.html
“I must take issue with your entry,
'Robert Klein Gives $21,630 to the California Stem Cell Agency,' May
05, 2013.
“When
Bob Klein donated $21,630 to the California stem cell program (to
allow scientists to attend a research conference in Japan) he was
doing exactly what he always does: advancing research to ease
suffering and save lives. The scientists needed a way to attend
a top-level conference. Believing in the benefits of researchers
sharing thoughts, Bob paid for their trip.
“Unfortunately,
your article appears to imply corrupt motivations.
“'A
seemingly innocuous…gift…generated a wave of special favors for
(Klein) that stretched out to include a gold mining multimillionaire
from Canada.'.
A 'wave of special favors?' The article
states that 'Klein wanted to meet with the six science officers…'
and to get their impressions on the conference.
“Is
that not natural? First, would it not be helpful to hear from the
scientists if the trip was worth the time and expense? Second, Bob
Klein works in real estate, a full-time job. He does not have the
scientist’s automatic involvement to keep him up to speed on
everything new in regenerative research. But he wants to know the
latest: what is working, what is not. He is always eager for a chance
to speak one-on-one with an expert.
“He met with a Canadian
millionaire? Why is this shocking? The millionaire supports stem cell
research; so does Bob. California is working closely with Canada on
several projects; they pay their scientists, we pay ours; more bang
for the buck. If there is a person with the resources and will to
advance Canadian research, it is natural that Bob would want to
develop a deeper interest in the shared research.
“And why
should Klein be criticized for supporting a research project
attempting to alleviate Alzheimer’s? He saw his own mother die of
the disease, after losing the ability to recognize her own son.
I am familiar with that particular Alzheimer’s project, and
it had some amazing results, restoring memory to laboratory rats.
This was a water maze test, and the rats recovered the memory of a
pathway out of the water, which they had forgotten. To the best of my
knowledge, no one else in the world had achieved memory return, and
the project deserved the most serious consideration. Yes, the
board of directors voted against the Grants Working Group; it is not
only their right but their responsibility to exercise judgment, and
not merely be a rubber stamp for the GWG.
“There is also the
matter of free speech. Anybody else in California can come to the
meetings of the program and voice their opinion—why should Klein be
denied the right to voice his opinion?
“Bob Klein owns no
stem cell stock, no biomedical enterprises. Financially, supporting
stem cell research has cost him a great deal. This is the man who led
the fight to build the California stem cell program, donating roughly
six million dollars, taking out loans on his house to help finance
Proposition 71. And, for six years (without salary) he worked
full-time as Chair of the Board of the oversight committee.
Physically and emotionally, it has been an exhausting decade for him.
He has not profited in any way, except to see the advancement of
research for cure.
“Passing a $3 billion stem cell program
in the midst of a recession was like relocating Mount
Everest—seemingly impossible, but he did it anyway. He moved the
mountain. Thousands of people helped, but one man made it possible.
Without Bob Klein, California would not have the greatest stem cell
program in the world: challenging diseases considered incurable since
the dawn of time. That he should continue to support it, with his
dollars, time, energy and creativity, is commendable.
“Sometimes
a good deed is just that: no sinister motivations, no secret
agendas-- just a positive action which benefits all.”
Last week UC Davis stem cell researcher
Paul Knoepfler and Scripps researcher Jeanne Loring engaged in an
online Q&A that touched on patents and how they can stifle
research and discourage development of therapies.
“Dan Ravicher is the lawyer behind
several big patent cases, including the recent Supreme Court case
challenging human gene patenting (Myriad), and a challenge to
Monsanto's restrictive enforcement of its patents on genetically
modified seeds.
“I'm lucky that he is also the lawyer
working with John M. Simpson (of Consumer Watchdog) and me to
challenge the WARF patents. Currently, we are getting ready for
another year of appeals and counter-appeals on the third of WARF's
three patents that give them control over all human embryonic stem
cells.
“This is Dan's summary of the current
situation:
"'We filed challenges at the
Patent Office to all three of WARF's hESC patents. During those
challenges, WARF agreed to narrow all three of the patents, and
they also loosened their licensing requirements. But, even
though the patents were narrowed, we still think they're invalid, and
thus disagree with the Patent Office's decision to re-issue them in
the narrowed forms. Unfortunately, due to the age of the patents and
changes in the law, we were only allowed to appeal one of the three
decisions, and that appeal is now pending at the Court of Appeals in
Washington. But, we expect the decision in our appeal will affect
the validity of the other two patents, since they're all basically
on the same technology."
“The 'narrowing' of the patents has
had an unexpected consequence. Before the narrowing, WARF's
patents would have covered iPSCs as well as hESCs. After the
narrowing, they can only claim hESCs.”
“Patents
on fundamental things --
genes, human embryonic stem cells, iPS cells --
allow the patent holder to have a monopoly, preventing anyone else
from using whatever they’ve patented.
“Patents
are supposed to stimulate investment in development. Why, as
Justice Scalia said last week, would anyone have the incentive to
study a gene and, for example, develop diagnostic tests, if they
couldn’t prevent everyone else from working on that gene?
“But
patents also stifle competition and the advances that come from
having many different groups studying the genes or cells. One
of the main reasons I returned to academia was so I could have
freedom to study human ES cells without worrying about getting
threatening letters from a patent holder, demanding that I either
stop working on the cells or pay a steep licensing fee.
“There
will inevitably be problems commercializing iPSC-based therapies and
assays, because at least three institutions own patents on aspects of
iPSCs. I’m paying attention to the patent 'landscape,'
but have decided to deal with those problems when they arise, and
hope that the iPSC patent holders realize that the potential of these
cells is too great to keep to themselves. It would be better
for all of us if the issue of stem cell patents never has to be
decided in the Supreme Court.”
Treatment of a patient with Parkinson #39;s Disease using stem cell therapy
Here we demonstrate how a patient who suffers from Parkinson #39;s Disease has benefited from stem cell therapy with us in Panama.
By: SCRMPanama
See the original post here:
Treatment of a patient with Parkinson's Disease using stem cell therapy - Video
Stem cell therapy PRP lip rejuvenation
stem cell therapy.
By: dralansari2010
Two approaches to stem cell therapy for osteoarthritis
http://www.stemcellsarthritistreatment.com There are two potential approaches of stem cell-based cartilage repair and regeneration. The first is ex vivo cart...
By: Nathan Wei
Follow this link:
Two approaches to stem cell therapy for osteoarthritis - Video
Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Spino Muscular Atrophy by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India.
Improvement seen in just 5 day after Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Spino Muscular Atrophy by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India. After Stem Cell Therapy 1. Stam...
By: neurogenbsi
Read the original here:
Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Spino Muscular Atrophy by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India. - Video
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source: