header logo image


Page 61«..1020..60616263..7080..»

Archive for the ‘Stem Cell Therapy’ Category

Cyberspace Makeover at California Stem Cell Agency

Sunday, March 17th, 2013

California's $3 billion stem cell
agency has performed a well-done makeover on its most important
public face – its web site, which is chock-a-block full of useful
information for researchers and the unwashed alike.

At cirm.ca.gov, one can find the very
words of its directors as they wrestle with everything from grant
approvals to conflicts of interest. Scientists can be seen telling
the story of their accomplishments. Money can be followed, and
summaries of reviews of grant applications read, both those approved
and those that did not pass muster.
The web site of the California
Institute of Regenerative Medicine
 (the formal name of the agency) is the place where the stem cell program
really meets the public. News stories are important, but infrequent.
Day to day, however, thousands of interested persons seek out
information that the folks at CIRM HQ, just a long throw from the San
Francisco Giants
ballpark, bring to cyberspace.
Each month, said Amy Adams, major domo
of the web site, 15,000 to 17,000 “unique viewers”
visit online. She told the California Stem Cell
Report
in an email,

“We're up about 25 percent year over
year in unique viewers to the site. A lot of that growth comes from
search, and the rest is from traffic driven through our blog and
Facebook.” 

The numbers are not huge compared to
those chalked up by major media sites. But they are significant
given that there are only a few thousand people worldwide who are
deeply and regularly interested in stem cell research. Many more,
however, are stimulated to look into the subject from time to time,
either because of news stories, personal, disease-related concerns or simple interest in cutting edge science. Engaging those
readers, who can spread the CIRM story, and winning their approval is
critical for the agency as it faces the need to raise more millions
as it money runs out in the next few years.
CIRM has mounted much information online over
its short life. So much that good tools are needed to navigate the
site. Decisions about what should go on the home page are critical.
With the makeover, the agency now has a long-needed, home-page link to its
meetings , especially those of its governing board, which are the
single most important events at the agency.
The redesign is crisp and clean. The
new, white background makes it easier to read and is comfortable for
readers long conditioned to the black-on-white print of the books,
newspapers and magazines. The video image on the home page is larger,
which helps attract viewers. The site has long had a carload of
videos, some of which contain powerful and emotional stories from
patients.
Adams used CIRM staffers to test the
new features. She reported,

“I've had people inside CIRM (who
have been beta testing this site) tell me that they are finding
content they'd never seen before because the site is so much easier
to navigate.”

Adams and the CIRM communications team
also have pulled together important information on each grant on a
single page, including progress reports. You can find a sample here on a $1 million grant to Stanford's Helen Blau.
Adams said,

 “Now people can not only
read about what our grantees are hoping to accomplish, they can read
about what has actually been accomplished with our funding.”

Adams said another new feature is
downloadable spread sheets of information that can be manipulated by
readers offline. She said,

“Most places on the site where you
see tables, you can now download those tables to Excel. You'll notice
the small Excel icon at the lower left of the table. This feature has
long been available for the searchable grants table. Now you'll see
it on all the tables of review reports (see here for
example http://www.cirm.ca.gov/application-reviews/10877)
on the disease fact sheets (see
here http://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-stem-cells/alzheimers-disease-fact-sheet)
and other places throughout the site. This is part of an effort to
make our funding records more publicly available.”

CIRM's search engine for its web site
still needs work. A search using the term “CIRM budget 2012-2013”
did not produce a budget document on the first two pages of the
search results. A search on the term “Proposition 71,” the ballot
initiative that created CIRM, did not provide a direct link to its
text on the first two pages of search results.
Also missing from the web site, as far
as I can tell, is a list of the persons who appointed the past and
present board members as well as the dates of the board members'
terms of office. The biographies on some of the 29 governing board
members come up short. In the case of Susan Bryant, her bio does not
mention that she is interim executive vice chancellor and provost at
UC Irvine. Links also could be added to board members statements of economic interest. A list of CIRM staff members (only slightly more than 50
persons) and their titles could be added.
As for CIRM's count of visitors, CIRM
uses Google Analytics tools. Adams said,

“A unique visitor is Google's
definition (it's one of the metrics they provide). It's a visit from
a unique IP (internet protocol) address. So, if you visit our site
multiple times from one IP address during a day, you count as a
single unique visitor. (Editor's note: It is possible to have
more than one visitor from the same IP address.)

“We get ~23,000-25,000 visits per
month, or ~16,000-18,000 unique visitors. Page views are on the order
of 65,000 a month.”

Our take: The redesign of the web site
is a worthy effort and enhances CIRM's relationships with all those
who come looking for information. The agency is to be commended and
should continue its work to improve the site and its connections with
the public.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/1OuvEMC2aTs/cyberspace-makeover-at-california-stem.html

Read More...

San Diego Newspaper Hails Stem Cell Agency and IOM Response

Sunday, March 17th, 2013

The $3 billion California stem cell
agency hit it big in San Diego today, finally scoring an editorial
that said “arguably” the agency's largess has made the state “the
world leader in medical research.”

The San Diego U-T, the largest
circulation newspaper in the area, said the big headline about the
eight-year-old agency is “the potential for transformative medical
breakthroughs.”
The editorial noted that the agency has
long been criticized in connection with conflicts of interest. About
90 percent of the $1.8 billion the agency has awarded has gone to
institutions linked to current and past members of its board of
directors.
But the agency “is finally taking the
criticism seriously,” the newspaper said. It cited proposals that
would, if approved later this month, have 13 members of the agency's
governing board voluntarily abstain from voting on any grants that come before
the board. Twenty-nine persons sit on the board. The thirteen are
connected to recipient institutions. Two other board members are
linked to recipient institutions.
The stem cell business is no small
matter in San Diego, which is one of California's hotbeds of biotech
and stem cell research. The stem cell agency has awarded about $338
million to San Diego area institutions and businesses. Four
executives from San Diego area institutions sit on the CIRM board.
The newspaper's editorial said,

“There
remains a residue of cynicism about CIRM. Critics say the agency
board did the minimum necessary to avoid an intervention by the
Legislature – and also acted to buff the agency’s image should it
seek more bond funding from California voters before its present
funding runs out in 2017, as is now projected.

“These views
may have some merit. But on balance, we think the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine
has – at long last –
responded properly to the fair criticism it faced. Instead of being
exasperated by CIRM, more people should be excited about the great
work it is doing.”

The editorial followed a meeting
involving the editorial board of the newspaper, CIRM Chairman
Jonathan Thomas and Larry Godlstein, director of the UC San Diego stem
cell program. The meeting was part of a CIRM campaign to generate
newspaper support for the agency's response to sweeping recommendations from a blue-ribbon study by the Institute of Medicine. The San Diego editorial is the most effusive so far.
The newspaper's biotech reporter,
Bradley Fikes, sat in on the meeting and Saturday posted video excerpts from the discussion, including a brief written summary of the content of each clip.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/WHLDfisWzQI/san-diego-newspaper-hails-stem-cell.html

Read More...

2013 Stem Cell Therapy #1 – Video

Friday, March 15th, 2013


2013 Stem Cell Therapy #1
Introduction to 11 weeks of stem cell therapy in Delhi with Dr Geeta Shroff.

By: Louis Rowe

Read more:
2013 Stem Cell Therapy #1 - Video

Read More...

Dr Alok Sharma’s Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Cerebral Palsy – Video

Thursday, March 14th, 2013


Dr Alok Sharma #39;s Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Cerebral Palsy
dr alok sharma stem cell therapy treatment for cerebral palsy He is a case of CP with history of fullterm C section delivery and normal milestones till eight months of age when he had an episode of febrile convulsions Post convulsions he had delayed milestones After Stem Cell Therapy 1 Irrelevant speech which was excessively present before has reduced post therapy 2 His level of understanding has increased and response to following commands has improved considerably upto 25% For eg after ...

By: neurogenbsi

Excerpt from:
Dr Alok Sharma's Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Cerebral Palsy - Video

Read More...

Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Stroke – Video

Thursday, March 14th, 2013


Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Stroke
Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Stroke before and after compareson After Stem Cell Therapy 1) Can walk almost 50-60 steps at a time without ex...

By: neurogenbsi

The rest is here:
Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Stroke - Video

Read More...

Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Muscular Dystrophy – Video

Thursday, March 14th, 2013


Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Muscular Dystrophy
Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Muscular Dystrophy She is a known case of MD with history of gradual onset of progressive lower extremities muscle weakness noticed since 27 years of age with complaints of imbalance while walking foot drop and difficulty in stair case climbing So she was investigated and muscle biopsy confirmed diagnosis of MD After Stem Cell Therapy 1 Stamina has increased Exercise tolerance has improved 2 She can lift her leg more up while in standing 3 Hip ...

By: neurogenbsi

See the original post here:
Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Muscular Dystrophy - Video

Read More...

Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Muscular Dystrophy Before and After – Video

Thursday, March 14th, 2013


Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Muscular Dystrophy Before and After
Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Muscular Dystrophy Before and After After Stem Cell Therapy 1 Stamina has increased Exercise tolerance has improved 2 She can lift her leg more up while in standing 3 Hip flexion is easier and range has improved 4 Bending hip and knee in supine is easier 5 She can bring her leg forward in knee standing without support 6 Can now bring the knees to her chest 7 SLR range has improved Stem Cell Therapy done at Dr Alok Sharma neurogen Brain and ...

By: neurogenbsi

Continued here:
Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Muscular Dystrophy Before and After - Video

Read More...

Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in Gujarati – Video

Thursday, March 14th, 2013


Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in Gujarati
Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in Gujarati 16 years old male with history of frequent falls and being slow as compared to p...

By: neurogenbsi

Go here to see the original:
Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in Gujarati - Video

Read More...

Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Cerebral Palsy – Video

Thursday, March 14th, 2013


Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Cerebral Palsy
Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Cerebral Palsy He is a known case of Diplegic CP with history of full term normal delivery (vaccum) delivery a...

By: neurogenbsi

Here is the original post:
Dr Alok Sharma Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Cerebral Palsy - Video

Read More...

Prolotherapy | PRP | Stem Cell Therapy | The Prolotherapy Institute – prolotherapyinstitute.com – Video

Thursday, March 14th, 2013


Prolotherapy | PRP | Stem Cell Therapy | The Prolotherapy Institute - prolotherapyinstitute.com
Prolotherapy | PRP | Stem Cell Therapy | The Prolotherapy Institute prolotherapyinstitutecom. Uploaded by Guillermo Mata on Mar 11 2013. Suffering from chronic pain Dr Darrow can help Prolotherapy | PRP | Stem Cell Therapy in Southern California Call The Prolotherapy Institute today Call Us Today to Make an Appointment800 7342210.

By: Guillermo Mata

Read more from the original source:
Prolotherapy | PRP | Stem Cell Therapy | The Prolotherapy Institute - prolotherapyinstitute.com - Video

Read More...

Public Banned from ‘Best Stem Cell Meeting in the World’

Sunday, March 10th, 2013

“The best stem cell meeting in the
world” is underway today in San Francisco – conducted at taxpayer
expense – but the public is barred from attending.

More than 500 persons are at the meeting at an undisclosed location, including some
representatives of biotech firms. And the meeting is even being
written about on the internet by a blogger. But the $3 billion
California stem cell agency says the public is not allowed in because
some of the information is “proprietary.”
CIRM President Alan Trounson addressed
the meeting earlier this week and declared it was “the best stem
cell meeting in the world,” according to UC Davis researcher Paul
Knoepfler
, who is reporting from the session on his blog.
The attendees consist almost entirely
of the recipients of taxpayer-funded grants given by the stem cell agency  although a number of
businesses have been brought in.. CIRM, which is paying for the gathering,  says of the annual sessions,

 “The purpose of meeting is to bring together investigators funded
by CIRM, to highlight their research, and encourage scientific
exchange and collaboration.”

Kevin McCormack, spokesman for the
agency, today said the public was barred from the meeting, which ends tomorrow, because “so
many presentations/talks (are) using proprietary information.”
That rationale is nothing new in the
world of science. But there is no chance of maintaining secrecy about anything that is
truly proprietary when hundreds of people have access to it in
this sort of forum. No penalties exist for disclosure, plus the whole
point of the session is to share information.
Yesterday we wrote briefly about the importance of transparency and openness in government, and make no mistake about
it, the stem cell agency is a government operation. We doubt that
anything egregious is underway at the session, but closing it to the
public is a reminder about where the agency's priorities lie.  

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/uiwodYaNIP8/public-banned-from-best-stem-cell.html

Read More...

Good News, Bad News and the California Stem Cell Agency

Sunday, March 10th, 2013

A few weeks ago an anonymous reader
admonished the California Stem Cell Report to be more positive about
the $3 billion agency and its efforts to develop the cures that its
backers promised California voters more than eight years ago.

The comment was thoughtful and pointed
out that “almost all the time” the agency “has done the right
thing.” The reader made the remarks in the context of continuing
coverage of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report that found there
were major flaws in CIRM's operations. (The reader's comment can be found here at the end of the post.)
Given the reader's remarks, it seems a
good time to review the operating principles and biases of the
California Stem Cell Report.
Bias No. 1: Openness and transparency
come first in any government operation. They are
fundamental to the integrity of all government enterprises. Bias No.
2: The California stem cell agency is generally doing a good job at
funding stem cell research. We generally favor all manner of stem cell research. 
Regarding our operating principles, the
goal is report news and information about the agency along with
analysis and explanation. One key to understanding what this blog
does is to understand what news is. News by definition is almost
always “bad” as opposed to “good.” News deals with the
exceptional. It is not news that millions of drivers commute to work
safely each day on California freeways. It is news when one is killed
in a traffic accident.
The California Stem Cell Report also
tries to fill information voids. We understand that the stem cell
agency believes certain information is not in their best interests to
disclose. Such is always the case with both private and public
organizations. However, it is generally in the public interest to see
more information rather less, particularly information that an
organization would rather not see become public.
Analysis and explanation of what the stem cell agency does is rare in the California media and even less seen
nationally or internationally. This blog focuses primarily on the
public policy aspects of the agency – not the science. The agency
is an unprecedented experiment that brings together big science, big
government, big academia, big business, religion, morality, ethics,
life and death in single enterprise – one that operates outside the
normal constraints of state agencies. No governor can cut CIRM's
budget. Nor can the legislature. Even tiny changes in Proposition 71,
which created CIRM, require either another vote of the people or the
super, super-majority vote of both houses of the legislature and the signature of the governor. All of
this is the result of the initiative process – a well-intended tool
that has been abused and that has also created enormous problems for the
state of California that go well beyond the stem cell agency.
Then there is the funding of the
agency, which basically lives off the state's credit card. All the
money that goes for grants is borrowed and roughly doubles the actual
expense to taxpayers.
Since January 2005, we have posted
3,452 items on the stem cell agency because we believe the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM)
is an important enterprise
– one that deserves more attention that it receives in the
mainstream media. Our readership includes persons at the NIH, the
National Academy of Sciences, most of the major stem cell research
centers in California, academic institutions in the Great Britain,
Canada, Norway, Germany, Russia, China, Australia, Singapore and
Korea – not to mention the agency itself and scientific journals.
We do not attempt to replicate what the
California stem cell agency itself does, which is to post online a
prodigious amount of positive stories and good news about the agency.
To do so would serve no useful public purpose and would simply be
repetitive. That said, there is room to acknowledge the work that the
agency does, particularly the staff, but also the board. We try to
point that out from time to time.
The California Stem Cell Report also
welcomes and encourages comments, anonymous and otherwise. Directors
and executives of the agency have a standing invitation to comment at
length and have their remarks published verbatim, something almost
never seen in the mainstream media.
Finally, given the questions raised by
the Institute of Medicine about disclosure of potential conflicts of
interests, the author of this blog and his immediate family have no
financial interests in any biotech or stem cell companies, other than
those that may be held by large mutual funds. We have no relatives
working in the field. We do have the potential personal conflicts,
cited generally by the IOM in connection with some CIRM board
members, involving relatives who have afflictions that could be
possibly be treated with stem cell therapies in the distant future.   

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/GRJeamu0RXw/good-news-bad-news-and-california-stem.html

Read More...

Public Banned from ‘Best Stem Cell Meeting in the World’

Sunday, March 10th, 2013

“The best stem cell meeting in the
world” is underway today in San Francisco – conducted at taxpayer
expense – but the public is barred from attending.

More than 500 persons are at the meeting at an undisclosed location, including some
representatives of biotech firms. And the meeting is even being
written about on the internet by a blogger. But the $3 billion
California stem cell agency says the public is not allowed in because
some of the information is “proprietary.”
CIRM President Alan Trounson addressed
the meeting earlier this week and declared it was “the best stem
cell meeting in the world,” according to UC Davis researcher Paul
Knoepfler
, who is reporting from the session on his blog.
The attendees consist almost entirely
of the recipients of taxpayer-funded grants given by the stem cell agency  although a number of
businesses have been brought in.. CIRM, which is paying for the gathering,  says of the annual sessions,

 “The purpose of meeting is to bring together investigators funded
by CIRM, to highlight their research, and encourage scientific
exchange and collaboration.”

Kevin McCormack, spokesman for the
agency, today said the public was barred from the meeting, which ends tomorrow, because “so
many presentations/talks (are) using proprietary information.”
That rationale is nothing new in the
world of science. But there is no chance of maintaining secrecy about anything that is
truly proprietary when hundreds of people have access to it in
this sort of forum. No penalties exist for disclosure, plus the whole
point of the session is to share information.
Yesterday we wrote briefly about the importance of transparency and openness in government, and make no mistake about
it, the stem cell agency is a government operation. We doubt that
anything egregious is underway at the session, but closing it to the
public is a reminder about where the agency's priorities lie.  

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/uiwodYaNIP8/public-banned-from-best-stem-cell.html

Read More...

Good News, Bad News and the California Stem Cell Agency

Sunday, March 10th, 2013

A few weeks ago an anonymous reader
admonished the California Stem Cell Report to be more positive about
the $3 billion agency and its efforts to develop the cures that its
backers promised California voters more than eight years ago.

The comment was thoughtful and pointed
out that “almost all the time” the agency “has done the right
thing.” The reader made the remarks in the context of continuing
coverage of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report that found there
were major flaws in CIRM's operations. (The reader's comment can be found here at the end of the post.)
Given the reader's remarks, it seems a
good time to review the operating principles and biases of the
California Stem Cell Report.
Bias No. 1: Openness and transparency
come first in any government operation. They are
fundamental to the integrity of all government enterprises. Bias No.
2: The California stem cell agency is generally doing a good job at
funding stem cell research. We generally favor all manner of stem cell research. 
Regarding our operating principles, the
goal is report news and information about the agency along with
analysis and explanation. One key to understanding what this blog
does is to understand what news is. News by definition is almost
always “bad” as opposed to “good.” News deals with the
exceptional. It is not news that millions of drivers commute to work
safely each day on California freeways. It is news when one is killed
in a traffic accident.
The California Stem Cell Report also
tries to fill information voids. We understand that the stem cell
agency believes certain information is not in their best interests to
disclose. Such is always the case with both private and public
organizations. However, it is generally in the public interest to see
more information rather less, particularly information that an
organization would rather not see become public.
Analysis and explanation of what the stem cell agency does is rare in the California media and even less seen
nationally or internationally. This blog focuses primarily on the
public policy aspects of the agency – not the science. The agency
is an unprecedented experiment that brings together big science, big
government, big academia, big business, religion, morality, ethics,
life and death in single enterprise – one that operates outside the
normal constraints of state agencies. No governor can cut CIRM's
budget. Nor can the legislature. Even tiny changes in Proposition 71,
which created CIRM, require either another vote of the people or the
super, super-majority vote of both houses of the legislature and the signature of the governor. All of
this is the result of the initiative process – a well-intended tool
that has been abused and that has also created enormous problems for the
state of California that go well beyond the stem cell agency.
Then there is the funding of the
agency, which basically lives off the state's credit card. All the
money that goes for grants is borrowed and roughly doubles the actual
expense to taxpayers.
Since January 2005, we have posted
3,452 items on the stem cell agency because we believe the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM)
is an important enterprise
– one that deserves more attention that it receives in the
mainstream media. Our readership includes persons at the NIH, the
National Academy of Sciences, most of the major stem cell research
centers in California, academic institutions in the Great Britain,
Canada, Norway, Germany, Russia, China, Australia, Singapore and
Korea – not to mention the agency itself and scientific journals.
We do not attempt to replicate what the
California stem cell agency itself does, which is to post online a
prodigious amount of positive stories and good news about the agency.
To do so would serve no useful public purpose and would simply be
repetitive. That said, there is room to acknowledge the work that the
agency does, particularly the staff, but also the board. We try to
point that out from time to time.
The California Stem Cell Report also
welcomes and encourages comments, anonymous and otherwise. Directors
and executives of the agency have a standing invitation to comment at
length and have their remarks published verbatim, something almost
never seen in the mainstream media.
Finally, given the questions raised by
the Institute of Medicine about disclosure of potential conflicts of
interests, the author of this blog and his immediate family have no
financial interests in any biotech or stem cell companies, other than
those that may be held by large mutual funds. We have no relatives
working in the field. We do have the potential personal conflicts,
cited generally by the IOM in connection with some CIRM board
members, involving relatives who have afflictions that could be
possibly be treated with stem cell therapies in the distant future.   

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/GRJeamu0RXw/good-news-bad-news-and-california-stem.html

Read More...

Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy Before and After Stem Cell Therapy – Video

Monday, March 4th, 2013


Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy Before and After Stem Cell Therapy
Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy Improvement in a week after Stem Cell Therapy He is a known case of Myotonic MD with history of gradual onset of progressive lower extremities muscle weakness since age of 25 years. He also has history of delayed milestones. His weakness is progressive in nature. He falls while walking so walks with human support only. He has complaints of early fatigue and slurred speech due to tongue hypertrophy. He has atrophy of proximal muscles of all extremities. He has modified independence in almost all ADL. Neurologically, hypotonic, hyporeflexic. On examination: lower limb distal muscles are 0/5 on MMT while proximal muscles are having 2++/5 on MMT. Upper extremities left side proximal muscles are 1++/5 while right side proximal muscles are 3 #713;/5, distal muscles are 3++/5 in upper extremities. Functionally, modified independence in all ADL. On FIM he scores 99. After Stem Cell Treatment 1. His face looks more fresh. 2. His neck used to fall back previously but now he can control his neck well in each movement. 3. Back muscle strength has improved. 4. Bridging is better now. He can lift his back more up now which he couldn #39;t do at all. 5. His stamina has improved. 6. His shoulder strength has improved. Shoulder shrugging is better now. Active shoulder flexion, range of motion is more now. 7. Side lying to sitting he can do without any support which was not possible before. 8. Drooling of saliva from mouth in night is completely stopped. 9. His legs used ...

By: neurogenbsi

Continued here:
Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy Before and After Stem Cell Therapy - Video

Read More...

Stem Cell Therapy for Autism Part 1 – Video

Monday, March 4th, 2013


Stem Cell Therapy for Autism Part 1
He is a known case of Autism with history of full term caesarean section delivery and cried immediately after birth with near normal motor milestones. But as he was put in school, there were regular complaints of him being hyperactive. He was then diagnosed to have Autism. He was shifted to special school then. Neurologically, he has near normal tone, reflexes and muscle power. On examination: he has hyperactivity. He has aggressive behaviour with episodes of violence and beating others. He has repetitive speech (echolalia), but it is need based. He has social isolation. He is bowel bladder trained. He is independent in most ADL. Functionally, he needs supervision in most ADL. On FIM he scores 106. After Stem Cell Therapy 1. Angry spells are short lasting than before. Earlier, if he used to be upset for half hour at a stretch, now he calms down in 2 minutes. 2. Did not ask for toothpaste for second time which he used to do daily. 3. He does not insist on bathing 2-3 times a day like before. Now, he takes bath once a day. 4. Visits washroom once in 2-3 hours and then washes his hand normally and leaves the washroom. Earlier, he used to go to washroom every hourly and wash his hand, spill water on his clothes and arms. 5. Eye contact attention span improved. 6. Sitting tolerance improved and attends for 30 mins session. 7. Listening skills and observation skills on demand improved. 8. Screaming behavior reduces when given paper tearing activity. 9. His parents feel his ...

By: neurogenbsi

Read more:
Stem Cell Therapy for Autism Part 1 - Video

Read More...

Stem Cell Therapy for Autism Part 1 Tamil – Video

Monday, March 4th, 2013


Stem Cell Therapy for Autism Part 1 Tamil
He is a known case of Autism with history of full term caesarean section delivery and cried immediately after birth with near normal motor milestones. But as he was put in school, there were regular complaints of him being hyperactive. He was then diagnosed to have Autism. He was shifted to special school then. Neurologically, he has near normal tone, reflexes and muscle power. On examination: he has hyperactivity. He has aggressive behaviour with episodes of violence and beating others. He has repetitive speech (echolalia), but it is need based. He has social isolation. He is bowel bladder trained. He is independent in most ADL. Functionally, he needs supervision in most ADL. On FIM he scores 106. After Stem Cell Therapy 1. Angry spells are short lasting than before. Earlier, if he used to be upset for half hour at a stretch, now he calms down in 2 minutes. 2. Did not ask for toothpaste for second time which he used to do daily. 3. He does not insist on bathing 2-3 times a day like before. Now, he takes bath once a day. 4. Visits washroom once in 2-3 hours and then washes his hand normally and leaves the washroom. Earlier, he used to go to washroom every hourly and wash his hand, spill water on his clothes and arms. 5. Eye contact attention span improved. 6. Sitting tolerance improved and attends for 30 mins session. 7. Listening skills and observation skills on demand improved. 8. Screaming behavior reduces when given paper tearing activity. 9. His parents feel his ...

By: neurogenbsi

See the rest here:
Stem Cell Therapy for Autism Part 1 Tamil - Video

Read More...

LA Times: Stem Cell Agency Conflict-of-Interest Response Only a Bandage

Sunday, March 3rd, 2013

The Los Angeles Times yesterday modestly praised the $3 billion California stem cell agency for
taking some limited steps to deal with its longstanding conflict of
interest issues.

But the newspaper, which has the largest circulation in the state, said that was more was
needed if the agency plans to have a life after 2017, when funds for
new awards run out.
The Times editorial said,

“After years of resisting all
criticisms of its operations, the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine
is finally listening — a little.“

The editorial continued,

“Yet the agency isn't exactly
embracing an ethical overhaul. It's doing just enough to address the
criticisms without triggering any oversight from the Legislature. The
modifications are more a bandage than a cure. Like a bandage, they
will probably do, but only for a limited time.”

The board plans to have 13 board
members with ties to recipient institutions voluntarily refrain from
voting on any grants that come before the board, not just the ones to
their institutions.
The Times said December's blue-ribbon
report from the Institute of Medicine identified the make-up of the
board as the “single biggest problem” at the agency. The
editorial cited figures prepared by the California Stem Cell Report
that show that about 90 percent of the $1.8 billion that the board
has awarded has gone to institutions linked to current or past
members of the board. Fifteen out of the 29 current board members
have ties to recipient institutions.
The editorial concluded,

“If the stem cell institute is just a
temporary agency that will last until its public funding runs out —
it plans to give its last grants with existing funds in 2017 — its
planned reforms will probably be enough. But if the institute wants
to be a permanent part of the research landscape — and possibly ask
for more public funding — voluntary recusals are an inadequate
patch. The agency's leaders should admit that the original setup was
flawed and seek a true fix. “

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/4TPMCEI6hDg/la-times-stem-cell-agency-conflict-of.html

Read More...

CIRM Director Prieto on Disclosure of Reviewer Financial Interests

Sunday, March 3rd, 2013

A member of the governing board of the
$3 billion California stem cell agency is weighing in on an item on
the California Stem Cell Report that called for public disclosure of the financial interests of the scientific reviewers, who make 98
percent of the decisions on awards by the agency.

Francisco Prieto, a Sacramento
physician and a patient advocate member of the board, said in an email:

“ It seems to me there's a bit
of 'damned if we do and damned if we don't' here. If the ICOC (the
agency governing board) decides to listen to some of the members of
the public who come to our meetings and overrule a recommendation of
the Grants Working Group(GWG), we're slammed for letting emotion trump
science, or bowing to special interests. If we just accept the
rankings of the GWG and approve all their recommendations, we're
criticized for not being truly independent.  I think we don't do
it often (for good reason) but should and do retain the right to look
at other factors besides those our scientific reviewers do, and make
our own decisions about funding. We are ultimately responsible, not
the scientific reviewers. 

“As for the issue of their
disclosure of personal conflicts of interest, from what I've read of
the NIH processes, ours are no less strict. The NIH requires that
reviewers disclose any conflicts to their institutions which I
believe must disclose them to the NIH, but I have not seen anything
requiring them to disclose all their personal financial & other
interests publicly, as we (ICOC members) have to.  When we were
assembling our group of reviewers initially, the fear was that many
of the best scientists would turn us down if we required them to make
the kind of personal disclosures we have to. I don't know how many we
might actually lose if that were the case, but as you know we do
require them to disclose to CIRM, and they have to leave the room
when any application for which they have a conflict is discussed.”

Our take: Prieto is right about the
board being perched on the horns of a dilemma, which has a lot to do
with Proposition 71, which created the agency, and American
scientific traditions, which place an extraordinary value on the
“integrity” of the review process. In this case, integrity refers
to adherence to reviewers' scientific judgments.
Proposition 71 placed the legal
authority for grant approvals in the hands of the CIRM board, which
has overridden decisions by reviewers in only 2 percent of the cases
since 2005. However, that was enough, with at least one high profile
case coupled with public appeals, to cause the Institute of Medicine
to raise concerns about the integrity of the CIRM grant review
process. Traditionally, peer reviewers are deemed to be the most
capable of making the scientific decisions about grant applications,
rather than a board appointed by University of California chancellors
and elected state officials.
Yet, if the board concedes the
decisions to the grant reviewers, state law is likely to require
public disclosure of their financial interests, a move that the board
has opposed for years. Former CIRM Chairman Robert Klein repeatedly
advised the board during its public grant approval processes that
reviewers' actions were only ”recommendations” and that the board
was actually making the decisions. However, it has long been apparent
that the reviewers were making the de facto decisions. A CIRM memo in
January confirmed that, producing the 98 percent figure.
The issues involving disclosure by
reviewers, integrity of peer reviews, the language of Proposition 71
and state law are difficult and may, in some cases, be at odds.
However, it makes little difference
what the NIH is doing. It is a much different organization and has
had a history of conflict of interest problems that it has been
trying to work through.
The trend in the academic and
scientific research community has been towards more public disclosure
rather than less because of many well-documented instances of
problems. What is at stake is the public's faith in scientific
research and the integrity of public institutions.
Our thanks to Prieto for his comments
on this important subject.  

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/OlA8vhJTIsA/cirm-director-prieto-on-disclosure-of.html

Read More...

California Stem Cell Agency: Comparing the Critiques

Sunday, March 3rd, 2013

State Controller John Chiang has posted
a useful, side-by-side comparison of critiques of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency, including the Institute of Medicine(IOM)
study, along with the responses from the agency.

Chiang, the state's top fiscal officer,
has additionally posted the initial remarks Jan. 23 by CIRM Chairman
Jonathan Thomas before the stem cell agency governing board on his
plan to deal with the sweeping recommendations of the IOM.
Regardless of one's opinion of the
board's response to the IOM, Thomas adroitly handled the discussion
and vote, not a small accomplishment given the size of the board (29
members) and the legal restrictions involving public meetings. Under
state law, Thomas could not lobby significant numbers of the board in
advance of the meeting. He was restricted to engineering the approval
in a public session, which can easily take on a life of its own given
the unwieldy size of the board and the necessity for public comment.
As for the documents posted by Chiang,
he is chairman of the Citizens Financial Accountability and Oversight
Committee
, the only state body specifically charged with oversight of
the agency and its board. The web site for the committee is the only
location on the Internet where Thomas' prepared remarks and the
comparison can be found.
Chiang's comparison chart includes not
only the IOM study, but last year's performance audit and the Little
Hoover Commission
study in 2009. Missing, however, is the state
auditor's report in 2007 and its recommendation that the agency seek an attorney general's opinion on whether scientific grant reviewers must file a public financial disclosure form.
Here are links to the various
documents: Thomas' prepared comments, Power Point chart used by Thomas,
comparison chart of various studies and the transcript of the Jan. 23 meeting during which the governing board approved its response.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/Yb7Eb9xPMvo/california-stem-cell-agency-comparing.html

Read More...

Page 61«..1020..60616263..7080..»


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