header logo image


Page 67«..1020..66676869..8090..»

Archive for the ‘Stem Cell Therapy’ Category

Southern California Newspaper Tackles Stem Cell Agency and UC Irvine Grants

Sunday, December 23rd, 2012

The Orange County Register today zeroed
in on the $3 billion California stem cell agency and its relationship
to the local University of California campus in the wake of sweeping
recommendations for changes at the eight-year-old agency.

The article by Melody Petersen was
headlined “Ties to stem cell board lucrative.”
Petersen began her article with story of the $20 million award to StemCells, Inc., earlier this year and
the firm's partnership with Frank LaFerla of UC Irvine, which is located in Orange County.
The award was rejected twice by
reviewers at the stem cell agency but the governing board of the
agency (CIRM) approved it on a 7-5 vote in September following
lobbying on behalf of the company by the board's former chairman,
Robert Klein, and others.
Petersen said the award was not the first time that questions have been raised about stem cell agency grants. She said that the 17-month study by the prestigious Institute of
Medicine (IOM)
and some of its findings, particularly those dealing
with conflicts of interest, echoed criticisms that have been raised for years.
She wrote,

“Repeated independent reviews of the
agency, including one by the (IOM) released this month, have found
that its board is rife with conflicts of interest. In fact, of the
$1.7 billion that the agency has awarded so far, about 90 percent has
gone to research institutions with ties to people sitting on the
board, according to an analysis by David Jensen at the California
Stem Cell Report
, which closely follows the agency's operations.

While the agency has yet to produce a
cure, Petersen said,

“What's clear already is that the
money has transformed stem cell research in California and poured
hundreds of millions of dollars into the state's universities,
including UC Irvine.”

She noted that the CIRM governing board
is dominated by members from the UC system, including two professors
at UC Irvine.
Peterson continued,

“Before Proposition 71 (the measure
that created the agency) passed, UC Irvine had less than ten stem
cell scientists, who received about $1.5 million in funding each
year. Now, after receiving $100 million in grants from the state
agency, the university has sixty scientists working to advance stem
cell research and teaching. It touts itself as one of the top stem
cell research centers in the world. In 2010, it opened an $80 million
four-story stem cell research center with the agency picking up $27
million of the cost.

“As UC Irvine has won increasing
amounts of taxpayer money, its two professors who sit on the agency's
board have risen in status on campus.

Susan Bryant
UC Irvine photo

“Professor Susan Bryant, an expert in
regenerative medicine, was dean of the School of Biological Sciences
when she was named to the agency's board in 2004. She was then
promoted to vice-chancellor of research. In July, she was named the
university's interim executive vice-chancellor and provost, its
second most powerful administrator.

“When Professor Oswald Steward, a
stem cell scientist, joined the agency's board in 2004, he was
director of UCI's Reeve-Irvine Research Center for Spinal Injury.
Since then, the scientists working in his center have received
millions of dollars in grants from the agency. In May, the university
rewarded Steward with an additional title: senior associate dean of
research for the School of Medicine.”

“The two professors are prohibited
from receiving any agency funds for their own scientific work. But so
much money has been funneled into the stem cell field in California
that it can be difficult to show their continued scientific efforts
are not somehow benefiting. For example, Bryant co-authored a
scientific article in 2009 with nine other scientists about the
genetics of salamanders, which can regenerate limbs. In the report,
the group recognized the state agency for partially funding their
work. Bryant said that the money was received by another scientist in
the group who was not employed by UC Irvine. She said the state
agency has never given a grant for research involving salamanders. 'I
have never-ever benefited from CIRM funding,' Bryant said using the
agency's acronym.

Os Steward
UC Irvine photo

“Steward said he stopped his stem
cell research when he joined the board in 2004. His board position,
he said, 'has prevented me from taking on lines of research I
otherwise would do.'

Tom Vasich, a campus spokesperson,
said Bryant and Stewart's positions on the agency's board played no
part in their promotions and success at the school.”

Petersen additionally reported that
Steward and Bryant are not allowed to vote on grants to UC Irvine.
Petersen pointed out that the
University of California has 16 members on the 29-member board. One
of those is the chairwoman of the UC Regents, Sherry Lansing.
Petersen also noted that three of the UC officials, including
Steward, hold seats on the board as patient advocates.

Petersen is a recent addition to the
Register's staff, joining it in November as an investigative
reporter. She worked as a business reporter for the New York Times and authored  "Our Daily Meds," a book about the pharmaceutical industry. She shared in the top award in newspaper financial journalism when she was at the San Jose Mercury News.  

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/41IPNEUfHpo/southern-california-newspaper-tackles.html

Read More...

Balloting Begins on Stem Cell Person of the Year

Sunday, December 23rd, 2012

The nominations are in. Voting has
begun, with about 1,000 ballots cast so far. But only one vote truly
counts. That belongs to Paul Knoepfler, who is running the The Stem
Cell Person of the Year
contest and will pony up $1,000 of his
hard-earned cash to honor the winner.
On Monday, Knoepfler announced 16 finalists out of 30 nominees. They range from scientists to patients
to advocates. Voting began instantly and will continue until Dec. 31
at 11:59 p.m. Votes will count for something, but Knoepfler makes it clear that they are only advisory. He makes the decision.
This is Knoepfler's first year at the
contest. The UC Davis stem cell researcher, patient advocate and
blogger wants to recognize someone who made a difference and took
some risks in doing so.
You can find the entire list of
candidates on Knoepfler's blog, but we wanted to note that they have
a father and son competing against each other – Don Reed and his
son, Roman. (Could be tense around the holiday tables in the
Reeds' households.) Also on the list is Jeanne Loring of Scripps,
whose nominator said engages the wider community with great
effectiveness. I once heard Loring say that every stem cell
researcher should have a spiel that could be delivered in five
minutes in a taxi and that would not only explain stem cell research,
but persuade the cab driver of its virtues.
All of the nominees have much to
recommend them. Knoepfler will be chewing his fingernails before this
is all over.  

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/_Zshc3lQops/balloting-begins-on-stem-cell-person-of.html

Read More...

Exploring the Straw Man Argument Against IOM Reforms at California Stem Cell Agency

Sunday, December 23rd, 2012

Constitutional objections to some of
the Institute of Medicine's sweeping recommendations for changes at
the $3 billion California stem cell agency amount to little more than
a straw man, at least based on a legal memo produced earlier by the
agency.

The legal objections to structural reforms at the
agency were initially advanced in 2009 when the stem cell agency was
fighting an unwelcome analysis of its activities by the state's good
government agency, the Little Hoover Commission. The objections were
voiced again at a meeting earlier this month by some governing board
members, particularly Sherry Lansing, who is also chairwoman of the
University of California regents. Her comments came within minutes of
the start of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) presentation to the
board.
She said directors' hands “are tied”
because of requirements in Proposition 71, the ballot initiative that
created the stem cell agency, which is formally known as the
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM). While Lansing
did not elaborate, some of the initiative is written into the state
constitution, which can only be amended by a vote of the people.
However, Proposition 71 can also be amended by a 70 percent vote of
each house of the Legislature and the signature of the governor,
which is no small task to achieve.
The 2009 legal memo (see the full text
below) dealt with the recommendations of the Little Hoover
Commission, some of which were cited and echoed by the IOM. The legal
memo contended that the legislature was barred from making major
changes in the structure of the stem cell agency governing board
because the changes supposedly would not “enhance the ability of
the (agency) to further the purposes of the grant and loan programs.”
The argument was that only the people could make “non-enhancing”
changes. The vague “enhancement” requirement was written into
Proposition 71 by its authors, one of whom is James Harrison, the
outside counsel to the board, who was also the lead author on the
2009 memo. Harrison is revisiting the supposed constitutional issues in the wake of the IOM study.
However, the objections cited in his earlier memo are dubious and easily overcome. The meaning of “enhance” is
so vague as to permit wide interpretations. Certainly, removing
public suspicion about conflicts of interest would seem to help move
the agency forward. Straightening out the muddled management
structure of the agency, with its overlapping responsibilities for
the chairman and president, would certainly seem to enhance the
functioning of the agency. Assuring that the governing board has the
full ability to exercise strong oversight over the conduct of the
agency would certainly seem to be an enhancement and long overdue.
At least that is what the most
prestigious body of its sort says. The Institute of Medicine studied
the agency for 17 months under a $700,000 contract with CIRM. The
IOM's charge was to evaluate the performance of the agency and make
recommendations for improvements. The IOM recommendations echoed
findings not only of the Little Hoover Commission, but some in two
earlier studies also funded by the agency.
For CIRM directors now to reject the
IOM findings and turn away would be to indicate that their earlier
admiration and respect for the IOM was something of a sham or, more
likely, now inconvenient.
As for removing ambiguity about what
does or does not enhance the agency's mission, the 29-member board
could simply adopt a resolution declaring that all the IOM
recommendations would enhance the CIRM mission.
One of major obstacles to acting on the
earlier recommendations for changes was Robert Klein, the first
chairman of the agency board. Klein, an attorney and real estate investment
banker, also directed the writing of Proposition 71 and wrote
portions of it himself. He would often make numerical code citations
to the initiative during agency board meetings.
Klein is now gone from the board,
leaving in 2011 at the end of his term. He was replaced by Jonathan
Thomas
, a Los Angeles bond financier, who has ushered in a new and
different era at the stem cell agency. Some might say a more
reasonable era. He says he and governing board
take the IOM study seriously. 
The report is scheduled for discussion
Jan. 23 at a public workshop at the Claremont Hotel in Berkeley, Ca.,
the day before the regular board meeting. .
The IOM's recommendations have won theeditorial endorsement of all the California newspapers that have so
far written about them. The newspapers believe that the proposals
would indeed enhance the agency's mission and are, in fact, necessary
if the agency is to survive beyond 2017, when the money for new
grants runs out.
Directors of the stem cell agency are
currently mulling the future of their efforts. If they are to be
successful in raising additional hundreds of millions of dollars –
be they private or public – the directors must confront the
findings of the IOM in a forthright manner. And they must move to
dispel the cloud that now hangs over the stem cell agency.
(Editor's note: The full text of the
2009 legal memo can be found below. Also below is another related
legal memo from Americans for Cures, a stem cell lobbying group
sponsored by Robert Klein at the same time he was chairman of the
stem cell agency. Despite the language on the Americans for Cures
memo, it is a public record. It became a public document when Klein
submitted it to the Little Hoover Commission.) 
Legal Memo from California Stem Cell Agency on Little Hoover Recommendations 2009
Legal memo from Americans for Cures regarding the Little Hoover Commission Report 2009 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/8TDUJVXl3rw/exploring-straw-man-argument-against.html

Read More...

Boxing in the California Stem Cell Board

Sunday, December 23rd, 2012

Robert Klein is much admired for his
prodigious efforts on behalf of stem cell research, including his
service as the first chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell
agency.

Klein was adept at many tasks, such as
directing the ballot campaign that resulted in passage of Proposition
71
in 2004 and creation of of the agency. One of Klein's less
publicly recognized skills was putting the governing board of the
agency in a box from time to time.
The 29 members of that board could well
be headed for another box – this time in connection with their
position on the Institute of Medicine's sweeping recommendations for major changes at the stem cell agency.
Here is how that could work based on a
similar situation in 2009 involving Klein and the Little Hoover
Commission
, the state's good government agency.
Klein did not welcome the inquiry by
the commission, which was requested by state lawmakers who had butted
heads with Klein. He knew that the commission would come up with
recommendations that he would find odious.
So even before the Hoover report was
released in its final form, Klein had the board's outside counsel,
James Harrison, prepare a legal memo on a draft version of the study.
Harrison's memo said many of the most far-reaching recommendations of
the commission would require a vote of the people – a more costly
and unlikely proposition than a vote of the legislature.
Harrison's memo was dated June 23,
2009. The commission report was released June 26, 2009. On June 30, 2009, Klein warned directors in an email that support of some of the
proposals would violate their oath of office. The first time a
subcommittee of directors had to a chance to react publicly came on
July 16, 2009. The full board did not have the Hoover report on its
agenda until Aug. 6, 2009. By that time, they were thoroughly boxed
in.
Their choices were minimal, even if
they disagreed with Klein. To do anything other than go along with
him would mean rejection of a 10-page legal opinion from Harrison,
which could be interpreted as no-confidence vote on Harrison and
possibly Klein. Board members were not interested in losing
Harrison, who has been valuable asset to the board since day one.
Overthrowing Klein was even less likely in 2009.
Harrison is currently revisiting his
2009 memo in the wake of the Institute of Medicine recommendations,
which echo some of the major Hoover proposals. The board has also
scheduled a workshop for Jan. 23 that will discuss the IOM proposals.
If Harrison produces another legal memo
that is as explicit as the 2009 document, CIRM directors will have
few choices.  The best procedure may well be for Harrison
to continue his work on the memo until after the Jan. 23 meeting.
Directors could then decide on initial steps in connection with the
IOM recommendations and ask Harrison how they can proceed legally, although the task is really more of a political challenge than a legal
one.
Directors paid $700,000 for the IOM's evaluation and advice. It is a prestigious body with virtually no critics in the scientific community. It would be odd, to say the least, for CIRM directors to now reject major recommendations from the blue-ribbon panel only because the proposals might require a statewide vote. The response is likely to be from some: Well, stem cell directors, let's have a statewide vote, and we expect you to support the IOM changes if you plan to seek additional state funding. 
Placing another stem cell measure on the ballot -- with or without related additional funding for the agency -- would bring into play a host of issues, including possible elimination of the agency. Not to mention disturbing existing stakeholder relationships and raising uncertainty in the scientific and biotech business communities. 
Directors believe the agency has made a major contribution both to California and to science. So does the IOM. The directors need to move forward on the IOM recommendations if they are to continue their research efforts beyond 2017, when cash for new grants runs out.  And putting the board in a box is not the best way to give them the room they need to maneuver. 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/Dh4v5HREt6Y/boxing-in-california-stem-cell-board.html

Read More...

San Diego Newspaper Calls for Major Changes at California Stem Cell Agency

Sunday, December 23rd, 2012

The San Diego U-T today ran an
editorial that was headlined “Stem cell research institute must fix itself.”

The editorial was written in response
to findings by the Institute of Medicine that the $3 billion
California stem cell should make sweeping changes to deal with issues
ranging from conflicts of interest to management structure.
The San Diego U-T editorial came as part of
a unanimous reaction so far from California newspapers.
The San Diego paper said,

“We hope we
are wrong in thinking that, given the number of times the same
criticisms of CIRM have come up over the past seven years, the agency
doesn’t really take them seriously.

“If that is
the agency’s attitude, it could well be a fatal error. CIRM has
enough money remaining from the original $3 billion to continue
awarding research grants for another four years. But it will either
have to go back to California voters in 2014 or 2016 for another bond
issue to continue its operations or find a different source of
funding.

“Whichever
CIRM decides, whoever is asked to foot the bill, either taxpayers or
the private sector will demand transparency and accountability. We
hope CIRM can demonstrate it.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/aZWF_3ieMCY/san-diego-newspaper-calls-for-major.html

Read More...

California Editorial Unamity: Stem Cell Agency Needs Revamp

Sunday, December 23rd, 2012

With the addition of another editorial
this week, reaction among California newspapers so far has been
unanimous that the $3 billion California stem cell agency should heed
the sweeping recommendations of the prestigious Institute of
Medicine.

The Riverside Press-Enterprise added its voice yesterday, declaring,

“Good intentions do not justify poor
practice.”

Like others, the newspaper said that
the agency “needs to revamp its governance structure to avoid
potential conflicts of interest and boost public confidence in the
agency.”
The Riverside paper focused on the conflicts of interest at the organization, which has seen about
90 percent of its funding go to institutions with ties to directors, but also supported other recommendations, including elimination of the dual executive arrangement at the research effort. 
The editorial said,

“An agency spending Californians’
money has no business being cavalier about good government practice
and ethical safeguards — no matter how promising the potential
therapies might be. The stem-cell institute is not a private fiefdom,
but a taxpayer-supported undertaking. Yet many on the stem-cell
institute’s board objected this month to the report’s
recommendations.

“The agency also said that Prop. 71’s
provisions mean that enacting many of the proposed fixes would
require either a supermajority vote of the Legislature or another
ballot measure. That prospect should warn Californians about the
dangers of voting for complex, costly, politically driven initiatives
that have little to do with fundamental state duties.

“Still, the stem-cell agency cannot
just sit on these recommendations without damaging its credibility.
The search for medical breakthroughs does not justify ignoring vital
safeguards for spending taxpayer dollars.”

For a look at other editorials, see here and here.Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/70xi8-waM7k/california-editorial-unamity-stem-cell.html

Read More...

Southern California Newspaper Tackles Stem Cell Agency and UC Irvine Grants

Sunday, December 23rd, 2012

The Orange County Register today zeroed
in on the $3 billion California stem cell agency and its relationship
to the local University of California campus in the wake of sweeping
recommendations for changes at the eight-year-old agency.

The article by Melody Petersen was
headlined “Ties to stem cell board lucrative.”
Petersen began her article with story of the $20 million award to StemCells, Inc., earlier this year and
the firm's partnership with Frank LaFerla of UC Irvine, which is located in Orange County.
The award was rejected twice by
reviewers at the stem cell agency but the governing board of the
agency (CIRM) approved it on a 7-5 vote in September following
lobbying on behalf of the company by the board's former chairman,
Robert Klein, and others.
Petersen said the award was not the first time that questions have been raised about stem cell agency grants. She said that the 17-month study by the prestigious Institute of
Medicine (IOM)
and some of its findings, particularly those dealing
with conflicts of interest, echoed criticisms that have been raised for years.
She wrote,

“Repeated independent reviews of the
agency, including one by the (IOM) released this month, have found
that its board is rife with conflicts of interest. In fact, of the
$1.7 billion that the agency has awarded so far, about 90 percent has
gone to research institutions with ties to people sitting on the
board, according to an analysis by David Jensen at the California
Stem Cell Report
, which closely follows the agency's operations.

While the agency has yet to produce a
cure, Petersen said,

“What's clear already is that the
money has transformed stem cell research in California and poured
hundreds of millions of dollars into the state's universities,
including UC Irvine.”

She noted that the CIRM governing board
is dominated by members from the UC system, including two professors
at UC Irvine.
Peterson continued,

“Before Proposition 71 (the measure
that created the agency) passed, UC Irvine had less than ten stem
cell scientists, who received about $1.5 million in funding each
year. Now, after receiving $100 million in grants from the state
agency, the university has sixty scientists working to advance stem
cell research and teaching. It touts itself as one of the top stem
cell research centers in the world. In 2010, it opened an $80 million
four-story stem cell research center with the agency picking up $27
million of the cost.

“As UC Irvine has won increasing
amounts of taxpayer money, its two professors who sit on the agency's
board have risen in status on campus.

Susan Bryant
UC Irvine photo

“Professor Susan Bryant, an expert in
regenerative medicine, was dean of the School of Biological Sciences
when she was named to the agency's board in 2004. She was then
promoted to vice-chancellor of research. In July, she was named the
university's interim executive vice-chancellor and provost, its
second most powerful administrator.

“When Professor Oswald Steward, a
stem cell scientist, joined the agency's board in 2004, he was
director of UCI's Reeve-Irvine Research Center for Spinal Injury.
Since then, the scientists working in his center have received
millions of dollars in grants from the agency. In May, the university
rewarded Steward with an additional title: senior associate dean of
research for the School of Medicine.”

“The two professors are prohibited
from receiving any agency funds for their own scientific work. But so
much money has been funneled into the stem cell field in California
that it can be difficult to show their continued scientific efforts
are not somehow benefiting. For example, Bryant co-authored a
scientific article in 2009 with nine other scientists about the
genetics of salamanders, which can regenerate limbs. In the report,
the group recognized the state agency for partially funding their
work. Bryant said that the money was received by another scientist in
the group who was not employed by UC Irvine. She said the state
agency has never given a grant for research involving salamanders. 'I
have never-ever benefited from CIRM funding,' Bryant said using the
agency's acronym.

Os Steward
UC Irvine photo

“Steward said he stopped his stem
cell research when he joined the board in 2004. His board position,
he said, 'has prevented me from taking on lines of research I
otherwise would do.'

Tom Vasich, a campus spokesperson,
said Bryant and Stewart's positions on the agency's board played no
part in their promotions and success at the school.”

Petersen additionally reported that
Steward and Bryant are not allowed to vote on grants to UC Irvine.
Petersen pointed out that the
University of California has 16 members on the 29-member board. One
of those is the chairwoman of the UC Regents, Sherry Lansing.
Petersen also noted that three of the UC officials, including
Steward, hold seats on the board as patient advocates.

Petersen is a recent addition to the
Register's staff, joining it in November as an investigative
reporter. She worked as a business reporter for the New York Times and authored  "Our Daily Meds," a book about the pharmaceutical industry. She shared in the top award in newspaper financial journalism when she was at the San Jose Mercury News.  

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/41IPNEUfHpo/southern-california-newspaper-tackles.html

Read More...

Donna Skerrett of Mesoblast on adult stem cell therapies – at Stem Cells USA

Saturday, December 22nd, 2012


Donna Skerrett of Mesoblast on adult stem cell therapies - at Stem Cells USA RM Congress 2012
Donna Skerrett, Chief Medical Officer of Mesoblast, presented a case study on Mesoblast and their adult stem cell therapy at the Stem Cells USA Regenerative Medicine Congress 2012. The Stem Cells Regenerative Medicine Congress is where pharma, biotech, academia, government and investors come to uncover the technologies, strategies and business models that will help get stem cell and regenerative medicine treatments to market faster and more cost effectively. For more information, go to http://www.terrapinn.com/stemcellsusa. Or, check out our blog at blogs.terrapinn.com/total-biopharma for up to date information on the stem cells, RM and cord blood banking and therapeutics sectors.From:biopharmachannelViews:0 0ratingsTime:21:30More inScience Technology

See the original post:
Donna Skerrett of Mesoblast on adult stem cell therapies - at Stem Cells USA

Read More...

Animal Stem Cell Therapy – Video

Saturday, December 22nd, 2012


Animal Stem Cell Therapy
Dr Tim O #39;neill DVM hard at work showing you the amazing results of stem cell and Platlete Rich Plasma treatment.From:Greg SantiniViews:0 0ratingsTime:01:03More inPets Animals

Read more:
Animal Stem Cell Therapy - Video

Read More...

Treatment Plan for Stem Cells Transplantation in Mexico – Part 2 – Video

Saturday, December 22nd, 2012


Treatment Plan for Stem Cells Transplantation in Mexico - Part 2
The video shows a leading stem cell therapist in Mexico discussing in detail the day wise break-up of a treatment plan for stem cell transplantation in Mexico. This is part 2 of the video. This surgeon is one of the pioneers in stem cell research and has cured over 40 patients for otherwise fatal diseases. Over 80% of the patients respond well to the initial treatment he bestows. Despite his track record, the world is still skeptical of stem cell therapies. Many who #39;ve taken a leap of faith by choosing this doctor, found it sufficiently rewarding. The doctor operates from Tijuana, Mexico and you can order a free quote for stem cell transplantation at his Mexico clinic by clicking the link above. Related Searches: stem cell therapy treatment plan mexico, Patient Treatment Plans stem cell Mexico, adult stem cell treatment mexico, autologous stem cell transplant mexico, allogeneic stem cell transplant mexico,From:mexicohealthViews:3 0ratingsTime:01:50More inPeople Blogs

See the rest here:
Treatment Plan for Stem Cells Transplantation in Mexico - Part 2 - Video

Read More...

Treatment Plan for Foreign Patients – Stem Cells Doctor Mexico – Video

Saturday, December 22nd, 2012


Treatment Plan for Foreign Patients - Stem Cells Doctor Mexico
http://www.mexicohealth.com The video shows a top stem cell doctor from Mexico going into the details of treatment plan by breaking it up into day-wise events. The treatment lasts 4-5 days, after which the patients can return to their countries. Tijuana, the doctor #39;s home, is especially appealing to Americans as it offers geographical advantage and low cost stem cell treatments for incurable cases. True that the therapy is far from mainstream, this surgeon #39;s track record of curing over 40 patients is an insight into efficacy of the therapy. He claims more than 80% of the patients respond well to his initial therapy. Get a free quote by stem cells doctor in Mexico by clicking the link above. Related Searches: stem cell therapy treatment plan mexico, Patient Treatment Plans stem cell Mexico, adult stem cell treatment mexico, autologous stem cell transplant mexico, allogeneic stem cell transplant mexico,From:mexicohealthViews:5 0ratingsTime:03:48More inPeople Blogs

Go here to see the original:
Treatment Plan for Foreign Patients - Stem Cells Doctor Mexico - Video

Read More...

Stem Cell Therapy Market in Asia Pacific to 2018 Commercialization – Video

Saturday, December 22nd, 2012


Stem Cell Therapy Market in Asia Pacific to 2018 Commercialization
From:Anjali KalanViews:0 0ratingsTime:00:14More inPeople Blogs

Continued here:
Stem Cell Therapy Market in Asia Pacific to 2018 Commercialization - Video

Read More...

New Cerebral Palsy Treatment in India – Video

Saturday, December 22nd, 2012


New Cerebral Palsy Treatment in India
She is a known case of CP with history of full term emergency caesarean section, due to fetal distress and prolong labour, she did not cry at birth and had low APGAR score. She even has history of jaundice on 3rd day of life and was given phototherapy. She was then diagnosed as Hypoxic Ischaemic Encephalopathy. Since then she has been having delayed motor milestones. Neurologically, she is hypertonic and hyperreflexic. On examination:She has poor voluntary control of bilateral lower extremities and fair voluntary control of right upper extremity, but poor voluntary control of left upper extremity; She has no speech developed. She has poor oromotor control and is on semisolid diet. Functionally, she is completely dependent for all ADL and mobility. After Stem Cell Therapy 1. Her drooling has reduced. 2. Tongue lateral movements and elevation initiated. 3. Pursing also initiated. 4. Sucking and chewing initiated. 5. Vocalizations and babbling increased. 6. Blowing initiated. 7. She can stand with minimal support, parallel bar holding from one hand, push knee splint with AFO. Earlier, she had never stood. 8. Her trunk and neck control improved. 9. Her sitting balance and posture is improved. Earlier, she could easily fall to sides with support. Now, she can maintain erect sitting for 5-10 minutes with minimal support. 10. Her left hand opening, weight bearing, grasp and overall usage increased. Now, she reaches to objects. 11. In parallel, with splint on left leg, she can do ...From:neurogenbsiViews:0 0ratingsTime:15:51More inScience Technology

Follow this link:
New Cerebral Palsy Treatment in India - Video

Read More...

Stem Cell Therapy Market in Asia-Pacific to 2018 Market Research Report – Video

Saturday, December 22nd, 2012


Stem Cell Therapy Market in Asia-Pacific to 2018 Market Research Report
Report provides (www.marketresearchreports.com an in-depth analysis on stem cell research and development in India, China, Japan, South-Korea and Singapore. The report market analysis and forecasts for CABG, LSCT, Type 1 DM, Type 2 DM, Hearticellgram, Cerecellgram, Cartistem and Cupistem. The report also provides information on trends and pipelines. In addition to this, the report covers market drivers and challenges for stem cell research market.From:MarketResearchReportViews:0 0ratingsTime:01:21More inScience Technology

Go here to read the rest:
Stem Cell Therapy Market in Asia-Pacific to 2018 Market Research Report - Video

Read More...

UMBILICAL CORD STEM CELL THERAPY – Video

Thursday, December 20th, 2012


UMBILICAL CORD STEM CELL THERAPY
We are a Ministry of Health sanctioned group of three hospitals in South China providing adult stem cell and Cancer biotherapy treatments for patients locally and from around the world. http://www.hopestemcell.com It has been proven time and time again that adult stem cells not embryonic stem cells are safe and have remarkable results. We offer highly skilled, personalized and the most cost effective care in China which is 10 years ahead of other countries in stem cell treatment and it is delivered with the maximum regard for your safety.From:Randy RobinsonViews:0 0ratingsTime:01:54More inNews Politics

Visit link:
UMBILICAL CORD STEM CELL THERAPY - Video

Read More...

Stem cell therapy procedure – Video

Thursday, December 20th, 2012


Stem cell therapy procedure
This is a live video of stem cell therapy by intra-arterial procedure to a DMD patient. Muscualr Dystrophy Foundation India has been assisting patients in stem cell therapy in India. Please do visit http://www.mdfindia.orgFrom:MusclecampaignViews:2 0ratingsTime:01:39More inNonprofits Activism

View post:
Stem cell therapy procedure - Video

Read More...

Two More Editorials: The California Stem Cell Agency Should Heed IOM Recommendations for Reform

Sunday, December 16th, 2012

Two other major California newspapers
today said the $3 billion California stem cell agency needs to “clean
up its act” if it wants to be successful in continuing its efforts
at turning stem cells into cures.

The editorials appeared in the Los Angeles
Times
, the state's largest circulation newspaper at more than
700,000, and the San Jose Mercury News in California's Silicon Valley.
The Mercury News has a reported circulation of nearly 600,000,
although that figure includes other Bay Area newspaper owned by the
same chain.
Both editorials focused on the 17-month evaluation of the agency by the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) as did earlier editorials in The Sacramento Bee and the San Francisco Chronicle. The IOM recommended sweeping reforms at the agency that would alter its structure and target conflicts of interest. 
The Times said,

“The $700,000 spent on the
study...will be wasted if the institute's oversight board fails to
heed the (IOM) committee's
criticisms,
 which echo the findings of the Little Hoover
Commission
and other groups over the years.”

The editorial continued,

“The 29-member board is made up
almost entirely of representatives of advocacy groups and research
institutions that have a direct interest in how the money is spent.”

The Times cited the California Stem
Cell Report'
s calculations that about 90 percent of the $1.7 billion awarded by CIRM has gone to institutions linked to current and former members of its governing board. 
The Times noted an award to a Northern California firm that has stirred some criticism. The editorial said,

“The board also overrode the advice
of its scientific advisors — twice on a single application when it
considered a grant for a well-connected company, StemCells Inc. based
in Newark, Calif. The board granted the company $20 million after Robert Klein, the driving force behind the passage of Proposition 71,
which created and funded the agency in 2004, and its former head,
lobbied so intensively for the company that one board member
described it as 'arm-twisting.'"

The Times concluded,

“The agency has used more than half
of its funding and one day will almost certainly want to ask
taxpayers for more. It should remember that voters will look for
evidence of public accountability as well as respected research.”

The San Jose paper sounded a similar
note about the agency. Its editorial said,

“(I)f it wants to survive...it
should heed the Institute of Medicine's advice to eliminate conflicts
of interest on its board -- and do it before awarding the remaining
$1.2 billion of the $3 billion voters approved for stem cell
research.”

But the paper said the stem cell agency
should not be provided any more state funding.

“Long-term funding was never the
intent when Proposition 71 passed in 2004. It was supposed to
kick-start research at a time when federal funding was blocked and to
establish California as a major player in the rapidly advancing
medical field. 

“The agency could continue to bring
value to the state as an advocate and funder of research, but only if
it can attract private donors, partners and investors. For that to
happen, it will need a board that passes the ethics test, with more
independent experts and industry executives free of conflicts. 

“At the outset, stem cell advocates
took immense pride in structuring the agency to keep it relatively
free of legislative interference despite the use of public money.
Politicians kept their hands off, which was good. But the agency
created its own inappropriate influences in the way it constituted
its board. Now it needs to clean up its act.“

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/hjDmQPb6wDs/two-more-editorials-california-stem.html

Read More...

Meager Coverage of Yesterday’s Bristling IOM-CIRM Meeting

Sunday, December 16th, 2012

Mainstream news coverage today was skimpy, to put it mildly, of the testy session yesterday involving the governing board of the California stem
cell agency and representatives of the prestigious Institute of
Medicine(IOM).

Only two pieces appeared, one in the
San Diego U-T and another on the web site of the Los Angeles Times. Both
discussed what the Michael Hiltzik of the Times column called “overt hostility” on the
part of several board members (see yesterday's item here). Bradley
Fikes
of the San Diego paper said the patient advocates on the board
“strongly criticized” the IOM report on the grounds that it
“unfairly suggests that they have a conflict of interest.”
One of the recommendations of the IOM
is that the agency develop ways to manage personal conflicts of
interest dealing with patient advocates and others at the agency.
Fikes wrote,

"'I'm a
colon cancer survivor,' said Art Torres, vice chairman of the
oversight committee, and a patient advocate designate. 'Does having
colon cancer make me biased?'
Jeff
Sheehy
, another patient advocate designate, protested what he called
a 'defenestration' of patient advocates, whose interests often span
multiple diseases.”

Ron Leuty of the San Francisco Business
Times
skipped the IOM matter and wrote about the awarding of $36
million in grants. However, a list of the most popular stories on the
Business Times web site, ranked as No. 5 Leuty's story last week on the IOM
study, just below an article about Stanford's $111 million
concert hall.
Fikes also had a piece on ViaCyte,
which is in his area, receiving another $3 million from CIRM.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/sTuRbsA7d_w/meager-coverage-of-yesterdays-bristling.html

Read More...

Appeals at the California Stem Cell Agency: Worthwhile or Worthless?

Sunday, December 16th, 2012

Jon Shestack, a patient advocate member
of the governing board of the California stem cell agency, weighed in
today on the virtues of the grant application appeal process at the
$3 billion research enterprise.

His remarks came in a “comment”
filed on the Duchenne item that appeared yesterday on this site. (His
full comment can be found at the end of that item.)
Shestack said that the handling of the
$6 million CIRM grant involving Duchenne research is “a casebook
study on why the special(extraordinary) petition is worthwhile. There
was indeed new and relevant information that only became available
after grant review. Scientific staff and leadership flagged it.”
The utility of the petitions is one of
the reasons that we ran the story about Duchenne and the team at
UCLA. The extraordinary petition process is currently under fire by
both the Institute of Medicine and the stem cell agency itself, which
has appointed a task force to come up with changes. But, while the
petition process is certainly less than perfect, so is the peer
review/grant review process.
The Duchenne application is not the
only “case study.” An application by Karen Aboody of the City of
Hope
is often cited as another case. There are undoubtedly others.
The petition process was adopted
several years ago by the board as a tool to manage willy-nilly
appearances of scientists before the CIRM governing board whose
applications were rejected by reviewers. Now the Institute of
Medicine has recommended the petitions be abandoned, saying they
undermine the integrity of grant review process. The IOM cited a
major controversy in Texas involving its cancer research agency as an
example of how grant reviews or the lack of them can go bad – not
to mention conflict of interest problems there. CIRM has already
started to look for better solutions regarding appeals. Many of its directors
are troubled by emotional presentations from patients in
connection with petitions and the lack of adequate information to
make informed decisions on the spot about the contested matters.
Whether appeals can be put in a tidy,
scientific box is debatable. Researchers have the right, under state
law, to address the board on any issue whatsoever. And at least some
of them will continue to do so -- regardless of any appeals changes --  when millions of dollars and their
careers are at stake.
Opinions and decisions of CIRM
reviewers are not holy writ. They can and do make mistakes, as we
all do. In making changes in the appeals process, the goal of the
agency should be to devise a public and transparent process rather
than enshroud it in more secrecy. CIRM also should find a way to do
a much better job of communicating to applicants the availability of
appeals and precisely how to appeal when it becomes necessary.   

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/ROhqJSUEC28/appeals-at-california-stem-cell-agency.html

Read More...

Winners From Today’s Awards by the California Stem Cell Agency

Sunday, December 16th, 2012

The 12 winners in the latest round of grants from the California stem cell agency all come from institutions linked to directors on the agency's governing board. Board members with conflicts of interest are not allowed to vote on the grants or participate in the debate. Since the inception of the agency, more than 90 percent of its awards have gone to institutions linked to the directors. Here is a link to the CIRM press release on today's meeting.

Here is the list of researchers who won awards today.

New Faculty Physician Scientist Translational Research Awards

RN3-06530Robert BalohCedars-Sinai Medical Center $3,031,737.00
RN3-06378Reza ArdehaliUniversity of California, Los Angeles $2,930,388.00
RN3-06504Jason PomerantzUniversity of California, San Francisco $3,084,000.00
RN3-06396Mana ParastUniversity of California, San Diego $3,013,252.00
RN3-06425Tracy GrikscheitChildren's Hospital of Los Angeles $3,408,000.00
RN3-06532Tippi MacKenzieUniversity of California, San Francisco $2,661,742.00
RN3-06479Ann Capela ZoveinUniversity of California, San Francisco $3,084,000.00
RN3-06529Alan ChengStanford University $3,091,595.00
RN3-06455Ali NsairUniversity of California, Los Angeles $3,004,315.00
RN3-06460Emanual MaverakisUniversity of California, Davis $2,964,000.00
RN3-06510Michelle MonjeStanford University $2,800,536.00
RN3-06525Ophir KleinUniversity of California, San Francisco $3,084,000.00
Total   $36,157,565.00

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/QdM4BZ5hPnc/winners-from-todays-awards-by.html

Read More...

Page 67«..1020..66676869..8090..»


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