header logo image


Page 88«..1020..87888990..100110..»

Archive for the ‘Stem Cell Therapy’ Category

CIRM Board Member Prieto Endorses Proposition 29

Sunday, June 10th, 2012


One of the members of the governing
board of the California stem cell agency, Francisco Prieto, has
commented on the item yesterday dealing with California's Proposition 29, which
would create a CIRM-like agency to fund research into tobacco-related
illness.
Prieto, who is a Sacramento physician
and president of the Sacramento Sierra Chapter of the American
Diabetes Association
, said in an email,

"I'm with George Skelton(Los
Angeles Times
columnist). Whatever you think about ballot box
budgeting, you could take every penny raised by this and bury it in
the ground - it would still: Reduce smoking (mostly by preventing
some kids, the most price-sensitive group of smokers from starting) .
Save lives. Hurt the lying tobacco companies. All very good things."

CIRM has not taken a position on the measure.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Business-friendly Changes Proposed for Revenue Sharing by Stem Cell Agency

Sunday, June 10th, 2012


The $3 billion California stem cell
agency, which hopes to generate income for the state through the sale
of stem cell therapies, is moving to make its profit-sharing rules
more friendly to business.

The proposed changes will come up Monday morning before the Intellectual Property and Industry Subcommittee of the
CIRM governing board.
No stem cell research funded by CIRM
has yet been commercialized. Its intellectual property regulations,
which determine payback criteria, were developed shortly after CIRM
was created in 2004. Ed Penhoet, one of the founders of
Chiron and now a venture capitalist, chaired the panel that worked
out the rules. He has since left the CIRM board.
A CIRM staff memo described the payment
rules in the case of a "blockbuster" therapy as "uneven"
and "lumpy." The memo said they "could be a
disincentive for the engagement of industry." Other rules were described as creating
"administrative challenges and uncertainty." The proposed changes, the memo said,
would address those issues and ensure a "comparable economic
return to California."
Here are links to the specific changes
-- see here and here.
Public sites where interested parties
can take part in the discussion are located in San Francisco, La
Jolla, Los Angeles and Irvine. Specific addresses can be found on themeeting agenda.
The proposed changes must go before the
full governing board and then into the state's administrative law
process before taking full effect.  

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

‘Ugly’ Stem Cell Headlines and a Stem Cell Essay Contest

Sunday, June 10th, 2012


California stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler has been busy recently pumping out a plethora of items on his blog, including his own stem cell essay contest and a summary of "ugly" stem cell headlines.
He also rails, albeit briefly, against the Los Angeles Times "hate fest" against the California stem cell agency and offers some advice on developments involving prostate cancer, an affliction that he suffered from a few years ago.
Knoepfler, a UC Davis scientist, puts some cash on the line in his essay contest, with a prize of a $50 iTunes card plus publication of the winning piece. He is looking for a "convincing, non-fiction essay on stem cells thinking entirely outside the box." No more than 500 words. He has two categories, one for persons under 18 and one for persons over that age. June 30 is the deadline for submissions.
Knoepfler also wrote about Twitter and how it can be used by scientists in a useful item called "The scientist's top 10 guide to Twitter." We recommend it.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Business Success Rate at Stem Cell Agency: Zero in Latest Round After 14 Fail

Sunday, June 10th, 2012


California biotech companies chalked up
a zero in the latest funding round by the state's $3 billion stem
cell agency, although 14 tried to run a gauntlet that industry has
complained about for years.

All $69 million in last month's
translational research round went to 21 academic and nonprofit insitutions. No business received an award. One firm, Eclipse
Therapeutics
of San Diego, appealed to the agency's governing board but was not successful despite having a higher scientific score
than at least two winners.
The miniscule amount of funding for
commercial enterprises – less than 4 percent of $1.4 billion handed
out so far – has been a matter of concern for some time for both
industry and some members of the CIRM governing board. Most
recently, industry executives complained at an April hearing of the
Institute of Medicine panel looking into CIRM's operations.
Even a 2010 review commissioned by CIRM said the agency needed to do
better by business.
The question of funding goes beyond a
simple matter of fairness or "good science," as CIRM
describes its funding goal. Without efforts by industry to turn
research into cures, CIRM will not be able to fulfill promises to
voters in 2004 when they approved creation of the stem cell agency.
CIRM last month approved a set of five-year goals that push more
aggressively for development of commercial products, but the goals
lacked such things as a financing round devoted solely to business
applicants.
In last month's translational round,
applicants went through a three-step process, which is conducted
primarily behind closed doors. First came what CIRM calls
pre-applications. Those were reviewed by CIRM staff with the help of
outside advisors if necessary. Applicants who cleared that hurdle were allowed to apply for the full, peer-reviewed round. During that
process, the CIRM Grants Working Group reviews applications,
makes decisions and sends them to the full CIRM board for
ratification and possible changes. The board almost never has
rejected a grant approved by reviewers. But the board has ultimate
authority and sometimes funds applications that reviewers have
rejected. The applicants' names are withheld from the board and the
public during the process, although some of the board discussion and
the final vote is conducted in public. CIRM does not release the
names of rejected applicants unless they appeal.
In the translational round, a total of 42
pre-applications out of 167 were approved by staff, according to
CIRM. Thirty-eight came from nonprofits and academics out of the 153
such institutions that applied. Four out of 14 business
pre-applications advanced to full applications but none made the
final cut. All of the winning applications were linked to
institutions that have representatives on the CIRM governing board.
Those representatives are not allowed to vote on or take part in
discussion involving applications to their institutions.
The primary decision tool used by the
grant review group is a scientific score. In last month's round,
scores of approved grants ranged from 88 to 53. However, eight grants
that were ranked above 53 were rejected by the board. One of those
higher-ranking applications came from San Diego's Eclipse
Therapeutics, which scored 58. The low-ranking grants were approved
for what CIRM describes as "programmatic" reasons.
More than three weeks ago, the
California Stem Cell Report asked CIRM for figures on the
numbers of applications in the translational round, including those
for business. CIRM said the figures had not been compiled and would
not be available until after the awards were made on May 24. The
numbers were finally supplied yesterday.
Our take: The number of applicants, and
their breakdown, is basic information that should be part of board's
decision-making process. The statistics should be routinely available
well in advance of the board's meeting. Indeed, the agency in its
earlier days used to routinely publish the figures. It may be now
that generating them is more time-consuming than necessary. The
recent performance evaluation of the agency said CIRM needs to make
major improvements in how it handles critical information needed for
its top management and board.
Whatever the reason, given CIRM's poor
track record with business, the agency's directors should diligently
track industry's success rate on applications. If proposals ranked as
low as 53 are approved while higher ranking applications from
business are bypassed, it warrants more than cursory examination.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Two California Stem Cell Agency Directors Plump for Proposition 29

Sunday, June 10th, 2012


Two directors of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency have popped up in the battle over the
anti-tobacco initiative on tomorrow's ballot in the Golden State.

They are Sherry Lansing and
Kristiina Vuori, who were the subjects of a column by Michael
Hiltzik
of the Los Angeles Times dealing with Proposition
29
, the "Son of CIRM" measure that would raise
$800 million for research by increasing the price of cigarettes by $1
a pack. In addition to serving on the CIRM board, Lansing heads her
own anti-cancer foundation and is chair of the board of the UC
regents. Vuori is head of the Sanford-Burnham Institute in La
Jolla.
Proposition 29 is patterned after the
measure that created the stem cell agency. The organization established by Proposition 29 would also be governed by a board that is run by
representatives of organizations almost certain to receive the bulk
of the funding, as is the case with CIRM.
In an op-ed piece on Friday, Lansing and
Vuori said the Times and Hiltzik had fallen for "a smokescreen"
put up by tobacco companies which are spending something in the
neighborhood of $40 million to defeat the initiative. Lansing and
Vuori said the measure is needed to stop smoking by young people as
well as providing cash for research for tobacco-related diseases.
Young people are more sensitive to price increases of cigarettes than
adults, according to research.
Lansing and Vuori referred to a column
in which Hiltzik opposed the measure because it would divert money
from more immediate state needs, including health and welfare
programs for children, education and the poor. (See here for thecolumn and here, here and here for related items.)
In his most recent column, Hiltzik
said,

"The...problem with Proposition 29
is its pigeonholing of the money for cancer research rather than for
immediate needs here in California that are absolutely dire. It’s
all well and good to say that cancer research benefits everyone, but
the real question is whether it should be the absolute top priority
for a state that can’t afford to keep its children fed or offer
them medical care in the here and now. 

"Lansing and Vuori say the fact
that Prop. 29 'fails to provide funding for schools, roads or
affordable housing' is irrelevant, because it was 'was never intended
to solve these problems.'

"In the context of the state’s
needs, this is a rather callous approach to take. Let’s spell out
why, so Lansing and Vuori won’t be so inclined to dismiss these
necessities of life so casually."

Hiltzik cited a list of state
government cuts that have meant the loss of health coverage for
400,000 California children, eliminated welfare benefits for 578,000
poor California families and would mean an end to state college
student aid for 72,000 young people from less affluent families.
Hiltzik continued,

"That’s just the beginning of
what might be cut because the state needs money—and won’t be able
to lay its hands on the hundreds of millions of dollars that Lansing,
Vuori, and their research colleagues are angling for. They don’t
want voters to be reminded that there are competing demands for the
tobacco money, and they do so by failing to mention that they exist,
and also by presenting the spending on cancer research as the voters’
only choice. 

"It’s the only choice because
the promoters of Proposition 29 designed it that way. Advocates of
programs like this love to pass them in via voter initiatives because
they leave no room to measure them against alternative needs."

 A final note: The New York Times
carried a piece yesterday on Proposition 29 that drew 481 comments.
The article said, 

"Organizers argued that the tax would have
less chance of passing if voters thought it would go into the state
coffers, and said that their only goal here was cutting down on
smoking."

 Also yesterday, Willie Brown, the former mayor
of San Francisco and a keen observer of California politics,
predicted voter approval of the measure along with an increase in
cigarette smuggling from adjacent states and the sale of discount
smokes at the 58 Indian casino sites in the state. 

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Stem Cell Miracles and Campaign Promises : Thomas-Trounson vs. Hiltzik of the Times

Sunday, June 10th, 2012


The Proposition 71 campaign of 2004,
which has filled the coffers of more than 500 researchers and
institutions with $1.4 billion, was the subject today of a discussion
about miracles.

Specifically did the campaign promise
miracles?
The story begins with a column May 27
by Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times about the
"Son of CIRM" initiative, Proposition 29, on the June ballot. It
seeks to fund more medical research with $800 million handed out by
an organization patterned after the stem cell agency.
In the column, Hiltzik did not speak
well of the agency and said the 2004 campaign promised miracles.
In a letter today in the Times, J.T,
Thomas
, chairman of CIRM, and Alan Trounson, president of
CIRM, said the campaign did not promise "miraculous cures."
Hiltzik filed a riposte this afternoon
on his blog, quoting from TV campaign ads featuring Christopher
Reeve
and Michael J. Fox. Hiltzik also wrote,

"Joan Samuelson, a leading
Parkinson's patient advocate, is shown in another ad asserting,
'There are more Americans than I think we can count who are sick
now, or are going to be sick in the future, whose lives will be saved
by Prop. 71.' Shortly after the measure passed, Samuelson was
appointed to the stem cell program's board. 

"Do these ads amount to promising
'miracles'? Given that the essence of scientific research is that no
one can predict the outcome, to assert as fact that 'lives will
be saved by Prop. 71' is plainly to promise something downright
extraordinary, if not outright miraculous. 

"Yes, this is the language of
advertising, not research, but for Trounson and Thomas to pretend
that the ad campaign somehow promised merely 'good science' and not
specific outcomes, as their letter suggested, is (at least)
miraculously disingenuous."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

California Stem Cell Agency Fires Back at LA Times Columnist

Sunday, June 10th, 2012


The top two leaders of the California
stem cell agency today took strong issue with a column in the Los
Angeles Times
that spoke less than favorably about the history and
efforts of the state research enterprise.

Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Michael
Hiltzik
mentioned California's $3 billion stem cell effort in a piece
May 27 about Proposition 29 on the June ballot. The "Son of CIRM" initiative,
tailored after the ballot measure that created the stem cell agency
in 2004, would provide $800 million annually for research into
tobacco-related illnesses. The money would be derived from a $1
dollar-a-pack tax on cigarettes.
Among other things, Hiltzik said,

"Proposition 71(the stem cell
initiative), you may recall, was sold to a gullible public via
candy-coated images of Christopher Reeve walking again
and Michael J. Fox cured of Parkinson's. The
implication was that these miracles would happen if voters approved a
$3-billion bond issue for stem cell research."

The reponse from J.T. Thomas, chairman
of the CIRM board and a Los Angeles bond financier, and CIRM
President Alan Trounson came in the form of a letter to the editor.
The letter was only four paragraphs long and may have been cut prior
to publication, which is common practice for letters to the editor.
We have asked CIRM about whether there is more to the letter. (Following publication of this item, CIRM spokesman Kevin McCormack said the complete text was published by the Times, which has a 150-word limit on letters. The CIRM letter was 148.)
Here is the full text as published.

"In his article opposing
Proposition 29, Michael Hiltzik makes a number of misleading
statements about Proposition 71, the voter-approved measure funding
stem-cell research. 

"No ads for Proposition 71
promised miraculous cures. They promised good science, and that is
what is being funded, with more than 62 promising therapies for 40
different diseases on their way to clinical trials. 

"The stem-cell agency has
conflict-of-interest rules as strict as any government agency. We
undergo state-mandated audits to ensure we follow all rules and
regulations, and the most recent one, completed just this month,
praised the agency for its performance. 

"As for being 'an unwieldy
bureaucrac just 6% of the money we get goes to pay for staff; 94%
goes to fund research here in California, creating new jobs,
generating income for the state and, most important, helping find
treatments for deadly diseases."  

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

The Market’s Invisible Hand and Its Impact on Stem Cell Research

Sunday, June 10th, 2012


As the $3 billion California stem cell
agency intensifies its efforts this year to push cures into the
clinic, a Canadian academic is raising a host of serious questions
about the drive towards commercialization in scientific research.
Exhibit No. 1 was stem cell research,
in an article Monday in The Scientist magazine. It was written
by Timothy Caulfield, a Canada Research Chair in Health Law
and Policy, and a professor at the Faculty of Law and School of
Public Health, University of Alberta.
He said,

"Commercialization has emerged as
dominant theme in both the advocacy of science and in the grant
writing process.  But is this push good for science? What damage
might the market’s invisible hand do to the scientific process?"

Caulfield noted that research has
played a role in commercial enterprises and that the goal-oriented
research has led to important developments. But he also wrote,

"There are many recent examples of
how commercialization plays out in top-down policy approaches to
science.  The UK government recently justified a £220 million
investment in stem cell research on the pledge that it will help
stimulate an economic recovery. A 2009 policy document from
Texas made the optimistic prediction that stem cell research could
produce 230,000 regional jobs and $88 billion in state economic
activity.  And President Obama’s 2011 State of the
Union address went so far as to challenge American researchers
to view this moment in time as 'our generation’s Sputnik
moment'—the opportunity to use science and innovation to drive the
economy, create new jobs, and compete with emerging economies, such
as China and India. 

"The impact of this
commercialization pressure is still unfolding, but there is a growing
body of research that highlights the potential challenges, including
the possibility that this pressure could reduce collaborative
behavior, thus undermining scientific progress, and contribute to the
premature application of technologies, as may already be
happening in the spheres of stem cells and genetic
research. For example, might the controversial new Texas stem cell
research regulations, which allow the use of experimental adult
stem cell therapies without federal approval, be, at least in part, a
result of the government’s belief in the economic potential of
the field? 

"Such pressure may also magnify
the growing tendency of research institutions and the media to hype
the potential near future benefits of research—another phenomenon
that might already be occurring in a number of domains and
could have the effect of creating a public expectation that is
impossible to satisfy. 

"Furthermore, how will this trend
conflict with the emerging emphasis on an open approach to
science? A range of national and international policy entities, such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
suggest 'full and open access to scientific data should be adopted as
the international norm.' Can policy makers have it both ways? 
Can we ask researchers to strive to partner with industry and
commercialize their work and share their data and results
freely and as quickly as practical?"

In late July, the governing board of
the California stem cell agency is expected to make some hard
financial decisions about where its future spending will be targeted.
Just last week it approved a five-year plan with explicit goals for speeding stem cell research into the marketplace.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

California Stem Cell Hoopdedoo Over Rick Perry: Strange Bedfellows and Education of Politicians

Sunday, June 10th, 2012


A onetime aspirant to become the leader
of the free world was in California recently touring the lab of a
stem cell researcher in La Jolla.
The visit was somewhat unusual. The
visitor was Rick Perry, the governor of Texas who campaigned
unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for president and who is
a strong opponent of hESC research. The lab is run by Scripps' Jeanne
Loring,
who engages in hESC research among other things.
The event – if you can call it that –
also led to a video on YouTube of Perry at the lab, three blog
items by UC Davis stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler and
responses from Loring and Michael Thorsnes,  who put up
the video and who has what he modestly describes as
"significant political experience" in the Democratic party.
Thorsnes, a retired San Diego lawyer and now a photographer, raised about $5.4 million for John Kerry's and Al Gore's
presidential efforts as well as other Democrats.
Issues raised in all the hoopdedoo include
consorting with the enemy, openness, exploitation of scientists for
political gain, public education and education of political leaders,
promotion of patient causes, rushing to judgment and even strange
bedfellows.
As far as we can tell, Perry's visit
received no attention in mainstream media, but Thorsnes, a key figure
in arranging the visit, put up a video of it on the Internet.
Knoepfler, who is the rare stem cell scientist with a blog, saw the
video and on May 21 raised what he now calls "a big stink"
in a blog posting. Subsequently Knoepfler toned down the language in
that item because of what he says was its "overly extreme
verbiage."
For several years now, Knoepfler has
been writing a fine blog that deals mostly with stem cell science but
also public policy, biotech business and more. Unfortunately,
however, his original item is no longer available, but our
recollection is that Knoepler's item was strong, indicating that
Loring should not have allowed the visit because it would bolster the
political fortunes of an enemy of science or at least hESC science.
Knoepfler cited what he called the campaign-style video as evidence
of exploitation. 
On May 24, after a related May 22 item dealing with Rick Perry, Knoepfler said he rewrote the original item to temper his comments as a result of learning more
about what led up to the visit.   That included more information from Thorsnes, who is chair of the executive advisory board of the
Parkinson’s Disease Association of San Diego. 
Loring was quoted in original item as
saying, 

"I think that scientists have an obligation to educate the
public. I welcome visits from both stem cell proponents and
opponents, so I have a chance to clarify any misconceptions about
what it is that we really do. We have to figure out how to deal with
our opponents as well as our friends. I have a policy of welcoming
opponents so I can teach them. It works. Education wins minds."

The California Stem Cell Report
queried Loring about any additional comments she had on the subject.
She replied,

"Governor Rick Perry left my lab
understanding far more about induced pluripotent stem cells than he
did when he arrived. If we don't engage those who don't share our
views, who will tell them the truth? How will they know that we are
ethical and working to improving human health? 

"The visit was arranged by Michael
Thorsnes, a well-known Democratic fundraiser. He is a very
impressive person who knows politicians of every stripe, and he
arranged the meeting with Perry so that I could explain our project
to make iPSCs from people with Parkinson's disease, and our work
using iPSC derivatives in multiple sclerosis. Perry is promoting
'adult' stem cell therapy in Texas, and I wanted to be sure that he
understood the difference between 'adult' stem cells and pluripotent
stem cells. He does. Educating those in positions of power is one
of our responsibilities, and I take it very seriously."

Our take: Perry is first and foremost a
politician with large ambitions. It is more than legitimate to think
about how such a visit might be used or misused. Nonetheless,
foregoing the opportunity to educate political leaders, who control
research spending in this country, means isolation of the scientific
community and less understanding on the part of lawmakers. As far as
Perry's possible political gain is concerned, it is conceivable that
the visit could backfire on Perry should a political opponent
characterize the Loring lab tour as some sort of endorsement by him
of hESC research.
Everybody's particular interests were
at work in this episode: Thorsnes' desire for support for his cause,
Perry's political schmoozing and his own special interest in stem
cells – pro adult and con hESC, and Loring's desire to promote
scientific research in general and to educate a major political
figure.
As for the video, Knoepfler now says he
would allow a lab visit by Perry but no video. But in this digital
age, that condition could kill a likely visit. If researchers want to
talk to politicians – and they should -- risks are always involved,
but that is the price of relying on public funding and building
public enthusiasm for continued support.
One final note: Earlier in this item,
we said it was unfortunate that the original Knoepfler post is not
available. Without being able to read the original, it is difficult
to completely understand the subsequent string of events. On the
California Stem Cell Report, when corrections or other changes are
made, we always retain something to show what the original item said
and note where changes are made and why. It keeps the record straight
and provides a necessary paper trail. All in all, however, from
Perry's visit to today, it has been a robust and healthy exchange for
the stem cell community and beyond.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

CIRM Board Member Prieto Endorses Proposition 29

Sunday, June 10th, 2012


One of the members of the governing
board of the California stem cell agency, Francisco Prieto, has
commented on the item yesterday dealing with California's Proposition 29, which
would create a CIRM-like agency to fund research into tobacco-related
illness.
Prieto, who is a Sacramento physician
and president of the Sacramento Sierra Chapter of the American
Diabetes Association
, said in an email,

"I'm with George Skelton(Los
Angeles Times
columnist). Whatever you think about ballot box
budgeting, you could take every penny raised by this and bury it in
the ground - it would still: Reduce smoking (mostly by preventing
some kids, the most price-sensitive group of smokers from starting) .
Save lives. Hurt the lying tobacco companies. All very good things."

CIRM has not taken a position on the measure.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Stem cell therapy offers new treatment options for pets — and humans

Saturday, June 9th, 2012

Select a Publication: N E W S P A P E R S ---------------------------------------------- ---Alberta--- Airdrie - Airdrie Echo Banff - Banff Crag and Canyon Beaumont - Beaumont News Calgary - The Calgary Sun Camrose - Camrose Canadian Canmore - Canmore Leader Central Alberta - County Market Cochrane - Cochrane Times Cold Lake - Cold Lake Sun Crowsnest Pass - Crowsnest Pass Promoter Devon - Dispatch News Drayton - Drayton Valley Western Review Edmonton - Edmonton Examiner Edmonton - The Edmonton Sun Edson - Edson Leader Fairview - Fairview Post Fort McMurray - Fort McMurray Today Fort Saskatchewan - Fort Saskatchewan Record Grande Prairie - Daily Herald Tribune Hanna - Hanna Herald High River - High River Times Hinton - Hinton Parklander Lacombe - Lacombe Globe Leduc - Leduc Representative Lloydminster - Meridian Booster Mayerthorpe - Mayerthorpe Freelancer Nanton - Nanton News Peace Country - Peace Country Sun Peace River - Peace River Record Gazette Pincher Creek - Pincher Creek Echo Sherwood Park - Sherwood Park News Spruce Grove - Spruce Grove Examiner Stony Plain - Stony Plain Reporter Strathmore - Strathmore Standard Vermilion - Vermilion Standard Vulcan - Vulcan Advocate Wetaskiwin - Wetaskiwin Times Whitecourt - Whitecourt Star ---Manitoba--- Altona - Alton Red River Valley Echo Beausejour - Beausejour Review Carman - Carman Valley Leader Gimli - Interlake Spectator Lac Du Bonnet - Lac Du Bonnet Leader Morden - Morden Times Portage la Prairie - Portage Daily Graphic Selkirk - Selkirk Journal Stonewall - Stonewall Argus and Teulon Times Winkler - Winkler Times Winnipeg - The Winnipeg Sun ---Ontario--- Amherstburg - Amherstburg Echo Bancroft - Bancroft this Week Barrie - Barrie Examiner Barry's Bay - Barry's Bay this Week Belleville - Intelligencer Bradford - Bradford Times Brantford - Expositor Brockville - The Recorder & Times Chatham - Chatham Daily News Chatham - Chatham This Week Chatham - Today's Farmer Clinton - Clinton News-Record Cobourg - Northumberland Today Cochrane - Cochrane Times Post Collingwood - Enterprise Bulletin Cornwall - Standard Freeholder Delhi - Delhi News-Record Dresden - Leader Spirit Dunnville - Dunnville Chronicle Elliot Lake - Standard Espanola - Mid-North Monitor Fort Erie - Times Gananoque - Gananoque Reporter Goderich - Goderich Signal-Star Grand Bend - Lakeshore Advance Haliburton - Haliburton Echo Hanover - The Post Ingersoll - Ingersoll Times Innisfil - Innisfil Examiner Kapuskasing - Kapuskasing Northern Times Kenora - Kenora Daily Miner and News Kenora - Lake of the Woods Enterprise Kincardine - Kincardine News Kingston - Frontenac This Week Kingston - Kingston This Week Kingston - Kingston Whig Standard Kirkland Lake - Northern News Leamington - Leamington Post Lindsay - The Lindsay Post London - The London Free Press London - The Londoner Lucknow - Lucknow Sentinel Midland - Free Press Minden - Minden Times Mitchell - Mitchell Advocate Napanee - Napanee Guide Niagara-on-the-Lake - Niagara Advance Niagara Falls - Review Niagara Falls - Niagara Shopping News Niagara Falls - W. Niagara Community Newspapers North Bay - North Bay Nugget Northumberland - Northumberland Today Norwich - Norwich Gazette Orillia - Packet and Times Ottawa - The Ottawa Sun Owen Sound - Sun Times Oxford - Oxford Review Paris - Paris Star Online Pelham - Pelham News Pembroke - Daily Observer Peterborough - Peterborough Examiner Petrolia - Petrolia Topic Picton - County Weekly News Port Colborne - Inport News Port Hope - Northumberland Today Port Elgin - Shoreline Beacon Sarnia - Observer Sarnia - Sarnia This Week Sault Ste Marie - Sault Star Sault Ste Marie - Sault This Week Seaforth - Seaforth Huron Expositor Simcoe - Simcoe Reformer St. Catharines - St. Catharines Shopping News St. Catharines - Standard St. Thomas - St. Thomas Times-Journal Stirling - Community Press Stratford - The Beacon Herald Strathroy - Strathroy Age Dispatch Sudbury - Sudbury Star Thorold - Thorold News Tillsonburg - Tillsonburg News Timmins - Daily Press Timmins - Timmins Times Toronto - The Toronto Sun Trenton - Trentonian Wallaceburg - Wallaceburg Courier Press Welland - Tribune Welland - Welland News West Lorne - The Chronicle Wiarton - Wiarton Echo Woodstock - Sentinel Review ---Saskatchewan--- Meadow Lake - Meadow Lake Progress Melfort - Melfort Journal Nipawin - Nipawin Journal MAGAZINES & SPECIALTY PUBLICATIONS --------- Biz Magazine Business London Cottage Home and Property Showcase Food and Wine Show Hamilton Halton Weddings Hamilton Magazine InterVin International Wine Awards Kingston Life London Citylife Muskoka Magazine Muskoka Trails Niagara Food and Wine Expo Niagara Magazine Ontario Farmer Ontario Golf Sault Good Life Simcoe Life The Home Show Vines Magazine What's Up Muskoka

Read more:
Stem cell therapy offers new treatment options for pets -- and humans

Read More...

Treatment eases arthritis pain in dogs

Thursday, June 7th, 2012

A local veterinary clinic recently added a cuttingedge treatment.

Dr. Tina Gemeinhardt, owner of Tsawwassen Animal Hospital, is excited to be offering stem cell therapy to animals suffering from arthritis and joint issues.

"I'm excited about trying to bring some relief to dogs that are living in pain," she said.

The therapy, which uses stem cells harvested from fat that is surgically removed from the dog, is, in most cases, able to offer relief from the pain and stiffness associated with

Gemeinhardt said once it's determined the therapy is the right course of treatment for an animal, body fat is surgically removed and sent to a lab in California where the stem cells are harvested. The harvested stem cells are then sent back to the vet clinic within 48 hours and injected into the joints in question.

Gemeinhardt, who added the treatment to the clinic's list of services earlier this year, said it's not quite clear exactly how the stem cells work.

"Stem cells seem to inherently know what needs to be done in that area," she said.

The treatment is not a cure-all - the arthritis is still there but the symptoms are lessened - and it does not work instantly. The vet said most animals start to notice a difference in a month or so, and some might require follow up injections.

She said about 85 per cent of animals receiving stem cell therapy have had a beneficial response, while 15 per cent saw no response.

Beatrice, a seven-yearold chow chow, has seen remarkable results. Owner Rose McClelland said Beatrice had been having problems with arthritis in her hips for years and medication wasn't working any more.

See original here:
Treatment eases arthritis pain in dogs

Read More...

Stem cell therapy for cornea treatment

Saturday, June 2nd, 2012

Hyderabad, June 2:

Picking stem cells from a patients body, sending it to a sophisticated laboratory to culture a tissue and then implanting it are pass.

A team of doctors at L.V. Prasad Eye Institute has used the tea bag or sprinkler approach to regenerate stem cells. The organisation has developed a lab-free technique that could be available off-the-shelf. This allows eye surgeons with usual facilities to perform the procedure.

The team, led by Dr Virender Singh Sangwan, used this technique to treat those who suffered chemical injuries, resulting in bleeding in the cornea.

Instead of sending stem cells to the lab for culture, the doctor picked the required number of stem cells around the cornea and sprinkled on the damaged area and then put a contact lens. In 15 days, he sees development of a good layer in the place of injured area, Prof. Balasubramanian, Head of Research at LVPEI, said.

A winner of the prestigious Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar prize, Dr Sangwan said he had conducted the procedure on about 25 patients with good results. This had been published in international scientific magazines.

He is now in the process of developing tools to help doctors.

Leber Congenital Amaurosis

Children down with the rare ocular disorders that result in gradual loss of sight can hope for a cure. Doctors are working on a gene therapy to correct this problem caused by consanguineous marriages.

Though this therapy is in vogue abroad, LVPEI says it is the first centre to carry out research on this procedure. Technically called LCA or Leber Congenital Amaurosis, doctors would refer patients to a gene analysis after studying them for indications.

Read more from the original source:
Stem cell therapy for cornea treatment

Read More...

Malta opposing EU financing for stem cell research on embryos

Saturday, June 2nd, 2012

Stem cell therapy may one day be used to cure disorders such as Fragile-X syndrome, or Cystic fibrosis and other genetic maladies.

Matthew Vella

The Maltese government wants the European Commission to abandon plans to provide funds for research activities on stem cells that involve "the destruction of human embryos".

In a declaration on the ethical principles for the Horizon 2020 programme, which is an 80 billion fund for the EU's programme for research and innovation to create new jobs, the Maltese government said it wanted more detailed guidelines on the bioethical principles that will guide research programmes.

Horizon 2020 will allow the financing of research on human stem cells - both adult and embryonic - as long as it is permitted by the national laws of member states.

The fund however will not finance human cloning, genetic modification, or the creation of human embryos intended for the purpose of research or stem cell procurement.

The European Commission does not explicitly solicit the use of human embryonic stem cells, but Horizon 2020 allows the use of human stem cells according to the objectives of the research, and only if it has the necessary approvals from the member states.

The Maltese declaration echoes previous statements by the Commission of Catholic Bishops of the EC (Comece), which said Horizon 2020 did not include greater protection of human embryos from stem cell research.

Malta says it does not want any such embryos to be used for stem cell research. The statement by the Maltese government said the Horizon 2020 programme "does not take sufficiently into account the therapeutic potential of human adult stem cells."

Malta wants Europe to commit to a reinforcement of research on human adult stem cells, and that Europe should abstain from financing matters of fundamental ethical principles, which differ among member states.

See the rest here:
Malta opposing EU financing for stem cell research on embryos

Read More...

CHOC Children’s Research Project Awarded $5.5 Million Grant from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine

Wednesday, May 30th, 2012

ORANGE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

A CHOC Childrens research project, under the direction of Philip H. Schwartz, Ph.D., senior scientist at the CHOC Childrens Research Institute and managing director of the facilitys National Human Neural Stem Cell Resource, has been awarded a $5.5 million grant from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). The grant will be used to develop a stem cell-based therapy for the treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS I), a fatal metabolic disease that causes neurodegeneration, as well as defects in other major organ systems.

Based on a number of medical and experimental observations, children with inherited degenerative diseases of the brain are expected to be among the first to benefit from novel approaches based on stem cell therapy (SCT).

Dr. Schwartz explains, While uncommon, pediatric genetic neurodegenerative diseases account for a large burden of mortality and morbidity in young children. Hematopoietic (bone marrow) stem cell transplant (HSCT) can improve some non-neural symptoms of these diseases, but does not treat the deadly neurodegenerative process. Our approach targeting the effects of the disease on organs besides the brain with HSCT and neurodegeneration with a second stem cell therapy specifically designed to treat the brain is a strategy for whole-body treatment of MPS I. Our approach is also designed to avoid the need for immunosuppressive drugs to prevent rejection of the transplanted cells.

This research is designed to lead to experimental therapy, based on stem cells, by addressing two critical issues: early intervention is required and possible in this patient population; and teaching the immune system not to reject the transplanted cells is required. This research also sets the stage for efficient translation of this technology into clinical practice, by adapting transplant techniques that are standard in clinical practice or in clinical trials, and using laboratory cell biology methods that are easily transferrable to clinical cell manufacturing.

Nationally recognized for his work in the stem cell field, Dr. Schwartz research focuses on the use of stem cells to understand the neurobiological causes of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

Named one of the best childrens hospitals by U.S. News & World Report (2011-2012) and a 2011 Leapfrog Top Hospital, CHOC Children's is exclusively committed to the health and well-being of children through clinical expertise, advocacy, outreach and research that brings advanced treatment to pediatric patients.

Follow this link:
CHOC Children’s Research Project Awarded $5.5 Million Grant from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine

Read More...

Makati Medical Center now offering stem cell therapy

Tuesday, May 29th, 2012

THE MAKATI Medical Centers Cancer Center celebrated its first year anniversary and marked the occasion with the launch of its Cellular Therapeutics Laboratory. Present at the ribbon-cutting ceremony were Dr. Eric Flores, head, Spine Clinic and Stem Cell Lab; Rosalie Montenegro, Makati Medical Center president and CEO; Dr. ManuelO. Fernandez Jr., executive vice president and director, Professional Services; Dr. Remedios G. Suntay, director and treasurer, MDI Board; Dr. Benjamin N. Alimurung, medical director; Dr. Francis Chung, scientific officer, Stem Cell Lab; and Augusto P. Palisoc Jr., executive director, president and CEO, MPIC Hospital Group.

MAKATIMEDS Cellular Therapeutics Laboratory is managed by experienced scientists with extensive training and is affiliated with the International Society for Cellular Therapy.

Stem cell therapy is now being offered at Makati Medical Center (MMC) as potential cure for a wide range of illnesses, from various types of cancer and heart ailments to incurable diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons and Alzheimers.

Stem cell therapy is believed to be effective in bone marrow transplant for leukemia patients, and with early intervention, yields desirable results among renal and prostate cancer patients.

Launched in the first year anniversary of the hospitals cancer center, MMCs Cellular Therapeutics Laboratory is equipped with technology touted to be totally unmatched in our country, says Dr. Francis Chung, scientific officer of the lab. No system exists elsewhere.

Employing the strictest sterility standards at par with that of the US Food and Drug Administration, the lab has state-of-the-art facilities. The Clinimacs CD34 Reagent System is a machine that isolates specific cells needed for the procedure, while the Flow Cytomer ensures the purity of cultured cells.

Transplantation

Sourcing the stem cells, however, is what truly sets the Philippines premier health institution apart from chi-chi spas that also push stem cell therapy for beauty and anti-aging procedures.

At MMC, healthy stem cells are acquired from the patients themselves, a process known as autologous transplantation. For those suffering from an ailment, a parent, sibling or other close relative could be the donor. The hospital strives for utmost compatibility between patient and donor through a 10-point DNA matching system.

If a battery of tests finds a patient to be up to it, medication is given to prepare him for stem cell harvest.

Read the original:
Makati Medical Center now offering stem cell therapy

Read More...

Americans flocking to India for stem cell therapy

Monday, May 28th, 2012

Washington: A growing number of Americans are travelling to India to seek treatment for rare diseases through India's experimental embryonic stem cell therapy, according to an investigative report.

Among them Cash Burnaman, a 6-year-old South Carolina boy, who travelled with his parents to India seeking treatment for a rare genetic condition that has left him developmentally disabled, CNN reported.

"Cash is mute. He walks with the aid of braces. To battle his incurable condition, which is so rare it doesn't have a name, Cash has had to take an artificial growth hormone for most of his life," it said.

A growing number of Americans are travelling to India to seek treatment for rare diseases through experimental embryonic stem cell therapy.

His divorced parents, Josh Burnaman and Stephanie Krolick, have paid tens of thousands of dollars to have Cash undergo experimental injections of human embryonic stem cells at New Delhi's NuTech Mediworld run by Dr Geeta Shroff, a retired obstetrician and self-taught embryonic stem cell practitioner.

Shroff first treated Cash -- who presents symptoms similar to Down Syndrome -- in 2010. "I am helping improve their quality of life," she told CNN.

After five weeks of treatment, Cash and his parents returned home to the US. That's when Cash began walking with the aid of braces for the first time.

For four or five weeks of treatment, Shroff says she has charged her 87 American patients an average of $25,000.

But doctors cited by CNN said all that work and hope and money Cash's supporters have funnelled into his experimental therapy likely will have no medical benefits.

"There is zero evidence for what she (Shroff ) is doing being effective," Rutgers University's Dr Wise Young, a leading US neuroscientist, was quoted as saying.

See the original post here:
Americans flocking to India for stem cell therapy

Read More...

Thin Coverage of California Stem Cell Board Meeting

Sunday, May 27th, 2012


Media coverage of yesterday's $69
million in research awards and other matters involving the California
stem cell agency was nearly non-existent today.
That is not unusual, however, since the
$3 billion enterprise is not within the attention span of the
mainstream press and electronic outlets.
The California Stem Report could find
only two stories involving yesterday's actions. One by Ron Leuty
appeared in the San Francisco Business Times and was a look at the grant awards. The other appeared on Nature's website.
Unfortunately, Nature's lead was incorrect.
It said,

 "The California Institute of Regenerative Medicine
(CIRM)
voted on 24 May to accept a new strategic planwhich
shrinks or eliminates support for basic research, facilities and
training, while funneling more of its funds toward clinical
development."

The CIRM governing board actually put
off until at least July decisions on which programs to cut and which
to expand. Basic research is not likely, however, to take a major
hit, for a variety of reasons.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

A Look at the ‘Son of CIRM’ Proposal on the June California Ballot

Sunday, May 27th, 2012


In the last couple of weeks, two
well-respected Los Angeles Times columnists have visited what
might be called the "Son of CIRM" initiative on the
June ballot in California. It is aimed at fighting cancer by spending
$800 million or so annually on research with the money coming from a
$1-a-pack tax on cigarettes.

One of the columnists, Michael
Hiltzik
, said the measure, Proposition 29, is another
example of why California is a world leader in "paving the road to hell with good intentions." The other writer, George
Skelton, said,

"Prop. 29 would increase cancer
research. Reduce smoking. Save lives. Hurt the lying tobacco
companies. Good plan."

In his work at the Times, Hiltzik deals primarily with business
and financial news. He has written from time to time critically about
the $3 billion California stem cell agency.  Skelton is a longtime
observer of the Califorrnia political scene and has been around since
Pat Brown was governor.
In a column slated for publication
Sunday, Hiltzik said that the drafters of the cancer measure closely
examined Proposition 71, which created the stem cell agency in
2004, and "managed to reproduce the earlier measure's worst
features."
He said the Proposition 71 "retired
the trophy for doing the wrong thing in the wrong way for what sounds
like the right reasons." Hiltzik wrote,

"Proposition 71, you may recall, was sold to a gullible
public via candy-coated images of Christopher Reeve walking
again and Michael J. Fox cured of Parkinson's.
The implication was that these miracles would happen if voters
approved a $3-billion bond issue for stem cell research. Who could be
against that? 

 "As it turned out, the stem cell
measure created an unwieldy bureaucracy and etched conflicts of
interest into the state Constitution. By last count about 85% of the
$1.3 billion in grants handed out by the program, or some $1.1
billion, has gone to institutions with representatives on the stem
cell board. The program is virtually immune to oversight by the
Legislature or other elected officials. For these reasons and others,
it has grappled with only mixed success with changes in stem cell
science and politics that have called its original rationale into
question."

Hiltzik continued,

"Proposition
29, similarly, places most spending from the tobacco tax in the hands
of a nine-member board that must comprise one cardiovascular
physician affiliated with a California academic medical center; the
chancellors of UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco and UC
Santa Cruz
; two representatives of lobbying groups devoted to
tobacco-related illness (including one who has been treated for such
a disease); and three representatives from National Cancer
Institute
-designated cancer centers in the state. There are
10 of the latter, including five UC campuses and the City of Hope.
Plainly, every member of the board will represent an employer that
thinks it's in line for some of the money."

Skelton took a different approach on May 14. Using the words of a federal judge,
he lambasted the tobacco industry for its "a
certified history of deception, distortion and lying. And let's not
forget fraud and racketeering."
Skelton dealt with the current TV ads
being aired in California against the initiative. They criticize the
measure for its conflicts of interest and also say that the money
would be spent out of state.
Skelton wrote,

"The anti-29 side is hitting this
hard: that the research money generated in California could be spent
out of state. And the politest thing possible to say about that claim
is that it's disingenuous. It's stretching something that's
conceivable into a virtual certainty."

Skelton continued,

"The anti-29 camp charges that
(the structure of the board) would allow a conflict of interest in
awarding contracts. But there are state laws that protect against
such conflicts.

"Anyway, the tobacco crowd can't have it
both ways: complaining that the money could be spent outside
California and also griping when the system is set up to practically
guarantee that it will be spent in California."

Our take:
Ballot box budgeting – which is at
the heart of both the stem cell and cancer initiatives -- is one of the
reasons that California is staggering from one year to the next in a
perennial financial mess. Initiatives also sometimes create nasty
blowback that can damage the effort that they ostensibly serve. Such
is the case with the California stem cell agency, which suffers from
management and other minutia embedded in Proposition 71 that is virtually
politically impossible to change.
Hiltzik wrote,

"Gov. Brown's latest budget
proposal calls for cuts of $1.2 billion in Medi-Cal and
$900 million in CalWorks (a relief program for families with
children) and steep cuts in financial aid for college students and in
court budgets. The University of California and Cal State systems are
becoming crippled by 20 years of cutbacks in state funding,
leading to soaring tuition charges. Tobacco-related illnesses create
some of the burden on Medi-Cal and other public healthcare programs,
yet a minimal portion of Proposition 29 revenue, if any, would go to
helping taxpayers carry that burden. 

"With the overall state budget gap
approaching $16 billion, how can anyone make the case for diverting a
huge chunk of $800 million a year in new revenue to long-term
scientific research, whether in California or not? Even if you
believe that case can be made, the proper place to make it is in the
Legislature, where all these demands on the budget can be weighed and
balanced against one another — not at the ballot box, where the
only choice is to spend it the way the initiative's drafters choose
or not to raise it at all."

The California Stem Cell Report agrees
wholeheartedly.
(A personal disclosure: I worked for
Skelton when he was bureau chief for United Press International in
Sacramento some decades ago and consider him a friend. I am also
acquainted with Hiltzik but have not known him as long. I hold both
men in high regard.)

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

‘Sun Never Sets on CIRM’ – California Agency Awards $69 Million to Researchers

Sunday, May 27th, 2012


The California stem cell agency today
awarded $69 million in grants, including the first involving a collaboration with researchers in China, but none of the awards went to California
biotech businesses.
The awards were made in the agency's
third translational round, which funds projects that are in the
initial stage of identifying drugs or cell types that could become
drug therapies.
CIRM originally allocated $95 million
for the round, but CIRM spokesman Kevin McCormack said that grant
reviewers determined that no applications beyond $69 million were
worthy of funding.
The CIRM governing board overturned a negative
reviewer decision on one grant after the scientist – W. Douglas
Boyd
of UC Davis -- filed an appeal. The appeals of two other
researchers, including one from a San Diego business, were not successful (see here
and here).
CIRM did not disclose the number of
applications from businesses. The agency has been sharply
criticized for failing to fund businesses in a substantial way.
The approved grants involve
collaboration with researchers in Australia and Germany as well as
China. The collaborations are based on agreements worked out earlier
by CIRM with overseas groups, which fund their own countries' researchers. No CIRM cash is involved, according to the agency.
CIRM President Alan Trounson, a native
of Australia and researcher there until joining the stem cell agency,
said in a press release,

"The sun now never sets on the
CIRM collaborative projects..."

The news release also said,

 "The
Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology has committed roughly
$850,000 in collaboration with a team at UCSF to study liver failure.
This is the stem cell agency’s first joint effort with scientists
in China, which is home to a fast-growing stem cell research
community."

The UCSF liver team is led by Holger
Willenbring
, whose goal is "to develop a source of autologous
therapeutic cells for patients with liver disease who otherwise would
require a liver transplant," according to the CIRM review summary.
The agency did not spell out the details of how the collaboration
would work.
All of the winning applicants, with the
exception of a Salk researcher, work for institutions linked to at
least one of the 29-members of the CIRM governing board. CIRM
directors, however, are barred from voting or even discussing applications in which CIRM attorneys have determined there is a conflict
of interest.
You can find the names of all the successful applicants in the CIRM news release.    

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Page 88«..1020..87888990..100110..»


2025 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick