StemCell Therapy

Good news for millions of overweight Americans resolving to lose weight in 2012: the new gastric plication restrictive bariatric procedure features greater weight loss than banding and is device free, and Health Travel Technologies is sponsoring a free medical webcast for patients to learn all about it.

San Francisco CA (PRWEB) February 05, 2012

Will the gastric pleat beat the gastric band for restrictive weight loss surgery results? That's a topic on the agenda for the Health Travel Technologies live medical webcast on Friday February 10th at 12:00p PST.

The webcast is free for patients interested in learning information about the latest minimally invasive bariatric procedure to treat obesity, the gastric plication.

According to Health Travel Technologies director of patient information services Debbie Natsch, the gastric plication webcast series was developed with the input of the world’s leading obesity surgical team, including gastroenterologist surgeons, physician nutritionists, hospital administrators and bariatric nurses.

Natsch said the webcast provides participants with detailed information about the weight loss procedure, including a review of existing patient data from various clinical studies, as well as an opportunity to have questions answered by the medical team.

“In the past nine months we’ve had more than 1400 participants in our webcast series,” said Natsch. “It’s a great way for patients to learn about the specifics of a surgical procedure: everything from how the surgeon determines eligibility, to expectations for weight loss and life style changes after the procedure.”

“The gastric plication webcast is also a great way for participants to learn how the medical exchange system works; most patients are not intimately familiar with the very high level of quality and services accessible through medical exchange programs.”

The word “plication” means “to pleat” which describes the method of stomach restriction. The gastric plication involves a specialized suturing technique to restrict stomach capacity without the need for resection, implanted devices or surgical stapling.

The gastric plication weight loss surgery is performed laparoscopically, with patients hospitalized for 24-48 hours.

The gastric plication webcast is part of the weekly Patient Education Series sponsored by Health Travel Technologies, a Silicon Valley-based health information technology company specializing in cloud-based global patient referral and management applications.

According to Natsch, many surgeons find the gastric plication notable for its expected lower risk of complication compared to the more invasive gastric bypass and vertical sleeve gastrectomy procedures, while demonstrating similar weight loss outcomes.

“We’ve had a strong response to the gastric plication program,” shared Case Director Marci Mauro. “We have a robust roster of happy patients who demonstrating excellent weight loss and remission of many obesity complications, including type 2 diabetes,” said Mauro.

According to statistics published by the American Diabetes Association, 26 million Americans are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, with another 79 million classified as “pre-diabetic”. Diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death in the US and is linked to an increased likelihood of kidney failure, heart disease, stroke, and cancer diagnosis and death.

Type 2 diabetes has also been linked to lower lifetime income and professional opportunities.

“One of our own bariatric medical exchange Case Managers has had weight loss surgery with a Health Travel Technologies obesity surgical team, led by one of the world’s leading gastroenterologist surgical teams. We know first-hand that the gastric plication medical travel program is first-rate,” said Mauro.

About Medical Exchange International Health Care

“The American health care system is broken,” Health Travel Technologies CEO Herb Stephens points out. “Health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs have skyrocketed, often forcing people to defer necessary medical treatments, or hold fundraisers just to afford them.

Health Travel Technologies offers Americans – form the uninsured to t the underinsured to self-insured employers - a chance to easily access affordable health care for both essential and elective procedure with some of the best medical providers in the world,” said Stephens. “Usually at a savings rate of fifty percent or more.”

The practice of global patient medical exchange (also called medical travel, medical tourism and health travel) has become increasingly common as US health insurance costs continue to outstrip growth in workers’ wages.

The benefits of medical travel are being sought by self-insured US employers seeking to reduce the cost of employee health care benefits. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that the annual premium for family coverage through an employer increased 9% last year to $15,073.

“Health care really is a global market place now,” said Stephens. “It’s a great opportunity for Americans to make their medical dollar stretch farther, especially in a weak US economy with high employment uncertainty.”

About Health Travel Technologies

Founded in 2006, Health Travel Technologies is a Silicon Valley technology and services company that licenses its award-winning cloud-based Inpatra™ medical collaboration platform to major international hospitals, medical travel facilitators, physician practices, and insurance networks.

“Our patient referral services application platform that connects patients and doctors like never before,” said Stephens.

“Whether for patients traveling from Canada to Costa Rica or East Africa to India, Health Travel Technologies enables access to the world’s best medical care.”

Health Travel Technologies’ gastric plication live medical webcast is part of an ongoing Patient Information Series for medical travel treatment programs for bariatric procedures, orthopedic and spinal surgery, stem cell treatment for chronic disease, and functional cancer therapies.

Health Travel Technologies is a subsidiary of Health Travel Guides, is a privately held company.

###

Marci Mauro
Health Travel Technologies
(866) 978-2573 x130
Email Information

The rest is here:
Big News For Big Loser Wannabes: Health Travel Technologies Offers Free Live Medical Webcast on New Minimally Invasive ...

Interview with Dr. Zannos Grekos Grekos contests that his office has done ...

The state took action against Dr. Zannos Grekos because of the death of a 69-year-old breast cancer patient April 4, 2010, after undergoing the treatment at his Bonita Springs practice, at 9500 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 310.

BONITA SPRINGS — Dr. Zannos Grekos may not have an attorney representing him at a hearing next month against a state complaint that he performed an unauthorized stem cell procedure on a patient who later died.

Or maybe the Bonita Springs cardiologist will have new counsel for the three-day administrative hearing scheduled to begin March 20.

His original attorney, Greg Chaires of Orlando, withdrew from the case Jan. 24, less than two months before the hearing. He's been Grekos' attorney since the state filed an administrative complaint against the doctor a year ago.

Grekos couldn't be reached for comment at his practice, Regenocyte Therapeutic, 9500 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 310.

Chaires stated in his withdrawal notice to the judge that he had good cause to stop representing him, but didn't elaborate.

Florida health department spokeswoman Jennifer Hirst said this past week that Grekos has two weeks to hire a new attorney "and regardless of whether he does or not, the trial date will not change."

The case, which stems from events in early 2010, culminated a year later on Feb. 22, 2011, when the health department imposed an emergency restriction against his license. The restriction prohibits him from doing any procedures with bone marrow or stem cells in his practice.

If the administrative law judge sides with the state, Grekos could face sanctions or permanent restriction or revocation of his license.

At issue was Grekos' treatment of a 69-year-old woman who went to him for a consult on Feb. 25, 2010, for numbness and tingling in her arms and legs after chemotherapy.

Grekos ordered imaging of her carotid arteries and her brain and later injected her own aspirated bone marrow into her cerebral circulatory system.

At home that evening, she fell and was hospitalized. She had suffered a severe brain stem injury and was taken off life support on April 2, 2010.

Licensed in Florida since 1992, Grekos' cardiology practice in recent years has focused more on stem cell therapy to repair damaged heart muscle, lungs and other tissue.

He sends a sample of a patient's lung to Israel to cultivate new stem cells and the blood gets sent to a clinic or hospital in the Dominican Republic. The patient travels to the Dominican Republic, where the stem cells are injected into the damaged tissue.

Grekos has established a relationship with doctors and clinicians in the Dominican Republic who do the injections on his behalf; he isn't licensed to practice medicine there.

The case has captured widespread attention among Grekos' supporters who swear their once-chronic illnesses have undergone dramatic improvement since having the therapy through him. Detractors say he is taking advantage of a vulnerable population with congestive heart failure, lung failure and other illnesses for which conventional treatments no longer are effective.

Original post:
Bonita stem cell doctor's attorney quits, state hearing still scheduled

South Korea is playing a risky game as it has given the permission for using human eggs in cloning research despite a high level scandal in their country which involved one of their top scientists admitting to his involvement in doctored research work. Hwang Woo-suk was the scientist who had claimed that he had cloned human embryos and extracted stem cells from them but it was found out that all his claims were false. What raised eyes were when eggs required for research were donated by a female scientist in his team and this questioned the ethics of such practice. This shameful incident caused Hwang Woo-suk to resign from his post at the Seoul National University and is now facing trial for misappropriation of government funds. In order to get over the shameful act the government has again given a go ahead to use of human eggs in cloning but this time with an act of caution and under a new set of guidelines has asked that researchers should only use eggs which are to be destroyed after fertility treatments or from other legal ways and a prior license would have to be obtained from the government for undertaking research. It seems this time South Korea wants to take no chances. Via theage

Source:
http://www.biotechblog.org/rss.xml

The Cancer Stem Cell Consortium (CSCC) is a partner in the 2012 Large-Scale Applied Research Project Competition of Genome Canada, in collaboration with the first phase of the Personalized Medicine Signature Initiative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Genome Canada is leading the research competition. An excerpt from Fact Sheet: The Potential of Personalized Medicine:

Funding of $67.5M will come from Genome Canada ($40 million), CIHR ($22.5 million) and the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium ($5 million). Projects will be funded for a maximum of four years. To qualify for funding, researchers must obtain matching funding that at is least equal to that provided through the competition, which will bring the total investment in this research area to close to $140 million. Matching funding is typically derived from provincial, academic, private sector or international sources.

Details about the competition are available here.

Press releases, dated January 31, 2012, about the federal government's support for personalized medicine, are available here and here.

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

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

The Center for Genetics and Society has filed a brief statement with the Institute of Medicine panel examining the performance of the California stem cell agency, expressing the hope that the inquiry will include "a broader range of sources."

Marcy Darnovsky, associate executive director of the Berkeley group, said that "a meaningful review by (the IOM) committee could make an important contribution to needed changes at the agency." Darnovsky's organization has followed the stem cell effort since its inception.

She noted that CIRM is "a public agency spending increasingly scarce public resources" and has raised the possibility of seeking another multibillion dollar bond measure from voters.

The IOM inquiry has finished half of its public process and is yet to hear an independent analysis of the stem cell agency, which is paying $700,000 for the study.

Earlier Darnovsky told the California Stem Cell Report that the Institute of Medicine has not contacted her organization for comments, although she has spoken with the public relations person for the IOM.

Here is the text of Darnovsky's statement sent to the IOM.

"The Center for Genetics and Society is a public interest organization working to ensure responsible uses and effective societal governance of human genetic and reproductive technologies.  We support embryonic stem cell research, but have been concerned for some years about a number of aspects of the field, and of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine in particular.

"We have been closely following CIRM since the campaign for Proposition 71 that established it in 2004. We have attended numerous meetings of the agency’s governing board and Standards Working Group, worked with other public interest groups who share our concerns about CIRM, written frequently about CIRM in our publications, and been cited dozens of times in articles about CIRM in key state and national news outlets.

"In 2006, we published The California Stem Cell Program at One Year: A Progress Report, which assessed CIRM's performance to that date and offered recommendations. See http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/downloads/200601report.pdf

"In 2008, CGS policy analyst Jesse Reynolds gave invited testimony to the Little Hoover Commission’s hearing on CIRM. See http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=4386

"We are encouraged that the Institute of Medicine is undertaking an independent assessment of CIRM, though we hope that you will invite input from a broader range of sources than were represented at the meeting last month in San Francisco. With key questions about the future of CIRM unresolved, and its leadership contemplating a campaign for another bond measure.

"As I wrote in a recent commentary that expressed our disappointment with the roster of speakers at last month’s hearing,

"Ballot measure or no ballot measure, CIRM will continue to disperse the public money it controls – another billion and a half dollars. This is a public agency spending increasingly scarce public resources. It is funding a field of research in which we place great hopes for medical and scientific advances. These factors make it all the more crucial that CIRM follow the basics of good governance and public accountability, and eschew the hyperbole and exaggerated promises that have tainted stem cell research for so long.

"See  http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=6045

"Please let us know if we can be of help. We would be very glad to share our insights and recommendations."

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

The blue-ribbon panel examining the performance of the $3 billion California stem cell agency is midway through its public process and is yet to hear from a single independent witness during its open sessions.

The panel's report and recommendations are due this fall and are expected to have a major impact on the seven-year-old agency and its future.

So far, the IOM panel has heard only from employees or directors of the agency and persons representing institutions that have received $418 million in CIRM cash.

The panel of scientists and academics was put together by the prestigious Institute of Medicine under a $700,000 contract with the stem cell agency itself. At the 2010 meeting during which agency directors approved the contract, they expressed hope that the IOM panel's findings would bolster public support for another multibillion dollar bond measure for the agency, which expects to run out of funds for new grants in 2017.

Last week, the California Stem Cell Report asked the IOM about its plans to gather independent or critical information about the stem cell agency's performance. With only one more California public meeting scheduled, the IOM said that it is seeking the "full range of perspectives" but did not respond directly to questions about the specifics of how it is going to fulfill that task.

None of the four organizations in California that have an independent perspective on CIRM have been contacted by the IOM, the California Stem Cell Report has been told. They are the state's Little Hoover Commission, the Center for Genetics and Society, Consumer Watchdog and the Citizens Financial Accountability and Oversight Committee, which is the only state body specifically charged with oversight of CIRM and its directors and which is chaired by the state's top fiscal officer, Controller John Chiang. A spokeswoman for the IOM panel said, however, it plans to touch base with at least some of the four.

In response to questions from the California Stem Cell Report, Christine Stencel, the IOM spokeswoman, said the IOM also wants to hear comments from businesses whose applications have been rejected by CIRM. However, she said the panel is still working on "ways to get them." She did not respond directly to questions about how many of such businesses would be interviewed or how they would be selected. The tiny number of CIRM grants to business is a sore spot with industry. Even directors and CIRM's own "external review" panel have said much more is needed.

In response to a question about complaints about conflicts of interest on the part of CIRM reviewers, Stencel was also non-specific, saying only that the panel wants to "obtain all relevant insights." She did not respond directly to a question about whether the panel would examine "private complaints" filed with CIRM by rejected applicants.

Currently the IOM has forms posted online that interested parties, if they know about the existence of the forms, can use to comment on CIRM. We asked whether the panel plans to do more than passively post the forms, specifically whether it plans to email them to all CIRM applicants who were rejected. We also asked about IOM plans to follow up to generate an adequate response. Stencel said the IOM is "proactively working" to get survey responses but did not say what specific steps it was taking.

Our comment?

The IOM has a well-deserved reputation for rigor and thoroughness. However, the IOM is all but unknown to 99 pecent of the public, which will be the ultimate consumer of its findings on the stem cell agency. The fact that the IOM is being paid $700,000 by CIRM will undoubtedly raise questions in the minds of some about IOM's own objectivity. The panel itself consists of persons who have like-minded interests and sympathy with CIRM and its 485 grant recipients. No member of the panel is likely to publicly discourage more scientific research, even if CIRM is deemed to be failing to fulfill the voters expectations in 2004 when they created the agency. All the more reason to aggressively seek out those with contrary views about CIRM's performances, if the IOM's report is to have maximum credibility.

Earlier this week we heard from a knowledgeable and longtime observer of the research scene, who said that the IOM looks at things "differently than regular people" and views scientists who receive funding from CIRM as "independent." The IOM's Stencel responded by reiterating that the IOM is seeking the full range of information from the full range of sources.

The IOM evaluation of CIRM's performance is much too far along not to have progressed further with its attempts to hear from independent and critical voices about CIRM. Generalizations to the effect that "we are going to get to it" do not serve the panel well. The IOM should lay out publicly and quite specifically its plans to aggressively seek thoughtful analysis from parties that do not have financial or professional links to CIRM, as well as from those who feel they have received a short shrift from the $3 billion enterprise.

You can read the full text of the questions from the California Stem Cell Report and the IOM responses here.

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

Here is the text of questions from the California Stem Cell Report and answers from the Institute of Medicine concerning its plans to secure independent perspectives during the IOM's examination of the California stem cell agency. So far, the IOM has not heard publicly from any independent sources.

Christine Stencel, a spokeswoman for the IOM, responded for the IOM. She first gave an overall statement. Then she answered the specific queries. We have inserted the questions from the California Stem Cell Report into her text  in order to make the Q&A easier to follow.

The IOM's general comment:

"The committee and staff are planning their next info gathering sessions. Specifics of these events haven't all been worked out yet, but one overall point is that the committee believes it is important to hear the full range of perspectives and experiences with CIRM and the committee members are actively pursuing sources of information that will allow them to adequately answer the questions they've been tasked to explore. The study is ongoing and there are still a lot of people and resources to tap and information to learn.

"To your specific questions:"

California Stem Cell Report:

"Does the IOM have plans to talk with or seek statements from such groups as the Little Hoover Commission and the Center for Genetics and Society or state Controller John Chiang?"

IOM response:

"Yes. And the committee is reading all the past reviews of CIRM."

California Stem Cell Report:

"Does the IOM plan to seek comments from grant applicants rejected by CIRM, particularly businesses? If so how many? How would such applicants be selected by the IOM for interviews or comments?"

IOM response:

"Yes, the committee wishes to hear these perspectives and is seeking ways to get them."

California Stem Cell Report:

"Does the IOM plan to do more than passively post forms for comment from others? Does it plan to email those forms, for example, to all CIRM grant recipients and applicants who were rejected? Does it plan to follow up to be sure an adequate response is generated?"

IOM response:

"The IOM is proactively working to get survey responses and encouraging people to respond."

California Stem Cell Report:

"What does the IOM mean by 'industry partners' on its (online) forms for comment?"

IOM response:

"Industry partners means CIRM investigators representing for-profit companies."

California Stem Cell Report:

"Does the IOM plan to examine both public and private complaints about conflicts of interest on the part of CIRM grant reviewers? By private, I mean written complaints to CIRM that the agency retains but has not made public."

IOM response:

"The committee is looking into the grants review process and working to make sure that the members obtain all relevant insights and information. The committee members intend to invite people who can provide a broad range of experiences with and perspectives of CIRM to the upcoming meeting in April."

The California Stem Cell Report later asked the IOM if it wanted to comment on a quote that we were considering using, which said,

"In the eyes of the IOM, scientists who draw funding from CIRM and other sources are 'independent.' They look at these things differently than regular people would."

The IOM responded,

"As to the quote you sent, as a response we would just reiterate that the committee is methodically going about its task and during the course of the study aims to gather the full range of information, experiences, and insights relevant to CIRM from a full range of sources."

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

The prestigious journal Nature today said that asking California voters for more billions for stem cell research in a few years "may strike residents as a luxury that they can ill afford."

The comment came in a piece by Erika Check Hayden dealing with the future of the California stem cell agency, which is expected to run out of money for new grants in about 2017. She wrote,

"Given that California is facing severe budget shortfalls, several billion dollars more for stem-cell science may strike residents as a luxury that they can ill afford. It may also prove difficult for CIRM’s supporters to point to any treatments that have emerged from the state’s investment. So far, the agency has funded only one clinical trial using embryonic stem cells, and that was halted by its sponsor, Geron of Menlo Park, California, last November.

"Yet the institute has spent just over $1 billion on new buildings and labs, basic research, training and translational research, often for projects that scientists say are crucial and would be difficult to get funded any other way. So the prospect of a future without CIRM is provoking unease. 'It would be a very different landscape if CIRM were not around,' says Howard Chang, a dermatologist and genome scientist at Stanford University in California."

Chang was a scheduled witness recently at a public meeting in California of the blue-ribbon Institute of Medicine panel examining the performance of the Golden State's $3 billion stem cell research effort. Chang is the recipient of $3.2 million in CIRM funding. Hayden wrote,

"Chang has a CIRM grant to examine epigenetics in human embryonic stem cells, and is part of another CIRM-funded team that is preparing a developmental regulatory protein for use as a regenerative therapy. Both projects would be difficult to continue without the agency, he says. Federal funding for research using human embryonic stem cells remains controversial, and could dry up altogether after the next presidential election (see Nature 481, 421–423; 2012). And neither of Chang’s other funders — the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland — supports his interdisciplinary translational work. Irina Conboy, a stem-cell engineer at the University of California, Berkeley, who draws half of her lab’s funding from CIRM, agrees that in supporting work that has specific clinical goals, the agency occupies a niche that will not easily be filled by basic-research funders. 'The NIH might say that the work does not have a strong theoretical component, so you’re not learning anything new,' she says."

Conboy was also a scheduled witness at the IOM hearing. She holds $2.2 million in CIRM grants.

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

The Cancer Stem Cell Consortium (CSCC) is a partner in the 2012 Large-Scale Applied Research Project Competition of Genome Canada, in collaboration with the first phase of the Personalized Medicine Signature Initiative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Genome Canada is leading the research competition. An excerpt from Fact Sheet: The Potential of Personalized Medicine:

Funding of $67.5M will come from Genome Canada ($40 million), CIHR ($22.5 million) and the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium ($5 million). Projects will be funded for a maximum of four years. To qualify for funding, researchers must obtain matching funding that at is least equal to that provided through the competition, which will bring the total investment in this research area to close to $140 million. Matching funding is typically derived from provincial, academic, private sector or international sources.

Details about the competition are available here.

Press releases, dated January 31, 2012, about the federal government's support for personalized medicine, are available here and here.

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

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

The Center for Genetics and Society has filed a brief statement with the Institute of Medicine panel examining the performance of the California stem cell agency, expressing the hope that the inquiry will include "a broader range of sources."

Marcy Darnovsky, associate executive director of the Berkeley group, said that "a meaningful review by (the IOM) committee could make an important contribution to needed changes at the agency." Darnovsky's organization has followed the stem cell effort since its inception.

She noted that CIRM is "a public agency spending increasingly scarce public resources" and has raised the possibility of seeking another multibillion dollar bond measure from voters.

The IOM inquiry has finished half of its public process and is yet to hear an independent analysis of the stem cell agency, which is paying $700,000 for the study.

Earlier Darnovsky told the California Stem Cell Report that the Institute of Medicine has not contacted her organization for comments, although she has spoken with the public relations person for the IOM.

Here is the text of Darnovsky's statement sent to the IOM.

"The Center for Genetics and Society is a public interest organization working to ensure responsible uses and effective societal governance of human genetic and reproductive technologies.  We support embryonic stem cell research, but have been concerned for some years about a number of aspects of the field, and of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine in particular.

"We have been closely following CIRM since the campaign for Proposition 71 that established it in 2004. We have attended numerous meetings of the agency’s governing board and Standards Working Group, worked with other public interest groups who share our concerns about CIRM, written frequently about CIRM in our publications, and been cited dozens of times in articles about CIRM in key state and national news outlets.

"In 2006, we published The California Stem Cell Program at One Year: A Progress Report, which assessed CIRM's performance to that date and offered recommendations. See http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/downloads/200601report.pdf

"In 2008, CGS policy analyst Jesse Reynolds gave invited testimony to the Little Hoover Commission’s hearing on CIRM. See http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=4386

"We are encouraged that the Institute of Medicine is undertaking an independent assessment of CIRM, though we hope that you will invite input from a broader range of sources than were represented at the meeting last month in San Francisco. With key questions about the future of CIRM unresolved, and its leadership contemplating a campaign for another bond measure.

"As I wrote in a recent commentary that expressed our disappointment with the roster of speakers at last month’s hearing,

"Ballot measure or no ballot measure, CIRM will continue to disperse the public money it controls – another billion and a half dollars. This is a public agency spending increasingly scarce public resources. It is funding a field of research in which we place great hopes for medical and scientific advances. These factors make it all the more crucial that CIRM follow the basics of good governance and public accountability, and eschew the hyperbole and exaggerated promises that have tainted stem cell research for so long.

"See  http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=6045

"Please let us know if we can be of help. We would be very glad to share our insights and recommendations."

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

The blue-ribbon panel examining the performance of the $3 billion California stem cell agency is midway through its public process and is yet to hear from a single independent witness during its open sessions.

The panel's report and recommendations are due this fall and are expected to have a major impact on the seven-year-old agency and its future.

So far, the IOM panel has heard only from employees or directors of the agency and persons representing institutions that have received $418 million in CIRM cash.

The panel of scientists and academics was put together by the prestigious Institute of Medicine under a $700,000 contract with the stem cell agency itself. At the 2010 meeting during which agency directors approved the contract, they expressed hope that the IOM panel's findings would bolster public support for another multibillion dollar bond measure for the agency, which expects to run out of funds for new grants in 2017.

Last week, the California Stem Cell Report asked the IOM about its plans to gather independent or critical information about the stem cell agency's performance. With only one more California public meeting scheduled, the IOM said that it is seeking the "full range of perspectives" but did not respond directly to questions about the specifics of how it is going to fulfill that task.

None of the four organizations in California that have an independent perspective on CIRM have been contacted by the IOM, the California Stem Cell Report has been told. They are the state's Little Hoover Commission, the Center for Genetics and Society, Consumer Watchdog and the Citizens Financial Accountability and Oversight Committee, which is the only state body specifically charged with oversight of CIRM and its directors and which is chaired by the state's top fiscal officer, Controller John Chiang. A spokeswoman for the IOM panel said, however, it plans to touch base with at least some of the four.

In response to questions from the California Stem Cell Report, Christine Stencel, the IOM spokeswoman, said the IOM also wants to hear comments from businesses whose applications have been rejected by CIRM. However, she said the panel is still working on "ways to get them." She did not respond directly to questions about how many of such businesses would be interviewed or how they would be selected. The tiny number of CIRM grants to business is a sore spot with industry. Even directors and CIRM's own "external review" panel have said much more is needed.

In response to a question about complaints about conflicts of interest on the part of CIRM reviewers, Stencel was also non-specific, saying only that the panel wants to "obtain all relevant insights." She did not respond directly to a question about whether the panel would examine "private complaints" filed with CIRM by rejected applicants.

Currently the IOM has forms posted online that interested parties, if they know about the existence of the forms, can use to comment on CIRM. We asked whether the panel plans to do more than passively post the forms, specifically whether it plans to email them to all CIRM applicants who were rejected. We also asked about IOM plans to follow up to generate an adequate response. Stencel said the IOM is "proactively working" to get survey responses but did not say what specific steps it was taking.

Our comment?

The IOM has a well-deserved reputation for rigor and thoroughness. However, the IOM is all but unknown to 99 pecent of the public, which will be the ultimate consumer of its findings on the stem cell agency. The fact that the IOM is being paid $700,000 by CIRM will undoubtedly raise questions in the minds of some about IOM's own objectivity. The panel itself consists of persons who have like-minded interests and sympathy with CIRM and its 485 grant recipients. No member of the panel is likely to publicly discourage more scientific research, even if CIRM is deemed to be failing to fulfill the voters expectations in 2004 when they created the agency. All the more reason to aggressively seek out those with contrary views about CIRM's performances, if the IOM's report is to have maximum credibility.

Earlier this week we heard from a knowledgeable and longtime observer of the research scene, who said that the IOM looks at things "differently than regular people" and views scientists who receive funding from CIRM as "independent." The IOM's Stencel responded by reiterating that the IOM is seeking the full range of information from the full range of sources.

The IOM evaluation of CIRM's performance is much too far along not to have progressed further with its attempts to hear from independent and critical voices about CIRM. Generalizations to the effect that "we are going to get to it" do not serve the panel well. The IOM should lay out publicly and quite specifically its plans to aggressively seek thoughtful analysis from parties that do not have financial or professional links to CIRM, as well as from those who feel they have received a short shrift from the $3 billion enterprise.

You can read the full text of the questions from the California Stem Cell Report and the IOM responses here.

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

Here is the text of questions from the California Stem Cell Report and answers from the Institute of Medicine concerning its plans to secure independent perspectives during the IOM's examination of the California stem cell agency. So far, the IOM has not heard publicly from any independent sources.

Christine Stencel, a spokeswoman for the IOM, responded for the IOM. She first gave an overall statement. Then she answered the specific queries. We have inserted the questions from the California Stem Cell Report into her text  in order to make the Q&A easier to follow.

The IOM's general comment:

"The committee and staff are planning their next info gathering sessions. Specifics of these events haven't all been worked out yet, but one overall point is that the committee believes it is important to hear the full range of perspectives and experiences with CIRM and the committee members are actively pursuing sources of information that will allow them to adequately answer the questions they've been tasked to explore. The study is ongoing and there are still a lot of people and resources to tap and information to learn.

"To your specific questions:"

California Stem Cell Report:

"Does the IOM have plans to talk with or seek statements from such groups as the Little Hoover Commission and the Center for Genetics and Society or state Controller John Chiang?"

IOM response:

"Yes. And the committee is reading all the past reviews of CIRM."

California Stem Cell Report:

"Does the IOM plan to seek comments from grant applicants rejected by CIRM, particularly businesses? If so how many? How would such applicants be selected by the IOM for interviews or comments?"

IOM response:

"Yes, the committee wishes to hear these perspectives and is seeking ways to get them."

California Stem Cell Report:

"Does the IOM plan to do more than passively post forms for comment from others? Does it plan to email those forms, for example, to all CIRM grant recipients and applicants who were rejected? Does it plan to follow up to be sure an adequate response is generated?"

IOM response:

"The IOM is proactively working to get survey responses and encouraging people to respond."

California Stem Cell Report:

"What does the IOM mean by 'industry partners' on its (online) forms for comment?"

IOM response:

"Industry partners means CIRM investigators representing for-profit companies."

California Stem Cell Report:

"Does the IOM plan to examine both public and private complaints about conflicts of interest on the part of CIRM grant reviewers? By private, I mean written complaints to CIRM that the agency retains but has not made public."

IOM response:

"The committee is looking into the grants review process and working to make sure that the members obtain all relevant insights and information. The committee members intend to invite people who can provide a broad range of experiences with and perspectives of CIRM to the upcoming meeting in April."

The California Stem Cell Report later asked the IOM if it wanted to comment on a quote that we were considering using, which said,

"In the eyes of the IOM, scientists who draw funding from CIRM and other sources are 'independent.' They look at these things differently than regular people would."

The IOM responded,

"As to the quote you sent, as a response we would just reiterate that the committee is methodically going about its task and during the course of the study aims to gather the full range of information, experiences, and insights relevant to CIRM from a full range of sources."

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

The prestigious journal Nature today said that asking California voters for more billions for stem cell research in a few years "may strike residents as a luxury that they can ill afford."

The comment came in a piece by Erika Check Hayden dealing with the future of the California stem cell agency, which is expected to run out of money for new grants in about 2017. She wrote,

"Given that California is facing severe budget shortfalls, several billion dollars more for stem-cell science may strike residents as a luxury that they can ill afford. It may also prove difficult for CIRM’s supporters to point to any treatments that have emerged from the state’s investment. So far, the agency has funded only one clinical trial using embryonic stem cells, and that was halted by its sponsor, Geron of Menlo Park, California, last November.

"Yet the institute has spent just over $1 billion on new buildings and labs, basic research, training and translational research, often for projects that scientists say are crucial and would be difficult to get funded any other way. So the prospect of a future without CIRM is provoking unease. 'It would be a very different landscape if CIRM were not around,' says Howard Chang, a dermatologist and genome scientist at Stanford University in California."

Chang was a scheduled witness recently at a public meeting in California of the blue-ribbon Institute of Medicine panel examining the performance of the Golden State's $3 billion stem cell research effort. Chang is the recipient of $3.2 million in CIRM funding. Hayden wrote,

"Chang has a CIRM grant to examine epigenetics in human embryonic stem cells, and is part of another CIRM-funded team that is preparing a developmental regulatory protein for use as a regenerative therapy. Both projects would be difficult to continue without the agency, he says. Federal funding for research using human embryonic stem cells remains controversial, and could dry up altogether after the next presidential election (see Nature 481, 421–423; 2012). And neither of Chang’s other funders — the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland — supports his interdisciplinary translational work. Irina Conboy, a stem-cell engineer at the University of California, Berkeley, who draws half of her lab’s funding from CIRM, agrees that in supporting work that has specific clinical goals, the agency occupies a niche that will not easily be filled by basic-research funders. 'The NIH might say that the work does not have a strong theoretical component, so you’re not learning anything new,' she says."

Conboy was also a scheduled witness at the IOM hearing. She holds $2.2 million in CIRM grants.

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

Editor's Choice
Academic Journal
Main Category: Neurology / Neuroscience
Also Included In: Stem Cell Research;  Rehabilitation / Physical Therapy
Article Date: 04 Feb 2012 - 10:00 PST

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

Current Article Ratings:

Patient / Public: Healthcare Prof:
The February edition of Neurosurgery reports that animal experiments in brain-injured rats have shown that stem cells injected via the carotid artery travel directly to the brain, greatly enhancing functional recovery. The study demonstrates, according to leading researcher Dr Toshiya Osanai, of Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine in Sapporo, Japan, that the carotid artery injection technique could, together with some form of in-vivo optical imaging to track the stem cells after transplantation, potentially be part of a new approach for stem cell transplantation in human brain trauma injuries (TBI).

Dr. Osanai and team assessed a new "intra-arterial" technique of stem cell transplantation in rats, with the aim of delivering the stem cells directly to the brain without having to go through the general circulation. They induced TBI in the animals before injecting stem cells into the carotid artery seven days later.

The stem cells were obtained from the rats' bone marrow and were labeled with "quantum dots" prior to being injected. Quantom dots are a biocompatible, fluorescent semiconductor created with nanotechnology that emit near-infrared light with much longer wavelengths that penetrate bone and skin, enabling a non-invasive method of monitoring the stem cells for a period of four weeks following transplantation.

This in vivo optical imaging technique enabled the scientists to observe that the injected stem cells entered the brain on the first attempt, without entering the general circulation. They observed that the stem cells started migrating from the capillaries into the injured part of the brain within three hours.

At week 4, the researchers noted that the rats in the stem cell transplant group achieved a substantial recovery of motor function, compared with the untreated animals that had no signs of recovery.

The team learnt, after examining the treated brains, that the stem cells had transformed into different brain cell types and aided in healing the injured brain area.

Over the last few years, the potential of stem cell therapy for curing and treating illnesses and conditions has been growing rapidly. Below is a list of some of its possible uses.

Stem cells represent a potential, new important method of treatment for those who suffered brain injuries, TBI and stroke. But even though bone marrow stem cells, similar to the ones used in the new study, are a promising source of donor cells, many questions remain open regarding the optimal timing, dose and route of stem cell delivery.

In the new animal study, the rats were injected with the stem cells one week after TBI. This is a "clinically relevant" time, given that this is the minimum time it takes to develop stem cells from bone marrow.

Transplanting the stem cells into the carotid artery is a fairly simple procedure that delivers the cells directly to the brain.

The experiments have also provided key evidence that stem cell treatment can promote healing after TBI with a substantial recovery of function.

Dr. Osanai and team write that by using in vivo optical imaging:

"The present study was the first to successfully track donor cells that were intra-arterially transplanted into the brain of living animals over four weeks."

A similar form of imaging technology could also prove beneficial for monitoring the effects of stem cell transplantation in humans, although the tracking will pose challenges, due to the human skull and scalp being much thicker than in rats.

The researchers conclude:

"Further studies are warranted to apply in vivo
optical imaging clinically."

Written by Petra Rattue
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Visit our neurology / neuroscience section for the latest news on this subject. "Therapeutic Effects of Intra-Arterial Delivery of Bone Marrow Stromal Cells in Traumatic Brain Injury of Rats—In Vivo Cell Tracking Study by Near-Infrared Fluorescence Imaging"
Osanai, Toshiya; Kuroda, Satoshi; Sugiyama, Taku; Kawabori, Masahito; Ito, Masaki; Shichinohe, Hideo; Kuge, Yuji; Houkin, Kiyohiro; Tamaki, Nagara; Iwasaki, Yoshinobu
Neurosurgery. 70(2):435-444, February 2012. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e318230a795 Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Petra Rattue. "Treating Brain Injuries With Stem Cell Transplants - Promising Results." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 4 Feb. 2012. Web.
4 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/241215.php&gt;

APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

Rate this article:
(Hover over the stars then click to rate) Patient / Public:
or Health Professional:

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.

Read more from the original source:
Treating Brain Injuries With Stem Cell Transplants - Promising Results

Editor's Choice
Main Category: Liver Disease / Hepatitis
Also Included In: Stem Cell Research
Article Date: 03 Feb 2012 - 11:00 PST

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

Current Article Ratings:

Patient / Public: Healthcare Prof:
Hepatitis C is a viral disease that leads to inflammation and organ failure. However, researchers are puzzled as to why some individuals are very susceptible to the disease, while others are not.

Researchers believe they could find out how genetic variations produce these different responses by investigating liver cells from different individuals in the lab. However, liver cells are hard to obtain and extremely challenging to grow in a lab dish as they often lose their normal function and structure when removed from the body.

Now, scientists from MIT, Rockefeller University and the Medical College of Wisconsin have found a technique to generate liver-like cells from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). iPSCs are created from body tissues instead of embryos; the liver-like cells that can be infected with hepatitis C. iPSCs could allow researchers to investigate why individuals respond differently to the disease. The study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Although many research terms have tried to established an infection in cells obtained from iPSCs, this study is the first to have done so. In addition, the new technique could eventually facilitate "personalized medicine." Using tissues obtained from the patient being treated, doctors could test the effectiveness of various medications and customize a treatment for that individual patient.

This study is a joint effort between Sangeeta Bhatia, the John and Dorothy Wilson Professor of Health Sciences and Technology and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT; Charles Rice, a professor of virology at Rockefeller; and Stephen Duncan, a professor of human and molecular genetics at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

In 2011, Bhatia and Rice revealed that by growing liver cells on special micropatterned plates that direct their organization, they could influence the cells to grow outside the body. Although, these cells can be infected with hepatitis C, researchers cannot proactively research the role of genetic variation in viral responses, as the cells derive from organs donated for transplantation and represent only a small population.

Bhatia and Rice collaborated with Duncan, who had demonstrated that he could transform iPSCs into liver-like cells, in order to produce cells with more genetic variation.

Often, such iPSCs are taken from skin cells. Researchers can restore these cells to an immature state - the same as embryonic stem cells - which can differentiate into any cell type by switching on specific genes in those cells. The cells can then be directed, once they become pluripotent, to become liver-like cells by switching on genes that regulate liver development.

In this study, MIT postdoc Robert Schwartz and graduate student Kartik Trehan infected those liver-like cells with hepatitis C. They created the viruses to expel a light-producing protein each time they went through their life cycle in order to confirm that infection had taken place.

The primary goal for the team is to obtain cells from individuals who had unusual reactions to hepatitis C infection and transform them into liver cells in order to research their genetics to find out why they responded the way they did.

Bhatia explains:

"Hepatitis C virus causes an unusually robust infection in some people, while others are very good at clearing it. It's not yet known why those differences exist."

One possible reason may be genetic variations in the expression of immune molecules, such as interleukin-28, a protein that has been demonstrated to play a vital role in the response to hepatitis infection. Other potential factors include, cell's susceptibility to having viruses control their replication machinery and other cellular structures, as well as cell's expression of surface proteins that allow the virus to penetrate the cells.

Bhatia explains the liver-like cells generated in this investigation are similar to "late fetal" liver cells. The team is currently working on producing more mature liver cells.

The long-term goal for the team is personalized treatments for individuals with hepatitis. According to Bhatia one could imagine obtaining cells from an individual, making iPSCs, reprogramming them into liver cells and infecting them with the same strain of hepatitis that the individual has. This would allow doctors to test various medications on the cells to find out which ones are better at clearing the infection.

Written by Grace Rattue
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Visit our liver disease / hepatitis section for the latest news on this subject.

Source: MIT

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Grace Rattue. "Hepatitis Research May Benefit From Stem Cells." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 3 Feb. 2012. Web.
4 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/241164.php&gt;

APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

Rate this article:
(Hover over the stars then click to rate) Patient / Public:
or Health Professional:

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.

View post:
Hepatitis Research May Benefit From Stem Cells

WASHINGTON — Dismissing economic sanctions that are beginning to bite, Iran's supreme leader said Friday that his country wouldn't bow to Western demands that it stop enriching uranium and warned that a war over its nuclear program would be "10 times more harmful" to the United States.

"The Americans and others should, and do, know that we have our own threats to confront the military threats and oil sanctions and when necessary. We will make use of them at the right time," declared Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to an English transcript of his remarks posted on his official website.

Khamenei delivered the fiery, nationally broadcast sermon at Friday prayers at Tehran University amid rising tensions over Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran contends is producing uranium fuel for civilian nuclear reactors and the United States and other powers charge is secretly developing a nuclear warhead.

The Obama administration is growing increasingly concerned that Israel — dubious that sanctions will force Iran to halt its program before it attains the ability to build a bomb — will strike Iranian nuclear facilities in the coming months. The White House also has repeatedly refused to rule out U.S. military action as a last resort.

While Khamenei's speech may have been designed to warn off the United States and Israel, his harsh tone may primarily have been aimed at rallying domestic support for his unpopular regime, especially as Iran marks the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution. The country also is heading into parliamentary elections next month with the sanctions stoking inflation, choking off hard currency supplies and forcing a devaluation of the Iranian rial.

Moreover, nothing that Khamenei said dampened expectations among U.S. and European officials and experts that Tehran may soon accept an invitation to renew international negotiations on its nuclear program — something that Iranian officials insist they favor.

"Nothing he (Khamenei) said is terribly surprising or different than what he's said in the past," said Robin Wright of the U.S. Institute of Peace. "I expect the Iranians to go back to the table."

In his rare public sermon, Khamenei declared that Iran won't heed U.N. demands to suspend uranium enrichment despite four rounds of U.N. sanctions and separate measures by the United States and the European Union designed to choke off Iranian oil sales, the country's main revenue source.

"The goal of these sanctions is to force Iran to back down, but Iran will not back down," Khamenei declared.

U.S. officials "constantly make threats, saying all options are on the table, that is to say even a military attack. This military threat is harmful to America and an actual war would be 10 times more harmful to America," he said.

Khamenei didn't elaborate on how Iran might respond. But Iran has threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow waterway at the southern end of the Persian Gulf through which 40 percent of the world's seaborne oil travels — a development that could send world oil prices skyrocketing, dealing a major blow to the U.S. economy just as it's recovering from the Great Recession.

Iran also could launch ballistic missile attacks against U.S. forces in the region and Israel, and sponsor terrorist strikes against U.S. and European targets around the world.

The Iranian leader also had harsh words for Israel, saying that "from now on, whenever a nation or a group fights and confronts the Zionist regime, we will support and help it, and we are not at all afraid of saying this."

Khamenei said that the sanctions were imposed not only to force Iran to halt its nuclear program, but to "punish the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation for being committed to Islam."

"But the truth is, these sanctions will benefit us," he continued, saying that a U.N. arms embargo has compelled Iran to develop its own military industries and that other sanctions have led the country to develop its expertise in nuclear physics, "stem cell research, aerospace and launching satellites into space."

His speech came the same day as Iran announced that it had successfully launched a small satellite into orbit.

The United States and the European Union are hoping that the sanctions will force Iran to accept an offer to negotiate a suspension of its nuclear program and safeguards to ensure its use for civilian purposes in return for trade, financial assistance and other benefits.

The last round of talks collapsed just over a year ago. The European Union late last year invited Iran to resume the negotiations with the United States, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany.

Iranian officials say they are open to resuming the talks, but U.S. and EU officials insist that Tehran must agree in writing to resume negotiations without preconditions.

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY

Possible showdown with Iran sends oil prices soaring

Iran now may support attack in U.S., official says

Europe, U.S. impose new Iran sanctions but repeat offer for talks

Follow Jonathan S. Landay on Twitter

Visit link:
Iranian leader dismisses sanctions, warns U.S. against war

Do you remember when we used to think some things were impossible? Modern technology has taught us to never say never or impossible. I think about the 1970s and 1980s growing up without cell phones, computers and many of the electronically advanced gadgets that our kids today take for granted. I can’t even imagine what the great innovators will come up with next.

When I was a young child, I remember watching science fiction movies about cloning people and remember how obscure and unbelievable it seemed at the time. It was common knowledge that cloning was strictly science fiction. Now, cloning is not only possible, but a procedure that has occurred with astonishing success. Fortunately, cloning has only been performed with animals and not yet humans.

Medically speaking, one of the most popular and potentially one of the most substantial advances in modern medicine is stem cell research and therapy. Initially, stem cell research was met with a great deal of resistance and controversy. The reason stem cell research had trouble getting started was because stem cells could only be collected from fetuses. With time, scientists have successfully harvested stem cells from other sources.

Stem cells are primitive or extremely young cells which are capable of dividing and changing into a variety of cell types. They have the ability to develop into cells that form muscle, cartilage, bone or other tissues. One of the remarkable findings about stem cells is that they seem to detect and “know” which tissue is damaged and automatically change into the cells needing repaired.

In actuality, the damaged tissue sends some type of signal to the stem cells allowing them to respond and promote healing of the injured tissues. Essentially, stem cells have the ability to grow into mature tissue cells wherever they are needed and this makes them very useful for repairing certain body tissues damaged by injury, disease and possibly aging.

Stem cell treatment is a type of medical therapy called regenerative medicine. Regenerative medicine is simply a category of medical therapy pertaining to growing new tissue. Although stem cell therapy is an extremely unique and obviously beneficial type of medical treatment, it is also a very vast field of medical research and certainly has not been completely perfected. There are countless possibilities and applications for stem cell therapy and medical researchers have barely scratched the surface with regards to stem cell potential.

Until now the gold standard for treating arthritis in pets has been to give them anti-inflammatory medications, joint supplements and sometimes acupuncture. Over the years, these types of medications have improved greatly and pets have benefitted wonderfully from receiving this kind of treatment. However, even with the improvements, these medications have potential side effects. Sometimes, the side effects may even outweigh the benefits, depending on the individual circumstance.

Therefore, stem cell therapy offers treatment that doesn’t just relieve the symptoms, but actually regenerates or grows new tissue allowing for complete healing and without side effects. Presently, there are some stem cell applications already being used in veterinary medicine!

Recently, veterinary specialists have developed a technique for collecting stem cells from fat tissue and administering the stem cells into dogs, cats and horses specifically for treatment of arthritis. The process involves collecting a small amount of fat from the patient and then the fat is placed into a machine which extracts and concentrates stem cells. Next, the stem cells are injected back into the patient’s joints forthe treatment of arthritis.

There is a certain protocol for proceeding with the stem cell therapy. First, a definitive diagnosis of arthritis, using X-rays, must be made by your veterinarian. Additionally, your pet would need a complete workup including blood tests and additional X-rays to rule out any other disease processes such as infection or cancer. Any patient with cancer would not be a good candidate for stem cell therapy and any infection would need to be cleared prior to stem cell therapy.

Following the initial workup, your pet would be sedated or anesthetized for surgical collection of fat tissue. The fat tissue would then be sent to a lab to have the stem cells extracted and processed from the fat. Then, your pet would need to be sedated again to administer the injections containing the stem cells into their arthritic joints.

In pets, stem cell therapy is primarily available and being used for arthritis. However, I have no doubt that it won’t be long before stem cell therapy will be used in pets to treat many diseases and conditions. It has already shown to be effective for diabetes, allergies, gastrointestinal diseases, pancreatitis and many other diseases.

If you have a pet that you think might be suffering from arthritis, contact your veterinarian as soon as possible to consider stem cell therapy and to ensure your pet lives a long, healthy and happy life.

Go here to read the rest:
The Pet Corner: Behold! The future of modern medicine is here

30-01-2012 09:58 Doctors in Toronto, Canada perform a successful procedure using embryonic stem cells to treat macular degeneration which causes blindness.

Excerpt from:
Stem Cells Offer Hope For The Blind - Video