Guide to FDA Hearing on “Draft Guidances” Regulating Cells and Tissues (Part 15)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I appreciate your intensity and zealousness. The way you talk makes you look like a fanatic. You're attacking the wrong people. The data and science just isn't there to support that this will change osteoarthritis and make it not a part of normal aging. When the science gets done and I know it's being looked at we can make that decision. Until then this is experimental and investigational and should not be recommended as part of routine care. Your accusations that they are Kickbacks to doctors for prescribing medicines or doing other things are nonsense when people like you charge $5,000 for an unproven shot. You think you're not part of a bigger problem by doing so is disingenuous.

Members don't see this ad.
 
The FDA doesnt always get it right and it is curious that during a very liberal presidency that controls the FDA in part, that they do not follow in the liberal footsteps. I have stopped all stem cell practice until the FDA issue is resolved since it appears the FDA plans on shutting down all stem cell procedures in the US with the exception of bone marrow transplants and IRB research studies.
 
The FDA doesnt always get it right and it is curious that during a very liberal presidency that controls the FDA in part, that they do not follow in the liberal footsteps. I have stopped all stem cell practice until the FDA issue is resolved since it appears the FDA plans on shutting down all stem cell procedures in the US with the exception of bone marrow transplants and IRB research studies.

Algos, are you stopping PRP as well, if you do it? From what I have read, it appears the FDA is going to try to stop adipose derived stem cells but not as clear they are going to stop bone marrow derived stem cell treatments. Thanks!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Check out this dumb girl from the FDA hearing. The placebo effect is so powerful it even fooled the MRI machine that scanned her knee after some snake oil salesman injected her body's own drugs into her femoral head. Thank God the FDA is finally stepping in to protect desperate patients like her and and keep them safely dependent on crutches and pain meds. After all, other people around the world suffer too, so these patients can just choose to be happy :)

 
Last edited:
it worked on me.....i didnt treat 1 patient before i treated myself.
 
"i was able to tap into my innate healing abilities"
"given half a chance, our bodies will heal themselves by themself"

(4:03 or so into the video)
sounds like she doesnt think the stem cells "healed" her. maybe got her started...
 
The FDA doesnt always get it right and it is curious that during a very liberal presidency that controls the FDA in part, that they do not follow in the liberal footsteps. I have stopped all stem cell practice until the FDA issue is resolved since it appears the FDA plans on shutting down all stem cell procedures in the US with the exception of bone marrow transplants and IRB research studies.

Are you holding off on PRP injection, too?
 
Very informative.

The more I learn, the more I think there will be litigation if the final regs are not balanced.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It's not in the least hyperbolepic. Not only do stem cells have the demonstrated potential to treat some directly fatal conditions like heart disease, but people with chronic pain from arthritis are 50% more likely to commit suicide. The health consequences of enforced inactivity due to chronic musculoskeletal pain is also the first step in a degenerative cascade that leads to eventual death. By inhibiting the development of cell therapy, the FDA is killing people.



The same way it made it to the 19th century without vaccines and surgical anesthetics and the 20th century without antibiotics—not without a lot of suffering and death.
You've clearly never had to deal with cases of stem cell treatment gone bad. Let me tell you, it's ugly. Best case was horribly painful, worst cases were fatal. The reason they need to be regulated us because if you **** it up, people can die- stem cells aren't a magic ****ing wand that you wave and cures happen. If they either get the wrong signals and thus become the wrong type of cells (as was the case in the severe pain patient) or they begin to divide rapidly and combat the host while the body attempts to reject them (as in the fatal cases I've seen) your patient's life is ruined or worse. Without careful testing and regulation, we can't make sure these cells and the methods by which they are used are both safe and reliable.
 
You've clearly never had to deal with cases of stem cell treatment gone bad. Let me tell you, it's ugly. Best case was horribly painful, worst cases were fatal. The reason they need to be regulated us because if you **** it up, people can die- stem cells aren't a magic ****ing wand that you wave and cures happen. If they either get the wrong signals and thus become the wrong type of cells (as was the case in the severe pain patient) or they begin to divide rapidly and combat the host while the body attempts to reject them (as in the fatal cases I've seen) your patient's life is ruined or worse. Without careful testing and regulation, we can't make sure these cells and the methods by which they are used are both safe and reliable.

Int Orthop. 2016 Aug;40(8):1755-65. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3162-y. Epub 2016 Mar 30.
A multi-center analysis of adverse events among two thousand, three hundred and seventy two adult patients undergoing adult autologous stem cell therapy for orthopaedic conditions.
Centeno CJ1, Al-Sayegh H2, Freeman MD3,4, Smith J5, Murrell WD6, Bubnov R7.
Author information

Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of the present investigation is to report on detailed complications among a much larger group of 2372 orthopaedic patients treated with stem cell injections who were followed in a treatment registry for up to nine years.

METHODS:
All patients underwent an MSC-based, percutaneous injection treatment of an orthopaedic condition between December 2005 and September 2014 at one of 18 clinical facilities. Treated areas of the body included the knee, hip, ankle/foot, hand/wrist, elbow, shoulder, and spine. The patients were followed prospectively via enrollment in a treatment registry. Patients were followed prospectively at one, three, six and 12 months, and annually thereafter, using an electronic system, ClinCapture software.

RESULTS:
A total of 3012 procedures were performed on 2372 patients with follow-up period of 2.2 years. A total of 325 adverse events were reported. The majority were pain post-procedure (n = 93, 3.9 % of the study population) and pain due to progressive degenerative joint disease (n = 90, 3.8 % of the study population). Seven cases reported neoplasms, a lower rate than in the general population. The lowest rate of adverse events was observed among patients injected with BMC alone.

CONCLUSION:
Lowest rate of adverse events was among those patients receiving BMC injections alone, but the higher rate of AEs for BMC plus adipose and cultured cells was readily explained by the nature of the therapy or the longer follow-up. There was no clinical evidence to suggest that treatment with MSCs of any type in this study increased the risk of neoplasm.
 
Int Orthop. 2016 Aug;40(8):1755-65. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3162-y. Epub 2016 Mar 30.
A multi-center analysis of adverse events among two thousand, three hundred and seventy two adult patients undergoing adult autologous stem cell therapy for orthopaedic conditions.
Centeno CJ1, Al-Sayegh H2, Freeman MD3,4, Smith J5, Murrell WD6, Bubnov R7.
Author information

Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of the present investigation is to report on detailed complications among a much larger group of 2372 orthopaedic patients treated with stem cell injections who were followed in a treatment registry for up to nine years.

METHODS:
All patients underwent an MSC-based, percutaneous injection treatment of an orthopaedic condition between December 2005 and September 2014 at one of 18 clinical facilities. Treated areas of the body included the knee, hip, ankle/foot, hand/wrist, elbow, shoulder, and spine. The patients were followed prospectively via enrollment in a treatment registry. Patients were followed prospectively at one, three, six and 12 months, and annually thereafter, using an electronic system, ClinCapture software.

RESULTS:
A total of 3012 procedures were performed on 2372 patients with follow-up period of 2.2 years. A total of 325 adverse events were reported. The majority were pain post-procedure (n = 93, 3.9 % of the study population) and pain due to progressive degenerative joint disease (n = 90, 3.8 % of the study population). Seven cases reported neoplasms, a lower rate than in the general population. The lowest rate of adverse events was observed among patients injected with BMC alone.

CONCLUSION:
Lowest rate of adverse events was among those patients receiving BMC injections alone, but the higher rate of AEs for BMC plus adipose and cultured cells was readily explained by the nature of the therapy or the longer follow-up. There was no clinical evidence to suggest that treatment with MSCs of any type in this study increased the risk of neoplasm.
Not everyone is doing ortho work with stem cells.
 
You've clearly never had to deal with cases of stem cell treatment gone bad. Let me tell you, it's ugly. Best case was horribly painful, worst cases were fatal. The reason they need to be regulated us because if you **** it up, people can die- stem cells aren't a magic ****ing wand that you wave and cures happen. If they either get the wrong signals and thus become the wrong type of cells (as was the case in the severe pain patient) or they begin to divide rapidly and combat the host while the body attempts to reject them (as in the fatal cases I've seen) your patient's life is ruined or worse. Without careful testing and regulation, we can't make sure these cells and the methods by which they are used are both safe and reliable.

Please elaborate. How have patients died?
 
Heme/onc patients that went into various sorts of transplant failure.

Based on the available data, comparing heme/onc stem cell transplants vs. autologous orthopedic stem cell injections seems to be comparing apples to oranges. I think it is a stretch to compare the two risk strata.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Based on the available data, comparing heme/onc stem cell transplants vs. autologous orthopedic stem cell injections seems to be comparing apples to oranges. I think it is a stretch to compare the two risk strata.
I agree, but when they're looking to regulate stem cells, they're doing it with a broad brush to minimize wiggle room for unscrupulous individuals that prey on desperate people like cancer patients. I think ortho stem cells should be fine so long as the evidence is there- but even with these cells, the evidence should have to be there like any other medical treatment.
 
That episode only happened because the FDA, which too many people take as the final authority on all scientific matters, assured everyone that Vioxx was safe and effective. Complacent doctors acted on that government blunder and started prescribing. It is one of history's premier examples of regulatory failure, hardly an argument for regulating cells and drugs.



The issues that you and the others are refusing to acknowledge even though I've stated it repeatedly here is that the FDA's regulations are inhibiting science. There is no incentive to study something that can't be used clinically because the FDA considers it a drug, and it is not possible to raise the funding needed to get it approved as a drug because it cannot be sold profitably as such. People spout bromides about "science" but don't understand that progress requires that scientists have the freedom to act.

I agree with this about the FDA. Lets remember, the FDA is EXTREMELY CORRUPT and rubber stamps drugs that are clearly problematic. Money talks, BS walks.

Also, I agree with your motivations about humans and incentives. People who pretend "cures" are made for "altruistic" reasons are naive at best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Interesting Development.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-21st-century-cures_us_583e3d98e4b0ae0e7cdaca32

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ct-by-end-of-year-but-democrats-want-changes/


Some good: Funding for Addiction Treatment, a check on EBM, deregulation on medical devices

and Bad: Deregulation on pharma


Interesting how Bio Tech got the REGROW Act rolled into this bill.

Sounds like a big boon for IPM in terms of Regenerative Medicine applications. The Stem Cell crew has strong lobbyists.

Its all about the lobbyist power. I enjoy how big pharma wants to push drugs through using only "real world experience" rather than medical trials.

However, the opposite type of EBM practiced by frauds like Chou are a problem too. There has to be a middle ground.
 
The House passed the 21st Century Cures Act. In general, anything that Elizabeth Warren (D) opposes is good for patients and their doctors...

agreed
In a Senate speech on Monday, Warren vowed to "fight it because I know the difference between compromise and extortion."
Welcome to the club! Come join us in our yearly celebration of MOC dues!

"As Rita Redberg, editor of the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, wrote in a comment, this could amount to a dangerous trade-off: "In our rush to find new effective treatments, we should not harm our patients with ineffective toxic ones."

Sooooo, let's just keep ignoring the unregulated supplement and naturopathic industry because that's totally different?
 
The House passed the 21st Century Cures Act. In general, anything that Elizabeth Warren (D) opposes is good for patients and their doctors...

http://www.vox.com/2016/11/30/13792732/21st-century-cures-act-warren-sanders

Elizabeth Warren is a fraud anyway. She claims to be against the "banks" while telling everyone to vote for Hillary. How does that work?

CweP03KUcAAns8o.jpg
 
agreed
In a Senate speech on Monday, Warren vowed to "fight it because I know the difference between compromise and extortion."
Welcome to the club! Come join us in our yearly celebration of MOC dues!

"As Rita Redberg, editor of the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, wrote in a comment, this could amount to a dangerous trade-off: "In our rush to find new effective treatments, we should not harm our patients with ineffective toxic ones."

Sooooo, let's just keep ignoring the unregulated supplement and naturopathic industry because that's totally different?

Elizabeth also got into school through affirmative action while claiming to be "native american" and made big dollars are a corporate lawyer ***** for the people she claims to be fighting against now.

Total lying fraud. Typical liberal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Elizabeth also got into school through affirmative action while claiming to be "native american" and made big dollars are a corporate lawyer ***** for the people she claims to be fighting against now.

Total lying fraud. Typical liberal.

BS......stay away from " Infowars" it rots your brain
 
Please show me she where got into school by affirmative action? " Champ".....ahhh right you can't so STFU

I clearly said she used the title "native american" to get "jobs" including her LAW SCHOOL position.

You don't seem that good at reading comp.
 
I clearly said she used the title "native american" to get "jobs" including her LAW SCHOOL position.

You don't seem that good at reading comp.
Really?
here is what you " clearly" stated-Elizabeth also got into school through affirmative action while claiming to be "native american"

posted on Thursday

Maybe it is you spout off so much sh't, you can't remember what you even post?
 
Last edited:
Really?
here is what you " clearly" stated-Elizabeth also got into school through affirmative action while claiming to be "native american"

posted on Thursday

Maybe it is you so spout off so much sh't, you can't remember what you even post?


Clearly she got her job through Affirmative Action as noted n the CBS article.

Doesn't take much liberty to realize she also got the admit based on that too.

You mad lib?
 
Clearly she got her job through Affirmative Action as noted n the CBS article.

Doesn't take much liberty to realize she also got the admit based on that too.

You mad lib?
You take Liberty, sounds like a reliable source. Sure make Sh't up great way to advance your argument.
Surprised you have not posted story about "Pizza gate"
 
Really?
here is what you " clearly" stated-Elizabeth also got into school through affirmative action while claiming to be "native american"

posted on Thursday

Maybe it is you spout off so much sh't, you can't remember what you even post?

Here's the Atlantic article about her lying her ass off to get into Harvard at a PROFESSOR level due to affirmative action based upon "diversity drive" where she is a total fraud and liar about the issue.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...zabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/

You mad?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You take Liberty, sounds like a reliable source. Sure make Sh't up great way to advance your argument.
Surprised you have not posted story about "Pizza gate"

So Washington Post, CBS and Atlantic are all "info wars" as well?

Did she not get into a Harvard tenure position due to Affirmative Action based upon the "diversity drive" while claiming Native American status?
 
Did she not get into a Harvard tenure position due to Affirmative Action based upon the "diversity drive" while claiming Native American status?
to wit, from the article you quoted:
The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

"'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."
so no. it did not help her get the Harvard position.

the article goes on to confirm:
He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."
 
LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR...
YOU SAID SHE GOT INTO SCHOOL( College. Law school) BY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

YOU ARE WRONG
 
LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR...
YOU SAID SHE GOT INTO SCHOOL( College. Law school) BY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

YOU ARE WRONG

I can't prove that to be the case or not but the article clearly shows she used the claim of being "native american" to get into a tenured track position at Harvard Law.

Suffice it to say, logic dictates she used affirmative action to obtain law school admittance as well.

Why would she lie about being native american? For fun?

Common sense 101
 
Actually...

again from Atlantic:
Warren, who graduated from the University of Houston in 1970 and got her law degree from Rutgers University in 1976, did not seek to take advantage of affirmative action policies during her education, according documents obtained by the Associated Press and The Boston Globe. On the application to Rutgers Law School she was asked, "Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?'' "No," she replied.

While a teacher at the University of Texas, she listed herself as "white." But between 1986 and 1995, she listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty; the University of Pennsylvania in a 2005 "minority equity report" also listed her as one of the minority professors who had taught at its law school.
 
I can't prove that to be the case or not but the article clearly shows she used the claim of being "native american" to get into a tenured track position at Harvard Law.

Suffice it to say, logic dictates she used affirmative action to obtain law school admittance as well.

Why would she lie about being native american? For fun?

Common sense 101
I could offer conjecture on a multitude of topics, but you posted the info like it was the absolute truth and I just called your BS
 
I could offer conjecture on a multitude of topics, but you posted the info like it was the absolute truth and I just called your BS

Yeah you really showed me that Elizabeth Warren didn't use Native American status to obtain her job at Harvard despite the CBS article confirming my argument.

But cool story bro.
 
Actually...

again from Atlantic:


Ok my mistake in the area she used to obtain affirmative action. I miswrote it being at the law school admission level rather than as at the professor level.

She used Affirmative Action to OBTAIN a tenure track position at Harvard Law School rather than her Law Degree at Rutgers.

Regardless, she is a fraud who lied her way into a tenure tract using a fake Native American status.
 
She used Affirmative Action to OBTAIN a tenure track position at Harvard Law School rather than her Law Degree at Rutgers.

Regardless, she is a fraud who lied her way into a tenure tract using a fake Native American status.
please re-read post #90, my previous post. which you apparently did not read, nor the Atlantic article.

your statement is not based in fact.
 
please re-read post #90, my previous post. which you apparently did not read, nor the Atlantic article.

your statement is not based in fact.

Sounds like damage control post hoc.

Why would she lie about being Native American if there was no benefit? Something doesn't add up.
 
Yeah you really showed me that Elizabeth Warren didn't use Native American status to obtain her job at Harvard despite the CBS article confirming my argument.

But cool story bro.
For about the 4th time JackA'', I was pointing out to you that you stated that she got into school with affirmative action. You obviously pulled that out of your Ass and now you try to change the narrative of my argument.
" Cool Story Bro"
 
Top