DAVID GRANOVSKY

Posts Tagged ‘drug’

WHAT PRICE HEALTH?

In STEM CELLS IN THE NEWS on April 2, 2013 at 4:02 pm

http://www.defendingfoodsafety.com/uploads/image/FDA%20-%20Grant%20Money.jpg

Greg said:

“Dave, word on the grapevine is a few stem cell professionals almost or did come to blows over the FDA nonsense. They couldn’t understand how the FDA has been stonewalling them when the FDA has okayed dangerous drugs with far less data and safety.”

I responded:

“This has been going on for some time. Simply put, there are a number of docs and treatment centers that are leading the charge, a full frontal assault on the FDA to obtain the right (which should not be something they need to petition for) to use autologous (from the patient’s own body) adult stem cells for treatment. There are a number of regulations that need to be met and federal, state and local law before one can treat in the USA. Almost nobody knows how to do this. Even those that do, can still come under fire and spend their entire war chest battling in the courts. Even if you win over and over, you still can waste valuable time, money and energy better spent treating patients and researching protocols and developing ideas.

There are also many patient groups who are actively lobbying for these rights and numerous petitions floating around. The call to arms I recently wrote which I am putting the finishing touches on, entitled “The Public Wants Stem Cell Treatments” addresses these issues directly. These are the front lines my friends and the docs and patients are on one side and the FDA and upstart regulatory bureaus trying to get a market share of stem cell regulation are on the other. Welcome to the wild west. The mortars and shrapnel are flying and anyone who sticks their head out of the fox hole will incur a mortal wound.

The number of hoops required to jump through are daunting and almost nobody knows how and fewer are willing to take the chance but the potential upside is thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of chronic and terminally ill patients with incurable disease recovering, going into remission, reclaiming their health and their lives.

What’s the value of that? What price can we put on our health? I’m reminded of the old credit card commercials…

Chronic disease = $30-150,000 per year
Loss of income from inability to work = $30-150,000 per year
Adult stem cell treatment = $8 – 10,000
Living without symptoms after treatment = Priceless
Living to see your daughter married = Priceless
Living to see your grandchild born = Priceless
Living without pain = Pricelesshttp://www.statusant.com/large/Today-be-thankful-and-think-how-rich-you-are.-Your-family-is-priceless%7C2C-your-time-is-gold-and-your-health-is-wealth.-status.jpgRelated articles

New Transplant Method May Allow Kidney Recipients to Live Drug Free » Blog Archive » Critical Mass

In ALL ARTICLES on March 28, 2012 at 7:10 pm
New Transplant Method May Allow Kidney Recipients to Live Drug Free

New ongoing research published March 7 in the journal Science Translational Medicine suggests organ transplant recipients may not require anti-rejection medication in the future thanks to the power of stem cells, which may prove to be able to be manipulated in mismatched kidney donor and recipient pairs to allow for successful transplantation without immunosuppressive drugs.

Northwestern Medicine® and University of Louisville researchers are partnering on a clinical trial to study the use of donor stem cell infusions that have been specially engineered to “trick” the recipients’ immune system into thinking the donated organ is part of the patient’s natural self, thus gradually eliminating or reducing the need for anti-rejection medication.

“The preliminary results from this ongoing study are exciting and may have a major impact on organ transplantation in the future,” said Joseph Leventhal, MD, PhD, transplant surgeon at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and associate professor of surgery and director of kidney and pancreas transplantation at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “With refinement, this approach may prove to be applicable to the majority of patients receiving the full spectrum of solid organ transplants.”

Leventhal authored the study along with Suzanne Ildstad, MD, director of the Institute of Cellular Therapeutics at the University of Louisville. It is the first study of its kind where the donor and recipient do not have to be related and do not have to be immunologically matched. Previous studies involving stem cell transplants for organ recipients have included donors and recipients who are siblings and are immunologically identical, something that only occurs in about 25 percent of sibling pairs.

“Being a transplant recipient is not easy. In order to prevent rejection, current transplant recipients must take multiple pills a day for the rest of their lives. These immunosuppressive medications come with serious side effects with prolonged use including high blood pressure, diabetes, infection, heart disease and cancer, as well as direct damaging effects to the organ transplant,” said Ildstad. “This new approach would potentially offer a better quality of life and fewer health risks for transplant recipients.”

In a standard kidney transplant, the donor agrees to donate their kidney. In the approach being studied, the individual is asked to donate part of their immune system as well. The process begins about one month before the kidney transplant, when bone marrow stem cells are collected from the blood of the kidney donor using a process called apheresis. The donor cells are then sent to the University of Louisville to be processed, where researchers enrich for “facilitating cells” believed to help transplants succeed. During the same time period, the recipient undergoes pre-transplant “conditioning,” which includes radiation and chemotherapy to suppress the bone marrow so the donor’s stem cells have more space to grow in the recipient’s body.

Once the facilitating cell-enriched stem cell product has been prepared, it is transported back to Northwestern, where the recipient undergoes a kidney transplant. The donor stem cells are then transplanted one day later and prompt stem cells to form in the marrow from which other specialized blood cells, like immune cells, develop. The goal is to create an environment where two bone marrow systems exist and function in one person. Following transplantation, the recipient takes anti-rejection drugs which are decreased over time with the goal to stop a year after the transplant.

New Transplant Method May Allow Kidney Recipients to Live Drug Free » Blog Archive » Critical Mass.

FDA’s New Claim: “Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It!” | The Alliance for Natural Health USA

In BUSINESS OF STEM CELLS on March 21, 2012 at 4:27 am
FDA’s New Claim: “Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It!”

January 31, 2012

stem cellIn another outrageous power-grab, FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states!

 

We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-C™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells.

The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Medical Clinic for two reasons:

  1. Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!)
  2. The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would “depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA.”

 

We discussed the very ambiguous issue of interstate commerce last September—it’s an argument the FDA frequently uses when the basis for their claim is otherwise lacking. As we noted then, the FDA holds that an “interstate commerce” test must be applied to all steps in a product’s manufacture, packaging, and distribution. This means that if any ingredient or tool used in the procedure in question was purchased out of state, the FDA would in its view have jurisdiction, just as they would if the final product had traveled across state lines.

 

This time the FDA just nakedly says in court documents that the agency wants to protect the market for FDA-approved drugs. No more beating around the bush—their agenda is right out in the open! This appears to be a novel interpretation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C), as evidenced by the government’s failure to cite any judicial precedent for their argument.

 

The implication of the FDA’s interpretation of the law, if upheld by the court, would mean that all food, drugs, devices, and biologic or cosmetic products would be subject to FDA jurisdiction. The FDA is expanding its reach even to commerce within the state, which we argue is far beyond its jurisdiction, in order to protect drug company profits.

 

Last year we ran a two-part series on the current status of federal and state law—and FDA jurisdiction—and how it affects integrative treatments (part one and part two).

 

The Centeno-Schultz Medical Clinic takes your blood and bone marrow, puts it into a centrifuge machine that separates the stem cells, and cultures it to get more cells before a doctor puts them back in your body to repair damaged tissue. The FDA states that when the stem cells are cultured, they become FDA-regulated drugs. The clinic has argued numerous times that stem cells aren’t drugs because they are components of the patient’s bone marrow from his or her own body.

 

The FDA says otherwise: “Stem cells, like other medical products that are intended to treat, cure, or prevent disease, generally require FDA approval before they can be marketed. At this time, there are no licensed stem cell treatments.” There they go again, saying that components of your body are drugs and they have the authority to regulate them! It’s the only way the agency can claim that adult stem cell therapy is within FDA’s purview.

 

However, the agency seems to be of two minds. When ESPN magazine was doing a story on stem cell treatments, the FDA stated that US policy is to allow the injection of stem cells that are treated with “minimal manipulation,” which federal regulations define as “processing that does not alter the relevant biological characteristics of cells or tissues”—which is certainly the case with the Regenexx same-day procedure.

 

Despite this policy, FDA has been attacking the clinic for the past four years. They have tried injunctions and demanded inspections in their attempts to make the company bend; this court battle is merely the latest salvo.

 

The primary role of adult stem cells in a living organism is to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. The hard part has been to get enough of them. But new technology is giving doctors the ability to obtain more stem cells from a patient than previously thought possible, which is why we’re now seeing new treatments. Blood, fat, or tissue is withdrawn from the patient, stem cells are obtained using one of these new processes, and the cells are injected back into the patient where they can repair the patient’s tissue.

 

Gov. Rick Perry received this kind of stem cell therapy. We and others noted that the governor’s defense of freedom of healthcare choice when it came to his own treatment was starkly at odds with his directive to administer HPV vaccines to young girls against their own (and their parents’) wishes. It’s also at odds with his support for some of the most egregious witch-hunters on the Texas State Medical Board, which he appoints.

 

 

 

Behind Perry’s blatant inconsistency and the latest FDA attempted power grab lies the same problem: a medical system run by special interests under the leadership of the US government, the same government that is supposed to represent “we the people.”

Editors’ Note: An earlier version of this article reported that when blood and bone marrow were put into a centrifuge to separate the stem cells, the FDA considered the stem cells to be a drug and claimed authority to regulate them. The article has been updated to reflect that FDA only claims authority to regulate as drugs those stem cells which are cultured before being re-injected into the body.

 

FDA’s New Claim: “Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It!” | The Alliance for Natural Health USA.

 

Related commentary: ABORTION, EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS, CRICHTON and PHARMA:
insidious analysis…i been around the block once or twice and traveled and listened enough to know that things are not always what they seem and the reasons for doing so are rarely what they appear.

women’s rights are getting squeezed and rung out of them like yesterday’s dirty sponge water and while this is a travesty in and of itself I can’t help but believe that this is the beginning of many more injustices and changes which will make our heads spin. is this an effort to establish that: your body is not your own? we no longer have the right to choose what we put in our body (from vaginal probes to GMOs so “my body/their property” seems closer than i care to admit…

For an absolutely chilling account of “My Bodies, Their Property” read this:

“Patenting lives: life patents, culture and development” Forfeited Consent: Body parts in Eminent Domain Page 95 http://books.google.com/books?id=3hFLooYJRIcC&printsec=frontcover
“Intellectual property, medicine and health: current debates” Property and Human Tissue Page 123 http://books.google.com/books?id=ZIaM8LXlGG0C&printsec=frontcover

Basically, if a woman is state or corporate property, then so is her fetal matter; so doctors can remove the biological materials and use it with legal backing? OR, if a woman is genetically resistant to a specific disease, maybe they can just claim her child and use it for testing?

more and more i see actions performed under the umbrella excuse “the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few” How long before the health of the many is worth the death of the one? perhaps this an embryonic stem cell angle? one last gasp of pharma to fool the public into carrying the embryonic stem cell torch despite the FACT that embryonic stem cell treatments don’t work and do cause tumors?

this isn’t out of the realm of reality, if you disbelieve, go read Mike Chrichton’s 2006 book NEXT – “…and that the physician’s university had sold the rights in Frank’s cells to BioGen, a biotechnology startup company. As the book opens Frank is suing the university for unauthorized misuse of his cells, but the trial judge rules that the cells were “waste” that the university could dispose of as it wished. Frank’s lawyers advise that, even if he wins an appeal, the university as a tax-funded organization can still claim the rights to the cells under the doctrine of eminent domain.”

The pharma company then goes after his kids since the genetic material is the same and if they own the father, the own the son (and the sins of the father shall be visited on the sons…the genetic commercial potential tool) M.C. said about this book: “This novel is fiction, except for the parts that aren’t.”

We’ll see…this goes in the category of “i hope i’m wrong but this twisting in my gut is telling me otherwise”

Reuters Health Report – dsgrano@gmail.com – Jan 23, 2012

In ALL ARTICLES on January 23, 2012 at 10:45 am
Korean research, a first step toward Dr. Smartphone?
“We have confirmed that (touch screens) are able to recognize DNA molecules with nearly 100 percent accuracy just as large, conventional medical equipment can and we believe equal results are possible for proteins,” Park told Reuters TV.“There are proteins known in the medical world like the ones used to diagnose liver cancer, and we would be able to see the liver condition of the patient…”
SEOUL (Reuters) – Tired of long waits at the hospital for medical tests? If Korean researchers have their way, your smartphone could one day eliminate that — and perhaps even tell you that you have cancer. | Full Article
U.S. consumers tell insurers to cover experimental drugs

January 23, 2012 09:42 AM ET

If stem cell treatments in the US are experimental, perhaps insurance will one day cover therm…but don’t hold your breath!

NEW YORK (Reuters) – When your health insurance provider denies an experimental treatment or a high-cost drug, how much are you willing to pay for the care you believe you need? | Full Article
Anxiety, other disorders more common in autism
January 23, 2012 02:13 AM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Autism tends to go hand in hand with a variety of other mental and behavioral conditions in kids, suggests a new study that highlights the fuzzy nature of autism diagnoses themselves. | Full Article
Man dies of bird flu in southwest China: report
January 23, 2012 09:23 AM ET
BEIJING (Reuters) – A man in southwest China died of bird flu on Sunday after three days of intensive care treatment in hospital, the official Xinhua news agency quoted the Ministry of Health as saying. | Full Article
Fitting fitness inside the cubicle
January 23, 2012 06:29 AM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Whether your office is in the business district or on the dining room table, sitting immobile for hours in front of a computer screen is at odds with the fit body. | Full Article

Reuters Health Report – dsgrano@gmail.com – Gmail.

Bristol-Myers, Stem Cells, Facebook: Intellectual Property

In ALL ARTICLES on October 20, 2011 at 12:04 am

While most people will read this and discuss the use of embryos in heated voices and others will discuss the effects on science (both important discussions to have), I see only one result from this.  The European Union has set a precedent which, if copied in other countries, will absolutely force pharmacuetical companies to make patentable drugs out of embryonic stem cells instead of using adult stem cells which have a long history of safety and efficacy.  Which countries are in the European Union?

Member states of the EU (year of entry)

And btw, there are also a LOT of pharma companies headquartered in the European Union…

Rank[30] Company Country Total Revenues (USD millions) Healthcare R&D 2008 (USD millions) Net income/ (loss) 2008 (USD millions) Employees 2008
1 Pfizer[33] (with Wyeth[34]) United States 70,696 11,318 14,111 137,127
2 Johnson & Johnson United States 63,747 NA 10,576 119,200
3 Hoffmann–La Roche Switzerland 43,970 NA 8,135 78,604
4 Novartis Switzerland 41,460 NA 11,946 98,200
5 GlaxoSmithKline United Kingdom 40,424 6,373 10,432 103,483
6 Sanofi-Aventis France 40,328 NA 7,204 99,495
7 AstraZeneca United Kingdom 31,601 NA 5,959 67,400
8 Abbott Laboratories[35] United States 29,527 2,688 4,880 68,697
9 Merck & Co. United States 23,850 4,678 7,808 74,372
10 Bristol-Myers Squibb United States 19,977 NA 2,165 42,000
11 Eli Lilly and Company United States 18,634 NA 2,953 40,600
12 Boehringer Ingelheim Germany 16,959 1,977 2,163 43,000
13 Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Japan 15,697 1,620 2,870 15,000
14 Bayer [36] Germany 15,407 3,770 6,448 108,600
15 Amgen United States 14,771 3,366 3,166 48,000
16 Genentech United States 13,400 15773 3,640 33,500
17 Baxter International United States 12,300 614 1,397 38,428
18 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Israel 11,080 495 546 26,670
19 Astellas Pharma Japan 10,701 1,435 1,122 23,613
20 Daiichi Sankyo Japan 9,682 1,459 671 20,100
21 Novo Nordisk Denmark 9,081 1,063 1,922 26,575
22 Procter & Gamble United States 8,964 NA 10,340 29,258
23 Eisai Japan 5,583 926 604 14,993
24 Merck KGaA Germany 5,175 772 1,258 13,900
25 Alcon United States 4,897 512 1,348 13,500
26 SINOPHARM China 4,700 498 1249 9700
27 Akzo Nobel Netherlands 4,694 741 1,449 13,000
28 UCB Belgium 4,426 1,024 492 12,741
29 Nycomed Switzerland 4,264 NA -105 10,533
30 Forest Laboratories United States 3,442 941 454 9,649
31 Solvay Belgium 3,268 533 1,026 9,000
32 Genzyme United States 3,187 650 -17 8,477
33 Allergan United States 3,063 1,056 -127 8,423
34 Gilead Sciences United States 3,026 384 -1,190 6,772
35 CSL Australia 2,788 161 454 6,400
36 Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Japan 2,787 467 328 5,962
37 Biogen Idec United States 2,683 718 218 5,907
38 Bausch & Lomb United States 2,292 197 15 5,830
39 Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Japan 2,069 244 132 5,756
40 King Pharmaceuticals United States 1,989 254 289 5,191
41 Watson Pharmaceuticals United States 1,979 131 -445 5,126
42 Mitsubishi Pharma Japan 1,945 403 208 5,111
43 Shire United Kingdom 1,797 387 278 4,958
44 Cephalon United States 1,764 403 145 4,913
45 Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Japan 1,763 350 193 3,750
46 Kyowa Hakko Japan 1,698 268 108 2,895
47 Shionogi Japan 1,640 320 159 2,868
48 Mylan Laboratories United States 1,612 104 217 2,800
49 H. Lundbeck Denmark 1,552 329 186 2,515

- David

Embryonic Stem-Cell Patents Infringe EU Law, Top Court Says

The European Union’s highest court said that stem-cell research involving human embryos can’t be patented, in a ruling that scientists called “devastating” for medical research.

Inventions based on the use of human embryonic stem cells for scientific research purposes can’t be patented, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg said. The case was triggered when Greenpeace challenged a German patent awarded to Oliver Bruestle, a professor and specialist in stem-cell research.

“This is an unbelievable setback for bio-medical research in the area of stem cells,” Bruestle said in an interview after the ruling. The EU court “took an extreme position on restrictions in this area, which will have huge repercussions globally, especially in the competition with the U.S. and Asia, and in scientific research.”

Under an EU law from 1998, research methods that involve human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes can’t be patented. A German court handling the dispute at the center of yesterday’s case sought the EU tribunal’s view on how to interpret the phrase “for scientific research involving human embryos” and to clarify the term “human embryo.”

“A process which involves removal of a stem cell from a human embryo at the blastocyst stage, entailing the destruction of that embryo, cannot be patented,” the EU court said. The blastocyst stage is about five days after fertilization.

Greenpeace, which said it sued for “ethical reasons,” argued the patent for a stem-cell research process developed by Bruestle to treat neural diseases is invalid because it covers cells derived from human embryos. The Federal Court of Justice, Germany’s highest civil court, last year asked the EU tribunal for guidance on the case.

The court clarified that “only use” of human embryos “for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes which are applied to the human embryo and are useful to it” are patentable.

“One consequence is that the benefits of our research will be reaped in America and Asia,” said Austin Smith, a professor at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research at the University of Cambridge.

The ruling might actually allow scientists a “sigh of relief,” said Julian Hitchcock, a lawyer and intellectual property specialist in the London office of law firm Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP.

Researchers “won’t have to worry about inadvertently infringing someone else’s patent,” Hitchcock said in a phone interview. “While the ruling restricts patentability of such inventions, it doesn’t in any way restrict the use of embryonic stem cells.”

While patent protection might not be available, European scientists can seek so-called data exclusivity, which protects documentation for as much as eight years and prevents the marketing of competing products based on the same data for up to 10 years, said Hitchcock.

The case is: C-34/10, Prof. Dr. Oliver Bruestle v. Greenpeace e.V.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG EPIDEMIC

In ALL ARTICLES on April 20, 2011 at 11:32 am

anyone else enjoying the irony of these articles getting released on 420?? -dg

White House announces plans to reduce prescription drug abuse

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s administration unveiled on Tuesday a plan to fight what it calls a prescription drug abuse epidemic. | Full Article

FDA unveils new action on prescription drug abuse

April 19, 2011 02:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. health regulator ordered painkiller makers to provide educational materials to help train physicians about the correct use of the drugs, as part of the Obama administration’s plan to tackle prescription drug abuse. | Full Article

http://www.clevespolice.us/images/drugabuse.jpg

Roche’s diet drug tied to kidney damage | Reuters

In OFF THE BEATEN PATH on April 13, 2011 at 10:39 am

More bad news about drugs. – dg

http://repairstemcell.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/prescriptiondietpills.jpg?w=174

“In another blow to diet drugs, Canadian researchers are reporting a link between Roche’s Xenical and an increase in kidney injuries. Tapping into healthcare databases from the province of Ontario, they found that 0.5 percent of new orlistat users were hospitalized for kidney problems in the year before starting on the drug. Over the next year, that number jumped to 2 percent.”

Roche did not return calls for comments in time for this article.”

Dr. Donald E. Greydanus, a pediatrician at Michigan State University, who was not involved in the study but has written on obesity treatments [said:] “There is no safe panacea drug that works and that has no side effects,” he told Reuters Health in an email.

While 2% seems low to you and me, consider that this is kidney damage from a diet drug AND a 400% increase over typical incidents.

http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds2-4/kidney-beans.jpg

Roche’s diet drug tied to kidney damage | Reuters.

 

First patient to get stem cell therapy comes forward – LIES and MISDIRECTION

In BUSINESS OF STEM CELLS on April 7, 2011 at 12:52 pm

LIES & MISDIRECTION

There are HUGE problems with this article.  In no particular order…

http://repairstemcell.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/lies.gif?w=418&h=231

IT’s A LIE!

The title of the article is a bold faced, straight up LIE. “First patient to get stem cell therapy is identified”. For the record, ADULT stem cells have safely and effectively treated tens of thousands of patients to date (SAFELY AND EFFECTIVELY!), some with their own stem cells from their own bone marrow or fat tissue, some with stem cells from umbilical cords, etc.  In fact, bone marrow transplants have been used for about 40 years.  If you want to consider this a “stem cell therapy” then you should consider BMT’s a “stem cell therapy” also which adds thousands more to the tally.

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/misdirection.png?w=354&h=245

IT”s MISDIRECTION!

Embryonic stem cells have been known to cause cysts and tumors that can become cancer. Embryonic stem cells require immunosuppressiv drugs.  But wait a second folks!  this isn’t even embryonic stem cell therapy….cue the magician!

This is A DRUG MADE FROM EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS!  Why make drugs from embryonic stem cells when YOUR OWN adult stem cells can fix you? It’s about the money folk,s the cash, the profit margins.  Here’s a more detailed explanation – http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/why-no-stem-cells-in-the-us/

What else:

Let’s not get too excited too soon…drugs have been known to have side effects.  At this stage, they are merely testing for safety.  If it is deemed safe or should I say: “safe” (and nobody turns on their TV to see the drug commercials with their allowable side effects followed by the commercials by the lawyers suing drug companies for heart, attack, death, stroke, and ED.) then perhaps one day you can get some at a drug store near you.  Lucky you!

What’s with all the secrecy? Secret teams? secret training? secret volunteer?  secret results?  When there is this much secrecy shrouding a medical treatment, watch out!  One of 2 things is happening.  This is a huge marketing ploy to generate hype so the most insignificant information released will be heralded with fanfare OR something is going to be hidden. Bank on it!

Or perhaps Geron, who is not mentioned until halfway down the page, finally got tired of announcing HUGE MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGH WITH EMBRYONIC STEM CELL TREATMENTS for 6 years in a row only to end up with egg on their face when nothing panned out, nobody got healed, nothing worked as well as adult stem cells.  Of course, they were able to artificially pump up their stock with every announcement so:  “while nobody got any closer to getting healed, the execs made a killing and the shareholders got screwed.”  For more on Geron, scroll down to the list of articles at the bottom of this one- http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/fda-oks-first-embryonic-stem-cell-research-trial-on-humans-despite-concerns/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3814824363_6d55a1c8a7.jpg

First patient to get stem cell therapy comes forward

In the six months since scientists announced they had infused a drug made from human embryonic stem cells into a partially paralyzed patient’s spine, the identity of the recipient has been shrouded in secrecy.

Recently, rumors began circulating in Internet chat rooms that details about the closely guarded experiment were finally about to be revealed.

Now, a 21-year-old Alabama nursing student who was paralyzed from the chest down in a car crash in September has come forward to identify himself as the volunteer.

“I was the first patient,” Timothy J. Atchison of Chatom, Ala., said in a telephone interview with The Washington Post on Wednesday evening. “I’m doing well.”….

First patient to get stem cell therapy comes forward – The Washington Post.

Higher bleeding risk seen in J&J, Bayer clot drug – Reuters Health Report

In OFF THE BEATEN PATH on April 5, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Higher bleeding risk seen in J&J, Bayer clot drug
April 05, 2011 09:35 AM ET
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) – A blood clot preventer from Johnson & Johnson and Bayer caused a surprisingly high rate of bleeding in a trial of patients with acute illnesses, representing a significant setback for the drugmakers. | Full Article

http://boogey.me/wp-content/themes/mixedmediared/images/DrippingBlood.png

Gmail – Reuters Health Report – dsgrano@gmail.com.

WHY PRPs BUT NO STEM CELLS?

In BUSINESS OF STEM CELLS on April 1, 2011 at 9:34 pm
David, What are your thoughts on plasma exchange ? I think that if this procedure can be done then why not Adult Stem Cell ? I have had ASC Therapy and I think it is just as safe ?
 

  •  

    David Granovsky prps or platelet rich plasma lies in a grey area. its similar to blood doping which is legal. also, football alone generates 5.2 billion per year so they are a powerful organization. 

    32 minutes ago ·
  •  

    David Granovsky the real reason stem cells aren’t available is http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/why-no-stem-cells-in-the-us/ 

    31 minutes ago ·
  •  

    David Granovsky bottom line, cash = power = whatever the talent needs, it gets 

    30 minutes ago ·
  •  

    David Granovsky 

    Collectively, the 10 drug companies in the Fortune 500 had the greatest return on revenues, reporting a profit of 18.5 cents for every $1 of sales, which was eight times higher than the median for all Fortune 500 industries (2.2 cents). The drug industry also led others by realizing a return on assets of 16.5 percent – almost six times the median (2.5 percent) posted by all industries. Pharmaceutical companies completed the sweep with a return on shareholders’ equity (33.2) percent, which was more than three times the median of all Fortune 500 industries (9.8 percent).
    29 minutes ago ·
  •  

    David Granovsky 

    The two most profitable drug companies – Pfizer and Merck – owned the most blockbuster drugs, with four each. Pfizer led U.S. pharmaceutical companies with $7.8 billion in profits in 2001, which is more than the profits of all the Fortune 500 companies in the homebuilding, apparel, railroad and publishing industries combined. Merck was the second most profitable pharmaceutical, netting $7.3 billion, which is more than the profits of all the Fortune 500 companies in the semiconductor, pipeline, food production, mining and crude oil production, and hotel, casino and resort industries combined.
    28 minutes ago ·
  •  

    David Granovsky stem cells will NOT be available in the USA until and only if the pharma companies want them to be. if this happens, they will be in the form of refined drugs created from stem cells 

    25 minutes ago ·
  •  

    David Granovsky The Life Extension Foundation investigated the cost of generic ingredients in sixteen prescription drugs—and discovered they vary from a few pennies per tablet to a few pennies per hundred tablets. Prices for these same products range from 2,800% to 570,000% higher 

    25 minutes ago ·
  •  

    David Granovsky Drug name/Consumer price (for 100 tablets or capsules)/Cost of generic active ingredient (for 100 tablets or capsules)/Percent markup
    Xanax 1 mg/$136.79/$0.024/569,958%
    Zestril 20 mg/$89.89/$3.20/2,809% 

    24 minutes ago ·
  •  

    David Granovsky Pharma companies will tell you they needs these earnings to recoup the cost of R+D (250 million to 900 million, averaging 500 million) but the truth is….pharma companie spend twice on markeitng and advertising than they do on R+D. SO out of every 450 million they recoup, 150 million went into making the drug and 300 million went into advertising it so YOU will buy it. 

    22 minutes ago ·
  •  

    David Granovsky 

    And this applies to virtually every drug out there: Celebrex 100 mg
    Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27
    Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60
    Percent markup: 21,712% 

    Claritin 10 mg
    Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17
    Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71
    Percent markup: 30,306%

    Keflex 250 mg
    Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39
    Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88
    Percent markup: 8,372%

    Lipitor 20 mg
    Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37
    Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80
    Percent markup: 4,696%

    Norvasec 10 mg
    Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29
    Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14
    Percent markup: 134,493%

    Paxil 20 mg
    Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27
    Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60
    Percent markup: 2,898%

    Prevacid 30 mg
    Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77
    Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01
    Percent markup: 34,136%

    Prilosec 20 mg
    Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97
    Cost of general active ingredients $0.52
    Percent markup: 69,417%

    Prozac 20 mg
    Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47
    Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11
    Percent markup: 224,973%

    Tenormin 50 mg
    Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47
    Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13
    Percent markup: 80,362%

    Vasotec 10 mg
    Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37
    Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20
    Percent markup: 51,185%

    Xanax 1 mg
    Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
    Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
    Percent markup: 569,958%

    Zestril 20 mg
    Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89
    Cost of general active ingredients $3.20
    Percent markup: 2,809%

    Zithromax 600 mg
    Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19
    Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78
    Percent markup: 7,892%

    Zocor 40 mg
    Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27
    Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63
    Percent markup: 4,059%

    Zoloft 50 mg
    Consumer price: $206.87
    Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75
    Percent markup: 11,821%

    21 minutes ago ·
  •  

    David Granovsky it’s all about the money honey :) 

    20 minutes ago ·
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,191 other followers

%d bloggers like this: