DAVID GRANOVSKY

Posts Tagged ‘court’

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

Court won’t reconsider bone marrow payments ruling

In BUSINESS OF STEM CELLS on March 31, 2012 at 3:38 am

Previously, you could not compensate someone for a bone marrow donation“donating bone marrow was classified the same as donating a kidney or any other organ, and payments were forbidden, punished by jail time.”

Now, bone marrow donation is so simple, it no longer resembles organ donation“the process of donating bone marrow [is] nearly identical to giving blood plasma and doesn’t amount to an organ transplant.”

So, you can get paid for a bone marrow donation -“bone marrow donors [can] be paid for their donations like blood donors.”

Many believe this is a very positive move and will encourage more donations.

bone marrow is FULL of stem cells :)

http://www.topnews.in/health/files/bone-marrow.jpg

Court won’t reconsider bone marrow payments ruling

Posted: 6:48pm on Mar 27, 2012; Modified: 9:27pm on Mar 27, 2012

A federal appeals court on Tuesday declined to reconsider a ruling that allows bone marrow donors to be paid for their donations like blood donors.

In December, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shook up the organ transplant community when it overturned the criminality of paying bone marrow donors. Previously, donating bone marrow was classified the same as donating a kidney or any other organ, and payments were forbidden, punished by jail time.

But the court said a technological breakthrough makes the process of donating bone marrow nearly identical to giving blood plasma and doesn’t amount to an organ transplant.

On Tuesday, the 9th Circuit declined the Obama administration’s request to reconsider the ruling. Several organizations and activisits in the organ-donation community have urged the administration to fight the ruling.

The administration now has 90 days to petition the U.S. Supreme Court.

Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller said the administration is reviewing its options.

The nonprofit patient advocacy group Institute for Justice called the original ruling a “major national shift in bone marrow donation policy” and said payments will encourage more donations.

SAN FRANCISCO: Court won’t reconsider bone marrow payments ruling | Health | Macon.com.

 

 

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”

Ebryonic stem cell research funding will go on

In STEM CELLS IN THE NEWS on May 2, 2011 at 12:15 am

1. It’s spelled eMbryonic, not ebryonic. They got the most important word in the article wrong in the title and in the first word of the title no less? Are you kidding me?
2. So what? Screw the embryos, they’re irrelevant! https://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/screw-the-embryos-they%e2%80%99re-irrelevant/ – dg

Ebryonic stem cell research funding will go on, federal court rules – 5.1.11 | MassDevice Staff

Embryonic stem cellsA federal appeals court reversed a lower court’s ruling to halt federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells, voting 2-1 that the policy does not violate a 1996 law.

In August, Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia banned the funding policy, potentially derailing scores of projects looking into the causes of diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and cystic fibrosis. President Barack Obama had sought to deliver stem cell research funding from constraints imposed under the Bush administration, but Lamberth ruled that the policy violated the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, aimed at stopping the destruction of human embryos.

Dickey-Wicker proved to be a sticky wicket for both plaintiffs and defendants when the appeals court issued a temporary stay of the Lamberth ruling.

Obama’s policy allowed the use of stem cell lines derived from frozen embryos from fertility treatments that were no longer needed and donated according to stringent ethical guidelines. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, argued that the Obama policy violated the Dickey-Wicker rules.

The Obama administration appealed the decision to the D.C. appeals bench. In a 2-1 ruling, that court overturned Lamberth’s decision.

“We conclude the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail because Dickey-Wicker is ambiguous and the NIH seems reasonably to have concluded that, although Dickey-Wicker bars funding for the destructive act of deriving an [embryonic stem cell] from an embryo, it does not prohibit funding a research project in which an [embryonic stem cell] will be used. We therefore vacate the preliminary injunction,” Judge Douglas Ginsberg wrote in the majority opinion, according to court documents. “All this is to say the balance of equities tilts against granting a preliminary injunction. That, combined with our conclusion the plaintiffs have not shown they are likely to succeed on the merits, leads us to hold the district court abused its discretion in awarding preliminary injunctive relief..”

In a feisty dissent, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson took issue with her colleague’s reasoning, writing that they have “taken a straightforward case of statutory construction and produced a result that would make Rube Goldberg tip his hat,” performing “linguistic jujitsu.”

“I must therefore respectfully dissent,” Henderson wrote. “Because derivation of [human embryonic stem cells] necessarily destroys a human embryo or embryos, and because derivation constitutes at least [human embryonic stem cell] research development under the amendment, all [human embryonic stem cell] research is ‘research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed.’ Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ challenge to the amendment is likely to succeed because the amendment prohibits the expenditure of federal funds to engage in [human embryonic stem cell] research in all of its sequences.”

Cord Blood America vs Cryo-Cell or “Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?”

In BUSINESS OF STEM CELLS on April 5, 2011 at 9:26 pm

In the movie, “A Beautiful Mind,” John Nash discusses the merits of he and his friends all vying for the attentions of a very beautiful woman. (click photo to view video scene)

It is at this moment that he has his epiphanal revelation on “Governing Dynamics”…

Jonh Nash: “If we all go for the blonde, we block each other. Not a single one of us is gonna get her. So then we go for her friends, but they will all give us the cold shoulder, because nobody likes to be second choice. Well, what if no one goes for the blonde? We don’t get in each other’s way, and we don’t insult the other girls. That’s the only way we win. That’s the only way we all get laid. Adam Smith said the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what’s best for himself, right? That’s what he said…Incomplete. Incomplete, okay? Because the best result will come from everyone in the group doing what’s best for himself and the group.”

Likewise, we find ourselves in this same situation in the stem cell industry.  Stem cell treatment and banking is a relatively new industry and everybody is vying for position on licenses , patents and market share.  This naturally results in law suits, attacks and industrial infighting.

Too bad life can’t imitate art.  If the stem cell industry could condense it’s efforts towards a common goal a la Robert Nash’s theories on Governing Dynamics, just think of how many more patients we could help.

Oh well.  Maybe it will never happen, but…You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?- George Bernard Shaw

Cord Blood America: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss at Lawsuit Aimed at Blocking Acquisition

LAS VEGAS, April 5, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Cord Blood America, Inc. (http://www.cordblood-america.com) (OTC Bulletin Board: CBAI), the umbilical cord blood stem cell preservation company focused on bringing the life saving potential of stem cells to families nationwide and internationally, is pleased to announce that the Pinellas County Circuit Court granted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Cryo-Cell International against Cord Blood America, which CBAI management believed was an attempt to inhibit the pending deal between Cryo-Cell Mexico and CBAI.

“We’re delighted. When I first addressed this issue publicly on Dec 17th, I stated that this was a suit without merit, and we knew we needed to defend ourselves; even at great time and cost to the company.  The lawsuit was a menace and we are pleased with the outcome.  Hats off to our counsel for a job well done and to the judicial system for seeing this through to a motion to dismiss,” said Matthew Schissler, Cord Blood America’s Chairman, CEO and co-founder.

Gmail – Cord Blood America: Court Update – dsgrano@gmail.com.

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR EMBRYONIC RESEARCH…SO WHAT?

In ALL ARTICLES on September 9, 2010 at 4:50 pm

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR EMBRYONIC RESEARCH…SO WHAT?

Embryonic Stem Cells come from embryos and have 1 goal only. They split + split through cell mitosis for 7 weeks until there is a fetus the size of a thumbnail. When they are manipulated to be used for treatment, they often revert back to their original goal. This means that they will start splitting uncontrollably at the site of injection, disease or injury. The natural result of this uncontrolled splitting is the development of cysts + tumors that often become cancerous. Because of this, Embryonic stem cells have NOT been used to treat any diseases in humans to date. Because embryonic stem cells are very likely to be rejected by the body, patients are frequently required to take immunosuppressive drugs. The ineffectiveness of embryonic stem cells for treating patients is the main issue that has stymied their research + use around the world, while the ethical + moral dilemmas further delay research in the USA. The FACT remains that Embryonic Stem Cells are considered a dead end in regard to treatments by some of the top Stem Cell minds in science (including the top embryonic stem cell scientists!).

To date, Embryonic research has been 100% fruitless (in regard to generating treatments) for well-funded + government supported scientists around the world for the last 11 years.

Dr James Thomson, father of embryonic research said: “…embryonic stem cells are not being used in any clinical applications yet, while alternatives such as adult stem cells figure in scores of therapies.”

Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep, abandoned his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers “may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate.”

Dr. Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health, was quoted in U.S. News & World Report: “…embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, are obsolete….. In fact, adult stem cells, which occur in small quantities in organs throughout the body for natural growth and repair, have become stars despite great skepticism early on.”

Embryonic stem cells MAY be researched further with federal funding + may provide great insights into medicine + disease but will NOT generate treatments for decades to come, if ever.

Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are the body’s natural healing cells. Their one job is to heal damaged organs and tissues. Adult stem cells have been used in bone marrow transplants for 40 years and have over a half decade of treatment in humans. Adult stem cells have virtually no side effects…in fact, a stem cell treatment using cells from your own body, when following standard quality controls, carries about the same amount of risk as drawing blood. To date, 130+ diseases have been treated with Adult Stem Cells with approximately 2/3 of patients deriving therapeutic benefits.

U.S. court rules against Obama’s stem cell policy | Reuters

In STEM CELLS IN THE NEWS on August 23, 2010 at 9:50 pm

A U.S. court ruled in favor of a law suit filed in June against the National Institutes of Health by researchers.   The preliminary injunction on Monday stops federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research under the position that “human embryonic stem cell research involved the destruction of human embryos.”  Christian groups also opposed to embryo research argued the NIH policy violated U.S. law and took funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells.

While this ruling is based on moral issues and not scientific issues, there is a preponderance of evidence that scientifically, embryonic stem cells for treatment may prove to be a dead end for at least 20-50 years and adult stem cells are already proven safe and effective for treating over 130+ diseases in humans.  For more information on why adult stem cells are scientifically better suited for treating humans than embryonic stem cells, read these articles:

U.S. court rules against Obama’s stem cell policy

A microscopic view shows smooth muscle cells derived from human  embryonic stem cells showing the nuclei (blue) and proteins of the  cytoskeleton (green) in this handout photo released to Reuters by the  California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, March 9, 2009.  REUTERS/Alexey Terskikh/Burnham Institute for Medical  Research/California Institute for Regenerative Medicine/Handout

WASHINGTON | Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:22pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction on Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration’s new guidelines on the sensitive issue.

The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involved the destruction of human embryos.

Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

“(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed,” Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling. The Obama administration could appeal his decision or try to rewrite the guidelines to comply with U.S. law.

The suit against the National Institutes of Health, backed by some Christian groups opposed to embryo research, argued the NIH policy violated U.S. law and took funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells.

The U.S. Department of Justice, White House and NIH had no immediate comment.

Key to the case is the so-called Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which Congress adds to budget legislation every year. It bans the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

That was not an issue for the NIH until the discovery of human embryonic stem cells in 1998. In 2001, then-President George W. Bush said he could only allow federal research money to pay for work done using a few batches, or lines, of the cells.

Many stem cell researchers objected, saying they could not do work needed to fulfill the promise of the powerful cells, which can give rise to all the tissues and cells in the human body. Privately funded researchers could do as they pleased, but federal funding is the cornerstone of such basic biological research.

NEW POLICY

As one of his first acts after taking office, Obama overturned that decision and the NIH set up a careful process for deciding which batches of human embryonic stem cells could be used by federally funded researchers.

The new guidelines do not allow the use of federal dollars to create the stem cells but do allow researchers to work with them if they are made by another lab.

Dr. James Sherley of Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Theresa Deisher of Washington-based AVM Biotechnology, who both work with adult stem cells, filed the original suit saying the guidelines would harm their work by increasing competition for limited federal funding. They both oppose the use of human embryonic stem cells.

Sherley was not immediately available for comment.

“There is no after-the-fact remedy for this injury because the Court cannot compensate plaintiffs for their lost opportunity to receive funds,” Lamberth wrote.

He found that the injunction would not seriously harm researchers who focus on human embryonic stem cells because it would preserve the status quo and not interfere with their ability to get private funding.

With the preliminary injunction in place, the two sides will likely present arguments and case history to the judge over whether the guidelines can be permanently blocked or be allowed to go into effect.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)

via U.S. court rules against Obama’s stem cell policy | Reuters.

Court Dismisses Challenge to Embryonic Stem Cell Research : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

In BUSINESS OF STEM CELLS on November 3, 2009 at 10:57 am

Court Dismisses Challenge to Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Posted on: November 2, 2009 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s new rules on federal funding for stem cell research, which reversed the Bush policy of prohibiting such funding in most cases. And I’m not usually a big fan of dismissing cases based on standing, but in this case there was just no legal basis for the challenge at all.

NIghtlight

The plaintiffs in the case were the Christian Medical Association; Nightlight, a Christian adoption agency that urges the adoption of frozen embryos from fertility clinics; two doctors, James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, who do adult stem cell research but refuse to do embryonic research; two couples who have adopted such embryos; and – amusingly – the embryos themselves. Yes, they sued on behalf of all the snowflakes sitting in fertility clinic freezers.

The court dismissed the case for all plaintiffs based on a lack of standing. And it’s really hard to imagine what the legal argument might be for the suit by any of them. Here’s how the court summarizes their claims:

NIH

Plaintiffs allege that the guidelines, by allowing NIH to fund hESC research, will cause them irreparable harm. Specifically, Drs. Sherely and Deisher contend that the new guidelines will “result in increased competition for limited federal funding and will thereby injure [their] ability to successfully compete for . . . NIH stem cell research funds.” Nightlife alleges that the guidelines will cause a decrease in the number of embryos available for adoption…The Nelsons and Flynns maintain that the guidelines will “jeopardize the likelihood that embryos will become available” for them to adopt in the future. Finally, CMA alleges that the guidelines will frustrate its purpose and require it to expend significant resources to combat the ethical problems posed by hESC research.

via Court Dismisses Challenge to Embryonic Stem Cell Research : Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Mom of Teen With Cancer Said It Was His Decision to Flee Court-Ordered Treatment – ABC News

In ALL ARTICLES, OFF THE BEATEN PATH on May 26, 2009 at 10:20 am

I get very worried when the government tries to force anything.  my comments below the article. – dg

Mom of Teen With Cancer Said It Was His Decision to Flee Court-Ordered Treatment

In Interview With Production Company, 13-Year-Old Daniel Hauser Tells Public to ‘Back Off’ By SARAH NETTER and EMILY FRIEDMAN, May 26, 2009

The mother of a teenage boy stricken with cancer said it was the boy’s decision to flee the family’s Minnesota farm when a judge ordered him back into chemotherapy.

The mother and son on the run from chemotherapy return to Minnesota.

Now back home after nearly a week on the run, Colleen Hauser, who police said has not been charged in her 13-year-old son Daniel’s disappearance, said she had no choice but to go with him.

via Mom of Teen With Cancer Said It Was His Decision to Flee Court-Ordered Treatment – ABC News.

SO…the government and legal system want to give Daniel chemo for his own good

WHAT DOCTORS SAY ABOUT CHEMO:

Scientists based at McGill Cancer Centre sent a questionnaire to 118 lung cancer doctors to determine what degree of faith these practicing cancer physicians placed in the therapies they administered. They were asked to imagine that they had cancer and were asked which of six current trials they would choose.

79 doctors responded of which 64 would not consent to be in any trial containing Cisplatin – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they were trialling, (currently achieving worldwide sales of about $110,000,000 a year) and 58 of the 79 found that all the trials in question were unacceptable due to the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptably high degree of toxicity

When the cancer patient hears the doctor say “effective,” he or she thinks, and logically so, that “effective” means it cures cancer. But all it means is temporary tumor shrinkage.

Chemotherapy usually doesn’t cure cancer or extend life, and it really does not improve the quality of the life either. Doctors frequently make this claim though… http://www.alternativehealth.co.nz/cancer/chemo/index.htm

Besides chemo, what else do they want to give him?

CHEMOTHERAPY:

The treatment can be physically exhausting for the patient. Current chemotherapeutic techniques have a range of side effects mainly affecting the fast-dividing cells of the body. Important common side-effects include (dependent on the agent):

Secondary Neoplasm

The development of secondary neoplasia after successful chemotherapy and or radiotherapy treatment has shown to exist. The most common secondary neoplasm is secondary acute myeloid leukemia, which develops primarily after treatment with alkylating agents or topoisomerase inhibitors.[9] Other studies have shown a 13.5 fold increase from the general population in the incidence of secondary neoplasm occurrence after 30 years from treatment.[10]

Immunosuppression and myelosuppression

Virtually all chemotherapeutic regimens can cause depression of the immune system, often by paralysing the bone marrow and leading to a decrease of white blood cells, red blood cells, and platelets. The latter two, when they occur, are improved with blood transfusion. Neutropenia (a decrease of the neutrophil granulocyte count below 0.5 x 109/litre) can be improved with synthetic G-CSF (granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, e.g., filgrastim, lenograstim, Neupogen, Neulasta).

In very severe myelosuppression, which occurs in some regimens, almost all the bone marrow stem cells (cells that produce white and red blood cells) are destroyed, meaning allogenic or autologous bone marrow cell transplants are necessary. (In autologous BMTs, cells are removed from the patient before the treatment, multiplied and then re-injected afterwards; in allogenic BMTs the source is a donor.) However, some patients still develop diseases because of this interference with bone marrow.

Nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy; stomach upset may trigger a strong urge to vomit, or forcefully eliminate what is in the stomach.

Stimulation of the vomiting center results in the coordination of responses from the diaphragm, salivary glands, cranial nerves, and gastrointestinal muscles to produce the interruption of respiration and forced expulsion of stomach contents known as retching and vomiting. The vomiting center is stimulated directly by afferent input from the vagal and splanchnic nerves, the pharynx, the cerebral cortex, cholinergic and histamine stimulation from the vestibular system, and efferent input from the chemoreceptor trigger zone (CTZ). The CTZ is in the area postrema, outside the blood-brain barrier, and is thus susceptible to stimulation by substances present in the blood or cerebral spinal fluid. The neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin stimulate the vomiting center indirectly via stimulation of the CTZ.

The 5-HT3 inhibitors are the most effective antiemetics and constitute the single greatest advance in the management of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer. These drugs are designed to block one or more of the signals that cause nausea and vomiting. The most sensitive signal during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy appears to be 5-HT3. Blocking the 5-HT3 signal is one approach to preventing acute emesis (vomiting), or emesis that is severe, but relatively short-lived. Approved 5-HT3 inhibitors include Dolasetron (Anzemet), Granisetron (Kytril, Sancuso), and Ondansetron (Zofran). The newest 5-HT3 inhibitor, palonosetron (Aloxi), also prevents delayed nausea and vomiting, which occurs during the 2-5 days after treatment. A granisetron transdermal patch (Sancuso) was approved by the FDA in September 2008. The patch is applied 24-48 hours before chemotherapy and can be worn for up to 7 days depending on the duration of the chemotherapy regimen.

Another drug to control nausea in cancer patients became available in 2005. The substance P inhibitor aprepitant (marketed as Emend) has been shown to be effective in controlling the nausea of cancer chemotherapy. The results of two large controlled trials were published in 2005, describing the efficacy of this medication in over 1,000 patients.[11]

Some studies[12] and patient groups claim that the use of cannabinoids derived from marijuana during chemotherapy greatly reduces the associated nausea and vomiting, and enables the patient to eat. Some synthetic derivatives of the active substance in marijuana (Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC) such as Marinol may be practical for this application. Natural marijuana, known as medical cannabis is also used and recommended by some oncologists, though its use is regulated and not legal everywhere.[13]

Other side-effects

In particularly large tumors, such as large lymphomas, some patients develop tumor lysis syndrome from the rapid breakdown of malignant cells. Although prophylaxis is available and is often initiated in patients with large tumors, this is a dangerous side-effect that can lead to death if left untreated.

Some patients report fatigue or non-specific neurocognitive problems, such as an inability to concentrate; this is sometimes called post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment, referred to as “chemo brain” by patients’ groups.[14]

Specific chemotherapeutic agents are associated with organ-specific toxicities, including cardiovascular disease (e.g., doxorubicin), interstitial lung disease (e.g., bleomycin) and occasionally secondary neoplasm (e.g., MOPP therapy for Hodgkin’s disease).

WELL…AS LONG AS IT’S FOR HIS OWN GOOD!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,184 other followers

%d bloggers like this: