Category Archives: Cell Medicine

01-02-2012 21:36 Notes from the interview: Nicholas Anderson - Author, NOC: British Secret Operations Big Pharma... must be careful in discussing reason for writing books is in part because of something along these lines medical doctor helped to exfiltrate from soviet union end of 1991 doctor wanted to meet... nicholas anderson flew to meet in moscow... bottom line: he claimed to have number of effective treatments and cures... MIND YOU... he's not trying to get your hopes up, but you should look into alternate treatments natural remedies. stem cell, energetic medicine is more detail in the book? when the book was written, it was non-fiction. but it didn't last to be a non-fiction novel. former secret operations must be cleared. large majority that was redacted or cleared from the fiction novel was about big pharma. certain things -are- in the book. also know that nicholas anderson was skeptical about these items first. even so, he wondered why aren't these alternative cures more widely known? the doctor appeared on a primetime show and the media prevented him from saying what he wanted to say... in a couple examples, they removed things he had said. they said the -opposite- of what he actually said. it was then that he realized he was on to something and he saw that happening. did this doctor have access to this medicine in the soviet union or was it secretive? in the beginning of communism, they did come up with things in medicine that the west never did come up with. this doctor had ...

More:
Insights Into MI6: Big Pharma - Video

01-02-2012 13:37 Meet founders of Cord Blood Registry, Tom and Wendy. Hear why they started CBR -- a family business dedicated to helping people live healthier lives through cord blood stem cell medicine. Today, CBR has grown, but the attention to healthy families is the same. For more than 15 years, Cord Blood Registry has led the umbilical cord banking industry in technical innovations and provided families with peace of mind and hope. CBR's experience and dedication to quality has enabled CBR to help more clients use their cord blood stem cells in treatments than any other family bank. Our research and development efforts are focused on helping leading clinical researchers advance stem cell regenerative medicine that may help families in the future. Ultimate use of cord blood stem cells will be determined by the treating physician who will consider if they are applicable for the condition and should come from the patient or a suitable donor (like an HLA matched sibling). There is no guarantee that treatments being studied in the laboratory or in clinical trials will be available in the future. CBR is the preferred choice of OB/Gyns. © 2011 Cord Blood Registry. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.

See original here:
Meet the Founders of Cord Blood Registry - Video

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

IntelliCell BioSciences, Inc. (OTCQB: SVFC.PK) (PINKSHEETS: SVFC.PK); (“IntelliCell”) or the (“Company”), was invited to demonstrate its stromal vascular fraction technology at the recent Baseball Injuries Symposium at the Andrews Sports Medicine Institute in Alabama held and sponsored by USA Baseball. The course Chairman is Dr. James Andrews, and moderated by PT Kevin Wilk, and Dr. Jeff Dugas. One of the courses presented during the three day event was on stem cell technology presented by Dr. Joshua Hackel. Dr. Hackel presented the state of regenerative medicine technology in the role of treating sports injuries. The link is http://www.mediafire.com/?u7bfa662e3r1sdp.

Dr. Hackel compared the IntelliCell SVF technology to several other methods of regenerative medicine being considered to be used by the leading orthopedic sports medicine doctors. Dr. Steven Victor, CEO of IntelliCell stated, "We are extremely excited that IntelliCell’s technology compares very favorably to all the other technologies, for procedures common to all major sports industries. We are extremely grateful to have the opportunity to present to over 200 leading doctors and trainers looking to treat major league, collegiate and amateur baseball players with regenerative medicine. IntelliCell Biosciences believes that its technology will be utilized by such experts this year."

About IntelliCell BioSciences, Inc.

IntelliCell is a pioneering regenerative medicine company focused on the expanding regenerative medical markets using stromal vascular fraction derived from adult adipose tissue. IntelliCell intends to initially focus on selling laboratory suites and licensing its technology to doctors for use in their offices for their patients. The company is also setting up Centers of Excellence where doctors can treat their patients. In addition, IntelliCell BioSciences is exploring storing the stromal vascular fraction in cryo-storage for future uses. The company is also starting FDA IND clinical trials at major medical centers for clinical indication approval. IntelliCell intends to pursue expansion to secondary markets and beyond the U.S. through a combination of company-owned and licensed clinical facilities.

Follow this link:
IntelliCell Demonstrates at the American Sports Medicine Institute Held in Conjunction with and at the Andrews Sports ...

RED BANK, NJ--(Marketwire -02/07/12)- American CryoStem Corporation (OTCQB: CRYO.OB - News) announced today that it has completed providing stem cell processing services for Personal Cell Sciences Corp., a cutting edge manufacturer of anti-aging skin care products.

The study involves researching the regenerative function of a conditioned medium obtained from each participant's adipose (fat tissue) derived mesenchymal stem cells and their ability to promote the production or secretion of collagen, elastin and fibronectin related to skin wound healing.

John Arnone, CEO of American CryoStem and Founder of Personal Cell Sciences, commented, "CRYO's patented tissue culture media and its proprietary, aseptic adipose tissue processing methodology allows, as an added benefit for PCS customers to store a clinical grade sample of their own stem cells for future use in regenerative medicine. We are pleased to provide comprehensive Bio-Insurance storage solutions at our clinical facility."

The adipose tissue samples were acquired utilizing a mini-liposuction procedure. A total of sixty milliliters (approximately 2 fluid ounces) of adipose tissue was collected in the physician's office and sent to CRYO's laboratory for processing. Once processed, the resulting stromal vascular fraction (SVF) was forwarded to the Personal Cell Sciences laboratory for proprietary formulation for patient specific products.

"We are very excited to announce our service agreement and participation in this clinical study for Personal Cell Sciences. This contractual manufacturing agreement reinforces our capabilities to provide CRYO's exceptional clinical processing for relevant adult stem cell related products," said Anthony Dudzinski, COO of American CryoStem. "We look forward to our continued business relationship with PCS and expanding these services to other developers to speed their product's time to market."

About American CryoStem: American CryoStem Corporation (OTCQB: CRYO.OB - News) markets clinical processing products and services for Adipose (fat) Tissue and Adipose Derived Adult Stem Cells. CRYO's clinical processing and preservation platform supports the science and applications being discovered globally by providing the highest quality, clinically processed cells and assuring their sterility, viability and growth cap abilities, while at the same time developing cutting edge application, therapies and laboratory products and services for consumers and physicians.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a "safe harbor" for forward-looking statements. Certain of the statements contained herein, which are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements with respect to events, the occurrence of which involve risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements may be impacted, either positively or negatively, by various factors. Information concerning potential factors that could affect the Company is detailed from time to time in the Company's reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Go here to read the rest:
American CryoStem Completes Cell Processing for Clinical Study

02-09-2011 03:47 metromd.net Stem Cells to Treat Acne Scarring | An overview by Alex Martin, MD of how he combines stem cell therapy and the CO2 fractional laser to effectively treat facial scars caused by acne. Offices near Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles and Orange County. Questions? Please call the MetroMD Institute of Regenerative Medicine at (323) 285-5300 or email us at info@MetroMD.net.

More here:
Stem Cells to Treat Acne Scarring | Los Angeles | Hollywood | Beverly Hills - Video

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

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

Current Article Ratings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The researchers conclude:

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

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

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

MLA

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

APA

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Our News Editors

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

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

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

View original post here:
Treating Brain Injuries With Stem Cell Transplants - Promising Results

Morning After The Morning's Trash

In my last post, I focused on flaws in the medical device approval process. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ “FDA at a Crossroads” meeting also covered problems with drug approval. This is perhaps no better illustrated than by the disappointing decision by Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius’ to deny the emergency contraceptive, Plan B, over-the-counter status for women under the age of 17. This was a particular disappointment to many because President Obama had promised that decisions at the FDA would be made based on science, rather than politics. Some of us, naively, hoped that “change we can believe in” was real, having forgotten that the Tooth Fairy wasn’t.

Two of the speakers at the recent FDA at a Crossroads meeting were formerly at the FDA; both left because of political pressures. Dr. David Ross, was an FDA reviewer for Ketek (an antibiotic). In a Congressional hearing, Dr. Ross testified that he had been pressured to soften his findings about liver toxicity due to the drug and threatened by FDA Commissioner von Eschenbach, who said, “If you don’t follow the team, if you don’t do what you’re supposed to do, the first time you’ll be spoken to, the second time you’ll be benched, and the third time, you’ll be traded,” according to Ross.

The other was Dr. Susan Wood, former assistant FDA commissioner for women’s health and director of the Office of Women’s Health, who resigned from the FDA after Plan B’s approval was initially denied.

The Tradition of Politics at the FDA

Before we delve into the specific discussion of Plan B, let’s look at the context of the politicization of the FDA, under the recent Bush administration in particular, which led to the characterization of the “broken FDA.” During that period access to healthcare information, health services, and medical research became limited by two growing trends: the infusion of increasingly restrictive religious doctrines and the implementation of ideology-driven—rather than scientific, evidence-based—public policies. Initially, access to science-based information was limited through censorship and even distortion in government sources (e.g., data regarding the efficacy of condoms in preventing HIV infections and STDs were removed from the CDC’s Web site). This neither helped reduce the teen birthrate nor STDs. They used the same misinformation tactic with the now discredited breast cancer-abortion link.

Ideologic shifts were also demonstrated by resource allocations. For example, HIV prevention programs at the CDC were reduced by $4 million while funding for abstinence-only programs rose from $20 million to $167 million, despite the lack of evidence of effectiveness, in contrast to the previous peer-review, scientific-merit-based process of NIH grant funding. No federal money is spent on comprehensive sex education. Even worse, since 1982, “Over $1 billion in government funding has been granted to abstinence-only programs…[which] are expressly forbidden from discussing contraception…and often contain factually inaccurate and distorted information. Those who design and operate these programs are often inexperienced, religiously-motivated and frequently have close ties to the anti-abortion movement.”

The trend away from evidence-based medicine affects healthcare practitioners in numerous areas, ranging from patient education and disturbingly eroding standards of medical care to selection of research topics, grant writing, and the research funding process. Upon her dismissal from the President’s Council on Bioethics in 2004 for disagreeing with the administration’s stance on stem cell research, Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, a prominent cancer researcher and one of only three full-time biomedical researchers on the council, wrote, “When prominent scientists must fear that descriptions of their research will be misrepresented and misused by their government to advance political ends, something is deeply wrong.” Among her many honors, incidentally, is the 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine.

A brief history of the FDA commissioners and other key persons over the past 20 years illustrates politics at work in the FDA.

David Kessler (commissioner,1990–1997) took a great deal of heat for trying to have the FDA regulate tobacco products and for trying to gain approval for RU-486 (mifepristone).(He lost on both counts.) He was also notable for being appointed by President George H. W. Bush and retained by President Clinton.

Jane Henney (commissioner, 1998–2001), also appointed by Clinton, authorized FDA approval of RU-486. She was, not surprisingly, ousted when George W. Bush took office. She also tried to change business as usual by filling positions with career appointees rather than political ones, actively demonstrating her goal of “leading policy and making enforcement decisions based on science, not on political whims.”

An infamous nominee for chairing Bush’s FDA advisory panel on women’s health policy was Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist. He had helped prepare a “citizens’ petition” calling for the FDA to reverse its approval of RU-486. He was perhaps more widely known for his reported refusal to prescribe contraceptives to married women and as author of a book that “recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome.” After the outcry of critics, he was not appointed chair of the advisory panel but did serve on it in 2002–2005, despite bipartisan opposition.

Mark McClellan (commissioner, 2002–2004) was an economist appointed by George W. Bush. McClellan reportedly had decided against approving Plan B for emergency contraception even before his staff completed its analysis.

Lester Crawford (commissioner, July–September 2005) was a veterinarian also appointed by George W. Bush. His term is perhaps best remembered for three features: the audacity of a veterinarian making decisions about women’s health and reproduction, his vehement opposition to Plan B’s approval, and the criminal charges against him for false reporting about holdings relevant to his appointment (that he and his wife owned stocks in food, beverage, and medical device companies that he was in charge of regulating). He got off with probation and a fine.

Susan F. Wood was another casualty of Crawford’s brief and divisive tenure at the FDA. As noted, she resigned because of the politicization of the agency—specifically, having the approval of Plan B emergency contraception denied, despite scientific evidence of the pill’s safety and recommendations from the FDA’s own advisory committee.

Andrew C. von Eschenbach (commissioner, 2005–2009) had been the head of the National Cancer Institute before being appointed as FDA commissioner. He was also tied to the decision of the FDA to deny emergency contraceptives over-the-counter status, despite the recommendation of the FDA’s advisory group and its own staff members, as well as that of many medical organizations.17 The FDA had followed advisory committee recommendations in every other case in the past decade. He is also known for reportedly threatening FDA reviewers who disagreed with him. Von Eschenbach’s ideologic, rather than evidence- based, decisions were so egregious that on March 23, 2009, the U.S. District Court (Tummino v. Torti) ordered the FDA to reconsider its decision blocking access to Plan B. It also ordered the FDA to act within 30 days to extend over-the-counter access to 17-year-olds. The court’s conclusions about the FDA’s behavior were damning.

The FDA’s ability to function and its reputation have been seriously hurt in the past decade. In a 2006 survey of FDA scientists, about 18 percent responded that they had been asked to exclude or alter information or their report’s conclusions for nonscientific reasons. A further 60 percent were aware of cases where industry “inappropriately induced or attempted to induce the reversal, withdrawal or modification of FDA determinations or actions.” One-fifth (20 percent) said they had been “asked explicitly by FDA decision makers to provide incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the public, regulated industry, media, or elected/senior government officials.” Lest you think this survey was markedly biased, even Senator Chuck Grassley, a staunch Republican, commented on the survey report, “The responses of these scientists reinforce the findings of the independent Government Accountability Office, which said the process for reviewing drugs on the market is deeply flawed.”

As a result of the politicization, the FDA staff has reportedly become greatly demoralized, interfering with its ability to function and protect the public. FDA whistle-blowers have testified that the agency considers the drug companies its clients, and its decision-making furthers the interests of those clients.

Many experienced and valuable clinicians have left the agency, leaving a void. Equally importantly, the FDA has lost considerable respect and authority in the eyes of both the public and important members of Congress.

From 2001 to 2009, the most obvious politicization at the FDA was related to women’s health issues, and especially access to contraception.

In March 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum on scientific integrity. A further encouraging sign of change was the May 2009 appointment of two well-respected physicians to lead the FDA, Drs. Margaret Hamburg and Joshua Sharfstein. Dr. Sharfstein has since left. Dr. Hamburg, the opening speaker at the UCS conference, noted that it was imperative to build trust in FDA’s integrity, and that it is science-based. Dr. Hamburg concluded that “I agree with the Center [for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)] that there is adequate and reasonable, well-supported, and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Hamburg—and all women—just had the rug pulled out from them by Sebelius’ overtly political, evidence-be-damned stance.

Plan B Perspective

The irrational decision to overrule the recommendation of numerous experts appears based on the idea that young girls would be buying the pill without parental consent, and that such girls could not do so safely. They ignore that kids can readily buy Tylenol, which has significant liver toxicity and is often a component of deadly drug overdoses. Plan B is far safer—and also unlikely to be used routinely because, at ~$50, it is relatively expensive.

Even the conservative American Academy of Pediatrics urged approval of the morning-after pill for young teens, recognizing Plan B as being a safer alternative to abortions or unwanted pregnancies.

Plan B has the same hormone found in birth control pills, progestin, but in a larger dose. It works primarily by preventing ovulation. In contrast, mifepristone, or RU-486, is used to induce a medical abortion in a process similar to a miscarriage.

What were the arguments against Plan B this time? President Obama expressed his concern as a parent, that his daughters must not have access to such a medicine without adult guidance. His personal preferences are not “evidence-based science”. And he is deluding himself. We can guide our children, but we cannot control their behavior. My hope has been to educate my kids and offer them counsel knowing that, for better or worse, they will make many mistakes along the way. Prevention of pregnancy through ready access to contraceptives is far safer than an abortion or unwanted pregnancy. . .which may doom a teen to a lifetime of poverty and misery. There is a superb cartoon capturing the debate, Matt Davies,’ “Which of these responsibilities is a 15 year old too young to be handed?”—a screaming baby or Plan B pill.

Even the digital world seems to be biased, as now even Siri is getting into the act. Siri conveniently can direct you where to buy Viagra, but feigns ignorance when asked to direct to a reproductive health center offering abortion counseling or services.

The Plan B Decision has been characterized as “Sacrificing ‘Change We Can Believe In’ for Expediency?” “Only half of the nation’s teen moms ever earn a diploma; more than half go on welfare; and more than half of the families started by teens live in poverty.” The Ft. Wayne paper has it right stating, “Plan B politics ignore human toll.” I have never understood how many conservatives can demand censorship, restriction of contraceptives, and control of women’s bodies, all in the name of being “pro-life.” Fetal rights trump a woman’s…but then these people take no responsibility for the care, feeding, and education of these unwanted children. The sanctity of life ends at the womb. A life sentence is a huge price for a moment’s mistake.

Mechai Viravaidya

Even Thailand, which many US citizens likely would (erroneously) consider to be a third-world country, is more enlightened in some health-related ways. For example, Mechai Viravaidya, a former Thai senator and founder of the Population and Community Development Association (PDA), and enormously successful family planning NGO, made a brilliant educational campaign focused on reducing both the birthrate and the AIDS epidemic, by making sex education fun and promoting condoms to be as readily available as cabbages. He even has a restaurant and resort known as “Cabbages and Condoms.” It was a wonderful place to visit. (insert pic)

So why did Obama and Sebelius kill OTC Plan B—the first time that the Health and Human Services Commission has ever overruled the FDA? Only two reasons come to mind. The first is that Obama is overtly campaigning for the conservative vote. The second is similar, but a bit less overt—that OTC Plan B was sacrificed to take a firmer stance on having contraceptive coverage as part of all insurance plans.

And Plan B’s got it right, too, in their ad: “I chose a condom but it broke. Now I Have A Second Chance.”

Why don’t the politicians get it?

~~~

Images: Morning After The Morning’s Trash, from waltarrrrr on Flickr; pictures of condom bouqets and t-shirt by the author; Mechai Viravaidya holding a t-shirt, from Gates Foundation on Flickr;

Previously in this series:

Molecules to Medicine: Clinical Trials for Beginners
Molecules to Medicine: From Test-Tube to Medicine Chest
Lilly’s Shocker, or the Post-Marketing Blues
Molecules to Medicine: Pharma Trumps HIPAA?
Molecules to Medicine: Should pepper spray be put on (clinical) trial?
Molecules to Medicine: FDA at a Crossroads—a Tough Place to Be

Go here to read the rest:
Molecules to Medicine: Plan B: The Tradition of Politics at the FDA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the original:
The Pet Corner: Behold! The future of modern medicine is here

The federal government is pledging up to $67.5 million for research into "personalized medicine," which tailors treatment to a patient's genetics and environment.

The funds will flow through Genome Canada, the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the federal government's health research agency.

Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq and Minister of State for Science Gary Goodyear made the announcement at the University of Ottawa's health campus Tuesday.

The field of personalized medicine is touted as having the potential to transform the way patients are treated. It looks at the genetic makeup of a person, the patient's environment and the exact course of a particular disease so that an appropriate and effective treatment can be tailored for that individual.

The idea is to move from a one-size-fits-all approach to one that is designed for a specific person and relies on the genetic signatures, or biomarkers, of both the patient and the disease.

Proponents of personalized medicine say it is likely to change the way drugs are developed, how medicines are prescribed and generally how illnesses are managed. They say it will shift the focus in health care from reaction to prevention, improve health outcomes, make drugs safer and mean fewer adverse drug reactions, and reduce costs to health-care systems.

"The potential to understand a person's genetic makeup and the specific character of their illness in order to best determine their treatment will significantly improve the quality of life for patients and their families and may show us the way to an improved health-care system and even save costs in certain circumstances," Aglukkaq said in a news release.

Research projects could last four years

The sequencing of the human genome paved the way for personalized medicine and there have been calls for more research funding so that the discoveries in laboratories can be translated further into the medical field so they will benefit patients more.

Identifying a person's genetic profile, for example, could then indicate a susceptibility to a certain disease, if the biomarkers of that disease have also been discovered. If people know they are genetically at risk of an illness they can take actions to prevent it, and their health-care providers can monitor for it.

Cancer patients could be pre-screened to determine if chemotherapy would work for them, which could not only save a lot of money on expensive treatments but also prevent pain and suffering for patients.

Genome Canada is leading the research initiative, in collaboration with Cancer Stem Cell Consortium and CIHR which on Tuesday launched its Personalized Medicine Signature Initiative. CIHR is committing up to $22.5 million to the large-scale initiative with the other two partners, but it will be providing more funding for other projects under its personalized medicine program.

The research projects are aiming to bring together biomedical, clinical, population health, health economics, ethics and policy researchers to identify areas that are best suited to personalized medicine.

Oncology, cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, psychiatric disorders, diabetes and obesity, arthritis, pain, and Alzheimer’s disease are all considered to be areas that hold promise for personalized medicine.

Funding will also go to projects that are aimed at developing more evidence-based and cost-effective approaches to health care.

Researchers can get up to four years of funding, but 50 per cent of their requested funding must be matched from another source, such as a provincial government or from the academic or private sectors.

Genome Canada, CIHR and the cancer consortium will invest a maximum of $5 million in each individual project.

The successful applicants for the $67.5 million worth of funding won't be announced until December.

Follow this link:
'Personalized medicine' gets $67.5M research boost