Page 1,654«..1020..1,6531,6541,6551,656..1,6601,670..»

Nacho Reveals Diabetes Battle Almost Derails Career – beIN SPORTS USA

Posted: March 4, 2017 at 10:42 am

OMNISPORT

Spain internationalNacho was told his football career was over as the Real Madrid defender opened up about his battle with diabetes.

Nacho has made over 100 appearances in all competitions since emerging through the youth ranks at boyhood club Madrid but the 27-year-old's career was almost ended before it even started.

Diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 12, seven-time international Nacho - winner of two Champions League trophies and LaLiga - said he had feared for his footballing future.

"I was only 12 when I found out I was diabetic," Nacho told UEFA.com. "I'd been on Real Madrid's books for two years and obviously it was a tough time.

"I remember going to the hospital I was supposed to go to a tournament with Real Madrid but had to miss it and I was seen by a doctor, not an endocrinologist. She told me my footballing days were over.

"I had a really rough time that weekend. Three days later I saw Dr Ramirez, who would become my regular endocrinologist and whom I've grown very fond of. He told me the complete opposite: in no way was football over for me. In fact, it was essential I continued playing because physical exercise is very important. That Monday, my life started again.

"Of course it's difficult, because you have to take care of yourself three times more than a normal person, but in a roundabout way I think that also helps. You have to take greater care with your diet and the way you rest. It makes you more responsible because you always have to carry your equipment [insulin, monitor, etc].

"I have no limitations. I'm lucky enough to play football at the top level and I like playing all types of sport because it's very important to do physical exercise. I do a bit of everything. When we're on holiday, I like to cycle around the mountains. I do duathlons, triathlons ... diabetes doesn't prevent me from doing anything.

"There are food types I need to be a bit more careful about, but I eat everything. I'm lucky it's under control and I get on very well with my doctor. As I said, it makes you a more responsible person and you look after yourself much more. I know it's going to be there for the rest of my life well, unless they find a cure. It's like having a team-mate by my side."

Nacho has played 16 LaLiga matches this season, 13 of those as a starter ahead of Saturday's trip to Eibar.

Read more here:
Nacho Reveals Diabetes Battle Almost Derails Career - beIN SPORTS USA

Posted in Diabetes | Comments Off on Nacho Reveals Diabetes Battle Almost Derails Career – beIN SPORTS USA

Diabetic Neuropathy Guidelines Updated by ADA – Neurology Advisor

Posted: March 4, 2017 at 10:42 am


Neurology Advisor
Diabetic Neuropathy Guidelines Updated by ADA
Neurology Advisor
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) released an updated position statement on the prevention, detection, and management of diabetic neuropathies, which represent the most common chronic complications of the disease.1 Distal symmetric ...
American Diabetes Association updates guidelines for diabetic retinopathyHealio

all 2 news articles »

Original post:
Diabetic Neuropathy Guidelines Updated by ADA - Neurology Advisor

Posted in Diabetes | Comments Off on Diabetic Neuropathy Guidelines Updated by ADA – Neurology Advisor

Embryo Experiments Reveal Earliest Human Development, But Stir Ethical Debate – Alabama Public Radio

Posted: March 3, 2017 at 10:43 am

Ali Brivanlou slides open a glass door at the Rockefeller University in New York to show off his latest experiments probing the mysteries of the human embryo.

"As you can see, all my lab is glass just to make sure there is nothing that happens in some dark rooms that gives people some weird ideas," says Brivanlou, perhaps only half joking.

Brivanlou knows that some of his research makes some people uncomfortable. That's one reason he has agreed to give me a look at what's going on.

His lab and one other discovered how to keep human embryos alive in lab dishes longer than ever before at least 14 days. That has triggered an international debate about a long-standing convention (one that's legally binding in some countries, though not in the U.S.) that prohibits studying human embryos that have developed beyond the two-week stage.

And in other experiments, he's using human stem cells to create entities that resemble certain aspects of primitive embryos. Though Brivanlou doesn't think these "embryoids" would be capable of developing into fully formed embryos, their creation has stirred debate about whether embryoids should be subject to the 14-day rule.

Brivanlou says he welcomes these debates. But he hopes society can reach a consensus to permit his work to continue, so he can answer some of humanity's most fundamental questions.

"If I can provide a glimpse of, 'Where did we come from? What happened to us, for us to get here?' I think that, to me, is a strong enough rationale to continue pushing this," he says.

For decades, scientists thought the longest an embryo could survive outside the womb was only about a week. But Brivanlou's lab, and one in Britain, announced last year in the journals Nature and Nature Cell Biology that they had kept human embryos alive for two weeks for the first time.

That enabled the scientists to study living human embryos at a crucial point in their development, a time when they're usually hidden in a woman's womb.

"Women don't even know they are pregnant at that stage. So it has always been a big black box," Brivanlou says.

Gist Croft, a stem cell biologist in Brivanlou's lab, shows me some samples, starting with one that's 12 days old.

"So you can see this with the naked eye," Croft says, pointing to a dish. "In the middle of this well, if you look down, there's a little white speck it looks like a grain of sand or a piece of dust."

Under a microscope, the embryo looks like a fragile ball of overlapping bubbles shimmering in a silvery light with thin hairlike structures extending from all sides.

Croft and Brivanlou explain that those willowy structures are what embryos would normally extend at this stage to search for a place to implant inside the uterus. Scientists used to think embryos could do that only if they were receiving instructions from the mother's body.

"The amazing thing is that it's doing its thing without any information from mom," Brivanlou says. "It just has all the information already in it. That was mind-blowing to me."

The embryos they managed to keep alive in the lab dish beyond seven days of development have also started secreting hormones and organizing themselves to form the cells needed to create all the tissues and organs in the human body.

The two scientists think studying embryos at this and later stages could lead to discoveries that might point to new ways to stop miscarriages, treat infertility and prevent birth defects.

"The only way to understand what goes wrong is to understand what happens normally, or as normally as we can, so we can prevent all of this," Brivanlou says.

The 14-day cutoff

But Brivanlou isn't keeping these embryos alive longer than 14 days because of the rule.

"The decision about pulling the plug was probably the toughest decision I've made in my scientific career," he says. "It was sad for me."

The 14-day rule was developed decades ago to avoid raising too many ethical questions about experimenting on human embryos.

Two weeks is usually the moment when the central nervous system starts to appear in the embryo in a structure known as the "primitive streak."

It's also roughly the stage at which an embryo can no longer split into twins. The idea behind the rule is, that's when an embryo becomes a unique individual.

But the rule was initiated when no one thought it would ever be possible to keep embryos growing in a lab beyond two weeks. Brivanlou thinks it's time to rethink the 14-day rule.

"This is the moment," he says.

Scientists, bioethicists and others are debating the issue in the U.S., Britain and other countries. The rule is law in Britain and other countries and incorporated into widely followed guidelines in the United States.

Insoo Hyun, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, advocates revisiting the rule. It would allow more research to be done on embryos that are destined to be destroyed anyway, he says embryos donated by couples who have finished infertility treatment.

"Given that it has to be destroyed," Hyun says, "some would argue that it's best to get as much information as possible scientifically from it before you destroy it."

But others find it morally repugnant to use human embryos for research at any stage of their development and argue that lifting the 14-day rule would make matters worse.

"Pushing it beyond 14 days only aggravates what is the primary problem, which is using human life in its earliest stages solely for experimental purposes," says Dr. Daniel Sulmasy, a Georgetown University bioethicist.

The idea of extending the 14-day rule even makes some people who support embryo research queasy, especially without first finding another clear stopping point.

Hank Greely, a Stanford University bioethicist, worries that going beyond 14 days could "really draws into question whether we're using humans or things that are well along the path to humans purely as guinea pigs and purely as experimental animals."

Embryo alternative: "Embryoids"

So as that debate continues, Brivanlou and his colleagues are trying to develop another approach. The scientists are attempting to coax human embryonic stem cells to organize themselves into entities that resemble human embryos. They are also using induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, which are cells that behave like embryonic stem cells, but can be made from any cell in the body.

Brivanlou's lab has already shown that these "embryo-like structures" or "embryoids" can create the three fundamental cell types in the human body.

But the scientists have only been able to go so far using flat lab dishes. So the researchers are now trying to grow these embryonic-like structures in three dimensions by placing stem cells in a gel.

"Essentially, we're trying to, in a way, to re-create a human embryo in a dish starting from stem cells," says Mijo Simunovic, another of Brivanlou's colleagues.

In early experiments, Simunovic says, he has been able to get stem cells to "spontaneously" form a ball with a "cavity in its center." That's significant because that's what early human embryos do in the uterus.

Simunovic says it's unclear how close these structures could become to human embryos entities that have the capability to develop into babies.

"At the moment, we don't know. That's something that's very hot for us right now to try to understand," Simunovic says.

Simunovic argues the scientists are not "ethically limited to studying these cells and studying these structures" by the 14-day rule.

There's a debate about that, however.

"At what point is your model of an embryo basically an embryo?" asks Hyun, especially when the model seems to have "almost like this inner, budding life."

"Are we creating life that, in the right circumstances, if you were to transfer this to the womb it would continue its journey?" he asks.

Dr. George Daley, the dean of the Harvard Medical School and a leading stem cell researcher, says scientists have been preparing for the day when stem-cell research might raise such questions.

"I think what prospects people are concerned about are the kinds of dystopian worlds that were written about by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World," Daley says. "Where human reproduction is done on a highly mechanized scale in a petri dish."

Daley stresses scientists are nowhere near that, and may never get there. But science moves quickly. So Daley says it's important scientists move carefully with close ethical scrutiny.

The latest guidelines issued by the International Society for Stem Cell Research call for intensive ethical review, Daley notes.

Brivanlou acknowledges that some of his experiments have produced early signs of the primitive streak. But that's a very long way from being able to develop a spinal cord, or flesh and bones, let alone a brain. He dismisses the notion that the research on embryoids would ever lead to scientists creating humans in a lab dish.

"They will not get up start walking around. I can assure you that," he says, noting that full human embryonic development is a highly complex process that requires just the right mix of the biology, physics, geometry and other factors.

Nevertheless, Brivanlou says all of his experiments go through many layers of review. And he's convinced the research should continue.

"It would be a travesty," he says, "to decide that, somehow, ignorance is bliss."

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:

Scientists doing embryo research are facing some sensitive questions over a new generation of scientific experiments, questions like how long should scientists be allowed to keep human embryos alive in their labs to study them? And should entities that they create from stem cells resembling human embryos be treated the same way? NPR's health correspondent Rob Stein visited a lab that's at the forefront of this provocative research, and he brings us now the first of two reports.

ROB STEIN, BYLINE: So what are we going to see first?

ALI BRIVANLOU: A human embryo that is attached and grown for 13 days in a petri dish.

STEIN: Ali Brivanlou runs the lab at The Rockefeller University in midtown Manhattan.

So this is an embryo that - where you were able to keep it alive in the laboratory...

BRIVANLOU: Exactly.

STEIN: ...Up until day...

BRIVANLOU: Day 13.

STEIN: And had it been done before?

BRIVANLOU: Never.

STEIN: For decades, scientists thought the longest an embryo could survive outside the womb was only about half that long - only about a week tops. So this is the first time scientists can actually see living human embryos at this crucial stage of development and study them at a time when they're usually hidden in a woman's womb.

BRIVANLOU: And women don't even know they are pregnant at that stage, so it has always been a big black box.

STEIN: Brivanlou arranged for one of his colleagues to show me.

BRIVANLOU: I ask him to make sure that he has a real sample for you to see with your own eyes so that you can appreciate the beauty in their own glory. It's really one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen in my life.

STEIN: Brivanlou's colleague Gist Croft pulls out some samples. Turns out, he's going to show me several embryos, starting with one that's 12 days old.

GIST CROFT: So you can see this with the naked eye. In the middle of this well, if you look down, there's a little white speck that looks like a grain of sand or a piece of dust in this well right here. I don't know if you can - can you see that?

STEIN: Yeah, it looks like a tiny little white translucent dot.

CROFT: That's it.

STEIN: Croft carefully places it on a big microscope and pulls a heavy black curtain closed.

CROFT: Would you like to look through the microscope?

STEIN: Yeah.

BRIVANLOU: OK.

STEIN: Croft helps me bring the embryo into focus.

Oh, yeah, I can see...

CROFT: Better?

STEIN: I can see the - oh, wow. Wow, that's, like, kind of beautiful.

It is quite stunning. It looks like a fragile ball of overlapping bubbles that's sort of shimmering in a silvery light, but it's also a little, well, funny looking.

So that looks like a (laughter) well, I mean, it kind of just looks like a - kind of a translucent hairy ball actually.

CROFT: Yes.

STEIN: Croft and Brivanlou get excited that I noticed what looked like little hairs reaching out from all sides because that's exactly what scientists would expect embryos to do at this stage if they were in the womb - search for just the right spot to nestle in.

CROFT: They're doing the reaching out and attaching that they normally do into uterus cells, but here they're doing it onto plastic.

STEIN: Wow, so they're behaving like they would - this embryo is behaving like it would if it was actually in the womb.

CROFT: That's right. It's reproducing certain key features of what it's normally doing in the womb.

STEIN: Scientists thought embryos could only do that sort of thing if they were getting instructions from their mother's body about what to do next - not all alone in some plastic dish.

BRIVANLOU: The amazing thing is that it's doing its thing without any information from mom - completely unexpected to me. It just has all the information already in it. That was mind-blowing to me.

STEIN: The embryos also start pumping out hormones and start organizing themselves, all by themselves, to form the cells needed to create all the tissues and organs that make up the human body. So Brivanlou and his colleagues think they could learn lots of things by studying them that could help stop miscarriages, treat infertility, prevent birth defects.

BRIVANLOU: The only way to understand what goes wrong is to understand what happens normally or as normally as we can so we can prevent all of this.

STEIN: But that would mean studying embryos beyond 14 days and Brivanlou can't keep these embryos alive any longer to keep studying them. Why? Because of a rule that says scientists should not conduct experiments on human embryos that are more than 14 days old. So Brivanlou decided he had no choice but to pull the plug on these experiments.

BRIVANLOU: The decision about pulling the plug was probably the toughest decision I've made in my scientific career. It was sad for me. It was sad.

STEIN: The 14-day rule was adopted decades ago to avoid raising too many ethical questions. It's a guideline in the U.S. but law in some other countries. Fourteen days is when the central nervous system starts forming, starting with something called the primitive streak. It's also usually when an embryo can't split into twins anymore. So the idea is that's when it truly becomes an individual. But that was before anyone thought it would ever be possible to go beyond two weeks. So Brivanlou says it's time to rethink the 14-day rule.

BRIVANLOU: It's time to reopen that debate. This is the moment. I think we are here. It would be a travesty to decide that somehow ignorance is bliss.

STEIN: And Brivanlou's not alone. There's a big debate about this going on in the United States, Britain and other countries. Insoo Hyun is a bioethicist at the Case Western Reserve University. He points out that these are embryos that were donated for research by couples who were finished with infertility treatments.

INSOO HYUN: You have to realize that with these embryos they are being used for research. That decision has been made. Now, the question is how long can you study them before they have to be destroyed? So given that it has to be destroyed, some would argue that it's best to get as much information as possible scientifically from it before you destroy it.

STEIN: Now, some people think it's morally repugnant to use human embryos for any kind of research at any stage of their development. And lifting the 14-day rule, that would just make matters worse. But the idea of extending the 14-day rule even makes some people who support embryo research uncomfortable, especially without first coming up with another clear stopping point. Hank Greely is a bioethicist at Stanford.

HANK GREELY: Unless there was something really important we could learn from doing research with human embryos, I wouldn't allow research beyond 14 days because at some point experimentation with it seems to really draw into question whether we're using humans or things that are well along the path to humans purely as guinea pigs and purely as experimental animals.

STEIN: So as that debate continues, Brivanlou and his colleagues are trying something else. They're using stem cells to create things that resemble primitive human embryos in their lab, but that's controversial too. Rob Stein, NPR News, New York.

Continued here:
Embryo Experiments Reveal Earliest Human Development, But Stir Ethical Debate - Alabama Public Radio

Posted in Alabama Stem Cells | Comments Off on Embryo Experiments Reveal Earliest Human Development, But Stir Ethical Debate – Alabama Public Radio

Why Puma Biotechnology Inc. Got Hammered Today – Madison.com

Posted: March 3, 2017 at 10:42 am

What happened

Puma Biotechnology (NASDAQ: PBYI) ended the day down 13.8% after Roche (NASDAQOTH: RHHBY) reported that its rival breast cancer drug, Perjeta, had passed its phase 3 trial, dubbed "Aphinity."

Image source: Getty Images.

In Roche's trial, patients either took Perjeta and Herceptin with chemotherapy or just Herceptin with chemotherapy, and then took Perjeta and Herceptin, or just Herceptin, for an additional year. Roche didn't release the full data from the clinical trial, but it did say the triple combination reduced the risk of recurrence of invasive disease or death compared to Herceptin and chemotherapy alone.

The potential to establish a new standard of care where patients take Herceptin and Perjeta for a year could be problematic for Puma Biotechnology because its drug candidate, neratinib, was tested after just Herceptin use, the current standard of care.

Without any data, doctors will likely wonder whether neratinib helps patients that have received Herceptin and Perjeta. And the relapse rate for patients on the current standard of care is already quite low; if adding Perjeta decreases it further, doctors and their patients may decide taking another drug after that isn't worth it, especially given neratinib's side-effect profile.

Investors will have to wait for the full data from Aphinity -- perhaps at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in June -- to know how much better Herceptin plus Perjeta is than Herceptin alone, and how that might affect neratinib's sales, assuming it's approved later this year.

10 stocks we like better than Puma Biotechnology

When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has tripled the market.*

David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now... and Puma Biotechnology wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys.

*Stock Advisor returns as of February 6, 2017

Read the rest here:
Why Puma Biotechnology Inc. Got Hammered Today - Madison.com

Posted in Biotechnology | Comments Off on Why Puma Biotechnology Inc. Got Hammered Today – Madison.com

Puma Biotechnology Shares Plunge On Plans To Modify Neratinib European MAA, Competitor Roche’s Perjeta Win – Benzinga

Posted: March 3, 2017 at 10:42 am

Shares of Puma Biotechnology Inc (NASDAQ: PBYI) plunged more than 25 percent following plans to modify the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) in its European Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) for its breast cancer drug neratinib.

The company now plans to restrict the intended population to patients initiating neratinib treatment within one year after completion of adjuvant trastuzumab therapy.

Earlier, the proposed indication was for the "extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early-stage HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer who have received prior adjuvant trastuzumab based therapy."

Puma submitted its neratinib MAA last summer.

During the regulators meeting, the timeline for Neratinib was discussed. Neratinib will likely be sequenced immediately after adjuvant trastuzumab. Furthermore, more benefits were observed in the subgroup of patients who received neratinib within one year from prior trastuzumab completion.

Related Link: Here's What To Expect Following Trump's Drug Pricing 'Robbery' Comments

In addition, data from the pivotal adjuvant trastuzumab trials suggest that patients are at higher risk of recurrence closer to completion of adjuvant trastuzumab, and the risk of recurrence may decrease over time.

Puma also noted that the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) is continuing to review Puma's MAA and has not yet made a final decision to recommend approval of the drug for the updated or any other indication and there is no guarantee when, if ever, the MAA will be approved.

Separately, Puma reported a wider loss for its fourth quarter. On a GAAP basis, Puma reported a net loss applicable to common stock of $72.7 million, or $2.04 per share, versus a net loss of $61.7 million, or $1.90 per share, a year ago.

Excluding items, the loss came in at $1.22 a share versus loss of $1.23 a share, last year. However, the loss was better than consensus loss estimate of $1.92 a share.

On December 31, 2016, Puma had cash and cash equivalents of $194.5 million and marketable securities of $35.0 million.

Shares of Puma closed Wednesdays trading at $38.05. In the pre-market hours Thursday, the stock plunged 26.41 percent to $28.

According to the verified Twitter account of TheStreet's senior columnist Adam Feuerstein, "Hedge funds that own $PBYI are screaming at sell side analysts to defend the stock."

TheStreet also published on its website a possible connection between Puma's movements and those of Roche Holding Ltd. (ADR) (OTC: RHHBY). Feuerstein and Martin Baccardax wrote: "The Roche AG (RHHBY) breast cancer drug Perjeta notched an important win in the closely followed 'Aphinity' clinical trial, promising to add billions of dollars in sales to the Swiss drugmaker's top line. Perjeta's success spells big trouble for Puma Biotechnology (PBYI), which could see its competeing, but still approved, breast cancer drug neratinib without any patients to treat."

At last check in Thursday's pre-market session, shares of Puma were down 26.54 percent at $27.95. ADR shares of Roche were up 5.75 percent at $32.30.

Posted-In: Biotech Earnings News Health Care FDA Movers Media Trading Ideas Best of Benzinga

2017 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Continued here:
Puma Biotechnology Shares Plunge On Plans To Modify Neratinib European MAA, Competitor Roche's Perjeta Win - Benzinga

Posted in Biotechnology | Comments Off on Puma Biotechnology Shares Plunge On Plans To Modify Neratinib European MAA, Competitor Roche’s Perjeta Win – Benzinga

When Celebrity And Science Collide: Hollywood And The Anti … – Genetic Literacy Project

Posted: March 3, 2017 at 10:42 am

Julie Kelly, cooking instructor, food writer, blogger and a Mom who lives in the Chicago area. In 2015, she got passionate about GMOs. Kelly is a contributing writer to the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Huffington Post, The Hill and other media outlets.| March 2, 2017

HIGHLIGHTS:

Hollywood is in our homes daily,often spreading misconceptions about science, and GE crops in particular Gary Hirshberg, founder of Stonyfield Organic and Just Label It, is the key celebrity organizer Gwyneth Paltrow has emerged as the face of celebrity moms who question the safety of GE foods Mark Ruffalo questions GE foods but also rejects biotechnological solutions beyond food, such as the gene-edited mosquito that could curtail the Zika virus Celebrity misinformation campaigns have filled a void created by the agricultural and food industries, which have been reticent to defend the science of biotechnology While the Internet and social media are valuable tools for disseminating information about complicated subjects like science and agriculture, it has also given rise to a modern-day monster: the expert celebrity From movie stars to television chefs, a cadre of self-promoting yet often ill-informed celebrities are influencing the public discussion about topics way beyond their expertise, particularly consequential issueslike vaccines and biotechnology

The explosive growth of cable television and more recently of the Internet has led to a celebrication of everyday lifeHollywood has invaded our homes in an oddly intimate way. Celebrities have long weighed in on public issues, which is okay if the issue is what clothes to wear next season, but science is different: it actually can impact peoples lives.

If Big Bang star Mayim Bialik talks about Zikas impact on the brain, we might be interested because she has a PhD in neurosurgeryshe has genuine credentials. But science-educated stars are few and far between. For example, campaigns led by Robert Kennedy, Jr., reality TV star Jenny McCarthy and her former husband Jim Carrey and flip comments by Bill Maher have convinced a lot of credulous fans to forgo getting their kids vaccinated the lowest vaccination rates in the country are in the swanky Hollywood suburban playgrounds. And thats just one of many misguided celebrity-driven campaigns.

Celebrities may have any number of motives for injecting themselves into the middle of debates over controversial, scientific issues. Ego, for example. Its a way to get publicity for themselves (McCarthy is more known now for her anti-vaccine activism than for her acting.) And as we know, stars are eager to follow the cause du jour. It is science-as-fashion.

While some people wisely ignore celebrity advice, their ill-informed and selectively ignorant comments can sway public opinion in destructive ways. Thats whats happening in the ongoing debate over our food and farming systems. In the last few years, movies such as Consumed and GMO OMG have fueled misperceptions about genetic engineering. And celebrity chefs such as Tom Colicchio have joined the fray, partnering with other anti-GMO chefs in a Facebook page, Chefs Against GMOs, and making appeals in Washington and on TV shows. But Hollywood is where anti-GMO groups draw their most visible campaigners.

A slew of Hollywood celebrities, have lent their names to one anti-GMO or pro-labeling campaign or another, among them a fading generation of actors and musicians: Morgan Freeman, Paul McCartney, Dave Mathews, Danny DeVito, Woody Harrelson and Neil Young, to name just a few. But there are some younger faces who have lobbied hard against modern agriculture, mostly B-list actresses, with Gwyneth Paltrow the most prominent. They rail against GMOs in an effort to persuade consumers our food system is hopelessly broken, and that crop biotechnology is scary, unnatural and part of a corporate conspiracy to control the worlds food supply. Its easily dismissible nonsense to those who know the consensus science, but their distortions have consequences outside of clickbait headlines.

Paltrow has emerged as the face of the anti-GMO movement over the last few years. Its unclear exactly how or why she decided to take up this cause except that she has worked closely with one of the most powerful figures in the organic movement, Gary Hirshberg, founder of Stonyfield Organic, who also started Just Label It, which has campaigned for mandatory labels. Just Label it and the organic industry in general have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years to demonize conventional agriculture and mislead consumers into thinking organic food is healthier, safer and more nutritious than conventional food.

Although state-of-the-art meta studies conclude there are no meaningful differences, and some research shows organic farming is more stressful on the environment than farming using advanced technology including genetically engineered crops, organic companies peddle that narrative in hopes of driving consumers toward their pricier products. As the self-appointed priestess of all that is healthy and good in the world, Paltrow promotes organic food, which is by definition non-GMO.

Hirshberg has fueled and funded anti-GMO advocacy under the guise of promoting mandatory GMO labels. He has organized several anti-GMO groups, and has used celebrities like Paltrow to push his agenda. At his invitation, Paltrow was featured at a press conference on Capitol Hill in August 2015 to voice her support for mandatory GMO labeling. A bill the organic industry opposed had just passed in the House, and Paltrow wanted to use her powers of persuasion to stop the bill from advancing in the Senate:

Im not here as an expert, Im here as a mom who honestly believes I have the right to know whats in the food I feed my family. And we dont even know, the science is still inconclusive about GMOs, there are arguments they could possibly be harmful and there are arguments that they could be incredibly beneficial. But at this point, we just dont know.

The presser echoed widely on social media, but most disturbingly, her comments were reported uncritically by major media sites, giving her credibility on an issue she did not deserve.

Here is where Paltrow is wrong. We do know that GMOs are safe. They hold tremendous potential and promise to alleviate global hunger now and into the future as food demands are expected to nearly double by 2050.Nearly every major independent scientific organization and governmental agency in the world, including most recently the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS), have affirmed that genetically engineered crops and food are just as healthy and environmentally safe as other conventionally grown foods, including organic. American farmers have been using genetically modified seeds for 20 years and most of the corn, soy, cotton and sugarbeets grown are from those seeds. This has cut down on the use of pesticides (since some of those crops have been developed to include natural pesticides already used by organic farmers), which has reduced crop losses and increased yield, a huge boon to both farmers and consumers.

In its analysis of the GMO controversy, the NAS also noted several problems with mandatory labeling, such as higher costs to consumers and the probability that companies might eliminate genetically engineered ingredients in order to avoid labels. The report also outlined several crops that can only be achieved through genetic engineering that boost nutrients, withstand climate challenges and resist crop diseases. Promising new crops in the pipeline include nutritionally enhanced rice and bananas and disease-resistant cassava, a plant that hundreds of millions depend on every day. So, its galling for an ultra-rich celebrity to spread falsehoods about a technology that can feed and fortify the diets of hundreds of millions of poor people around the world.

That wasnt the last we heard from Paltrow. In April 2016, she made a brief cameo in a video sponsored by Just Label It (with Hirshberg taking a star turn) entitled GMO Transparency in the Real World. A harried mother attempts to use her smart phone to scan a QR code on a can of soup to see if the soup contains GMOs (QR codes are anathema to the pro-GMO labeling crowd). As she stumbles to use her smart phone, and her kids smash a watermelon in the aisle, a fresh-faced Paltrow appears from the dairy aisle, asking the distraught mom if she has a scanner on her smart phone that she could use.

Paltrow isnt the only actress to play the Im not an activist, Im a mom card. Around Mothers Day 2015, several B-list mom-actresses appeared in a Moms Against GMOs video produced by another Hirshberg group to talk about GMOs, including Sarah Michelle Gellar, The Talks Sarah Gilbert, UnREALs Constance Zimmer, Once Upon a Times Ginnifer Goodwin, Furious 7s Jordana Brewster, The Biggest Losers Jillian Michaels, Mariel Hemingway and Sharon Osbourne. They pledged to protect their little ones from the dangers of GMOs: This Mothers Day, give moms the right to know whats in the food we feed our kids. Tell the FDA to require GMO labeling.

These actresses are now part of a coordinated, calculated attack on American agriculture and an attempt to stop millions of farmers from using technological tools necessary for their livelihood and Americas food security. They are part of a destructive campaign to hurt American farmers and our overall agricultural and food system.

Since a bill requiring mandatory GMO labels passed Congress and was signed into law by President Obama in August 2016, the GMO labeling groups have been more forthcoming about their true motives. Anti-GMO activist and Institute for Responsible Technology founder Jeffrey Smith, who makes regular appearances on Dr. Oz and other celebrity-type shows, acknowledged their real agenda:

Labeling GMOs was never the end goal for us. It was a tactic. Labels make it easier for shoppers to make healthier non-GMO choices. When enough people avoid GMOs, food companies rush to eliminate them. Labeling can speed up that tipping pointbut only if consumers are motivated to use labels to avoid GMOs.

Some celebrities brazenly profit by spreading misinformation about biotechnology. Jessica Alba parlayed her fame into selling organic, non-GMO products as part owner of The Honest Company. She boasts about the naturality of her products, from organic baby formulameticulously blended using non-GMO, naturally derived, organicto organic tampons to non-GMO lip balm. Many items brandish a non-GMO label. Alba explains her healthy eating habits as trying to have the least amount of GMOs and pesticides you have energy, arent starving and dont have to count calories.

Actor and progressive environmental activist Mark Ruffalo, who does not have a college education, has embraced any number of controversial causes, from fracking to GMOs, where the science is contested. He became a rock star in the anti-GMO community, even confronting Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant in a CBS green room rant before a joint TV appearance and later bragging about it.

You are wrong, he lectured Grant. You are engaged in monopolizing food. You are poisoning people. You are killing small farms. You are killing bees. What you are doing is dead wrong. Its the horrible stuff you guys do that makes you and your company horrible. People like you and your company are horrible because you are horrible.

He has more than 2 million followers on Twitterthats scary. His obsession to demonize genetic engineering took a bizarre turn earlier this year when he started tweeting that the Zika virus was caused by a chemical manufactured by an obscure Japanese company that has a research pact with Monsanto, the bete noire of anti-GMO activists. By doing so, he deflects attention from what experts now say is the only feasible solution to containing Zikathe release of genetically engineered sterile mosquitoes to drive out the poison-carrying ones.

Chef Attack

Many celebrity chefs have taken up the anti-GMO crusade, apparently believing their ability to run a restaurant or cook on television gives them special insight into how food is grown on a farm. Tom Colicchio, the star of Bravos Top Chef program, gathered signatures of more than 4,000 chefs on a petition he delivered to Capitol Hill in March 2016 demanding mandatory GMO labels and rejecting a Senate bill that would have made the labels voluntary.

He claims he only supports the right to know. But his twitter feed is filled with anti-GMO propaganda and like most activists in the GMO labeling movement, he is also broadly against the technology. In a December 2015 op-ed in the New York Times entitled, Are you eating Frankenfish? Colicchio warned readers that the newly approved GE fast-growing salmon could escape enclosed tanks and endanger native speciesclaims multiple US and Canadian regulators have reviewed and rejected as untrue. Colicchio has also come out in opposition to insect-resistant eggplant, grown with government developed seeds distributed free to farmers in Bangladesh, which has reduced the spraying of dangerous chemicals by 85 percent.

Why are celebrities getting so much traction in their campaign against GMOs? They are filling an information void left by the scientific and agricultural communities. Scientists are reluctant to engage the public, either out of trepidation or arrogance, convinced that science will win the day. Infighting has plagued the science communications effort as leaders dispute the best way to fight misinformation from people like Paltrow and Ruffalo.

Some want to take a submissive approach and others want to fight fire with fire. The agricultural community and companies that benefit from genetic engineering arent standing up to defend the technology, either.

While science and farming communicators struggle with how to best educate consumers and the media, organic executives and celebrities are defining the narrative on GMOs. This is not without serious ramifications if we turn away from genetically modified crops. Food prices will rise and farmers will be forced to use more insecticide and more toxic herbicides. Its wonderful to celebrate the performances of TV, movie and music celebrities, but their opinions on science issues are no more relevantnow than they were when they were waiting tables in Hollywood and Nashville looking for a break. Hit the mute button when they start opining on serious policy issues that have considerable consequences for vulnerable people around the world.

Julie Kelly is a cooking instructor, food writer, blogger and mother of two who lives in the Chicago area. In 2015, she got passionate about GMOs. Kelly is a contributing writer to the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Huffington Post and other media outlets.

The Genetic Literacy Project is a 501(c)(3) non profit dedicated to helping the public, journalists, policy makers and scientists better communicate the advances and ethical and technological challenges ushered in by the biotechnology and genetics revolution, addressing both human genetics and food and farming. We are one of two websites overseen by the Science Literacy Project; our sister site, the Epigenetics Literacy Project, addresses the challenges surrounding emerging data-rich technologies.

Here is the original post:
When Celebrity And Science Collide: Hollywood And The Anti ... - Genetic Literacy Project

Posted in Biotechnology | Comments Off on When Celebrity And Science Collide: Hollywood And The Anti … – Genetic Literacy Project

Artificial embryo shows early potential for medical therapies, not babies – CNN

Posted: March 3, 2017 at 10:41 am

The artificial structure shows promise as a tool for medical research, though it cannot develop into an actual baby.

After an egg is fertilized by a sperm, it begins to divide multiple times. This process generates a small, free-floating ball of stem cells: a blastocyst.

Within a mammalian blastocyst, the cells that will become the body of the embryo (embryonic stem cells) begin to cluster at one end. Two other types of cells, the extra-embryonic trophoblast stem cells and the endoderm stem cells, begin to form patterns that will eventually become a placenta and a yolk sac, respectively.

To develop further, the blastocyst has to implant in the womb, where it transforms into a more complex architecture. However, implantation hides the embryo from view -- and from experimentation.

In the study, Zernicka-Goetz wanted to replicate developing embryonic events using stem cells.

Other scientists who have attempted the same thing have used only embryonic stem cells, but these experiments, though they have yielded embryoid bodies, have not been entirely successful. The artificial bodies never follow the same chain of events found in nature, and they lack the structure of a natural embryo.

Zernicka-Goetz, a professor in Cambridge's Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, hypothesized that the trophoblast stem cells communicate with the embryonic stem cells and guide their development.

She and her colleagues placed embryonic and trophoblast stem cells within an extra-cellular matrix: the non-cell component found in all tissues and organs that provides biochemical support to cells. This formed a scaffold on which the two stem cell types could co-develop.

The embryonic stem cells sent chemical messages to the trophoblast stem cells and vice versa, said Zernicka-Goetz. Essentially, the different stem cells began to "talk to each other," and this helped the embryonic stem cells, she explained.

"They respond by turning on particular developmental gene circuits or by physically changing shape to accomplish some architectural remodeling," she wrote in an email. "This happens in normal embryogenesis and it is what we are trying to recreate in the culture dish."

Ultimately, the cells organized themselves into a structure that not only looked like an embryo, it behaved like one, with anatomically correct regions developing at the right time and in the right place.

"The results were spectacular -- they formed structures that developed in a way strongly resembling embryos in their architecture and expressing specific genes in the right place and at the right time," Zernicka-Goetz wrote.

Despite its resemblance to a real embryo, this artificial embryo will not develop into a healthy fetus, the researchers said. That would require the endoderm stem cells, which "does other things that are most likely necessary for further development," said Zernicka-Goetz.

"Whether adding these to the system would be enough to achieve further development, I don't know," she said.

"Correct placental development" is essential for proper implantation into "either the womb or a substitute for the womb," she said. "To achieve this will be some time off."

According to Dr. Christos Coutifaris, president-elect of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, the new study is significant because it shows how "the cells that are extra-embryonic -- the ones that are going to give rise to the placenta -- actually play a role" in the development of cells that eventually become the fetus.

"It's not two completely separate entities," Coutifaris said, referring to the embryo and its support structure. Understanding how the two types of cells interact and the chemical signals they exchange is "really, really critical."

Zernicka-Goetz's model has practical applications in research, where it can be used to better understand the conversation between embryonic stem cells and trophoblast stem cells, he said. "You can manipulate these cells molecularly to try to understand these interactions and how early development occurs pre-implantation."

According to Kyle E. Orwig, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences, and molecular genetics and biochemistry at the University of Pittsburgh, Zernicka-Goetz's model "will enable investigators to investigate the effects of genetic manipulations, environmental toxins, therapeutics and factors on embryo development." Artificial embryos "represent a powerful tool for research that might reduce (but not eliminate) the need for human embryos," Orwig said.

Dr. David Adamson, a reproductive endocrinologist, an adjunct clinical professor at Stanford University and chairman of the International Committee Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, believes that it's "very important to continue to do basic science research in reproductive medicine."

"How our species reproduces is very important to know," Adamson said. "When you learn about reproduction and learn how cells reproduce and how cells differentiate and what makes things happen normally and what makes thing happen abnormally, then there clearly are a lot of potential therapeutic applications."

Past advances in reproductive medicine have helped scientists prevent genetic-based diseases, he said. Specifically, in vitro fertilization techniques have allowed doctors to biopsy and conduct genetic tests on embryos to prevent inherited illnesses, including Huntington's.

In vitro fertilization is "fundamentally transformative," said Adamson, who sees the new research as adding to the wealth of knowledge about this procedure.

In fact, Zernicka-Goetz works in the same nondescript brick building on the Cambridge campus where Robert Edwards, a reproductive medicine pioneer, once toiled. Edwards developed the Nobel Prize-winning technique of in vitro fertilization, which eventually resulted in the birth of the first "test tube" baby, Louise Brown.

Helping families have babies is the most obvious contribution of in vitro fertilization. Today, Adamson said, there have been approximately 6.5 million babies born using in vitro fertilization since the procedure was first developed. An exact number is not known because many countries, including China, do not have registries to count them, explained Adamson.

Meanwhile, Zernicka-Goetz said she will continue her work on embryonic development as she and the members of her lab are "totally driven by a curiosity to understand these fundamental aspects of life."

She plans to use human stem cells to create a similar embryonic model. Then she plans to use that model to learn more about normal embryonic development and understand when it goes wrong without needing to experiment on an actual human embryo.

The work also "continually teaches us about the properties of stem cells," Zernicka-Goetz said. She added that this knowledge is useful for developing "therapies to replace faulty tissues in so-called regenerative medicine."

Follow this link:
Artificial embryo shows early potential for medical therapies, not babies - CNN

Posted in Cell Medicine | Comments Off on Artificial embryo shows early potential for medical therapies, not babies – CNN

Foundation Medicine Receives Medicare Payment in Non-Small … – Business Wire (press release)

Posted: March 3, 2017 at 10:41 am

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Foundation Medicine, Inc. (NASDAQ:FMI) today announced that it has received payment from Palmetto GBA, the Companys Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) in North Carolina, for its FoundationOne comprehensive genomic profiling assay when used in the clinical course of care for individuals in the United States with Stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who meet the eligibility requirements under Palmetto GBAs Local Coverage Determination L36143 (LCD). The LCD was most recently updated on December 22, 2016. Foundation Medicine began submitting an initial set of claims to Palmetto GBA in January 2017 for FoundationOne, and received its first payments for claims under this LCD on March 1, 2017.

Coverage and payment for FoundationOne under Palmetto GBAs LCD is a positive step toward advancing access to precision medicines for individuals living with non-small cell lung cancer, said Troy Cox, chief executive officer for Foundation Medicine. We look forward to continuing to work with Palmetto GBA as we gain additional payment experience under this LCD for non-small cell lung cancer. We will continue to work with FDA and CMS as they review our universal companion diagnostic test through the Parallel Review process with the goal of being the first pan-cancer, universal companion diagnostic test to receive FDA approval and a National Coverage Determination from CMS.

About Foundation Medicine Foundation Medicine (NASDAQ:FMI) is a molecular information company dedicated to a transformation in cancer care in which treatment is informed by a deep understanding of the genomic changes that contribute to each patient's unique cancer. The company offers a full suite of comprehensive genomic profiling assays to identify the molecular alterations in a patient's cancer and match them with relevant targeted therapies, immunotherapies and clinical trials. Foundation Medicines molecular information platform aims to improve day-to-day care for patients by serving the needs of clinicians, academic researchers and drug developers to help advance the science of molecular medicine in cancer. For more information, please visit http://www.FoundationMedicine.com or follow Foundation Medicine on Twitter (@FoundationATCG).

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements for Foundation Medicine

This press release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including, but not limited to, statements regarding reimbursement of the Companys comprehensive genomic profiling assays, the benefits provided by anFDA-approved and CMS-covered version of the Companys universal companion diagnostic test, and progress with the Parallel Review process with FDAand CMS; the scope and timing of any approval of FoundationOne as a medical device by FDAand any potential national coverage decisions by CMS; and strategies for achievingMedicarecoverage decisions at the local or national level and new and expanded coverage from third-party payers.All such forward-looking statements are based on management's current expectations of future events and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially and adversely from those set forth in or implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include the risks that FDA does not approve our universal companion diagnosic test as a medical device or that CMS does not decide to offer our universal companion diagnostic test as a covered benefit underMedicare; FDAor CMS is delayed in the completion of the Parallel Review process; and the risks described under the caption "Risk Factors" inFoundation Medicine's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2016, which is being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, as well as other risks detailed inFoundation Medicine'ssubsequent filings with theSecurities and Exchange Commission. All information in this press release is as of the date of the release, andFoundation Medicine undertakes no duty to update this information unless required by law.

Read the rest here:
Foundation Medicine Receives Medicare Payment in Non-Small ... - Business Wire (press release)

Posted in Cell Medicine | Comments Off on Foundation Medicine Receives Medicare Payment in Non-Small … – Business Wire (press release)

Cell Death in Gut Implicated in IBD – Cornell Chronicle

Posted: March 3, 2017 at 10:41 am

The natural lifecycle of cells that line the intestine is critical to preserving stable conditions in the gut, according to new research led by a Weill Cornell Medicine investigator. The findings may lead to the development of new therapies to alleviate inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and other chronic inflammatory illnesses.

In the study, published Nov. 9 in Nature, the scientists investigated the healthy turnover of epithelial cells, which are born and die every four to five days, to better understand how the gut maintains a healthy equilibrium. Because cells, called phagocytes, can clear dying cells so quickly in the body, it had been difficult to study this process in tissues. The inability to clear dying cells has been linked to inflammation and autoimmunity. Dying epithelial cells are shed into the gut lumen, so their active clearance is not necessary and they were thought to have no role in intestinal inflammation.

The investigators sought to understand whether phagocytes can take up dying epithelial cells in the gut and, if so, how these phagocytes respond. Specifically, the study tried to ascertain which genes are expressed by phagocytes after the uptake of dead cells. To answer these questions, the scientists engineered a mouse model where they could turn on apoptosis and catch phagocytes in the act of sampling dying cells. Through a series of experiments, they found that several of the genes modulated up or down in phagocytes bearing dead cells overlapped with the same genes that have been associated with susceptibility to IBD.

The mouse model used in the study enables the visualization of a dying red cell within the green fluorescently-labeled small intestinal epithelial cells. The green outline of villi shown delineates the single cell layer of the intestinal epithelium. Cell nuclei are shown in blue. Weill Cornell Medicine investigators tracked dying intestinal epithelial cells into the underlying phagocytes (not visible), and asked how their uptake modulates gene expression in those phagocytes.

The fact that there was an overlap shows that apoptosis must play a role in maintaining equilibrium in the gut, said Dr. Julie Magarian Blander, a senior faculty member in the Jill Roberts Institute for Research in Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Weill Cornell Medicine who was recently recruited as a professor of immunology from Mount Sinai. This study identified cell death within the epithelium as an important factor to consider when thinking about therapeutic strategies for patients with IBD.

In their experiments, the scientists expressed a green fluorescent protein fused to the diphtheria toxin receptor within intestinal epithelial cells of mice, which made them visible under a microscope and sensitive to diphtheria toxin. They injected into these mice a carefully titrated dose of toxin into the intestinal walls of mice to induce cell death. Then the team examined the phagocytes that turned green after they internalized dead cells. Macrophages, one kind of phagocyte, expressed genes that help process the increased lipid and cholesterol load they acquired from dying cells. Dendritic cells, another type of phagocyte, activated genes responsible for instructing the development of regulatory CD4 T cells, a class of suppressive white blood cells. Notably, both phagocytes expressed a common suppression of inflammation gene signature.

Because the same genes that confer susceptibility to IBD were modulated in response to apoptotic cell sampling, the research indicates that a disruption of the phagocytes immunosuppressive response would have consequences for homeostasis or stable conditions in the gut.

We know there is excessive cell death, inflammation and microbial imbalance in IBD, so the prediction is that the immunosuppressive program in phagocytes, associated with natural cell death in the gut epithelium, would be disrupted, Dr. Blander said. The goal in the treatment of IBD is to enhance healing in the gut, but now we know that this also helps phagocytes restore their immunosuppressive and homeostatic functions. We think this would translate into helping patients stay in remission. Theres a lot to learn from phagocytes and we may be able to target the same pathways they use to suppress inflammation in patients with IBD.

The study validates the importance of healing in the mucosa, or lining, of the intestine as a therapy and enhances the understanding of that process. The next phase of Dr. Blanders research will be to investigate how the inflammatory conditions of IBD alter cell death and the homeostatic immunosuppressive functions of intestinal phagocytes, and to do so in both mouse models and different groups of IBD patients undergoing anti-TNF therapy at the Jill Roberts Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at New York-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medicine.

Read this article:
Cell Death in Gut Implicated in IBD - Cornell Chronicle

Posted in Cell Medicine | Comments Off on Cell Death in Gut Implicated in IBD – Cornell Chronicle

Doctors reverse teen’s sickle cell disease with innovative gene therapy – Fox News

Posted: March 3, 2017 at 10:41 am

A French teen who underwent a first-of-its-kind procedure 15 months ago to change his DNA shows no signs of the sickle cell disease he had been suffering from. The procedure, which was performed at Necker Childrens Hospital in Paris, may offer hope to millions of patients who suffer from sickle cell disease, BBC News reported.

Sickle cell disease is a severe hereditary form of anemia, which causes patients to develop abnormal hemoglobin in red blood cells. The botched hemoglobin causes the cells to form a crescent or sickle shape, making it difficult to maneuver throughout the body. Sickle-shaped cells are less flexible, and may get stuck to vessel walls causing a blockage, which can stop blood flow to vital tissues.

Before undergoing the procedure, treatment for the unidentified teen included traveling to the hospital each month for a blood transfusion to dilute the defective blood, BBC News reported. According to the report, the excessive amount of treatment caused severe internal damage, and at age 13 he already needed a hip replacement and had his spleen removed.

In a world first, doctors at Necker Childrens Hospital removed his bone marrow and genetically altered it using a virus to compensate for the defect in his DNA responsible for sickle cell disease, BBC News reported. The results published in the New England Journal of Medicine said he no longer uses medication, and has been making normal blood for the past 15 months.

So far the patient has no sign of the disease, no pain, no hospitalization, Philippe Leboulch, professor of medicine at the University of Paris, told BBC News. He no longer requires a transfusion so we are quite pleased with that.

Doctors said the treatment will have to be repeated in other patients as the teen is the trials first, but that it does show powerful potential.

Ive worked in gene therapy for a long time and we make small steps and know theres years more work, Dr. Deborah Gill, of the gene medicine research group at the University of Oxford, told BBC News. But here you have someone who has received gene therapy and has complete clinical remission thats a huge step forward.

It was not clear how much the procedure would cost, or whether there are plans to expand to other countries.

Read more from the original source:
Doctors reverse teen's sickle cell disease with innovative gene therapy - Fox News

Posted in Cell Medicine | Comments Off on Doctors reverse teen’s sickle cell disease with innovative gene therapy – Fox News

Page 1,654«..1020..1,6531,6541,6551,656..1,6601,670..»