In my series eight simple reasons to pause before getting an unlicensed stem cell treatment from a non-compliant clinic I have covered the first five: (1) potential loss of insurance coverage for negative outcomes that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, (2) failure of patient follow up by the doctors and clinics, (3) exclusion from future clinical trial […]
Two emerging acronyms in the for-profit stem cell world that remain unknown to most academic stem cell scientists, but that are generating the most buzz are: SVF and CAL. These are two fat acronyms. What? These acronyms relate to adipose (fat) stem cell-based procedures. SVF stands for “stromal vascular fraction”. SVF is, for lack of
SVF & CAL are two fat stem cell acronyms generating a lot of buzz Read More »
Would you want a GI specialist doing your heart surgery? How about a radiologist doing your brain surgery? I wouldn’t. So why then do so many patients accept that the doctor doing their stem cell transplant has no training in that area? I’m doing a series on eight simple reasons not to get an unlicensed
So far in my series of eight simple reasons not to get an unlicensed stem cell treatment I’ve covered three compelling reasons: potential loss of insurance coverage for negative outcomes that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, failure of patient follow up by the doctors and clinics, and exclusion from future clinical trial participation.
What’s the big deal about unproven stem cell treatments, patients often ask me. Why should patients avoid these? Because paradoxically such treatments, intended to cure disease, can have devastating negative consequences for your health. I’m doing an eight-part series, “Eight simple reasons not to get a stem cell treatment”. The first two blog posts were
I’m doing a series of posts on straightforward reasons why patients should not get unlicensed stem cell treatments. Part 1 of the series was on the risk of losing medical insurance coverage. Today is part 2, which is focused on a serious failing of many for-profit, point-of-care stem cell clinics selling unlicensed treatments: lack of
8 simple reasons not to get an unlicensed stem cell treatment part 2: lack of follow-up Read More »
One of the big issues related to using induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells is cost. To make iPS cells from each patient for subsequent stem cell-based treatment would cost a fortune, by some estimates $200,000 or more per patient if done one-by-one. It could easily end up not being covered by insurances companies and Medicare,
Yamanaka on making iPS cells from each patient: ‘in reality, we cannot do that’ Read More »
There is enormous interest in point-of-care for-profit stem cell commercialization by relatively small clinics hoping to hit it big here in the U.S. Some big investors have poured millions into these clinics that are treating patients with adult stem cell therapies. As I’ve talked with some of these folks they expect this market to grow dramatically
Surprising main obstacle to point-of-care stem cell commercialization by small clinics Read More »
A Korean stem cell clinic has been sued. For the first time to my knowledge, patients have sued a dubious stem cell clinic (RNL Bio) for fraud. As one stem cell expert has put it (see below), now there is “blood in the water”. RNL Bio of Korea has reportedly (hat tip to Leigh Turner) just been
Korean stem cell clinic sued by patients in U.S. for fraud: RNL Bio Read More »
What’s the connection between iPS cells and endangered species? Stem cell-based regenerative medicine has the potential to help treat not only humans with injuries or illness, but also veterinary patients such as dogs and horses. Is it also possible that stem cell technology could prevent extinction of endangered species? A recent paper suggests this may
iPS cells and endangered species: a recipe to avoid extinction? Read More »