What’s the deal with US Stem Cell Inc stock?

The stem cell clinic business US Stem Cell Inc., formerly known as Bioheart, has seen its stock take a rollercoaster ride recently include a big run up and now today a big drop so what’s the scoop?

US Stem Cell, which includes a few subsidiaries such as US Stem Cell Clinic, focuses on the use of adipose stem cells to treat a variety of health conditions in people, as well as training and pet treatments.

US Stem Cell Inc Stock USRM

To my knowledge, the company does not have FDA approval such as an IND for the stem cell interventions that it sells. In addition, there is some debate over whether adipose stem cells/stromal vascular fraction is a biological drug. As a stem cell scientist and close follower of the field, I believe it is a drug. Note that I’m not aware of the FDA having taken any action on US Stem Cell or its competitors who use adipose stem cells. The company has also recently settled two patient lawsuits, which included allegations of harm to vision by a number of entities.

On the potential upside for investors, it seems there remains strong demand across the US and the world amongst patients for what stem cells clinics are offering even without FDA approval.

Why is the US Stem Cell Inc stock moving so much recently?

It looks like an investment research firm put out a report on the company and the report apparently details the company making deals outside the U.S. and in the Middle East so this may be part of what is driving the stock to move around.

There also seems to be something recent about a lawsuit settlement on social media, but seems pretty vague so hard to say if it is accurate or means something.

Any other thoughts?

Disclosure: I have no investment in stem cell/regenerative medicine stocks including US Stem Cell or its competitors.

Update on patients lawsuit against stem cell clinic, Stemgenex

StemGenexThe website Law360 has an interesting update on the proposed class action lawsuit against the San Diego stem cell clinic Stemgenex.  Note that it seems you can read the full Law360 article without a subscription if you open the site in Chrome as your web browser. See more background on Stemgenex and on this case here.

Not surprisingly, the plaintiffs and defense see this case in opposite ways as reflected in quotes in the Law360 article:

“Plaintiffs make non-specific and conclusory allegations with respect to all named defendants,” StemGenex said. “The second amended complaint is so devoid of any specific facts to support its contentions that it is impossible for defendants to reasonably prepare a defense.”

Brian Findley of Mulligan Banham & Findley, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Law360 Wednesday that the allegations are “quite specific” and cite false statistics, made-up online reviews and StemGenex employees. If customers told the company that the treatment hadn’t done anything, they were told it could take months to see an effect, or that they should buy another treatment, he said.”

A key issue in this case is the marketing of stem cell offerings from Stemgenex and the plaintiffs allege this marketing was problematic:

“The three StemGenex customers, Selena Moorer, Stephen Ginsberg and Alexandra Gardner, all say that they paid the company $14,900 for each stem cell treatments for lupus, diabetes and other ailments after being persuaded by the number of satisfied customers on the company’s website, but that the treatments had no effect.”

The Stemgenex website still lists an apparent 100% patient satisfaction marketing claim as of today, January 23, 2017 (see screenshot below).

stemgenex

Screenshot from Stemgenex website

According to the Law360 article, Stemgenex has made various arguments to support their motion for dismissal and they overall called the lawsuit a “fishing expedition.”

If you want to follow the case, here is some info:

“The case is Moorer v. StemGenex Medical Group Inc., et al., case number 3:16-cv-02816, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.”

It seems likely that more patient suits against stem cell clinics will emerge this year. Some, but not all of the other recent cases of this kind including against US Stem Cell, Inc. and its subsidiary US Stem Cell Clinic have been settled before any judgment was issued. I’m not sure of the status of a different proposed potential class action case against The Lung Institute. If you know of other such lawsuits please contact me or post a comment.

Clinics can’t retract stem cell treatments gone bad

Stem cell facelift comicYou can stop taking a pill or an injection treatment, but you can’t stop or retract stem cell treatments if there’s a bad side effect.

Unlike other kinds of medicines, once stem cells have been transplanted into patients, if something goes wrong you cannot stop the ‘treatment’. There’s no retraction possible because transplanted stem cells spread in the body and potentially integrate.

One of the striking things in the commercial stem cell arena in 2016 was the emergence of patient lawsuits against stem cell clinics including two proposed class action suits. These patients, and I count potentially now more than a dozen, allege a variety of harms ranging from tumors to blindness. The reason I mention this is that there appears to be huge potential for harm to patients from unapproved stem cell therapies. I know a lot of patients who would wish they could undo what the stem cell clinic did. It’s just not possible.Stem cell cartoon

Even in an appropriately regulated stem cell trial context, there’s no easy way to undo stem cell transplants. There has been talk for years about suicide genes to be inserted into stem cells to provide “a net” should something go awry with stem cell treatments, but it’s not clear how well these would work and stem cell clinics aren’t interested in that anyway.

Continue reading

Top 20 Stem Cell Predictions for 2017

stem cell crystal ball

Stem cell crystal ball

Each year I make a list of predictions for the stem cell and regenerative medicine field for the coming new year. Later in this post I list my top 20 stem cell predictions for 2017. In looking at my past predictions I realized this will now be my 7th year doing stem cell/regenerative medicine yearly predictions.

You can see below links to these predictions for past years, which sometimes seems rather far removed from today and in other cases strike me as strangely apropos of our times.

What will 2017 bring? Below are my top 20 predictions in no particular order except starting with a few hopeful visions for the coming year.

Continue reading

Stemgenex motion to dismiss aims to rebut stem cell suit claims

motion-to-dismiss-stemgenexSan Diego-based stem cell business Stemgenex is the subject of a suit over allegations about stem cell treatments. The company has now filed a motion to dismiss the case.

To me as a non-attorney, the Stemgenex motion to dismiss seems to emphasize overall vagueness of the plaintiff’s case and argues in part that there is insufficient detailed support of each claim.

From my reading of the plaintiff’s suit document, the case seems focused on alleged issues with Internet marketing claims and it provides details mainly on that level. Are all nine claims related to that? I’m not sure.

The motion to dismiss also asserts that there is a lack of detail on the specific alleged roles of each defendant as pertains to the nine claims. I’m more accustomed to reading, writing, and critiquing scientific materials (e.g. papers and grants), so court documents seem somewhat foreign to me and I don’t know what the expectations are for claims. I do feel like there are some lacunae in terms of specific details of the nine claims in the case, but is that par for the course at this stage?

Stay tuned as we all learn more about this situation and hopefully one or more experts in legal matters will weigh in on it.