Really? Not in this thread.
This has already been explained to you no less than 30 times.
I actually didnât indicate a political leaning in either direction in THIS thread. But everywhere I have ever shown my political leanings, all over social media, I have clearly been left-leaning. I said I think you, personally, say dumb things. People on both sides of the political spectrum are capable of having bad opinions.
So, if youâre going strictly by this thread, you have no basis for assuming I lean right. If you incorporate my posts elsewhere, be it on this site or others, I am clearly on the left.
Which means⊠your assertion was baseless.
1 Like
Itâs too late, Flip. Youâre one of us now. #rightwingnutjobforlife
6 Likes
Like I keep sayingâthe only way to know whether stem cells work for a particular dz is to do the proper clinical trials. At this point, Iâm still willing to accept a case-series report that is stringent enough to be published in the mainstream medical literature.
Whataboutism is not the way to bolster a position concerning medical-treatment efficacy. Whether or not so-called âmedical marijuanaâ is safe and effective has nothing to do with the safety and efficacy of stem-cell treatments. There is literally no medical connection between the two.
True. I am strongly biased in favor of settling empirical issues in an empirical manner.
Thatâs very laissez-faire capitalist of you. Surprising.
From the link you provided:
âNorthwestern University researcher Richard Burt, MD, and colleagues summarize results from roughly 60 of these studies involving about 2,400 patients in a review published in tomorrowâs edition of The Journal of the American Medical Association.â
[âŠ]
âWe donât yet know what role this therapy will play in the treatment of MS,â National MS Society Vice President for Biomedical Research Patricia OâLooney, PhD, tells WebMD. âWe just donât have enough data.â [emphasis mine]
Thatâs great news! (Sincerely.) It sounds like stem cells are showing promise for treating certain diseases, but more research needs to be conducted. However, the larger point is that the clinicians involved are talking about studies and data, not hand-waving about âtens of thousandsâ of people whoâve supposedly been helped.
You neednât convince me of that. (You forget, Iâm an ophthalmologist.) Corneal stem-cell transplants have demonstrated safety/efficacy, and are an accepted form of treatment.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that I and others are arguing that stem-cell treatments are ineffective. To my knowledge, no one has made that assertion. (I certainly havenât.) What has been asserted is that the safety and efficacy of such treatments must be demonstrated via the appropriate clinical trials prior to their widespread acceptance as treatment modalities.
6 Likes
This is correct. Furthermore, Zeppelin speaks of âstem cell therapyâ and âdiseaseâ as though they are single, monolithic entities. Showing that stem cell therapy works for one thing does not mean that it will also work for another thing. In a prior thread, I brought up this Cochrane review of stem cell therapy for cardiovascular conditions:
âŠwhich concluded as follows:
âThis systematic review and meta-analysis found low-quality evidence that treatment with bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells reduces mortality and improves left ventricular ejection fraction over short- and long-term follow-up and may reduce the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and improve New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were generally low, leading to a lack of precision.â
Basically, the conclusion was/is that stem-cell therapy might be helpful in selected populations for specific conditions and symptom relief, and that thereâs been a sign of benefit in mostly low-quality, small RCTâs that will need to be validated in better-conducted, larger RCTâs (for example, many of the early RCTâs were not double-blinded, offering the possibility that the âbenefitâ of stem cells was basically a placebo effect). On a further amusing side note, many of the trials were supported by commercial interests, which is not a problem in and of itself but remains a hilarious counterpoint to Zepâs railing against âprofitsâ as the root of all evil.
Zep is a walking contradiction in this regard. He wants âsingle payerâ healthcare (in which it is virtually certain that only evidence-based treatments will be paid for, and even then most likely under fairly strict conditions) but also wants a free market wherein people can pick and choose whatever health care they want to receive. These are, for all intents and purposes, mutually exclusive in the real world. There is no way we can/will have a single-payer healthcare system where the government pays for any old treatment under the sun that a person wants.
5 Likes
You obviously work for Big Pharm.
/thread
1 Like
Just like the Blob, apparently.
2 Likes
Call me legion for we are many.
2 Likes
No it hasnât, puppet.
Then maybe I assumed too much on the basis of your post in this thread.
So if people are being helped by the therapy, deny them that help until science figures it out. So many people have to suffer until more clinical trials are done? That is extremely cruel.
Whether or not so-called âmedical marijuanaâ is safe and effective has nothing to do with the safety and efficacy of stem-cell treatments. There is literally no medical connection between the two.
Yes there is, as clinical trials-that you have an obvious hard-on for- have been lacking or do not exist at all for medical marijuana. If it was up to you these people would be suffering waiting on clinical trials. Great policy to get behind.
People having liberty is important. Far more effective then being trapped in a monopolist healthcare system we currently have. Hopefully Medicare for all will become a reality and we can say goodbye to the for profit insurance companies. If this happens I hope Big Pharma is next in the cross-hairs. People will be able to have a better choice of treatments and Big Pharmaâs profit and political influence will be greatly diminished.
âWe donât yet know what role this therapy will play in the treatment of MS,â National MS Society Vice President for Biomedical Research Patricia OâLooney, PhD, tells WebMD. âWe just donât have enough data.
Wow the National MS Societyâs VP says they need more clinical data. Curious who provides the majority of their funding?
I donât think stem cells can be patent. If not, that provides a incentive for Big Pharma and their paid for lackeys in the FDA to keep it off the market, so as to keep competition at bay. This is one of the main reasons Big Pharma loves the high cost of the clinical trial schedule, it keeps competition away.
The U.S. is falling far behind the rest of the world in their application of stem cells. Why? Countries like Japan are fast tracking innovative therapies to the market. From what I understand the treatments have to only be required to show safety by government standards and then they can go to market. So people can get help instead of suffering waiting around for it to be confirmed by trials. A much more humane policy.
As you have chosen to become unnecessarily caustic and personal in your comments, Iâm now the latest in the ever-lengthening line of discussants who will no longer engage substantively with you.
5 Likes
This is correct. Furthermore, Zeppelin speaks of âstem cell therapyâ and âdiseaseâ as though they are single, monolithic entities. Showing that stem cell therapy works for one thing does not mean that it will also work for another thing. In a prior thread, I brought up this Cochrane review of stem cell therapy for cardiovascular conditions:
A very weak point. I never implied it worked for everything. My main argument is that tens of thousands of people around the world are already being helped by it with various diseases and it should be available in the U.S. This county ought to adopt Japan-type laws allowing innovative treatments to come to market that have been shown to be safe by government standards. This way people can be helped instead of suffering under the policy you espouse.
More studies for heart problems.
Ichim TE, Solano F, Lara F, et al. Combination stem cell therapy for heart failure. Int Arch Med.2010;3(1):5.doi: 10.1186/1755-7682-3-5.
Perin EC, Dohmann HF, Borojevic, R et al. Transendocardial, autologous bone marrow cell transplantation for severe, chronic ischemic heart failure. Circulation. 2003;107(18):2294-2302
Plenty of other studies if you want some more.
Zep is a walking contradiction in this regard. He wants âsingle payerâ healthcare (in which it is virtually certain that only evidence-based treatments will be paid for, and even then most likely under fairly strict conditions) but also wants a free market wherein people can pick and choose whatever health care they want to receive. These are, for all intents and purposes, mutually exclusive in the real world. There is no way we can/will have a single-payer healthcare system where the government pays for any old treatment under the sun that a person wants.
Another weak point by a person who doesnât have a basic understanding of the system.
There is already plenty of evidence of the efficacy of stem cell therapy. Without the corrupting influence of Big Pharmaâs money, the approval of other effective treatments will come much faster to the market and be available to the public.
Very few people opt for out-there therapies. But when they are getting relatively little help from Big Pharmaâs âsolutionsâ. They ought to have a choice. You approve a policy that denies them choice and makes them continue to suffer, bravo!
Yes, it has, clown.
Some random fucktard keyboard expert vs. PhD biostatistician. Pure gold.
Thank Christ. You wasting letters on him is an affront.
2 Likes
Did you just refer to yourself in the 3rd person?
He was quoting without using the quote function. It is a complicated mechanism for those on their 3rd bowl of the day.
5 Likes
Ah. Mystery solved.
How has the medicinal marijuana question been answered? Enlighten me.
Some random fucktard keyboard expert vs. PhD biostatistician. Pure gold.
So a because someone is a PhD. biostatistician means he understands about the profit goals of the corporations who employ him? That is pure gold.