[quote]Xav wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]Xav wrote:
I’m not quoting your post Zeppelin to avoid walls of text, it doesn’t seem to work.
If I am not mistaken you claim that the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-embryonic stem cell therapy has been proved, could you back this up?
Also calling me ignorant and then claiming that the only therapy for cancer consists of chemo is quite contra-productive. I have to tell you that there are way more possibilities than only chemo, chemo is more of a last resort therapy and often palliative.
I believe you’re talking about stem cell therapies where your own stem cells are extracted (often from fat indeed) and implanted later on? Could you enlighten me in which therapies exactly this is used? As far I know this is used in certain forms of leukemia, and not a lot more. A lot of research is being done to use this in orthopedics (most notably cartilage regeneration) and as a matter of fact this week very promising results were announced of using autologous stem cells in myocardial infarction rehab.
More importantly, which diseases could these stem cells cure that would otherwise lead to a high consumption of drugs?
I wholeheartedly agree on what you say about nutrition and med school.
One last thing I’d like to ask you is how does Big Pharma exactly keep fat derived stem cells from hitting the market? You said yourself they can’t patent it, not to mention that when using your own stem cells you can hardly speak of the market to begin with. [/quote]
You can not just bring something to market. You must go through the FDA. The FDA is owned by Big Pharma so they work for Big Parma. A consequence of the power of monopolies.
Auto-immune diseases are treated with stem cells. Spinal cord injuries are treated with stem cells. Do some research and enlighten yourself.
[/quote]
What does having to go through the FDA have to do with anything? The FDA is an obstacle for “Big Pharma”, obliging them to a whole lot of research before they can market a product.
The treatments you talk about are highly experimental. I can assure you they’re not common practice in other countries than the USA.
I did a quick search on your claims on spinal cord injuries following your advice to enlighten myself, you might want to follow it yourself! If you can find other reliable information, please let me know, but I highly doubt it.
I quote the 2 most recent articles (indexed for MEDLINE, to avoid you claiming these articles are bullshit) on the subject.
" In January 2009, the Food and Drug Administration approved the Investigational New Drug application of Geron Corporation, a small California-based biopharmaceutical company, to initiate a clinical trial to assess GRNOPC1, a human embryonic stem cell-derived candidate therapy for severe spinal cord injuries." (Evaluating the first-in-human clinical trial of a human embryonic stem cell-based therapy. Chapman AR, Scala CC.)
The most recent review on stem cell therapy and spinal cord injuries states that:
“Spinal cord injury (SCI) has remained a challenging area for scientists and clinicians due to the adverse and complex nature of its pathobiology. To date, clinical therapies for debilitating SCI are largely ineffective. However, emerging research evidence suggests that repair of SCI can be promoted by stem cell-based therapies in regenerative medicine. Over the past decade, therapeutic potential of different types of stem cells for the treatment of SCI have been investigated in preclinical models. These studies have revealed multiple beneficial roles by which stem cells can improve the outcomes of SCI. This chapter will summarize the recent advances in the application of stem cells in regenerative medicine for the repair of SCI.” (Adv Exp Med Biol. 2012;760:53-73.Stem cells and spinal cord injury repair.Karimi-Abdolrezaee S, Eftekharpour E.)
Supposing you want to continue this discussion, do you mind actually answering the points I made? You only answered one question of mine.
Could you accept the vague possibility that you’re not right on this one? You didn’t answer any of my points and I just refuted your only argument.
EDIT: Another question I’d like to ask you is how do you conclude there’s a monopoly? The pharmaceutical market consists of far more than just a handful of corporations…
[/quote]
The FDA is there to ensure that the largest Pharmaceutical companies enjoy there monopolistic stranglehold on the healthcare system. They therefore have the power to shoot down any new treatments that are on the horizon.
The treatments I talk about are not highly experimental, they are being done outside of this country with greta effect and promise. However, to you they are because your view of healthcare is framed by the healthcare industry of this country.
The most recent view by whom? That article you posted? Who are these folks?
Can you accept that these people are regurgitating there own research and are behind on the technology?
Could you accept the vague possibility that you and this healthcare system in this country are wrong?
How many Big Pharma companies? They are a market oligarchy.
These treatments are kept away form the American public as a way to keep Big Pharma’s profits from being threatened.
Vet-Stem has been in business for over 10 years treating animals with fat-derived stem cells with no side effects but humans can’t get it. This is highly unethical and immoral. It also should be illegal and every CEO and major shareholder of every Big Pharma company along with their counterparts in the FDA ought to be behind bars. They are causing untold suffering for profits. The profit motive is not good for everything!