What would you tell the parents of this child? We need more clinical trials to make sure it is safe and various other things.
What would you tell the parents of these children?
The people ought to be given a choice. Does the deaths that occur with many of the drugs cleared by the FDA stop others who want to take them?
In the article it seems that the way they were thawed out was the problem(since corrected) not the stem cells themselves.
I don’t even know what to say at this point. You support a government run single payer systems. That is literally the opposite of choice.
It doesn’t matter. The point is that for every one-off outlier you come up I can find the exact opposite. That’s why good policy isn’t created based on outliers.
Yes, because I’ve read enough history books and economics books to affirm that championing it is in fact the best course for the human species.
No, they don’t, but okay. You said your talking point… Great!
No, they do it because people like you chant on and on about how the government should have all this power to “regulate”. “Wall St” isn’t a singular entity, it’s a group of people. Stop lumping them into one group.
Then these “millions of amercians” are dumb too.
People don’t go to jail because “millions of americans” have hurt feelings and egos. They go when they commit crimes. If you can pinpoint the crimes committed and who should go to jail, I’m sure plenty of lawyers out there would love to hear from you.
It’s ass if you sit here and think lawyers who are infinitely more prepared and informed than any of us didn’t think of this shit, and it was just a bunch of policy wonks on T Nation that came up with it?
lol.
I don’t want answers, YOU DO. I don’t want a government big enough and powerful enough to have this happen, YOU DO.
So how many people have been harmed vs. how many have been helped?
You’ve read enough economics books that champion your ideology . However when these theories are put into practice people get hurt.
Yes corporations do control the political system. So the gutting of Glass-Stegall was a good thing? Maybe there are a few on Wall Street who do it right but the majority do not. Especially the big players who wield a lot of influence.
A government by and for the people is much different than a government by and for the corporations.
For your viewing pleasure - YouTube
People get hurt under every system. There is literally never, ever going to be a system under which no one gets hurt.
There are evil people in the world. Sorry, but it’s the case.
However, that said, there has been no other system in the history of the world that has lifted more people up out of abject poverty and into relative comfort. For the first time in human history, poor people being FAT is a larger health concern than people starving to death.
Poor people in America can walk into any fastfood restaurant and drink the water out of the tap (outside of Flint) and have cleaner drinking water than the vast majority of the human race has ever had access too since the dawn of civilization.
No, people do. Unless you are saying corporations are people…
Corps can’t contribution, only the people that work there can.
It’s largely irrelevant, because the assumption is that the melt down wouldn’t have happened with it in place, which is quite laughable if you actually understood what happened, which you don’t.
lmao. Proof?
Oh right, I forgot who I’m talking to, you can’t prove that.
Go damn it I knew better than to get into a pissing match with you…
You really just don’t get it and you’re never going to.
It used to be fun to mess with you, but it really isn’t anymore.
No kidding…
“However when these theories are put into practice people get hurt”
No one can type this with a straight face. People fucking die trying to reach the United States on home-made rafts. We went from 13 colonies to the sole remaining superpower on the planet both militarily and economically.
Get the fuck out, seriously.
People get hurt under every system. There is literally never, ever going to be a system under which no one gets hurt.
Yes but some systems hurt more than others so the objective would be to alleviate as much pain as possible.
For the first time in human history, poor people being FAT is a larger health concern than people starving to death.
Why are those people becoming fat? Could cheaply made and franken-foods be a major contributor?
Poor people in America can walk into any fastfood restaurant and drink the water out of the tap (outside of Flint) and have cleaner drinking water than the vast majority of the human race has ever had access too since the dawn of civilization.
Does this have to do with corporations or government?
People can control the political system if aroused to do so. Trump won because he took some populist positions despite the concerted effort by the Wall Street gang and other corporate divisions to support Clinton. In addition, people got tired of the democratic party as they have sold out their constituents decades ago to corporate interests.
Are you saying that corporations do not donate to candidates and political parties?
So if Glass-Stegall didn’t prevent a meltdown why didn’t a meltdown of this stature occur when it was in place but only happened shortly after it was gutted?
Proof?
Nice deflection…
So what have you provided to discount my statement? A few people have had tragic results with stem cells. Most likely it was due to the clinics mishandling of the stem cells rather than the stem cells themselves. Meanwhile you have The Stem Cell Institute in Panama City treating over 2,000 people with fantastic results. https://www.cellmedicine.com/
Now what you got to say?
You are claiming that the efficacy of a treatment shouldn’t be dependent on people dying due to preparation errors? So like everyone should be able to eat blowfish because people only die when it’s prepared wrong. Nope no reason not to eat blowfish even though it might kill you.
Treatments shouldn’t be judged by the outcome of actual application, it should be judged only on the theoretical value without considering processing and application problems, even if those problems kill people. I have a hard time imagining that someone with multiple brain cells could believe something so idiotic.
Man this thread is entertaining. Thanks for the LOLs zepp.
Nothing because, at this point, conversing with you is completely pointless. You don’t even know where I stand on the usage of stem cells…
Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to explain cell theory to a toddler with ADHD.
Since you haven’t answered my repeated requests to provide a single peer-reviewed research publication supporting your claims that stem-cell therapy is safe, effective, and has no side effects, I decided to check out your link and dig around a bit. One would think that, if the therapy is such a slam-dunk winner, by now there would be at least a couple of published papers documenting its effectiveness in humans.
I decided to look into the specialty that I would know best, so I looked at the publication list on “Heart Disease and Stem Cells.” There are about a dozen published papers on that page, with results that are somewhat of a mixed bag. Several are basic-science papers, which are a starting point for research but do not prove that a therapy is safe or effective in humans; they basically are used to investigate biologic pathways through which a therapy might be active, and consider if modifying that biologic pathway would potentially have an upstream effect. Apologies to @Aragorn for an utterly inadequate description of “basic science” and its very important place in research.
Interestingly, several papers linked on this page say things like “On the basis of information obtained from basic and translational research, several clinical trials have recently been started to evaluate the safety and efficacy of autologous MSC for heart failure.”
The C-CURE trial described on that page is one such success story. Published in JACC in 2013, it showed that chronic heart-failure patients treated with cell therapy experienced an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and 6-minute walking distance vs patients treated with “standard of care.” It is worth noting that 11 of the 32 patients assigned to the cell therapy arm were unable to participate (even after making it through the first several rounds of exclusion criteria, they were deemed ineligible AFTER being randomized), which is somewhat of a strike against the cell-therapy arm…if your proposed therapy cannot be offered to a third of supposedly target-eligible patients, that limits its real-world effectiveness even if it is “efficacious” in those in whom it can be used.
The primary paper was actually sufficiently sloppy that it merited a letter to the editor commenting on several inconsistencies (different number of patients reported vs. actually presenting data, inconsistent description of randomization procedure, change in the declared primary endpoint, changes in final-paper report vs. their preliminary report at AHA 2011). I mean, these are critical mistakes and errors that casts severe doubt on the researchers’ integrity and ability to carry out a legitimate clinical trial. And this is the highlight of their progress in heart disease. That’s the ONLY clinical-outcomes effectiveness study on the entire page at cellmedicine.com, too.
So, I went ahead and did a little more digging to see what else is up with cell therapy in heart disease. In a slightly different population (acute heart attack patients) there was a recently published meta-analysis from Circulation Research, published last year:…
The meta-analysis pooled data from 12 randomized trials to analyze the safety and efficacy of intracoronary cell therapy after acute MI (heart attack). Let’s go to the tape!
“No effect of cell therapy on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (14.0% versus 16.3%; hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.18) or death (1.4% versus 2.1%) or death/AMI recurrence/stroke (2.9% versus 4.7%) was identified in comparison with controls.”
“This meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials in patients with recent AMI revealed that intracoronary cell therapy provided no benefit, in terms of clinical events or changes in left ventricular function.”
Well, shit. Not quite what we were hoping for, hm? Cell therapy showed a modest benefit in some of the trials, but overall appears to have a modest-at-best impact on outcomes, with insufficient evidence to make a strong statement that it works.
The PI of the earlier cited C-CURE trial is currently leading another study, the CHART-1 study, going back to the well with cell therapy in heart failure patients…described here:
As an FYI, this is all muddy, and it is not reason to abandon all hope for stem-cell therapies; there are still many ongoing trials today and, eventually, we will probably make some advances that improve its quality. The point is that, for now, it is very difficult to find quality peer-reviewed publications that suggest it is both safe and effective, and in fact there are several published studies in reputable journals showing that it has no benefit. A meta-analysis in Circ Research is no joke; concluding that 12 randomized trials pooled together adds up to “no benefit” means that, at least in that population (acute MI patients), we are probably at a point where we can conclude that the current generation of this therapy offers no benefit.
Prepare yourself for a one or two sentence response letting you know that you’ve obviously swallowed the corporate agenda.
@Zeppelin795 Don’t let these so-called “scientists” bring you down. You KNOW you’re right, and that’s what matters the most!