San Jose Newspaper Lauds CIRM Chairman Thomas
♫ Sunday, February 17th, 2013The California stem cell agency got some good
news this week. The San Jose Mercury News ran an editorial yesterday
that was headlined,
|
The California stem cell agency got some good
news this week. The San Jose Mercury News ran an editorial yesterday
that was headlined,
|
Earlier
this month the California Stem Cell Report published an item that said:
“In
the wake of recent considerable criticism concerning conflicts of
interest at the $3 billion California stem cell agency, its leaders
have taken to saying 'no actual conflicts' have been found at the
agency.
“That
assertion is simply not true.”
“California’s
Fair Political Practices Commission (FPCC) decided that Burnham
Institute President violated conflict-of-interest rules by writing a
letter to the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine appealing
a decision that an affiliate of his institute was ineligible for
funding.”
Francisco Prieto, a member of the
governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, is
expressing some additional dissatisfaction with the blue-ribbon
Institute of Medicine (IOM) report for which the agency paid $700,000.
“A few more words on independence,
and the IOM. I think Bob Klein drafted the proposition (and
remember, all of this was spelled out there – readily available to
the voters and whatever news sources they were depending on for
information) deliberately to engage patient advocates. I think he
knew that those of us who have been active in disease advocacy have a
passion around the issue of advancing research that someone without
that background would be unlikely to have. I’m not sure exactly
what the IOM had in mind when they called for more 'independent'
members of the board, since they very unfortunately did not bother to
interview the patient advocates on the ICOC(the governing board). I
don’t know what their reason for this was, if there was one, but
they only circulated a (in my view) frankly inadequate questionnaire,
and interviewed a small handful of people. I think this was a major
flaw in their process and gave them a very limited view of our role.
It is hard for me to imagine who they might have in mind, if not
people who had been involved with some existing advocacy
organization. I think there are very few if any patient advocates who
aren’t working with some group – the only ones I might imagine
would be some independently wealthy person able to start a foundation
or research institute on their own. With all due respect to
Bill Gates and the great work his foundation is doing with malaria
and HIV, I have written before that I think it would be absolutely
wrong and anti-democratic to create any public board or commission
that only millionaires could sit on.”
The California stem cell agency got some good
news this week. The San Jose Mercury News ran an editorial yesterday
that was headlined,
The 306-word editorial said CIRM Chairman Jonathan Thomas is a refreshing change from Robert Klein, the first chairman of the $3 billion enterprise. The brief editorial said Thomas recognizes that the eight-year-old agency "has to mature." It said Thomas was trying to improve transparency and accountability. |
|
Earlier
this month the California Stem Cell Report published an item that said:
“In
the wake of recent considerable criticism concerning conflicts of
interest at the $3 billion California stem cell agency, its leaders
have taken to saying 'no actual conflicts' have been found at the
agency.
“That
assertion is simply not true.”
“California’s
Fair Political Practices Commission (FPCC) decided that Burnham
Institute President violated conflict-of-interest rules by writing a
letter to the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine appealing
a decision that an affiliate of his institute was ineligible for
funding.”
Francisco Prieto, a member of the
governing board of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, is
expressing some additional dissatisfaction with the blue-ribbon
Institute of Medicine (IOM) report for which the agency paid $700,000.
“A few more words on independence,
and the IOM. I think Bob Klein drafted the proposition (and
remember, all of this was spelled out there – readily available to
the voters and whatever news sources they were depending on for
information) deliberately to engage patient advocates. I think he
knew that those of us who have been active in disease advocacy have a
passion around the issue of advancing research that someone without
that background would be unlikely to have. I’m not sure exactly
what the IOM had in mind when they called for more 'independent'
members of the board, since they very unfortunately did not bother to
interview the patient advocates on the ICOC(the governing board). I
don’t know what their reason for this was, if there was one, but
they only circulated a (in my view) frankly inadequate questionnaire,
and interviewed a small handful of people. I think this was a major
flaw in their process and gave them a very limited view of our role.
It is hard for me to imagine who they might have in mind, if not
people who had been involved with some existing advocacy
organization. I think there are very few if any patient advocates who
aren’t working with some group – the only ones I might imagine
would be some independently wealthy person able to start a foundation
or research institute on their own. With all due respect to
Bill Gates and the great work his foundation is doing with malaria
and HIV, I have written before that I think it would be absolutely
wrong and anti-democratic to create any public board or commission
that only millionaires could sit on.”
Muscular Dystrophy Improvement After Stem Cell Therapy in Mumbai India
He is a known case of MD with history of gradual onset of lower extremities muscle weakness noticed since age of 12 years with complaints of footwear slipping, frequent falling, difficulty in stairs climbing and getting up from floor. Gradually weakness progressed to upper extremities with difficulty in overhead activities. He even reports difficulty in pronunciation of "Ra", "La". He has no family history of MD. Functionally, he is modified independent in all ADL and mobility. On FIM he scores 79. After Stem Cell Treatment 1. Feels more energetic. Stamina has improved. 2. Sitting posture has improved. 3. Walking and standing posture is more erect. 4. Balance while walking has improved. 5. He can maintain kneeling position. 6. Bending and rotation from trunk is easier because of increase in back extensor strength. 7. Slow rate of speech achieved. 8. Lisping reduced. 9. Correct articulation for fricatives /s/, /sh/ and velar /ksha/ achieved in isolation. Stem Cell Therapy done at Dr Alok Shrama NeuroGen Brain and Spine Institute Surana Sethia Hospital Sion-Trombay Rd, Suman Ngr Opp Corporate Park, Chembur, Mumbai -- 71. Tel : 022 - 25283706, 022 - 25281610, Mob : +91 9920 200 400 http://www.neurogen.in http://www.stemcellsmumbai.com
By: neurogenbsi
The rest is here:
Muscular Dystrophy Improvement After Stem Cell Therapy in Mumbai India - Video
Beckers Muscular Dystrophy Improvement After Stem Cell Therapy in Mumbai India
He is a known case of BMD since 10 years (2003). The difficulty initially started as difficulty in walking and stair climbing. Slowly weakness progressed and he could not get up from the floor. He went to the local doctor, who advised him to get investigations done. Investigations in 2005 showed Becker #39;s specific gene deletion, however diagnosis was confirmed as BMD based on clinical symptoms, increased CPK values and EMG changes that were consistent with BMD. On examination, he is hypotonic and hyporeflexic. There is hypertrophy of calf muscles and wasting of quadriceps and trunk muscles. There is slight tongue hypertrophy and slight difficulty in speech. He has complete passive range of motion. His upper extremities strength is above functional grade and he does the overhead activities. Out of all the antigravity muscles of lower limbs only plantar flexors are above functional level. Hip flexors are functional level and all the other lower extremities muscles are below functional level. Abdominals have functional level strength. Bilateral extremities are profoundly weak. Functionally he is independent in all ADL, however has great difficulty in getting up from lower surfaces. He needs support to climb staircase. On FIM he scores 104. After Stem Cell Treatment 1. Bilateral calf firmness has become softer than before. 2. He can now do supine to sit independently with ease, earlier he used to take strain and get up. 3. He can do sit to supine with ease than before. 4 ...
By: neurogenbsi
See more here:
Beckers Muscular Dystrophy Improvement After Stem Cell Therapy in Mumbai India - Video
Stemlogix Stem Cell therapy at Central Animal Hospital St Petersburg Florida
Central Animal Hospital of St Petersburg, FL now offers in house Stemlogix Stem Cell Therapy for osteoarthritis for dogs! More info: http://www.centralanimal.net or http://www.tbk9rehab.com
By: StemLogixLLC
See original here:
Stemlogix Stem Cell therapy at Central Animal Hospital St Petersburg Florida - Video
A member of the governing board of the
California stem cell agency is taking exception to a statement on the
California Stem Cell Report that no independent members sit on that
body.
“I have to object to this line: 'None
of the current members are independent. The ballot measure that
created the agency required board members to be appointed from
various constituencies.'
“I think I am absolutely independent,
and I think the same applies at the very least to most if not all of
my fellow patient advocates, and probably to the biotech
representatives as well – remember that they all must come from
companies that are not involved in stem cell research. Although
I supported the proposition, I was not involved directly in the
campaign in any way, and I did not meet Bob Klein (the first chairman of the stem cell board) or any of my fellow
board members until the day I was sworn in at our first meeting.
“The Prop. 71 language I believe
specifies that advocates must have a record of advocating for people
with the disease or diseases they represent, and not that they belong
to or work for any specific organization. Checking my binder,
it refers to 'groups' but does not specify those – for example, it
refers to 'representative of a California regional, state or national
HIV/AIDS disease advocacy group.' I’m not sure how you would
define 'independent' but I certainly don’t think it means
'disinterested.'”
The California stem cell agency's
attempts to deal with the conflict of interest problems at the $3
billion research program amount to a minor fix that is not a “serious solution,” the Riverside Press-Enterprise editorialized yesterday.
“That arrangement is hardly a model
of objective decision making. The agency so far has distributed about
$1.7 billion in grants, with about 90 percent of that money going to
institutions represented on the governing board.
“Voluntary abstentions are not a
serious solution to that ethical minefield. Nor would that approach
eliminate potential conflicts, because the agency would still allow
the abstaining members to take part in the discussions and debate
about who should get the grants.
“The Institute of Medicine instead
recommended remaking the board with truly independent members who
have no stake in grant awards. The stem-cell agency rejected that
step because it would require changing Prop. 71, either through a
super-majority in the Legislature or another ballot measure. That
excuse should be a vivid warning to Californians about the dangers of
passing complex, costly and inflexible initiatives.
“Agencies handling billions of
taxpayers’ dollars should not avoid good government practice or
basic fiscal safeguards. The stem-cell institute offers minor fixes
when it needs substantial changes — and legislators should not
accept that cavalier approach.”
In the wake of recent considerable
criticism concerning conflicts of interest at the $3 billion California stem
cell agency, its leaders have taken to saying “no actual conflicts”
have been found at the agency.
“Our committee was given a set of
defined tasks from the IOM(which was under a $700,000 contract with
CIRM), and we followed them."
“(Board) members must represent
unconflicted loyalty to the interest of the foundation. This
accountability supersedes any conflicting loyalty such as that to
advocacy or interest groups, business interests, personal interests or paid or volunteer service
to other organizations.”
The California stem cell agency's
attempts to deal with the conflict of interest problems at the $3
billion research program amount to a minor fix that is not a “serious solution,” the Riverside Press-Enterprise editorialized yesterday.
“That arrangement is hardly a model
of objective decision making. The agency so far has distributed about
$1.7 billion in grants, with about 90 percent of that money going to
institutions represented on the governing board.
“Voluntary abstentions are not a
serious solution to that ethical minefield. Nor would that approach
eliminate potential conflicts, because the agency would still allow
the abstaining members to take part in the discussions and debate
about who should get the grants.
“The Institute of Medicine instead
recommended remaking the board with truly independent members who
have no stake in grant awards. The stem-cell agency rejected that
step because it would require changing Prop. 71, either through a
super-majority in the Legislature or another ballot measure. That
excuse should be a vivid warning to Californians about the dangers of
passing complex, costly and inflexible initiatives.
“Agencies handling billions of
taxpayers’ dollars should not avoid good government practice or
basic fiscal safeguards. The stem-cell institute offers minor fixes
when it needs substantial changes — and legislators should not
accept that cavalier approach.”
A member of the governing board of the
California stem cell agency is taking exception to a statement on the
California Stem Cell Report that no independent members sit on that
body.
“I have to object to this line: 'None
of the current members are independent. The ballot measure that
created the agency required board members to be appointed from
various constituencies.'
“I think I am absolutely independent,
and I think the same applies at the very least to most if not all of
my fellow patient advocates, and probably to the biotech
representatives as well – remember that they all must come from
companies that are not involved in stem cell research. Although
I supported the proposition, I was not involved directly in the
campaign in any way, and I did not meet Bob Klein (the first chairman of the stem cell board) or any of my fellow
board members until the day I was sworn in at our first meeting.
“The Prop. 71 language I believe
specifies that advocates must have a record of advocating for people
with the disease or diseases they represent, and not that they belong
to or work for any specific organization. Checking my binder,
it refers to 'groups' but does not specify those – for example, it
refers to 'representative of a California regional, state or national
HIV/AIDS disease advocacy group.' I’m not sure how you would
define 'independent' but I certainly don’t think it means
'disinterested.'”
In the wake of recent considerable
criticism concerning conflicts of interest at the $3 billion California stem
cell agency, its leaders have taken to saying “no actual conflicts”
have been found at the agency.
“Our committee was given a set of
defined tasks from the IOM(which was under a $700,000 contract with
CIRM), and we followed them."
“(Board) members must represent
unconflicted loyalty to the interest of the foundation. This
accountability supersedes any conflicting loyalty such as that to
advocacy or interest groups, business interests, personal interests or paid or volunteer service
to other organizations.”
Stem Cell Therapy Testimonial - Arthritis 1-888-545-4333
Stem Cell Therapy Testimonial - Arthritis 1-888-545-4333
By: Bofitmiami
Read the original here:
Stem Cell Therapy Testimonial - Arthritis 1-888-545-4333 - Video
Stem Cell Therapy With Bob - Thomas Schwarzl - SBI - Runner up 2013
Tom is a science punk from the Alps doing his PhD with Systems Biology Ireland. He likes to challenge everything, discover patterns in high complex problems and making them clear for everyone to understand. Besides his scientific interest in stem cell therapy and cancer research, he likes Post Secret, street art, and is planning a start-up after his PhD.
By: thesisin3
See the original post:
Stem Cell Therapy With Bob - Thomas Schwarzl - SBI - Runner up 2013 - Video
It's exceedingly rare when the
California stem cell agency makes the front page of any newspaper.
“Analyst: Stem
cell agency reforms fall short.”
"'There certainly is a gap between
what we recommended and what they responded with,' said Shapiro,
president emeritus at Princeton
University. ' I wish they had moved closer to our
recommendations.'"
“The process would take years, he
said. The first opportunity to get on the ballot, for instance, would
be in the fall of 2014.”
“Shapiro said he stands firmly behind
his committee's report.
"'I think our recommendations sit
together and interrelate to each other well – and should have been
moved along as quickly as possible,' Shapiro said.
"'It might have been helpful if
they indicated to us what they were willing to do and what they
weren't,' he said."
The governing board of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency last week fell far short of complying
with the recommendations of a blue-ribbon Institute of Medicine (IOM) study
that the agency itself commissioned to improve its performance.
The governing board of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency will remain dominated by “special
interests” even with the adoption of a plan last week responding to
the far-reaching recommendations of a blue-ribbon Institute of
Medicine (IOM) study, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times said today.
“That's because by law, 23 of the 29
members must be representatives of California institutions eligible
for CIRM grants or of disease advocacy groups with their own interest
in steering money toward their particular concerns.
“As a remedy, the panel proposed
eliminating some board slots reserved for grant-receiving
institutions by Proposition
71, the 2004 initiative that created the agency. The idea
was to fill those slots with truly independent members free of any
stake in CIRM funding, even indirectly.”
Hiltzik wrote,
"Thomas told me his proposal dealt
with even perceived conflicts of interest on the board in such
"definitive fashion" that it won't be necessary to bother
the Legislature, much less the voters, with such big changes as
remaking the board with a majority of independent members. He pointed
out, not without some pride, that one board member called his
proposed changes 'draconian.'"
Hiltzik had some praise for Thomas.
“Let's stipulate that Thomas has, in
CIRM terms, moved a mountain by jostling the board even this far.
Since its inception, the board has set records for arrogance. That's
a direct legacy from Proposition 71, which exempted the stem cell
program, uniquely among California government bodies, from any
practical oversight by the Legislature or elected officials.”
“Shapiro told me from his Princeton
office that Thomas' proposals were 'a significant step in the right
direction, which at least indicates that they haven't ignored the
report.' But he doesn't share Thomas' view that voluntary recusals
solve the conflict of interest problem. That can be done, Shapiro
said, only by replacing stake-holding board members with
independents.
"'The more you can reduce the
inherent conflicts, the better off everyone is going to be,' he said.
The board will 'have to go further over time, in my view.'"
“The Shapiro panel said it didn't
find any instances of inappropriate behavior by board members or
specific conflicts, but there are two reasons for that: It didn't
search for any, and Proposition 71 defined certain conflicts out of
existence. The measure states that it's no conflict for a board
member to also be an officer of an academic institution or private
corporation that might be applying for grants.“One of the CIRM board's enduring
self-delusions is that its conflicts of interest are purely a matter
of 'perception.' But there have been documented instances
of favoritism shown to well-connected grant or loan applicants, and
at least one overt attempt by a board member to overturn a rejection
of his institution's project. So much of the board's discussion takes
place behind closed doors or informally that the opportunities for
mutual back scratching are incalculable.
“Thomas' 'draconian' proposals won't
change this state of affairs. Special interests will still dominate
the board. Will barring 13 members from voting on grants while giving
them full rein to participate in discussions really eradicate even
the perception of conflicts? You'd have to be terminally naive to
think so.”