3 ms·

Citations would require the doctors that I have had multiple of both fat and bone marrow derived stem cell treatments from over the last 3 years including last

by loceng 7y ago

Citations would require the doctors that I have had multiple of both fat and bone marrow derived stem cell treatments from over the last 3 years including last month. The FDA has considered your own stem cells as a medication to bring it under their control - honestly that claim alone is pretty disingenuous, stem cells and properties of your blood are your body's natural healing mechanisms; with these treatments they're not changing or manipulating the stem cells, which you could more reasonably argue should be classified as a medication. Another claim big pharma is trying to use is that injecting bone marrow into joints shouldn't be allowed because it's non-homologous - meaning that bone marrow isn't naturally in the joints, so it shouldn't be allowed to be injected - the reason they want to prevent it is because injecting stem cells into joints will clear up the pain caused by osteoarthritis.

ceejayoz 7y ago
So, no citations then? Just the say-so from the people selling you expensive treatments insurance won't cover? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/health/stem-cells-fda.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/health/stem-cells-fda.htm... > There is almost no regulatory oversight of orthopedic procedures using bone-marrow extracts or platelets, which are regarded as low risk. While the Food and Drug Administration insists that it does have the authority to regulate stem cell treatments, it adopted an industry-friendly approach in 2017 by giving companies a three-year grace period in which to describe their products or treatments so the agency can determine whether they meet the criteria of drugs that would require agency approval. So far, few companies have submitted any information. > In the meantime, rogue clinics offering other kinds of procedures have flourished, accused of blinding people by injecting cells into their eyes, mixing stem cells with smallpox vaccine to treat cancer or causing severe infections by administering contaminated blood from umbilical cords into patients’ joints or spines. In some of the worst cases, patients had already been harmed before the agency took any action, and the patients took legal steps themselves, suing the clinics that injured them.
- loceng 7y ago
  What's your point? Not having proper oversight is a different beast than big pharma trying to gain control. I've spent nearly $100,000 over the last 3 years on stem cell treatments because they permanently heal injuries. I researched doctors and clinics first, felt them out along with their knowledge, and then have done plenty more than a single treatment with them because they proved to know what they were doing. Certainly that doesn't negate bad actors who will take advantage and don't have enough knowledge or proper protocol to maximize outcome, however once again, you shouldn't be so pessimistically dismissive nor confounding issues when trying to argue a point.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Who do you propose should do the oversight of stem cell treatments, if not the FDA? One person's "proven" is an anecdote. Scientific clinical trials are how we actually demonstrate efficacy (versus the very real placebo effect), safety, etc. Plus, there's the bonus of actually proven procedures being easier to get insurance to cover, which should be appealing to someone who's shelled out six figures.
    - loceng 7y ago
      You're still confounding and not understanding what I'm saying. Whatever organization has oversight of that doctors should have oversight - that doesn't negate the challenges of regulatory capture that is occurring. That you're completely dismissing my own personal experience, that I'm willing to spend $100k of money I'd much rather spend elsewhere, shows just how dismissive you are. I didn't argue my own experience as part of the data that does exist relating to stem cell treatments either, like you're seeming to counter argue with. You should probably dive into the existing research, and not depend on using whatever mainstream sources you've used to develop your narrative and arguments - seems you're falling into the narrative mainstream media wants you to follow.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        > That you're completely dismissing my own personal experience, that I'm willing to spend $100k of money I'd much rather spend elsewhere, shows just how dismissive you are. Look, people have "personal experience" that prayer cured their cancer, that essential oils fixed their bipolar disorder, that aliens anally probed them, etc. Having invested large amounts of money can make one susceptible to sunk cost fallacies, too. "I say it works" is worthless by itself. Sometimes, worse than worthless - actively harmful. The FDA approval process may not be perfect, but some sort of scientifically rigorous "does this work and is it safe?" is necessary.
coryrc 7y ago
While I'm expecting it will turn out to be bunk, I'm glad you currently have the right to spend your own money on what you want. I'm sure that will soon go away though.

by loceng 7y ago

ceejayoz 7y ago

So, no citations then? Just the say-so from the people selling you expensive treatments insurance won't cover? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/health/stem-cells-fda.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/health/stem-cells-fda.htm... > There is almost no regulatory oversight of orthopedic procedures using bone-marrow extracts or platelets, which are regarded as low risk. While the Food and Drug Administration insists that it does have the authority to regulate stem cell treatments, it adopted an industry-friendly approach in 2017 by giving companies a three-year grace period in which to describe their products or treatments so the agency can determine whether they meet the criteria of drugs that would require agency approval. So far, few companies have submitted any information. > In the meantime, rogue clinics offering other kinds of procedures have flourished, accused of blinding people by injecting cells into their eyes, mixing stem cells with smallpox vaccine to treat cancer or causing severe infections by administering contaminated blood from umbilical cords into patients’ joints or spines. In some of the worst cases, patients had already been harmed before the agency took any action, and the patients took legal steps themselves, suing the clinics that injured them.

loceng 7y ago
What's your point? Not having proper oversight is a different beast than big pharma trying to gain control. I've spent nearly $100,000 over the last 3 years on stem cell treatments because they permanently heal injuries. I researched doctors and clinics first, felt them out along with their knowledge, and then have done plenty more than a single treatment with them because they proved to know what they were doing. Certainly that doesn't negate bad actors who will take advantage and don't have enough knowledge or proper protocol to maximize outcome, however once again, you shouldn't be so pessimistically dismissive nor confounding issues when trying to argue a point.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Who do you propose should do the oversight of stem cell treatments, if not the FDA? One person's "proven" is an anecdote. Scientific clinical trials are how we actually demonstrate efficacy (versus the very real placebo effect), safety, etc. Plus, there's the bonus of actually proven procedures being easier to get insurance to cover, which should be appealing to someone who's shelled out six figures.
  - loceng 7y ago
    You're still confounding and not understanding what I'm saying. Whatever organization has oversight of that doctors should have oversight - that doesn't negate the challenges of regulatory capture that is occurring. That you're completely dismissing my own personal experience, that I'm willing to spend $100k of money I'd much rather spend elsewhere, shows just how dismissive you are. I didn't argue my own experience as part of the data that does exist relating to stem cell treatments either, like you're seeming to counter argue with. You should probably dive into the existing research, and not depend on using whatever mainstream sources you've used to develop your narrative and arguments - seems you're falling into the narrative mainstream media wants you to follow.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      > That you're completely dismissing my own personal experience, that I'm willing to spend $100k of money I'd much rather spend elsewhere, shows just how dismissive you are. Look, people have "personal experience" that prayer cured their cancer, that essential oils fixed their bipolar disorder, that aliens anally probed them, etc. Having invested large amounts of money can make one susceptible to sunk cost fallacies, too. "I say it works" is worthless by itself. Sometimes, worse than worthless - actively harmful. The FDA approval process may not be perfect, but some sort of scientifically rigorous "does this work and is it safe?" is necessary.

coryrc 7y ago

While I'm expecting it will turn out to be bunk, I'm glad you currently have the right to spend your own money on what you want. I'm sure that will soon go away though.