88 replies to this topic

[Danail Bulgaria]

Hello @John Schloendorn !

 

Thank you for joining in this topic! You totally detroned the majority of my posts here, lol. Never mind. For the search of the trueth a man has to accept generative criticism  

 

Thanks for the post, @alc 

 

It is very informative. 

[Danail Bulgaria]

Information about another potential usage appeared.

Stem cells for optical nerve:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=ITRAchU2C0I

 

 

 

[Danail Bulgaria]

 

comment if you think, that it is not as good as it sounds

 

 

 

Some issues with all of the above:

- The phrase "stem cells" is not defined and used with variable meaning (bait-and-switch tactics).  Often it refers to a thing that would have been called a "plain old cell" 15 years ago. 

- Not all of the above studies even claim to use stem cells

- Few of them try to claim clinical efficacy

- Those that do claim efficacy aren't designed to attribute whatever (semblance of) efficacy they claim to any particular cell type, as opposed to structural aspects of the intervention, like surgery, or scaffolding

- Small study size, usually N = 1 

- When N > 1, no controls are included in the experiment

- No historical controls are reported, such as spontaneous improvement rates, or availability and success rate of state of the art treatment. 

- Generally no mechanistic studies -- efficacy in a vacuum.  If cells are transplanted, do they persist?  If they're endogenous, what are they doing differently?

- ACTC is among the more advanced.  But it's still a phase2a thing.  If this was a regular drug, the chance of these claims to hold up in phase3 would be between negligible and zero... (Feuerstein-Ratain rule)

 

The only therapy I know of that use narrowly defined stem cells that's used on large scale, where the cells persist, and can be demonstrated to underlie the clinical mechanism of efficacy, is in bone-marrow transplantation, for reconstitution after lethal-dose chemotherapy, or correction of genetic diseases (there were some sickle cell links above).  Anything else is just fancy headlines that leave the scientific method far behind as far as I can see. 

 

So in the spirit of the OP, stem cells are certainly being used a lot (as far as people bother to define what a "stem cell" is at all).  But there are hardly any scientific experiments to be found that demonstrate them to work as advertised by the grant writers and penny stock pushers.  There's nothing remotely like evidence of efficacy to the same standard that drugs are being held to.

 

 

Maybe then the best things to be considered are the clinical trails.

They will claim to use stem cells, the N is >1

 

In another topic I met an info about starting of a clinical trail for treating Altzheimer's disease with stem cells.

http://www.med.miami...em-cells-to-tre

I hope we will see the results soon.

 

Do you think, that it would be best if we search in web sites for clinical trails?

 

Such as this web site:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/

that I listed in post #33 in this topic.

[ceridwen]

It is harder to find trials that are going on in other countries.Perhaps they are only happening in America? Where are the International trials?

[Lebombo]

Hi John,

 

I must disagree with your statements, but only as with respect to Ocata (formerly Advanced Cell Technology).

 

 

 

comment if you think, that it is not as good as it sounds

 

 

 

Some issues with all of the above:

- The phrase "stem cells" is not defined and used with variable meaning (bait-and-switch tactics).  Often it refers to a thing that would have been called a "plain old cell" 15 years ago. 

- Not all of the above studies even claim to use stem cells

- Few of them try to claim clinical efficacy

- Those that do claim efficacy aren't designed to attribute whatever (semblance of) efficacy they claim to any particular cell type, as opposed to structural aspects of the intervention, like surgery, or scaffolding

- Small study size, usually N = 1 

- When N > 1, no controls are included in the experiment

- No historical controls are reported, such as spontaneous improvement rates, or availability and success rate of state of the art treatment. 

- Generally no mechanistic studies -- efficacy in a vacuum.  If cells are transplanted, do they persist?  If they're endogenous, what are they doing differently?

- ACTC is among the more advanced.  But it's still a phase2a thing.  If this was a regular drug, the chance of these claims to hold up in phase3 would be between negligible and zero... (Feuerstein-Ratain rule)

 

The only therapy I know of that use narrowly defined stem cells that's used on large scale, where the cells persist, and can be demonstrated to underlie the clinical mechanism of efficacy, is in bone-marrow transplantation, for reconstitution after lethal-dose chemotherapy, or correction of genetic diseases (there were some sickle cell links above).  Anything else is just fancy headlines that leave the scientific method far behind as far as I can see. 

 

So in the spirit of the OP, stem cells are certainly being used a lot (as far as people bother to define what a "stem cell" is at all).  But there are hardly any scientific experiments to be found that demonstrate them to work as advertised by the grant writers and penny stock pushers.  There's nothing remotely like evidence of efficacy to the same standard that drugs are being held to.

 

 

 

1).- The phrase "stem cells" is not defined and used with variable meaning (bait-and-switch tactics).  Often it refers to a thing that would have been called a "plain old cell" 15 years ago. 

 

Correction:  

 

Stem Cell and Embryonic Stem Cell and all derivatives are clearly defined by Ocata, Ocata's Chief Scientific Officer, Chief medical officer, and distinguished advisors.

Please see some of Ocata's peer reviewed prestigious publications: https://www.ocata.co...ientific-papers

 

Furthermore: Per Ocata's Chief Scientific Officer's curriculum vitae:

Dr. Lanza has hundreds of publications and inventions, and over 30 scientific books, including “Principles of Tissue Engineering” and “Essentials of Stem Cell Biology,” which are considered the definitive references in the field.

 

 

2)Not all of the above studies even claim to use stem cells

  

Please review:

https://www.ocata.co...peline-overview

https://www.ocata.co...dicine-programs

https://www.ocata.co...clinical-trials

 

 

- Few of them try to claim clinical efficacy

 

"...today confirmed that the vision of a patient enrolled in a clinical investigation of the company’s retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells derived from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) has improved from 20/400 to 20/40 following treatment." “We continue to be encouraged by the progress we see in our ongoing clinical investigations, though the results included in the article were confidential and not intended for publication at that time,” commented Gary Rabin, chairman and CEO of ACT. “Our plan is still to publish additional results from the clinical investigations when we have a significant aggregation of data.”

http://ir.ocata.com/...wed-improvement

 

The Lancet Peer Review Publication:  See Lancet, Ocata website, or google.

Human embryonic stem cell-derived retinal pigment epithelium in patients with age-related macular degeneration and Stargardt’s macular dystrophy: follow-up of two open-label phase 1/2 studies

 

Those that do claim efficacy aren't designed to attribute whatever (semblance of) efficacy they claim to any particular cell type, as opposed to structural aspects of the intervention, like surgery, or scaffolding

 

Retinal pigment epithelium cells derived from human embryonic stem cells.  Very well defined.  Please see material in the above references for further study.

 

 3)The only therapy I know of that use narrowly defined stem cells that's used on large scale, where the cells persist, and can be demonstrated to underlie the clinical mechanism of efficacy, is in bone-marrow transplantation, for reconstitution after lethal-dose chemotherapy, or correction of genetic diseases (there were some sickle cell links above).  Anything else is just fancy headlines that leave the scientific method far behind as far as I can see. 

 

So in the spirit of the OP, stem cells are certainly being used a lot (as far as people bother to define what a "stem cell" is at all).  But there are hardly any scientific experiments to be found that demonstrate them to work as advertised by the grant writers and penny stock pushers.  There's nothing remotely like evidence of efficacy to the same standard that drugs are being held to.

 

Correction.  

 

The information provided above with respect to Ocata's work precisely shows safety as well as efficacy, 4 years worth!  

 

 

No worries.  There are lots of companies out there doing their best to make headway in cell therapy.  Ocata is the needle in the haystack.  

 

 

 

 

 

[John Schloendorn]

Hah, hey I did say they're more advanced ;p  (using their old ticker ACTC).  So not really any issue with the "corrections".  

 

Well except for the "definedness" -- there the question is of course whether whatever marker is used for the definition does in fact predict a safe and efficacious cell.  And only trials will tell.  But you can have intuition based on what's not in the papers...  I haven't audited RPE in detail, so I have an open mind.  But they absolutely pulled that kind of stuff in blood.  CD41 as a specific marker of embryonic megakaryocytes -- hahaha!  Of course only the vanishing percentage of CD41 cells that actually happened to be megs functioned in vitro.  Mercifully they shut that program down early on. 

 

Do you happen to have a link handy for molecular & in vitro function of the RPE cells?  I'd be curious to take a look. 

[Lebombo]

Hi John, 

 

 

 

 Do you happen to have a link handy for molecular & in vitro function of the RPE cells?  I'd be curious to take a look.

 

Yes, I posted the link in the previous post, #65.  However to be specific, for RPE function in humans, please see the first 3 papers in the link. 

https://www.ocata.co...entific-papers 

 

They are publications in Stem Cell Reports, Cell, and the Lancet.  They detail the cells' function in humans and prove both safety and efficacy with a small quantify of cells.  Note that these trials were for safety, but due to the nature of embryonic stem cells' power, efficacy was also able to be shown during this trial.  Visual acuity was rescued in most patients with only a fraction of cell quantity that will be introduced throughout phase 2.

 

1)Treatment of macular degeneration using embryonic stem cell-derived retinal pigment epithelium: preliminary results in Asian patients.

 

2)Hope for regenerative treatments: toward safe transplantation of human pluripotent stem-cell-based therapies

 

3)Human embryonic stem cell-derived retinal pigment epithelium in patients with age-related macular degeneration and Stargardt's macular dystrophy: follow-up of two open-label phase 1/2 studies.

​

Please, let me know what you think.

 

P.S.

 

These patents and technology, basically our entire embryonic stem cell field wrapped up in a few patents will soon be on their way to Japan.  I have no issues with the Japanese stem cell industry, but they just had the STAP fraud event at the Riken Institute for Developmental Biology, so this sudden acquisition (facilitated by a brand new Ocata CEO with little to no sense of personal commitment in Robert Lanza's sweat and tears or America's stem cell field) is a move by the Japanese to rebound from recent embarrassment.  Michael West has recently expressed interest in stepping in to block this, but it was so sudden that it just may be too late. Unless Ocata shareholders, who have banded together to keep this important technology from being sold for fractions of a penny on the dollar, can block Astellas, then it's goodbye America's embryonic stem cell field.  Hopefully Japan allows us to license their newly purchased ownership of the stem cell field... 

 

P.P.S.

Can you elaborate on what specifically you are referring to in regard to CD41?

Much appreciated.

 

 

 

P.P.P.S

 

Even more excitement is in Robert Lanza's blood/platelet work 

Edited by Lebombo, 18 December 2015 - 03:35 AM.

[John Schloendorn]

Please, let me know what you think. 

 

 

I think it's not what I asked ("molecular & in vitro function").  The first three are clinical trial summaries, and I can't see what I asked anywhere on the list. 

 

CD41 -- sure.  It's PMID 25418726  and some earlier ones too.  The fact of nature is that CD41 marks megakaryocytes in the adult, but marks all blood cells in the embryo.  They used CD41 as a marker for their embryonic megs.  Then, they saw the abysmal yield of ~ 1 platelet per ("CD41+ megakaryocyte").  It's supposed to be 10,000+.  That failure would be explained if only 1 in 10,000 of random embryonic (CD41+) is in fact a meg.  Meg frequency of 1/10k blood cells sounds just about right.  So the protocol isn't really meg-specific.  It's making all blood...  VWF is a better marker, and in the VWF IF image (earlier paper) you can in fact see that only some tiny fraction of CD41+ are VWF+.  Which is conveniently swept under the rug and disappeared from any subsequent papers. (How one can call a yield of millions of platelets per dish "scalable" is quite beyond me - here are 10s of billions in a clinical unit.  But that's another story). 

 

So anyway, if someone pulls this kind of stuff once, I'd rather not unquestioningly believe that they have the right cell the second time around.  That's why I asked for "molecular & in vitro function", rather than clinical trial summaries. 

[Lebombo]

Hi John,

 

Understood, thanks.  PM sent.

 

Regards,

[Lebombo]

By the way John,

Do you do happen to have a good understanding of potency, migration, paracrine and microbiome for the immune system at the microenvironment in regards to what happens after an injection of stem cells?

Also do you happen to be aware of how your stem cells function from a cellular and genetic point of view after an injection? As in the steps involved to rebooting, rescue, repair and recapitulation when tissue is altered for auto immunity/ chronic infection vs. inflammation. The immunology of how these cells are involved? Starting with T cells and what cell surface markers and gene expressions are key?

These are all described in Lanza's patents, then papers.

Ocata needs help with regulatory control and execution.

Ocata has the best solutions to more diseases and ailments than you can imagine. Please take the time to review the patents.

Edited by Lebombo, 20 December 2015 - 12:21 AM.

[John Schloendorn]

Well, see, the problem is, nobody has an understanding of these issues to an extent that would predict clinical trial outcomes.  If they did, they'd become a happily retired trillionaire within a few short months, and after that, clinical trials would become unnecessary.  Maybe that will be you.  Best of luck. 

[Lebombo]

Hi John,

 

Ocata has 4+ years of trial data in humans.  20/400 vision to 20/40 vision rescue in what was only supposed to be a phase 1 testing for safety. There was strong visual rescue with tiny doses of RPE cells. The doses administered were just a fraction of the doses set for administration in phase 2.  It really works, John, and there is a lot of data.

 

I understand what you mean.  Nobody can predict the future.  However, so far, these cells have shown safety and efficacy for 4+ years in a small dosage safety trial.  These same cells and others ophthalmic-related cells that Ocata has within their portfolio can be applied to over 200 types of retinal diseases and ailments.  

 

Again, this is just the ophthalmology area.  

 

There is much more.

 

Here is a question, if Ocata has much more in the works, for instance, unlimited universal platelets, just to name one of many, then why are these other platforms completely absent from Astellas' "presentation?"  If these other areas of research, development, and commercialization get put on the back burner by the acquiring company, Astellas, then that could be a major tragedy in science, medicine, and in my opinion and the opinion of others, humanity.

Edited by Lebombo, 20 December 2015 - 05:20 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

It is harder to find trials that are going on in other countries.Perhaps they are only happening in America? Where are the International trials?

 

I found one here: 

 

http://www.scienceda...50430124116.htm

 

"A clinical trial for patients with degenerative eye diseases is the first to test the safety of an embryonic stem cell therapy for people of Asian descent. The study, which followed four individuals for a year after they were treated with embryonic stem cell-derived retinal pigment epithelial cells for macular degeneration, observed no serious side effects (tumor growth or other unexpected effects) related to the therapy."

[Lebombo]

Hi seivtcho

 

This article you provided is regarding OCATA Therapeutics (formerly Advanced Cell Technology) of which Robert Lanza is CSO.   Cha Biotech is/was Ocata's Korean Partner.  Robert Lanza and Ocata provided Korea the intellectual property in order to conduct this study in joint effort. 

 

I provided a link to the study in post #67. 

 

 

Also seivtcho, Ocata may no longer be able to continue with breakthrough progress such as this because as mentioned, Ocata's funding in America is so abysmal that they are about to be bought by a Japanese firm for mere pennies on the dollar.  All of this work will not leave the United States and the expertise of Robert Lanza.  It will take years for any other entity to even figure out Ocata's intellectual property.  You can guarantee this will set the stem cell field back by 20 years.

 

Too bad because Robert Lanza and Ocata were just on the brink of many astounding accomplishments that will no longer transpire. 

 

You see seivtcho, Robert Lanza and Ocata's expertise is utilized across nations and now it's all going to stop. 

 

This is why Michael. D. West, of Biotime and also SENS Foundation Research Advisor has expressed concern about this acquisition.  If it concerns Michael West, then it should concern all who are interested in the SENS Foundation.

 

 

Edited by Lebombo, 21 December 2015 - 10:19 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

@Lebombo , if the things are so bad, I mean 20 years backwards, then I wonder if they start to go even worse all over the world, then what will we do? We will have to grow stem cells in our homes lol. I can't grow them like that lol  

[Danail Bulgaria]

The web site of an organization, or a project, named "Be The Match":

https://bethematch.o...by-transplants/

claims, that many blood diseases are currently treated successfully with bone marow transplants. The bone marrow holds the blood stem cells. So, many blood diseases can be treated with bone marrow stem cells transplants.

[Lebombo]

@Lebombo , if the things are so bad, I mean 20 years backwards, then I wonder if they start to go even worse all over the world, then what will we do? We will have to grow stem cells in our homes lol. I can't grow them like that lol

 

Hi seivtcho,

 

Per your post # 73 and #75,  as you see, CHA Biotech of Korea needs to partner with OCATA (Advanced Cell Technology) in order to make OCATA's cells.

 

If you look at how large of an entity CHA Biotech is, you will realize that contrary to what has been said in these threads, you will NOT see "random kids" making these cells in their garages on any level even remotely close to what OCATA has accomplished.

 

CHA Biotech has 5 research institutions, 5 universities, 10 hospitals, and many other medical services and companies.  If a country as advanced as Korea must contract with Robert Lanza and Ocata to grow their cells, then we are not going to be growing them in our homes.  

 

This is why we need to make sure the top stem cell pioneers have the resources in place, so that they can push the research and development at the fasted possible pace.  How else will we reach longevity escape velocity?  I think Aubrey de Grey gets it..

Edited by Lebombo, 23 December 2015 - 05:16 AM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

A phase 2 study claims, that turns heart scar tissue into working heart muscle tissue

 

the study published:

http://link.springer...2265-016-9686-0

[RGCheek]

This is one program that is having dramatic success TODAY.

 

[Danail Bulgaria]

I really didn't expect that kind of therapy to be successfull, but facts are facts. I expected another mechanusm to be the effective:

 

  stem cells -> producing transplantables -> transplantation -> rejuvenation

 

 

I am happy they did it successfully, though.

 

 

Very nice find, RGCheek

[Nate-2004]

Is this the same company from the above video ^^? What happened? 

 

What is the state of using embryonic stem cells in humans?

Edited by Nate-2004, 29 November 2016 - 06:33 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

From your graphic they obviously have bankrupted.

 

Maybe you may find K. Comella and ask her about the companies she has been talking.

[DomoTheHungry]

what about stem cells for psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia, parkinsons, and ocd?

 

http://schizophrenia.com/?p=401

 

thats one article 

[Danail Bulgaria]

I stumbled upon a video about usage of stem cells for knee osteoarthritis:

https://pnwuresearch...-osteoarthritis

[sensei]

HSCT (haematopoietic stem cell transplantation) where the patient's own haematopoietic stem cells are recovered prior to chemotherapeutic ablation if the immune system, then replaced, is used in Multiple Sclerosis.

It seems to reduce disease severity, and is even covered by many insurance companies.

I believe it is also used to treat leukemia.

[sensei]

If you believe Dr. Lingo (prolon diet) a 3 day prolonged fast kills 40% of immune cells and also kills some percentage of other cells in the body are also cleared due to enhanced autophagy.

Dr. Lingo goes further to state stem cell release and proliferation after re feeding is the most profound regenerative process since birth.

Edited by sensei, 03 February 2022 - 08:43 PM.

[johnhemming]

Here a link to a new paper on Stem Cell Therapy

https://academic.oup...666?login=false

 

Personally I think the best approach is to ensure that someone's own stem cells start functioning properly as a priority rather than to get an implant.  I have been testing my own protocol for this by (trying to do) doing chin ups, which I could not do earlier this year, but started using latex straps and today have managed to do a number in sequence without assistance.  Hence it is clearly possible.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Here a link to a new paper on Stem Cell Therapy

https://academic.oup...666?login=false

 

Personally I think the best approach is to ensure that someone's own stem cells start functioning properly as a priority rather than to get an implant.  I have been testing my own protocol for this by (trying to do) doing chin ups, which I could not do earlier this year, but started using latex straps and today have managed to do a number in sequence without assistance.  Hence it is clearly possible.

 

Very interesting information.

 

As far as I understood it, they take human mesenchymal stem cells from the bone marrow of aged people, (perhaps grow them? in an incubator?) and simply infuse them intra venously in numbers 100 million per person or 200 million per person.

 

Is there more information, such as did they infused them all at once, or periodically on stages? and how long after the mesenchymal stem cells have been taken, they infused them in the patients? 

Edited by seivtcho, 15 July 2022 - 10:10 AM.

[timedilation]

I recently came across a very interesting population of stem cells called Multi-lineage differentiating Stress Enduring cells or MUSE cells being studied in Japan: https://en.wikipedia...iki/Muse_cell. The wiki article has a ton of interesting information.

 

 

They are collectable from commercially obtainable mesenchymal cells such as human fibroblasts, bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells and adipose-derived stem cells.[7][8][9] Muse cells are able to generate cells representative of all three germ layers from a single cell both spontaneously and under cytokine induction. Expression of pluripotency genes and triploblastic differentiation are self-renewable over generations. Muse cells do not undergo teratoma formation when transplanted into a host environment in vivo.

 

 

Clinical trials for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, epidermolysis bullosa, spinal cord injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection, are conducted by Life Science Institute, Inc., a group company of Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings company.

 

 

Can be isolated as cells positive for SSEA-3, a well known human embryonic stem cell marker. Needless to inform that the positive SSEA-3 cells or Muse cells are fresh for maximum one day after sorting and if you sort the same cells after 5 days for instance, you only collect about the same percentage of Muse or positive signal you got before first sorting...They are also positive for general mesenchymal stem cell markers such as CD105, CD90 and CD29...Muse cells do not express CD34 (markers for hematopoietic stem cells, adipose stem cells, VSELs) and CD117 (hematopoietic stem cells markers), Snai1 and Slug (skin-derived precursors markers), CD271 and Sox10 (neural crest-derived stem cells markers), NG2 and CD146 (perivascular cells) or CD31 and von Willebrand factor (endothelial progenitor markers).

 

 

Comprise ~0.03% of bone marrow transplantation and several % of mesenchymal stem cell transplantation.

 

Possibly the biggest reservation is that most of the research seems limited to a few Japanese groups, without much global replication.  However, if this pans out and MUSE cells can be efficiently multiplied in culture without loss of characteristics, we could see some major advances in regenerative medicine on the horizon.