UC Davis stem cell research Paul Knoepfler has produced a useful guide to reporting dubious activities along with a list of state and federal agencies that could have a role.
In an item on his blog last week, Knoepfler wrote,
"I would emphasize concrete reasons for concern such as the use of an unapproved stem cell drug product by the clinic, a physician practicing outside their area of expertise so putting their patients at risk, false marketing, and potential or documented (if they’ve already happened) patient harms.Knoepfler continued,
"For some clinics that aren’t led by physicians, I would also emphasize the risks of non-physicians such as chiropractors or Ph.D.s doing procedures for which they aren’t trained or licensed. I think patients (or people communicating on their behalf) making complaints about clinics and their personnel will have the greatest impact."
"We can make a difference by pushing back on the worst clinics. Of course, not every action by those of us in the stem cell arena who are concerned about predatory clinics will hit a bullseye to make real change, but sometimes it has happened in the past and will happen again in the future too."I would add that the activities and stories that emerge from these dubious enterprises damage the reputation of the field as a whole. Indeed, when I talk to folks in the general public, the clinics' offerings are the most often mentioned reference they have.
As California's stem cell agency moves closer to seeking more billions from voters in 2020, fraudulent stem cell activity could create much confusion about the legitimacy of the entire field. Supporters might want to keep that in mind. But critics should as well. Fleecing the public with unproven therapies is unhealthy for those who are swindled but also for society in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment