Rogue Stem Cell Clinics and Covid: California Moves 'Sedately' on Regulation

The state of California and its top medical regulator remain mired in a go-slow posture on regulation of "snake oil" stem cell clinics that are currently riding the Covid crisis to peddle dubious treatments to desperate patients.

The marketing surge by the clinics has drawn increased attention nationally, including in prestigious scientific journals such as Cell Stem Cell whose usual fare deals with such things as "Stem Cell Hierarchy in Colorectal Cancer."

But one article published earlier this month was titled:

 "Preying on Public Fears and Anxieties in a Pandemic: Businesses Selling Unproven and Unlicensed 'Stem Cell Treatments' for COVID-19." 

The quotes around "stem cell treatments" are deliberate. No guarantee exists that the treatments actually include stem cells. 

Leigh Turner, an associate professor of bioethics at the University of Minnesota, authored the piece. He said,

"In the midst of a global public health emergency, some businesses are taking advantage of widespread fears by marketing purported stem cell treatments for Covid-19. 

"Such businesses target prospective clients with misleading claims, expose patients to potentially risky stem cell-based products, and undermine efforts to develop evidence-based treatments for Covid-19."

Nearly two years ago, California's State Medical Board said it was going to tackle the problem of the rogue clinics. But to this date little has occurred. State legislation to develop regulations was also sidelined.

The California Stem Cell Report queried the medical board earlier this month concerning the status of its effort and whether regulations had been drafted and when a draft would be ready. In response, the board last week released the following statement:

"The board is continuing to work toward the goal of providing recommendations on stem cell and regenerative therapies and developing some guidelines that California physicians and patients can follow that will include a sample informed consent document and educational materials for the public to present to the board for review and final approval. 

"In the meantime, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 684, healthcare practitioners providing stem cell therapy not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and who have not obtained approval or clearance for an investigational new drug or device exemption from the FDA for the use of human cells, tissues, or cellular or tissue-based products, must provide notice to their patients indicating the lack of FDA approval, and encouraging their patients to consult with their primary care physician before treatment. Individuals concerned about a physician’s stem cell practice should file a complaint with the Board for review and appropriate action."

The issues with the clinics has drawn attention in the Los Angeles Times from Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Michael Hiltzik  who wrote recently,

"The proliferation of stem cell clinics selling untested and unlicensed therapies has been a public health crisis for years. The Covid-19 pandemic will only deepen the crisis as clinics add the coronavirus to their menu of treatment claims."

The California stem cell agency has also pushed for tighter regulation and partnered to help pass the law for disclosure notices concerning lack of FDA approval. For patients considering stem cell treatments, the agency has posted as rundown on issues concerning the treatments or clinical trials. 

(After this item was posted, the agency posted a blog item dealing with Parkinson's. In addition to information on the search for a cure or treatment, the item carried the following advice for persons seeking some sort of unregulated treatment. Here is what the agency had to say in a Q&A format,

"If you go online you can find lots of stem cells clinics, all over the US, that claim they can use stem cells to help people with Parkinson’s. Should I go to them?

("In a word, no! These clinics offer a wide variety of therapies using different kinds of cells or tissues (including the patient’s own blood or fat cells) but they have one thing in common; none of these therapies have been tested in a clinical trial to show they are even safe, let alone effective. These clinics also charge thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars these therapies, and because it’s not covered by insurance this all comes out of the patient’s pocket.

("These predatory clinics are peddling hope, but are unable to back it up with any proof it will work. They frequently have slick, well-designed websites, and  'testimonials' from satisfied customers. But if they really had a treatment for Parkinson’s they wouldn’t be running clinics out of shopping malls, they’d be operating huge medical centers because the worldwide need for an effective therapy is so great.

("Here’s a link to the page on our website that can help you decide if a clinical trial or “therapy” is right for you.")

'Snake Oil' Stem Cell Clinics Target of California State Regulators Sept. 18

The California State Medical Board said today it will hold a public hearing Sept. 18 to respond to the burgeoning growth in dubious "stem cell" clinics, some of which have reportedly left some patients harmed both physically and financially.

"Snake oil" is what the unregulated clinics are selling, according to Jonathan Thomas, chairman of $3 billion California stem cell agency, which will be invited to appear at the Sacramento meeting next month. 

The clinics have been operating for years nationally, with at least an estimated 1,000 currently in business. California has the largest number. In the past couple of years, the clinics have achieved more notoriety. That includes a "buyer beware" piece this month on HealthDay.

Responding to an inquiry last week by the California Stem Cell Report, Kimberly Kirchmeyer, executive director of the Medical Board, said today in an email that topics likely to be covered at the board's hearing include:

• Best practices guidelines and outreach and education
• Improved informed consent practices
• Adverse event reporting when treatments go wrong
• Other options to be considered by the board

In addition to the stem cell agency, known formally as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), the board said it would invite the state Department of Public Health. Members of the public may appear as well.  The Medical Board is the chief regulatory agency for physicians.

Here is the full text of Kirchmeyer's statement, which includes a timeline on the board's actions related to the dubious clinics:

"At the July 2018 Board Meeting, the Board was provided a policy that was adopted by the Federation of State Medical Boards at their annual meeting.  The policy contained several recommendations for state boards regarding Regenerative and Stem Cell Therapy Practices.

At the October 2018 Board Meeting Ms. (Denise) Pines, (president of the board), established a Board Task Force on Stem Cell and Regenerative Therapy.   In April 2019, Board staff met with the California Department of Public Health to discuss issues regarding stem cell and regenerative therapy and discussed how the two entities could work together.  The two organizations also discussed some of the issues regarding investigating complaints regarding these practices. 

"On June 27, 2019, the Task Force members met with Board staff to discuss oversight options the Board may decide to pursue to protect California consumers from unapproved and potentially dangerous stem cell products and therapies and next steps.  

"A few options discussed included the development of educational materials, exploring outreach opportunities, and developing best practice guidelines similar to those adopted by the Federation.  The Task Force also discussed the need for some type of guidance for informed consent.  While current law requires notice to patients regarding stem cell therapies, it only requires notification to the patient that the therapy is not FDA-approved and encouraging the patient to consult with their primary care physician. 

"The Task Force believes a more in-depth informed consent may be needed.  In addition, discussion also included the need for adverse event reporting and what would be required for such reporting. 

"It was determined that the Task Force hold an interested parties meeting to receive feedback from consumers, experts, and stakeholders to assist in the development of materials, guidelines and/or to determine if there are additional options that should be considered.  At this meeting, the Board is also going to ask for presentations from the California Department of Public Health and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

"The meeting will be held September 18 in the afternoon (at board headquarters in Sacramento).  If necessary, a second interested parties meeting will be held by mid-November.  The Task Force hopes to have recommendations presented to the Board at its January 2020 meeting.  "You will be able to watch the update on the webcast when it is posted on the Board’s website within the next two weeks.  Here is the link to the page where the webcast will be posted: http://www.mbc.ca.gov/About_Us/Meetings/ "

California's Slow Pace on Stem Cell Snake Oil: State Medical Regulators May Take First Stab This Summer

California regulation of an industry that sells dubious and risky "stem cell" treatments now appears to be solely in the hands of the state Medical Board, which has been mulling the matter for at least 11 months.

Both nationally and in California, the number of unregulated clinics has risen sharply with estimates of more than 1,000 nationwide, with the largest number in California. 

Jonathan Thomas, chairman of the $3 billion state stem cell agency, has described the fast-growing clinics as snake-oil enterprises.

The clinics peddle what they call stem cell treatments to desperate patients. The treatments cost thousands of dollars. Some patients have reported losing their vision as a result. Last December, the federal government reported that 12 persons were hospitalized because of infections from treatment by a California clinic. Some of the material involved was contaminated with fecal bacteria.

The New York Times reported this week that across the nation the clinics have "attracted huge numbers of patients, who pay thousands of dollars for unproven, risky procedures." The Times piece echoed a bleak national picture that was painted earlier by the Washington Post. 

A spokesman for the California Medical Board, Carlos Villatoro, said this week that a task force of the board is expected to hold its first meeting this summer to deal with stem cell clinics. "The task force should be meeting soon and potentially holding an interested parties meeting, hopefully before the next board meeting," he said in an email to the California Stem Cell Report.

The next board meeting comes in August. The task force consists of two members of the state board:

Randy Hawkins, LA Sentinel photo

Randy Hawkins of Los Angeles, who is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles, and Howard Krauss of Santa Monica, Ca., who is a clinical professor of ophthalmology and

Howard Krauss, PNI photo

neurosurgery at the John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica. 

State legislation to deal with the burgeoning problem is moribund and may or may not be resurrected.

Art Torres, vice chairman of the board of the California stem cell agency, has been working on the measure (AB617). He served for 22 years in the state legislature and is a former head of the California Democratic Party. 

Last month, Torres described the stem cell clinic measure as "dead." He said the reasons for its demise are "unclear," along with the failure of another bill dealing with sickle cell disease. Torres told the board, 

"They haven't told us why they opposed it, and even the author of the bills can't figure out why their bills remained in what's called the suspense file of the Assembly Appropriations Committee."

Torres later told the California Stem Cell Report that it was possible that the content of the bill could be amended into another measure that is farther along in the legislative process. But he said that no clear pathway to final passage was evident. 

In New York, the state attorney general has charged one stem cell clinic with fraud. In California, Attorney General Xavier Becerra has remained mum on the subject. 

Captain Kirk, Snake Oil and Stem Cell Treatments

It's time for stem cell whack-a-mole.

That's the game where regulators -- coming in late -- try to prevent snake-oil clinics from harming desperate patients with purported stem cell treatments and ripping off them for thousands of dollars.  

More than 1,000 dubious clinics are estimated to exist across the country with the largest number in California, which is lagging in its regulatory efforts.  More spring up every day with even Captain Kirk of Star Trek weighing in on the alleged benefits of the unregulated procedures.

William Wan of the Washington Post captured the national scene in an article late on Friday. He said don't get too excited about a favorable court decision involving one operation in Florida, which claims to turn body fat into beneficial stem cells.

Wan wrote,

"(T)he company said it would follow the federal judge’s ruling and stop selling the fat-based procedure. But it quickly followed up with a clarification: It would continue offering stem cell treatments, but instead of fat, rely on patients’ bone marrow and other tissues to harvest the cells it claims can cure conditions as varied as spinal cord injuries and erectile dysfunction.

"'It’s a bit like playing whack-a-mole,' said Peter Marks, FDA’s top official for biologic products."

The situation has been building for long time. Wan wrote,

“After years of largely ignoring the issue, the FDA is finally making more of an effort, but it’s not as if this marketplace is melting away,” said Leigh Turner, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota. 

"Because no one had documented exactly how many stem cell clinics existed, Turner — working with collaborators (UC Davis researcher Paul Knoepfler) — began tracking them in a database several years ago. In 2009, there appeared to be only two in the United States; by 2017, there were at least 700. Turner believes there are currently more than 1,000."

"Turner compared the for-profit stem cell industry to a balloon. As the FDA and consumer advocates squeeze one end, other parts of the enterprise expand. 'For every one that’s disappeared, we’re finding seven more that are popping up.'"

Wan noted another effort in California that could affect a number of clinics. 

"Meanwhile, the government is pushing forward in a second federal court lawsuit against another stem cell business in California. That lawsuit has the potential to halt the fat-based stem cell treatment in multiple clinics because the government filed it against a company called Cell Surgical Network, which serves as an umbrella for dozens of affiliated clinics around the country."

An attempt to step up state regulation in California, however, has ground to a halt. Legislation (AB617) by Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, is now not even on life support. It is buried in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Its content could surface in another measure that still has some technical life in the Capitol, but the outlook is more than dim. 

The scene is not much brighter with California's medical board. Last year said it would look into the dubious clinics. In April, it said hearings might begin no later than early this month. Nonetheless, a check of the agency's web site this weekend did not turn up any notice of such a meeting.

Legislation to Regulate 'Snake Oil' Stem Cell Clinics in California Hits Fiscal Speed Bump

California legislation to crack down on "snake oil" stem cell clinics has stalled after a cost of $100,000 was assigned to the measure, which is backed by the state's stem cell research program. 

The bill was sent last week to a "suspense" file, which holds fiscal legislation while lawmakers juggle priorities in the Golden State's yet-to-be-approved, $213 billion budget.

If all goes well, the measure could clear the Assembly Appropriations Committee in the next month or so and be sent to the floor of the Assembly. It would then go to the Senate for more committee hearings and a Senate floor vote.

No public opposition has yet surfaced to the measure (AB617), authored by Assemblyman Kevin Mullen, D-San Mateo. It would not take effect any earlier than 2020.

The bill would require California's Medical Board to move on the clinics, which have proliferated across the country in recent years. California has more than 100, according to the latest estimates. 

The clinics charge thousands of dollars for treatments using substances that they describe as stem cells. However, in virtually all cases, the treatments have not been tested scientifically. Some have led to serious injuries. 

The state Medical board would be required to create a stem cell advisory group by February 2020 that would make recommendations by July 2020 for regulation of the dubious clinics.

The new group would have nine members. Three would be appointed by the California stem cell agency, three by state Medical Board, two by the state osteopathic medical board and one by the state nursing board. 

The group could also recommend emergency regulations that could be adopted by the state Medical Board with a 90 day notice. 

Last week, a committee of directors of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the stem cell agency is formally known, endorsed the bill. The full board is expected to ratify that endorsement on Thursday. An analysis prepared by the legislative staff already lists CIRM as a supporter. 

California's Intial Moves on Regulation of Dubious, Unregulated Stem Cell Clinics

Legislation targeting unregulated,"snake-oil," stem cell clinics easily cleared its first hurdle yesterday and was put on track for speedy approval by the  California legislature.

The measure was amended by its author, Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, to set deadlines for moving forward next year with new regulation of the clinics, which have proliferated in California and elsewhere.

The proposal is supported by the state's $3 billion stem cell agency. Jonathan Thomas, chairman of the agency, has called the treatments "snake oil."

The clinics peddle ostensible stem cell therapies for which they charge thousands of dollars. The treatments are not approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration. Some have resulted in injury, including blindness.

An analysis of the measure (AB617) by legislative staff said,

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the past year, at least 17 individuals across five states were hospitalized after being injected with therapeutic products made from umbilical cord blood. These particular illnesses have been identified as bacterial infections that have caused swollen spinal disc, infected bones and joints, and abscesses on their backs. Of the 17 infections, 15 have been linked to a single California based company that sells vials of a solution containing umbilical cord blood that they market to ‘stimulate regenerative healing.'" 

Mullin's  bill would charge the state Department of Public Health with creating a body by February 2020 that could enact "emergency" regulations, with 90-day  notice, to deal with clinics not in compliance with federal regulations. The panel would also be charged with making recommendations to the legislature by July of next year for new laws concerning the clinics.

The 2020 deadlines were added to the bill on Monday. However, it is unlikely to mean creation of emergency regulations any sooner than the middle of next year, given state's normal processes.

Mullin's bill won unanimous approval yesterday and was sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee and was recommended for the consent calendar, which means that it will receive routine approval unless other issues come up. The bill also requires full Assembly and Senate approval and a signature from the governor.

Going Slow in California on Stem Cell "Snake Oil"

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is remaining mum on regulation of "snake oil," stem cell clinics as the Golden State pursues a go-slow approach to cracking down on the dubious treatments.

More than 100 such clinics are operating in California, the most of any state in the nation. New York state earlier this month took the lead among states in attempting to regulate the clinics, which the chairman of California's $3 billion stem cell agency, Jonathan Thomas, has described as peddling "snake oil."

New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit earlier

Letitia James
NY Department of Justice photo

this month charging that the treatments at one clinic amounted to fraud. She said in a news release,

“Misleading vulnerable consumers who are desperate to find a treatment for serious and painful medical conditions is unacceptable, unlawful, and immoral. 

“We will continue to investigate these types of clinics that shamelessly add to the suffering of these consumers by charging them thousands of dollars for treatments that they know are unproven.”

The businesses number more than 700 nationwide and have treated an estimated 20,000 persons. The clinics sell products that they say are stem cells for use as treatments for problems ranging from erectile dysfunction to cancer. The treatments lack rigorous scientific testing and cost thousands of dollars. In some cases in Florida, they have resulted in blindness. Other serious injuries have been reported elsewhere.

In the wake of the New York action, the California Stem Cell Report, on April 5 and again on April 11, queried the California attorney general's office about his position on the dubious clinics. However, Becerra's office has failed to respond.

The web site of the state Department of Justice, which is headed by Becerra, says, however,

"The Department of Justice will put patients first in a more quality health care system. We achieve this by protecting patients from bad actors...."

Other California state entities have expressed concern about the unregulated clinics but also offer only a slow schedule for action, if any.

Six months ago, the state Medical Board, which regulates physicians, created a task force to look into problem. Asked recently about the task force's progress since October, Carlos Villatoro, spokesman for the board, responded briefly,

"The board is gathering information for the Stem Cell and Regenerative Therapy Task Force and has set a goal to have its first meeting in late May, early June."

In the legislature, Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, has introduced a measure to deal with the clinics. His bill, if it is passed and signed into law, would not take effect until next January. It would direct the state Department of Public Health to hold hearings sometime next next year in order to craft possible legislation to directly regulate the clinics. 

A new regulatory panel called the Stem Cell Clinic Regulation Advisory Group would be created. After members are named and organized, it would have the ability to enact "emergency" regulations on a 90-day notice after it has consulted with "the medical community, bioethicists, legal scholars, and patient advocacy groups."

The legislation (AB617) is scheduled to receive its first hearing in the Assembly Health Committee April 23.

The unregulated stem cell clinics have been in business for years. Their dubious treatments and sales pitches have been well documented. UC Davis stem cell scientist Paul Knoepfler has been particularly active. He and Leigh Turner of the University of Minnesota were the first to document the full scope of the clinics in a groundbreaking study in 2016.

In recent years, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has become more active. In the case of one California firm, Cell Surgical Network, which has been in business since 2010, the FDA sued the firm last May alleging that it had, among other things, used a smallpox vaccine to create an unapproved stem cell product. The product was injected directly into tumors in persons with potentially compromised immune systems, the FDA said.

California Legislation to Curb Unregulated Stem Cell Clinics Due by March

Legislation to help stem the tide of unregulated stem cell clinics in California is still being drafted, but is inspected to be introduced by the end of this month. 

Art Torres, vice chairman of the California stem cell agency, is working on the measure, which is expected to be authored by Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo. 

More than 100 dubious stem cell clinics are estimated to be in business in the Golden State, peddling ostensible stem cell treatments that cost thousands of dollars.  The treatments, however, have no scientific proof of efficacy or safety. 

In response to a question, Torres, a former state lawmaker, said that Mullin will introduce legislation that will serve as a placeholder while the legal language is worked out and coordinated with appropriate state agencies.

Torres said in an email, 

"We will have the language ready by March 1 , 2019, to be amended into the spot (placeholder) bill. 

"April 26 is the last day that a policy bill with fiscal implications must be out of the policy committee and referred to the fiscal committee."

The clinics and their treatments are a national issue as well involving the Food ad Drug Administration, which has been slow to move. California legislation is likely to serve as something of a model for other states.

California Setting Stage for Crackdown on Dubious Stem Cell Clinics

The California stem cell agency, state regulators and lawmakers are taking aim at the more than 100 dubious, unregulated "stem cell" clinics now operating in the Golden State.

The goal is to curb clinics that are using what they describe as stem cells in treatments costing thousands of dollars but that have not been tested  scientifically. Lawsuits have been filed around the country alleging damage to patients that includes blindness.

Art Torres, vice chairman of the state stem cell agency, is now  working with lawmakers to formulate legislation that is expected to be introduced by the end of January.

At the same time, the State Medical Board, which licenses and regulates physicians, has chartered a task force to look into the the growing business.

Earlier this fall, Torres told the governing board of

Kevin Mullin, LA Times photo

the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is formally known, that he was engaged with Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, on a bill.

Torres, a former state lawmaker, said the legislation is expected to involve certification of clinics by a state department. He said, 

"It involves a number of issues which we (CIRM) really can't be involved with in terms of licensing, but we certainly can be involved with the parameters and the distinctions that we ought to raise as to what constitutes an appropriate stem cell clinic in California."

The Medical Board is scrutinizing the promotional practices and harm caused by the clinics with the intent of crafting regulations to curb abuses.  

The board's starting point is a report by the Federation of State Medical Boards, which says,

"There is reasonable concern about a growing number of providers and clinics in the United States that are undermining the field. Such providers and clinics have been known to apply, prescribe or recommend therapies inappropriately, over-promise without sufficient data to support claims, and exploit patients who are often in desperate circumstances and willing to try any proposed therapy as a last resort, even if there is excessive cost or scant evidence of efficacy."

Paul Knoepfler, a UC Davis stem cell scientist who has long been involved in examination of dubious clinics, has reported that at least 100 such clinics exist in California. 

Writing on his blog Nov. 30, Knoepfler said,

"Broadly, it may be going rapidly from the best of times to the worst of times for unproven stem cell clinics in the U.S., which would be a very good thing for patients and the stem cell field, if it actually happens. We’ll see."

LA Times: Does California's New Stem Cell Law Do Enough to Regulate Exploitation of Desperate Patients?

The Los Angeles Times this morning carried a piece that praised the state's first-in-the-nation disclosure law concerning unregulated stem cell treatments, but the article also questioned whether the law is tough enough for the task.

Business columnist Michael Hiltzik wrote that the law, which goes into effect in January, is "a major step to address an emerging public health crisis."  But, he continued,

"(T)here’s reason to ask whether California’s law goes far enough to regulate businesses exploiting the desperation of patients with intractable diseases."

The law targets the more than 100 clinics in California that sell what Hiltzik described as  "unlicensed, unproven — and sometimes disproven — stem-cell 'treatments.'" For the first time, such California clinics will be required to disclose to their customers that the treatments are not approved or regulated by the federal government. The notices will advise the customers to consult with their physicians prior to treatment.

Hiltzik,  however, questioned the optimistic wording of the disclosure which says that the treatments have "not yet" been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He said,

"This suggests that FDA endorsement may only be a matter of time — that the treatments may be premature, but not fictitious. That’s wildly optimistic and may itself foster a false hope for the treatments."

Hiltzik, a Pulitzer Prize winner,  said the state's Medical Board, which is charged with enforcement, has not been provided with funding to take on the clinics. Plus, he said the board, at best, is a "reluctant regulator."

State Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-Azusa, authored the law. He told Hiltzik the measure is a first step. Hiltzik quoted the legislator as saying,

 “Because it’s so new, we’re trying to figure out the best way to start the conversation.”

Hiltzik concluded,

"But lawmakers and regulators may need to move faster. What will make a difference in California may not be how the conversation starts, but where it leads."

Dubious Stem Cell Therapies Attract Coverage in California's Capital

The leading newspaper in California's state capital this weekend published a lengthy piece exploring the world of unproven stem cell therapies, including one being offered in its own backyard. 

Reporter Claudia Buck of The Sacramento Bee wrote,

"For long-suffering patients...stem cells offer tantalizing hope. In the last few years, more than 570 stem cell clinics have popped up nationwide, advertising treatment for a range of maladies, from autism and Alzheimer’s to neuropathy and Parkinson’s disease, according to a recent UC Davis study. About 113 of those are operating in California. 

"But do they really work? According to most stem cell experts and the federal government, there’s no way to know yet."

Buck quoted Kevin McCormack, spokesman for the California stem cell agency, as saying,

“It’s quite clear that these people are offering treatments that haven’t been tested in clinical trials. It’s a little concerning,”

Buck wrote,

"'My view is that it’s a giant human experiment that doesn’t have FDA approval,' said Paul Knoepfler, a UC Davis stem cell expert, who co-authored the study identifying the 570 clinics. 'I don’t know how much patients are aware of how uncertain the benefits and risks are. As a scientist, it’s worrisome.'"

Knoepfler, who publishes a blog on stem cell matters, has written in the past about advertising in The Bee by a stem cell business called Nervana. The firm was mentioned in Buck's article, which, however, did not note that Nervana has taken out full page advertisements in the past in The Bee.

Knoepfler's most recent piece on Oct. 21 also noted that the firm had taken out a full page ad in the San Diego Union Tribune as well.  The UC Davis researcher said at the time,

"I don’t believe there is a solid, medical or scientific basis for what they are selling."

NY Times: Stem Cell Theory vs. Flourishing, Dubious Stem Cell Clinics

The New York Times this morning took a crack at coverage of the first-ever study of the wave of dubious stem cell clinics in America. The headline on the Times' prominently displayed story said,

"Stem Cell Therapies Are Still Mostly Theory, Yet Clinics Are Flourishing"

The starting point for the article by Gina Kolata was the study by UC Davis stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler and bioethicist Leigh Turner of the University of Minnesota.  They reported on June 30 that nearly 600 dubious stem cell clinics have sprung up around the country. It is the first study to document the reach of these businesses. The report, published in the scientific journal Cell Stem Cell,  received heavy mainstream media coverage.

Kolata highlighted the tentative nature of stem cell research. She wrote,

 "In theory, stem cells might be a useful treatment for certain diseases that involve the loss of cells, like Type 1 diabetes, Parkinson’s or osteoarthritis. They are primitive cells that can develop into a range of mature cells and perhaps serve as replacements. But progress is slow. After a flurry of stem cell excitement two decades ago, almost all the research today is still in mice or petri dishes. The very few clinical trials that have begun are still in the earliest phase.

"The problem is that stem cell therapies are still mostly theory. So what is going on? How can there be clinics, even chains of clinics run by companies, offering stem cell treatment for almost any disease you can think of — sports injuries, arthritis, autism, cerebral palsy, stroke, muscular dystrophy, A.L.S., cancer?"

She said that the Knoepfler-Turner study showed "what can happen when regulations fall behind." 

And she noted the limits of federal regulation as well as the failure of state regulatory bodies to deal with the issue. 

Kolata's story was displayed online this morning on the main page of the New York Times. The media attention to the work by Knoepfler and Turner has significantly raised the visibility of the issues involving dubious stem cell "therapies."  A narrowly defined search on Google news this morning turned up nearly 11,000 citations, up from about 7,000 early this month.

The coverage certainly has increased the likelihood of some sort of additional regulatory action. However, such moves take time, and it is not realistic to expect a crackdown anytime soon. Indeed, it may require legislative changes at the federal and state levels.

As for the ethical and medical concerns raised by Knoepfler and Turner and the Times piece, one Times reader -- identified online only as Susan -- said,  

"So what? A lot of what the scientific/medical establishment tries to sell us is just theory. Studies of this and studies of that. A study will come out and 6 months later another study will come out debunking the first study. I believe the problem is that some of these science/medical 'experts' are under the delusion that 'one size fits all.' I disagree. What may kill one person may help another."