Stem Cell Stories that Caught Our Eye: New law to protect consumers; using skin to monitor blood sugar; and a win for the good guys

Hernendez

State Senator Ed Hernandez

New law targets stem cell clinics that offer therapies not approved by the FDA

For some time now CIRM and others around California have been warning consumers about the risks involved in going to clinics that offer stem cell therapies that have not been tested in a clinical trial or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in patients.

Now a new California law, authored by State Senator Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) attempts to address that issue. It will require medical clinics whose stem cell treatments are not FDA approved, to post notices and provide handouts to patients warning them about the potential risk.

In a news release Sen. Hernandez said he hopes the new law, SB 512, will protect consumers from early-stage, unproven experimental therapies:

“There are currently over 100 medical offices in California providing non-FDA approved stem cell treatments. Patients spend thousands of dollars on these treatments, but are totally unaware of potential risks and dangerous side effects.”

Sen. Hernandez’s staffer Bao-Ngoc Nguyen crafted the bill, with help from CIRM Board Vice Chair Sen. Art Torres, Geoff Lomax and UC Davis researcher Paul Knoepfler, to ensure it targeted only clinics offering non-FDA approved therapies and not those offering FDA-sanctioned clinical trials.

For example the bill would not affect CIRM’s Alpha Stem Cell Clinic Network because all the therapies offered there have been given the green light by the FDA to work with patients.

Blood_Glucose_Testing 

Using your own skin as a blood glucose monitor

One of the many things that people with diabetes hate is the constant need to monitor their blood sugar level. Usually that involves a finger prick to get a drop of blood. It’s simple but not much fun. Attempts to develop non-invasive monitors have been tried but with limited success.

Now researchers at the University of Chicago have come up with another alternative, using the person’s own skin to measure their blood glucose level.

Xiaoyang Wu and his team accomplished this feat in mice by first creating new skin from stem cells. Then, using the gene-editing tool CRISPR, they added in a protein that sticks to sugar molecules and another protein that acts as a fluorescent marker. The hope was that the when the protein sticks to sugar in the blood it would change shape and emit fluorescence which could indicate if blood glucose levels were too high, too low, or just right.

The team then grafted the skin cells back onto the mouse. When those mice were left hungry for a while then given a big dose of sugar, the skin “sensors” reacted within 30 seconds.

The researchers say they are now exploring ways that their findings, published on the website bioRxiv, could be duplicated in people.

While they are doing that, we are supporting ViaCytes attempt to develop a device that doesn’t just monitor blood sugar levels but also delivers insulin when needed. You can read about our recent award to ViaCyte here.

Deepak

Dr. Deepak Srivastava

Stem Cell Champion, CIRM grantee, and all-round-nice guy named President of Gladstone Institutes

I don’t think it would shock anyone to know that there are a few prima donnas in the world of stem cell research. Happily, Dr. Deepak Srivastava is not one of them, which makes it such a delight to hear that he has been appointed as the next President of the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco.

Deepak is a gifted scientist – which is why we have funded his work – a terrific communicator and a really lovely fella; straight forward and down to earth.

In a news release announcing his appointment – his term starts January 1 next year – Deepak said he is honored to succeed the current President, Sandy Williams:

“I joined Gladstone in 2005 because of its unique ability to leverage diverse basic science approaches through teams of scientists focused on achieving scientific breakthroughs for mankind’s most devastating diseases. I look forward to continue shaping this innovative approach to overcome human disease.”

We wish him great success in his new role.

 

 

 

‘Pay-to-Participate’ stem cell clinical studies, the ugly stepchild of ClinicalTrials.gov

When patients are looking for clinical trials testing new drugs or treatments for their disease, one of the main websites they visit is ClinicalTrials.gov. It’s a registry provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of approximately 250,000 clinical trials spanning over 200 countries around the world.

ClinicalTrials.gov website

If you visit the website, you’ll find CIRM’s 28 active clinical trials testing stem cell-based therapies for indications like spinal cord injury, type 1 diabetes, heart failure, ALS, cancer and more. These are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved trials, meaning that researchers did the proper preclinical studies to prove that a therapy was safe and effective in animal models and received approval from the US FDA to test the treatment in human clinical trials.

As the largest clinical registry in the world, ClinicalTrials.gov is a very valuable resource for patients and the public. But there are studies on the website that have recently surfaced and taken on the role of ‘ugly stepchild’. These are unapproved stem cell therapies from companies and stem cell clinics that are registering their “pay-to-participate treatments”. And they are doing so in clever ways that don’t make it obvious to patients that the trials aren’t legitimate. The reason this is so troubling is that unproven therapies can be dangerous or even life-threatening to patients.

Leigh Turner

Leigh Turner, an associate professor of bioethics at the University of Minnesota, has written extensively about the serious problem of stem cell clinics marketing unproven stem cell therapies to desperate patients. Turner, in collaboration with UC Davis professor Dr. Paul Knoepfler, published a study in Cell Stem Cell last year that identified over 550 clinics in the US that promote unproven treatments for almost any condition, including diseases like Alzheimer’s where research has shown that cures are a long way off.

Today, Turner published an article in Regenerative Medicine that shines a light on how companies and clinics are taking advantage of ClinicalTrials.gov to promote their “pay-to-participate” unproven stem cell studies. The article is available for free if you register with RegMedNet, but you can find news coverage about Turner’s piece through EurekAlert,  Wired Magazine and the San Diego Union Tribune.

In an interview with RegMedNet, Turner explained that his research into how businesses promote unproven stem cell therapies led to the discovery that these studies were being listed as “pay-to-participate” on ClinicalTrials.gov.

“Many of these businesses use websites, social media, YouTube videos, webinars and other tools to engage in direct-to-consumer marketing of supposed stem cell therapies. To my surprise, at one point I noticed that some of these companies had successfully listed “pay-to-participate” studies on ClinicalTrials.gov. Many of these “studies” look to me like little more than marketing exercises, though of course the businesses listing them would presumably argue that they are genuine clinical studies.”

While FDA-approved trials can charge study participants, most don’t. If they do, it’s motivated by recovering costs rather than making a profit. Turner also explained that organizations with FDA-approved studies “need to prepare a detailed rationale and a budget, and obtain approval from the FDA.”

Companies with unproven stem cell therapies are ignoring these regulatory requirements and listing their studies as “patient-funded” or “patient-sponsored”. Turner found seven such “pay-to-participate” studies sponsored by US companies on ClinicalTrials.gov. He also identified 11 studies where companies don’t indicate that patients have to pay, but do charge patients to participate in the studies.

Turner is concerned that these companies are using ClinicalTrials.gov to take advantage of innocent patients who don’t realize that these unproven treatments aren’t backed by solid scientific research.

“Patients have already been lured to stem cell clinics that use ClinicalTrials.gov to market unproven stem cell interventions. Furthermore, some patients have been injured after undergoing stem cell procedures at such businesses. Many individuals use ClinicalTrials.gov to find legitimate, well-designed, and carefully conducted clinical trials. They are at risk of being misled by study listings that lend an air of legitimacy and credibility to clinics promoting unproven and unlicensed stem cell interventions.”

Having identified the problem, Turner is now advocating for a solution.

“ClinicalTrials.gov needs to raise the bar and perform a proper review of studies before they are registered. Better screening is needed before more patients and research subjects are harmed. It’s astonishing that officials at the NIH and US FDA haven’t already done something to address this obvious matter of patient safety. Putting a disclaimer on the website isn’t sufficient.”

The disclaimer that Turner is referring to is a statement on the ClinicalTrials.gov website that says, “Listing of a study on this site does not reflect endorsement by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).”

Turner argues that this disclaimer “simply isn’t sufficient.”

“Patients and their loved ones, physicians, researchers, journalists, and many other individuals all use ClinicalTrials.gov because they regard the registry and database as a source of meaningful, credible information about clinical studies. I suspect most individuals would be shocked at how easy it is to register on ClinicalTrials.gov studies that have obvious methodological problems, do not appear to comply with applicable federal regulations or have glaring ethical shortcomings.”

While Turner acknowledges that the NIH database of clinical trials is a “terrific public resource” that he himself has used, he regards it “as a collective good that needs to be protected from parties willing to misuse and abuse it.” His hope is that his article will give journalists the starting material to conduct further investigators into these pay-to-participate studies and the companies behind them. He also hopes that “such coverage will help convince NIH officials that they have a crucial role to play in making ClinicalTrials.gov a resource people can turn to for information about credible clinical trials rather than allowing it to become a database corrupted and devalued by highly problematic studies.”

Convincing is one thing, but implementing change is another. Turner said in his interview that he knows that “careful screening by NIH officials will require more resources, and I am making this argument at a time when much of the political discourse in the U.S. is about cutting funding for the CDC, FDA, NIH and other federal agencies.”

He remains hopeful however and concluded that “perhaps there are ways to jolt into action people who are in positions of power and who can act to help prevent the spread of misinformation, bad science, and marketing packaged as clinical research.”

Texas tries to go it alone in offering unproven stem cell therapies to patients

Texas Capitol. (Shutterstock)

One of the most hotly debated topics in stem cell research is whether patients should be able to have easier access to unproven therapies using their own stem cells, at their own risk, and their own cost. It’s a debate that is dividing patients and physicians, researchers and lawmakers.

In California, a bill working its way through the state legislature wants to have warning signs posted in clinics offering unproven stem cell therapies, letting patients know they are potentially putting themselves at risk.

Texas is taking a very different approach. A series of bills under consideration would make it easier for clinics to offer unproven treatments; make it easier for patients with chronic illnesses to use the “right to try” law to take part in early-stage clinical trials (in the past, it was only patients with a terminal illness who could do that); and allow these clinics to charge patients for these unproven stem cell therapies.

Not surprisingly, the Texas bills are attracting some widely divergent views. Many stem cell researchers and some patient advocates are opposed to them, saying they prey on the needs of vulnerable people, offering them treatments – often costing thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars – that have little or no chance of success.

In an article on STATnews, Sean Morrison, a stem cell researcher at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, in Dallas, said the Texas bills would be bad for patients:

“When patients get desperate, they have a capacity to suspend disbelief. When offered the opportunity of a therapy they believe in, even without data and if the chances of benefit are low, they’ll fight for access to that therapy. The problem is there are fraudulent stem cell clinics that have sprung up to exploit that.”

Patients like Jennifer Ziegler disagree with that completely. Ziegler has multiple sclerosis and has undergone three separate stem cell treatments – two in the US and one in Panama – to help treat her condition. She is also a founding member of Patients For Stem Cells (PFSC):

Jennifer Ziegler

“PFSC does not believe our cells are drugs. We consider the lack of access to adult stem cells an overreach by the federal government into our medical freedoms. My cells are not mass produced, and they do not cross state lines. An adult stem cell treatment is a medical procedure, between me, a fully educated patient, and my fully competent doctor.”

The issue is further complicated because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – which has regulatory authority over stem cell treatments – considers the kinds of therapies these clinics offer to be a technical violation of the law. So even if Texas passes these three bills, they could still be in violation of federal law. However, a recent study in Cell Stem Cell showed that there are some 570 clinics around the US offering these unproven therapies, and to date the FDA has shown little inclination to enforce the law and shut those clinics down.

UC Davis stem cell researcher – and CIRM grantee – Paul Knoepfler is one of the co-authors of the study detailing how many clinics there are in the US. On his blog – The Niche – he recently expressed grave concerns about the Texas bills:

Paul Knoepfler

“The Texas Legislature is considering three risky bills that would give free rein to stem cell clinics to profit big time off of patients by selling unproven and unapproved “stem cell treatments” that have little if any science behind them. I call one of these bills “Right to Profit” for clinics, which if these became law could get millions from vulnerable patients and potentially block patient rights.”

Ziegler counters that patients have the right to try and save their own lives, saying if the Texas bills pass: “chronically ill, no option patients in the US, will have the opportunity to seek treatment without having to leave the country.”

It’s a debate we are all too familiar with at CIRM. Every day we get emails and phone calls from people asking for help in finding a treatment, for them or a loved one, suffering from a life-threatening or life-altering disease or disorder. It’s incredibly difficult having to tell them there is nothing that would help them currently being tested in a clinical trial.

Inevitably they ask about treatments they have seen online, offered by clinics using the patient’s own stem cells to treat them. At that point, it is no longer an academic debate about proven or unproven therapies, it has become personal; one person asking another for help, to find something, anything, to save their life.

Barring a dramatic change of policy at the FDA. these clinics are not going to go away. Nor will the need of patients who have run out of options and are willing to try anything to ease their pain or delay death. We need to find another way, one that brings these clinics into the fold and makes the treatments they offer part of the clinical trial process.

There are no easy answers, no simple solutions. But standing on either side of the divide, saying those on the other side are either “heartless” or “foolish” serves no one, helps no one. We need to figure out another way.

Three people left blind by Florida clinic’s unproven stem cell therapy

Unproven treatment

Unproven stem cell treatments endanger patients: Photo courtesy Healthline

The report makes for chilling reading. Three women, all suffering from macular degeneration – the leading cause of vision loss in the US – went to a Florida clinic hoping that a stem cell therapy would save their eyesight. Instead, it caused all three to go blind.

The study, in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, is a warning to all patients about the dangers of getting unproven, unapproved stem cell therapies.

In this case, the clinic took fat and blood from the patient, put the samples through a centrifuge to concentrate the stem cells, mixed them together and then injected them into the back of the woman’s eyes. In each case they injected this mixture into both eyes.

Irreparable harm

Within days the women, who ranged in age from 72 to 88, began to experience severe side effects including bleeding in the eye, detached retinas, and vision loss. The women got expert treatment at specialist eye centers to try and undo the damage done by the clinic, but it was too late. They are now blind with little hope for regaining their eyesight.

In a news release Thomas Alibini, one of the lead authors of the study, says clinics like this prey on vulnerable people:

“There’s a lot of hope for stem cells, and these types of clinics appeal to patients desperate for care who hope that stem cells are going to be the answer, but in this case these women participated in a clinical enterprise that was off-the-charts dangerous.”

Warning signs

So what went wrong? The researchers say this clinic’s approach raised a number of “red flags”:

  • First there is almost no evidence that the fat/blood stem cell combination the clinic used could help repair the photoreceptor cells in the eye that are attacked in macular degeneration.
  • The clinic charged the women $5,000 for the procedure. Usually in FDA-approved trials the clinical trial sponsor will cover the cost of the therapy being tested.
  • Both eyes were injected at the same time. Most clinical trials would only treat one eye at a time and allow up to 30 days between patients to ensure the approach was safe.
  • Even though the treatment was listed on the clinicaltrials.gov website there is no evidence that this was part of a clinical trial, and certainly not one approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which regulates stem cell therapies.

As CIRM’s Abla Creasey told the San Francisco Chronicle’s Erin Allday, there is little evidence these fat stem cells are effective, or even safe, for eye conditions.

“There’s no doubt there are some stem cells in fat. As to whether they are the right cells to be put into the eye, that’s a different question. The misuse of stem cells in the wrong locations, using the wrong stem cells, is going to lead to bad outcomes.”

The study points out that not all projects listed on the Clinicaltrials.gov site are checked to make sure they are scientifically sound and have done the preclinical testing needed to reduce the likelihood they may endanger patients.

goldberg-jeffrey

Jeffrey Goldberg

Jeffrey Goldberg, a professor of Ophthalmology at Stanford and the co-author of the study, says this is a warning to all patients considering unproven stem cell therapies:

“There is a lot of very well-founded evidence for the positive potential of stem therapy for many human diseases, but there’s no excuse for not designing a trial properly and basing it on preclinical research.”

There are a number of resources available to people considering being part of a clinical trial including CIRM’s “So You Want to Participate in a Clinical Trial”  and the  website A Closer Look at Stem Cells , which is sponsored by the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR).

CIRM is currently funding two clinical trials aimed at helping people with vision loss. One is Dr. Mark Humayun’s research on macular degeneration – the same disease these women had – and the other is Dr. Henry Klassen’s research into retinitis pigmentosa. Both these projects have been approved by the FDA showing they have done all the testing required to try and ensure they are safe in people.

In the past this blog has been a vocal critic of the FDA and the lengthy and cumbersome approval process for stem cell clinical trials. We have, and still do, advocate for a more efficient process. But this study is a powerful reminder that we need safeguards to protect patients, that any therapy being tested in people needs to have undergone rigorous testing to reduce the likelihood it may endanger them.

These three women paid $5,000 for their treatment. But the final cost was far greater. We never want to see that happen to anyone ever again.

TV’s Dr. Oz takes on clinics offering dubious stem cell treatments

foyt

A. J. Foyt: Photo courtesy Indycar.com

oz

At first glance motor car racing legend A. J. Foyt and TV celebrity heart surgeon Dr. Mehmet Oz would seem to have little in common. But this week they both made news for being at opposite ends of an all too familiar story: for-profit medical clinics offering unproven stem cell therapies.

Foyt, who is now 82 years old, made history by becoming the only driver to win the Indianapolis 500 (4 times), the Daytona 500, the 24 Hours of Daytona, and the 24 Hours of Le Mans. But along the way he crashed several times leading to a broken back, broken feet and legs and numerous other injuries. Now, in a story in USA Today he announced he is going to Mexico to get a stem cell treatment to help repair his battered body.

In the article he is quoted talking about the procedure to IndyCar.com:

“They have to cut away some of the tissue from my stomach and it takes 8-10 weeks for it to grow back to produce the stem cells. I’ll probably have it done soon so that we can begin the treatment within the next two to three months.”

He then plans on having those stem cells, taken from fat in his stomach, injected into his ankles, shoulders and blood.

Now, that doesn’t sound like any stem cell therapy I have ever heard of and ordinarily we’d blog about the risks involved in going to a clinic like this for a “treatment” like this. But this week we don’t have to, because Dr. Oz did it for us.

This week the Dr. Oz TV show ran a special investigative story that looked at for-profit stem cell clinics that offer ”treatments” for everything from arthritis to Alzheimer’s, using the same cells and the same approach.

In an accompanying blog called ‘Crucial Tips to Avoid Stem Cell Scammers’ Elizabeth Leamy – who took part in undercover visits to several clinics – says there are more than 570 clinics around the US offering unproven and unapproved treatments:

“What I learned is that revenue has eclipsed research. Hundreds of for-profit stem cell clinics already exist across the country because desperate patients will pay big money —$5,000 to $20,000 a pop— for stem cell treatments. Surely it’s no coincidence that the patients these clinics target are those with diseases for which there is no known cure.”

The blog does a terrific job of exposing the tricks that clinics use to get patients to sign up for these “treatments” and highlights key red flags for people to watch out for:

  • Be wary of clinics that offer treatments with stem cells that originate from a part of the body that is different from the part being treated.
  • Watch out for clinics where treatments are offered for a wide variety of conditions but rely on a single cell type.
  • Be wary of clinics that measure or advertise their results primarily through patient testimonials.
  • Be wary of claims that stem cells will somehow just know where to go and what to do to treat a specific condition.

She concludes by warning that “just because stem cells came from your body doesn’t mean they are safe,” then listing the complications, even deaths, that have occurred among patients going to clinics like this, both inside and outside the US, saying:

“Yes, what we heard in our undercover visits was troubling. But worst yet, the premature stem cell treatments of today could undermine trust in the promising stem cell treatments of tomorrow.”

Perhaps someone should tell A. J. Foyt.

 

Patients beware: warnings about shady clinics and suspect treatments

stem-cells therapy?

Every day we get a call from someone seeking help. Some are battling a life-threatening or life-changing disease. Others call on behalf of a friend or loved one. All are looking for the same thing; a treatment, better still a cure, to ease their suffering.

Almost every day we have to tell them the same thing; that the science is advancing but it’s not there yet. You can almost feel the disappointment, the sense of despair, on the other end of the line.

If it’s hard for us to share that news, imagine how much harder it is for them to hear it. Usually by the time they call us they have exhausted all the conventional therapies. In some cases they are not just running out of options, they are also running out of time.

Chasing hope

Sometimes people mention that they went to the website of a clinic that was offering treatments for their condition, claiming they had successfully treated people with that disease or disorder. This week I had three people mention the same clinic, here in the US, that was offering them “treatments” for multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injury and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three very different problems, but the same approach was used for each one.

It’s easy to see why people would be persuaded that clinics like this could help them. Their websites are slick and well produced. They promise to take excellent care of patients, often helping take care of travel plans and accommodation.

There’s just one problem. They never offer any scientific evidence on their website that the treatments they offer work. They have testimonials, quotes from happy, satisfied patients, but no clinical studies, no results from FDA-approved clinical trials. In fact, if you explore their sites you’ll usually find an FAQ section that says something to the effect of they are “not offering stem cell therapy as a cure for any condition, disease, or injury. No statements or implied treatments on this website have been evaluated or approved by the FDA. This website contains no medical advice.”

What a damning but revealing phrase that is.

Now, it may be that the therapies they are offering won’t physically endanger patients – though without a clinical trial it’s impossible to know that – but they can harm in other ways. Financially it can make a huge dent in someone’s wallet with many treatments costing $10,000 or more. And there is also the emotional impact of giving someone false hope, knowing that there was little, if any, chance the treatment would work.

Shining a light in shady areas

U.C. Davis stem cell researcher, CIRM grantee, and avid blogger Paul Knoepfler, highlighted this in a recent post for his blog “The Niche” when he wrote:

Paul Knoepfler

Paul Knoepfler

“Patients are increasingly being used as guinea pigs in the stem cell for-profit clinic world via what I call stem cell shot-in-the-dark procedures. The clinics have no logical basis for claiming that these treatments work and are safe.

As the number of stem cell clinics continues to grow in the US and more physicians add on unproven stem cell injections into their practices as a la carte options, far more patients are being subjected to risky, even reckless physician conduct.”

As if to prove how real the problem is, within hours of posting that blog Paul posted another one, this time highlighting how the FDA had sent a Warning Letter to the Irvine Stem Cell Treatment Center saying it had serious concerns about the way it operates and the treatments it offers.

Paul has written about these practices many times in the past, sometimes incurring the wrath of the clinic owners (and very pointed letters from their lawyers). It’s to his credit that he refuses to be intimidated and keeps highlighting the potential risks that unapproved therapies pose to patients.

Making progress

As stem cell science advances we are now able to tell some patients that yes, there are promising therapies, based on good scientific research, that are being tested in clinical trials.

There are not as many as we would like and none have yet been approved by the FDA for wider use. But those will come in time.

For now we have to continue to work hard to raise awareness about the need for solid scientific evidence before more people risk undergoing an unproven stem cell therapy.

And we have to continue taking calls from people desperate for help, and tell them they have to be patient, just a little longer.

***

If you are considering a stem cell treatment, the International Society for Stem Cell Research had a terrific online resource, A Closer Look at Stem Cells. In particular, check out the Nine Things to Know about Stem Cell Treatments page.

 

Desperate patients and false hope: a troubling trend for stem cell-based therapies

A gambler’s odds are usually stacked against them but the possibility, however slim, of hitting the jackpot keeps bringing them back to the table. Now imagine, unbeknownst to them, the system is rigged so there’s a zero percent chance of any winnings. They’d essentially be giving their money away based on a false hope. Sadly, many desperate people looking for stem cell cures do exactly that.

Earlier this week, Cristin Severance, a Team10 TV news reporter in San Diego, investigated local stem cell clinics promising treatments for a number of chronic incurable diseases. Severance cites Stemgenex of La Jolla, which offers people with Parkinson’s disease the chance of improving their symptoms through a therapy using stem cells from their own fat. This opportunity comes at a cost – $15,000. According to stem cell expert Jeanne Loring of The Scripps Research Institute, there’s no prospect the treatment will work.

150604_blog_Team10thumbnail

Cristin Severance, a Team10 San Diego TV news reporter, investigated local stem cells clinics offering questionable therapies at a steep price.

First, some background: Parkinson’s disease is an incurable neurodegenerative disorder that affects nearly a million people in the United States. The symptoms include tremors, slow movement, muscle rigidity and less facial expression. Parkinson’s occurs when nerve cells, or neurons, in the region of the brain that controls movement, die for reasons that remain unclear. Which leads us to the snag with Stemgenex’s treatment strategy. Dr. Loring, who is a CIRM-funded researcher, explains in the TV news segment:

“The cells they are giving these patients cannot help them. My stem cells [in my laboratory] make neurons of a certain type. The stem cells they are getting out of people’s fat can’t do that. They could never do it. They aren’t capable of it.”

But what about the positive video patient testimonials often posted on these clinics’ websites? Watch enough of them and you’ll notice a pattern: the patients are typically recorded shortly after the treatment with no long-term follow up and no published data in peer-reviewed medical journals. Loring points out the likely explanation for these seemingly successful treatments:

“There is something called a placebo effect…If you believe whatever you’re getting is going to help you then there’s a short period of time in which your body is convinced that it has helped you. But that goes away.”

A plausible approach to treating Parkinson’s is to start with so-called pluripotent stem cells, which have the potential to specialize into any cell type. With these cells in hand, scientists can generate the neurons that are lost in Parkinson’s – a feat Loring and others have accomplished. The next step is to inject these neurons into the brains of Parkinson’s patients to restore—hopefully—proper movement control. But first the researchers must gather enough evidence in animal studies to convince the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that this therapy is safe and effective enough to test in humans.

So what about people who need stem cell cures today, right now? The sobering truth is, there are very few stem-call based products approved by the FDA. Most of those involve blood stem cell transplantation for treating leukemia and some genetic blood disorders as well as the use of stem cells for skin and hair grafts and cartilage repair.

Still, more and more stem cell-based clinical trials are coming online and recruiting people with a wide range of diseases. Everyday at CIRM, we receive emails and phone calls from people looking for advice about these experimental stem cell treatments. Our main recommendation: carefully read an excellent online resource provided by the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) called, A Closer Look at Stem Cell Treatments. In particular, the Things to Consider about Clinical Trials section includes a list of questions anyone thinking about participating in a stem cell trial should ask. It would be a good idea to get the answers in writing and discuss them with a physician you trust. That way, you can truly know your odds when forming a decision.

Visit our website for more information about stem cell-related Parkinson’s research as well as the current list of CIRM-funded clinical trials.