Snake Oil Stem Cell "Therapeutics" : The Promise, Potential, Pitfalls, and Realities of Current Stem Cell Related Therapies

A recent wave of commercially available health products touting stem cell derived benefits have hit the market, but do they really work?  Is there any science backing these bold new claims? This section will attempt to debunk and forewarn potential patients of new offshore stem cell "practitioners" and their unwarranted extravagant claims touting the potential of their stem cell wonder tonics.

    Yesterday I reported on a psychiatrist who claims to have a cure for AIDS, but won't explain how it works. Today, I will save him the trouble and tell you how it works. Because I'm nice like that. The psychiatrist, William Rader, reportedly operates a company -- Medra, Inc -- from his Malibu home. A quick search of the US Patent Application database returns 13 applications filed on behalf of Rader. One of the 13 applications includes the claim -- "A method for treating a patient infected with HIV [..]". HIV is, of course, a virus. In order for HIV to "work," it has to propagate itself by infecting neighboring immune system cells. In most cases of sexually transmitted HIV strains, the virus spreads by binding to two separate proteins (receptors): CD4 and CCR5. If this strain of the virus can't bind to either receptor, it can't spread or cause harm. Since proteins are encoded by genes, a slight variation in the genetic sequence can cause the protein to be formed improperly. Humans inherit two copies of the gene -- one from each parent -- so they can have either two normal CCR5 genes, one defective gene (heterologous deficient), or two defective genes (homozygous deficient). Researchers have found that people who are homozygous deficient for CCR5 are highly resistant, though not impervious, to HIV infection. One potential therapy for those affected by HIV, therefore, is to replace their compromised immune system with one that is homozygous deficient for CCR5 through a stem cell transplant. This, my friends, is where the story begins. From the patent:

What is claimed is:
1. A method for treating a patient infected with HIV, the method comprising the steps of: administering CCR5-def hematopoietic stem cells to the patient via intravenous injection; and administering CCR5-def neuronal stem cells to the patient via subcutaneous injection.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein administration of the hematopoietic and neuronal stem cells is preceded by aplasia of the patient's marrow.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein about 10 million to about 100 million hematopoietic stem cells and about 10 million to about 80 million neuronal stem cells are administered to the patient.
Read the entire story...

April 20, 2007  - DR Wakeman
Are Stem Cells a Regenerative Fountain of Youth ?
Most people are now aware that stem cells have many potential applications for regenerative medicine, but do you really know which of these claims are backed by quality scientific investigation?  The therapeutic benefits of stem cells and their derivatives are often touted in the media, but the exact details of how such therapies improve health are far from clear. As these special cells have grown increasingly popular, so to have the bolstering claims of stem cells as a "wander tonic" or "fountain of youth" with special healing powers, further augmenting the public’s perception of stem cell biology. In fact, the predominating questions of who, what, why, how, and where for human clinical therapies have not even begun to be deciphered with any scientific prowess.

To begin, the ideal patient (who) for any clinical therapy is determined by specific criteria of symptoms and followed by medical diagnoses of a specific syndrome. In this case, the severity and type of disease define the type of stem cell (what) implemented as well as the optimal delivery technique (how). For example, stereotactic injection of neural subtypes into Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients would be considered a suitable choice as specific dopamine (DA) neurons are selectively damaged in the substantia nigra (SN). Complicated procedures like brain surgery associated with such therapies, however, carry severe risks to the patient’s health; therefore, it is imperative to adequately address the "why" of such a therapy. That is to say, the overall beneficial outcome of such a procedure must outweigh the calculated risks inflicted on the patient by the insult. Such evidence must support the notion that the intended therapy has a greater benefit than the alternative measure as well as be safely implemented so as not to exacerbate the disease.

In our example, there is compelling evidence that cellular transplantation of neural subtypes into the SN and caudate-putamen may be beneficial, and the alternative therapies such as L-Dopa administration and deep brain stimulation (DBS) do not offer long-term beneficial advantages or functional recovery. Therefore, stem cell therapy, albeit risky, may in effect, be a suitable alternative in severe PD cases where terminally ill patients have failed to respond to conventional therapies and require immediate intervention.  Assuming researchers can successfully tackle the who, what, why, and how experimentally for their particular disease of interest, there is still the rather daunting task of "where" could we implement such therapies. Depending on the ailment, procedures such as complicated intra-cranial injections to the SN deep within the brain require sophisticated neurosurgical suites available at limited institutions and carry substantial risks to the patient, which physicians, hospitals, and insurance providers could argue would place them at elevated risk for malpractice. All of these factors are critical when estimating cost to benefit of any new therapy and must be tested thoroughly for stem cell based treatments if they are to have any hope of sustained success in the clinic.

At present, the current answers to these questions remains extremely unclear for nearly every stem/progenitor based cell therapy that has been suggested or experimentally tested.  In fact, the clinical or "recreational" usage of any stem cell or derivative thereof, in human subjects, as a treatment for human diseases, has never been clearly demonstrated to provide any therapeutically beneficial value by unbiased parameters.  Moreover, a common misconception of the true promises of such stem cell therapies, mainly hyped by mass media and partially by misinformed or misguided scientists, has grown rampant throughout the mainstream public and "progressive health" communities. Advertisements touting the benefits of banking umbilical cord blood, immobilizing bone marrow derived hematopoetic progenitors, and even special stem cell derived extracts that are applied as lotions have flooded the internet and "health-store" marketplace. In addition, foreign "clinics" offering extremely unsafe, untested surgical procedures utilizing these cells have increased significantly in the past five years. Even domestic retailers within the U.S. have begun implementing bovine stem cells for cosmetic enhancement. So what exactly is definitive truth and what is merely a fictitious web of deceit and unwarranted extrapolations remains to be uncovered, however, the potential for disastrous negative side effects from these non-scientific therapies remains an imminent danger to any potential patient/client of these dangerous Dr. Jeckylls.

As active participants in the online dissemination of such public information, we at the stemmcellcommunity.org believe it is our responsibility to share not only the facts as we see them, but also educate the public about the myths and potential pitfalls associated with current stem cell procedures and marketing campaigns. In addition, we acknowledge that through the addition of GoogleAds to our forum, we have ourselves become a conduit by which such deleterious information is further broadcasted to the general public. Therefore, in the upcoming months, we will showcase a variety of articles pertinent to the current trend in "Snake Oil Stem Cell Therapeutics" to further highlight the perils of misguided science and the potential recourse stem cell based therapies may suffer if these "bogus" companies are not held at bay under the same scrutiny medical institutions throughout the country must abide by.  Stay posted to see who’s put on the snake-oil stand next, as we uncover the good, bad, and ugly of peculiar second-hand stem cell therapies. 

*If you or someone you know has been impacted by what you believe to be a bogus stem cell therapy, we urge you to contact us so we can share your story.

* Please alert us to any new stem cell related products or services you are curious about or want to inform the public to beware of.  Contact stemcellcommunity.org and tell us why you think its "Snake Oil" or ask us what we think for a more detailed answer.  We may even publish your editorial right here!

"Certified Quack List’ –  The www.stemcellcommunity.org strongly urges all its readers NOT to use, advertise, or support any of the following "Quacks" that soil the quality scientific nature of future stem cell therapies. These companies should be considered to accommodate the delivery of dangerous untested therapies based on no experimentally based scientific merit at the expense of their patients. Please see www.quackwatch.com for more extensive analysis and excellent commentary of these unwarranted claims. More information on these companies to come…   Read more at Quackwatch: 

1. Medra, Inc,                                               William C. Rader, M.D
2. Vita Nova,                                                Yuliy V. Baltaytis, MD, PhD, DSc
3. Brain Cell Therapeutic Clinic,                 David Steenblock, D.O.
4. Embryonic Tissues Center,                      Alexander Smikodub, M.D., Ph.D., and Alexey Karpenko,  M.D., Ph.D

*This editorial is the opinion of DR Wakeman and does not reflect the legal nature of these companies or the opinion of the SCC.