Stem Cell Therapy: Non-Surgical Treatment for Neck Pain & Whiplash – Video


Stem Cell Therapy: Non-Surgical Treatment for Neck Pain Whiplash
An informative guide to how Platelet Rich Plasma can heal the tough minority of whiplash cases where traditional treatments do not offer significant relief. For more information, visit http://www.stemcell...

By: StemCell ARTS

Here is the original post:
Stem Cell Therapy: Non-Surgical Treatment for Neck Pain & Whiplash - Video

Stem Cell Research & Therapy

Stem Cell Research & Therapy is the major forum for translational research into stem cell therapies. An international peer-reviewed journal, it publishes high quality open access research articles with a special emphasis on basic, translational and clinical research into stem cell therapeutics and regenerative therapies, including animal models and clinical trials. The journal also provides reviews, viewpoints, commentaries and reports.

There has been an error retrieving the data. Please try again.

Paranasal sinus source of MPCs

Mesenchymal progenitor cells (MPCs) from the ethmoid sinus mucosa have multilineage differentiation potential, high proliferative ability, and an increased capacity for secretion of immunomodulatory cytokines.

Matrix remodeling effects therapeutic potential

There are significant changes in the properties of the extracellular matrix following remodeling after myocardial infarction; characterization of the matrix could increase the efficiency and efficacy of cell therapy treatment.

MHC-mismatched MSCs are immunogenic

All potential donor mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) should be immunophenotyped and screened for major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II expression to prevent inciting an immune reaction.

PSC-derived cardiomyocyte production

Steve Oh and colleagues review progress in the development of platforms for the large scale differentiation of cardiomyocytes from human pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) as part of the cardiovascular regeneration series.

Read the original post:
Stem Cell Research & Therapy

Row over controversial stem-cell procedure flares up again

Nicolo' Minerbi / LUZphoto / eyevine

Mauro Ferrari, who heads the Institute for Academic Medicine at the Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, is the Italian government's nominee to chair a committee on the controversial Stamina Foundation.

Top scientists in Italy have called on the health minister Beatrice Lorenzin to reconsider the composition of the new scientific advisory committee she has proposed to assess a controversial stem-cell therapy offered by the Stamina Foundation.

Their move follows a renewed media frenzy around the affair, prompted by statements made to the press and television by the committees proposed president, Mauro Ferrari, shortly after he was nominated on 28 December.

The Stamina therapy, which has not been scientifically proven to be effective in a clinical trial, involves extracting mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow of a patient, manipulating them and then reinjecting them into the same patients blood or spinal fluid. Stamina, based in Brescia, has already treated more than 80 patients for a wide range of serious diseases.

Stamina's practices have been widely criticized by experts both in Italy and outside, and the first government-appointed scientific committee to rule on Stamina prepared a detailed report describing the Stamina protocol as without a scientific basis, ineffective and dangerous. However, a regional court declared that committee unlawfully biased on 4 December. But after that committee's report was leaked to the press on 20 December (see 'Leaked files slam stem-cell therapy'), many families of patients who claim to have been damaged by the therapy announced that they had brought charges for damages against Stamina and its president Davide Vannoni. Both have denied any wrongdoing.

In response to the court findings, minister Lorenzin nominated Ferrari to chair a new committee. Ferrari, who heads the Institute for Academic Medicine at the Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, told journalists that he was neither for nor against the Stamina method.

However on the 22 January episode of a widely viewed television show, Le iene, Ferrari said he thought Stamina offered Italy the opportunity to take a world lead in bringing experimental therapies into the clinic. He also referred to Stamina as the first important case for regenerative medicine here in Italy, a statement that has incensed some Italian researchers.

Michele de Luca, a stem-cell biologist from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia says that Ferrari's assertions were an insult to the many scientists in Italy working on translating stem-cell research into new clinical applications. In particular, De Luca's own group was the first in the world to cure a form of blindness with a stem-cell therapy they developed, he points out.

In a letter dated 26 January, which was seen by Nature, four influential clinical scientists say that they were extremely worried by Ferrari's televised statements. The signatories were Silvio Garattini, head of the Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research in Milan; Giuseppe Remuzzi, head of the Mario Negri Institute in Bergamo; Gianluca Vago, rector of the University of Milan; and Alberto Zangrillo, vice-rector for clinical activities at the University Vita-Salute San Raffaele in Milan.

Excerpt from:
Row over controversial stem-cell procedure flares up again

Libertarian Party response to 2014 State of the Union address

Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict issued the following statement in response to President Barack Obamas State of the Union address:

Thanks to unprecedented levels of government interference and government coercion, Americans rights are violated like never before. We are harmed by taxes, regulations, prohibitions, and shocking privacy intrusions.

Unfortunately, most of the harm and injustice of government occurs because too many Americans support existing government policies. Were suffering under a tyranny of the majority. Our Libertarian hope is that we can convince enough Americans to change their minds. We hope voters will come to understand that government is force, and force is unjust.

Here are some of the problems we see.

The government debt situation is atrocious. Government debt is a terrible thing, because it forces future generations to pay off debts they never agreed to incur. From 2001 to 2008, George W. Bush doubled the debt, mostly with the support of a Republican Congress.

Since 2009, Barack Obama and the Democrats (and Republicans) have nearly doubled it again. It doesnt matter whether Republicans or Democrats control the government. Libertarians would quickly balance the budget by cutting spending on everything, including entitlements and the military.

Thanks to the work of Republicans and Democrats, America has declined in the Economic Freedom Index. Weve been sliding for years, and now were down to #12. Were below Australia, Canada, and Denmark. Libertarian policies would get us back to #1.

Government should stop creating programs to fight economic inequality. Some economic inequality is natural and healthy in a free society. Actually, government often creates artificial inequality by granting special privileges to certain businesses or classes of people. Republicans and Democrats do that all the time. Libertarians prefer a level playing field.

The employment situation is still pretty bad. Why? Because government gets in between employers and employees, and tries to dictate everything. Minimum wage laws, hiring laws, firing laws, subsidies, and business taxes all make it harder to create jobs and find jobs. These laws are supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Libertarians would eliminate the minimum wage, employment red tape, and business subsidies and taxes.

Since 2001, the federal budget has exploded. Whenever the government spends money, it displaces it out of the private sector. That means the government is making more choices about how we use our resources, and free people are making fewer choices. That inevitably harms our economy. Libertarians would eliminate most programs, and cut spending on the rest.

Link:

Libertarian Party response to 2014 State of the Union address

Why Robert Sarvis is no Virginia Senate race spoiler for Ed Gillespie

Robert Sarvis (L) is back. His goal: Become the next senator from Virginia.

While Libertarian Party candidates in competitive races have been known to give Republicans heartburn, Sarvis shouldn't cause Republican Ed Gillespie much anxiety, at least at this point. Any fears the the 2013 gubernatorial contender could spoil Gillespie's chances are fears about something that simply isn't likely to happen.

Two reasons: The race doesn't look very close right now, and Sarvis wasn't a spoiler in his last run.

For starters, look at how the governor's race turned out.

While some Republicans groused that Sarvis's presence on the ballot hurt Ken Cuccinelli II (R) in what ended up being a close race, the reality is it didn't. Sarvis won 6.5 percent of the vote, which, yes, was more than now-Gov. Terry McAuliffe's margin over Cuccinelli. But exit poll data show that without Sarvis in the picture, McAuliffe still would have won the race,by nearly the same margin. Most Sarvis voters would have stayed home if he was not on the ballot. This chart tells the story:

Generally speaking, Libertarian Party candidates hold positions more closely aligned with Republicans than Democrats. And so, the thinking goes, they compete for more voters with the GOP.

That's why many Republicans often cringe at the thought of a Libertarian candidate with even a modest following entering the picture in a tight race. It's also why activists and operatives will sometimes try to exploit such a dynamic to their advantage. To wit: The 2012 Montana Senate race, where an outside group helped build support for a Libertarian Party candidate and what many saw as an attempt to boost the Democrat by peeling votes away from the Republican.

But polls leading up to Election Day in 2013 showed Sarvis wasn't tipping the scales toward either candidate. In short, he wasn't the spoiler some made him out to be.

As we have written, Gillespie is asizable underdog to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) this year. Despite his access to national donors, he faces an uphill climb because he's up against the most popular politician in Virginia.

If this race is close come Nov. 1, it will almost certainly either mean that 1) Warner stumbled, big-time, 2) The national environment for Democrats is awful, or 3) Both. At the same time, Gillespie will have to run a smooth campaign to stay in the mix, which is no guarantee for the first-time candidate.

Read the original post:

Why Robert Sarvis is no Virginia Senate race spoiler for Ed Gillespie

Rand Paul’s Bizarre and Murky Libertarian Universe

Rand Paul could be the GOP presidential nominee in 2016.

Nash 2.5

While the GOP establishment is wary of him, much of themainstream media, especially cable TV news, LOVES Rand Paul, if you consider how much attention he gets, every time he voices an opinion on anything. Anything at all. The media pundits thinkhis libertarian ideas are new and interesting. And,as they all say, Hes not as crazy as Ted Cruz.

Rands problem is how to get the support ofthe GOP base. That wont be easy.

If you click on the linkbelow, youwill geta long, detailedNew York Times article on Rand Pauls confusing libertarian ideology, confusing because he apparently has articulated some truly strange ideas in the past that probably wontappeal to mostGOPprimary voters.Lately, hes been trying to re-write history by clarifying his previously stated positions.The more he clarifies, the murkier it all gets.

NYT: Rand Pauls Mixed Inheritance

Nash 2.5 is a Trail Mix Contributor

See the article here:

Rand Paul’s Bizarre and Murky Libertarian Universe