This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stem-cell therapy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Stem-cell therapy.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Blawrence2019 (
article contribs).
It doesn't seem as if anyone is keeping this page abreast of new advancements made. For example, in the area of tooth replacement, I would have thought that something would have been included about the sheath and the chemical that was found to be necessary for this procedure to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.48.150 ( talk) 10:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't the passage "Some scientists see shift in stem cell hopes" deleted? Apparently, it's the view of one researcher! Add to this - a researcher previously unheard of. Are we going to cite every single individual on Gods gray earth from now on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.10.77 ( talk) 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The treatment for baldness discusses predictions that it may be treated by "as early as 2007", which doesn't fit at this time. I'm just leaving it in the open, could someone update this?
The case of the Korean scientists was found to have been faked. MSNBC Article MoHaG 14:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE NEEDED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.53.142 ( talk) 02:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The story of the spinal cord treatment which helped a woman (Hwang Mi-soon) walk, while true, it's not up to date. More recent articles have said that the second operation was a failure and question the results from the first treatment. Links: [2] [3]
See this press release from Newcastle university. This happened in July but seems to have made not a ripple on Wikipedia.
References that don't go anywhere,! Links that are unimportant! Aggh! I guess I better get to working. Kopf1988 18:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that the deafness section seems a tad bit small, couldn't something be taken from the reference and paraphrased into the section? 76.16.94.24 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Regenerative medicine is synonamus with Stem Cell therapy I think there are a wide veriety Regenerative medicines and therapies such as nanotechnologies in the future
I just took a firm hand and edited the page - it was becoming a bit wooly & out of control. Amongst the changes:
Anyway, that's my 2c for today. Dr Aaron 07:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been tagged the 10th of october, the reason is not present here. Incorrect facts? 50 or more revisions have been done since. If this article appears correct the cleanup tag can go. if this page is prone to innaccuracies and vandalism it should be a protected: stem cells is. if you are an expert on the subject, feel free to resolve this. cleanup tags are good but they just pile up as they are easy too use -- Squidonius ( talk) 00:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese therapy section here needed a lot of work. Beike is not the only company delivering therapy but I don't want to start a list inappropriately. At the same time, I'm interested to see how the Wikipedia community responds to sources outside of the western milieu. I'm researching the Chinese stem cell industry right now and, American standards of medical exploration aside, they're confidently delivering therapy to thousands of people here and now without fear. The top part of the article seems appropriate only through the lens of ethnocentric exclusion. Stem cell therapies are being delivered around the world--not just in China. It might be useful, and academically fascinating, to point out the dissonance between the eastern and western approaches to this science rather than simply deny therapy validity on western grounds of insufficient back-story--any FDA-approved process. The FDA's own historiographic vetting system is designed toward the anticipation of a short-term chemical rather than a long-term biological product.
It will be interesting to watch the development of this article. Like Columbus 'discovering' the new world and the native populations saying "Wait a sec," will the record resolve down to, as Eddie Izzard says, whether or not "you have a flag"?
Shoushan ( talk) 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Currently Regenerative medicine redirects here, and there is no obvious category Regenerative medicine to sit above both stem cells and Rejuvenation (aging). If there is no objection, I will create the category in a day or two.
Also organizattiosn such as New York Stem Cell Foundation and McEwan Center for Regenerative Medicine do not have a clear category.
Any ideas? History2007 ( talk) 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Stroke repair with cell transplantation: neuronal cells, neuroprogenitor cells, and stem cells Kondziolka D, Wechsler L. Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 24 (3-4):E13.
2 Neural stem cells for the treatment of ischemic stroke Bacigaluppi M, et al. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 265 (2008) 73–77
3. Cell Transplantation Therapy for Stroke Bliss T, Guzman R, Daadi M; Steinberg G. Stroke. 2007; 38[2]: 817-826.
4. Intravenous administration of human umbilical cord blood reduces behavioral deficits after stroke in rats. Chen J, et al. Stroke. 2001; 32 (11):2682-8
5. Stroke-induced migration of human umbilical cord blood cells Newman M, et al. Stem Cells Dev. 2005 Oct;14(5):576-86.
6. Human umbilical cord blood cells do not improve sensorimotor or cognitive outcome following cerebral artery occlusion in rats. Mäkinen S, Kekarainen T, Nystedt J, et al.. Brain Res. 2006 Dec 6; 1123 (1):207-15.
7. Human cord blood CD34+ cells and behavioral recovery following focal cerebral ischemia. Nystedt J, Mäkinen S, et al. Acta Neurobiol Exp. 2006; 66 (4):293-300
8. In vivo tracking of human mesenchymal stem cells in experimental stroke. Kim D, et al. Cell Transplant. 2008; 16(10):1007-12.
9. Intravascular cell replacement therapy for stroke Guzman R, Choi R, Steinberg G et al. Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 24 (3-4):E15.
10. Cell replacement therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage Andres R, Guzman R, et al Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 24 (3-4):E16.
11. Growth factors, stem cells, and stroke Kalluri H, Dempsey R. Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 24(3-4):E14.
Hello! I've just edited/added to the intro paragraph for this article. Please leave your feedback! RoodleDoodle ( talk) 04:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
In reading this, I saw nothing about the negative side effects of treatment. There are multiple cases of uncontrolled tumors, deadly rejections, and other potentially deadly side effects. Is it that they have not been added, or have they been removed when included? I find it hard to believe it should be so one sided. Mushrom ( talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Mushroom - I agree that its pretty one sided. I think it would be great if you added a section describing the "potential adverse outcomes" or something similar! -- Abbaroodle ( talk) 04:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This section contains a link to a private, commercial website. ("First Commercial Adult Stem Cell Application in the US." http://www.regenexx.com.) Furthermore, the treatment they are discussing is currently neither approved by the FDA nor in an FDA-approved trial. There have been a couple articles written about single individuals who seem to have benefitted from treatment, but there have no trials with more than one patient that have been published, not to mention there are no placebo controls in the studies. While perhaps someday stem cells will be used for orthopedic conditions, for now I think we need to make it very, very clear that this use is still in the early experimental stage. -- Abbaroodle ( talk) 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Since there has been no reply to this in the past week, I am going to assume it is not controversial and went ahead and corrected the section. -- Abbaroodle ( talk) 23:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Disagree with abbaroodle.
The FDA has no regulatory authority over the practcice of medicine, this is an easdier to understand discussion of those issues:
"This can be very confusing to understand, so an example from day to day life should help. We’d all accept at face value that a restaurant is not FDA regulated. Why? The public health risk of bad food served in a restaurant is a one on one risk. At worst, a restaurant with a bad kitchen might make tens to hundreds of people ill. This is similar to a doctor’s office or a hospital delivering bad medical care, which also have the theoretical risk of making tens to hundreds of people ill. For this reason, both the restaurant and the medical office/hospital are regulated at the state level (the state health board for the restaurant and the state medical board for the doctor). Now let’s say our restaurant has a popular menu item that it wants to place in jars and ship across state lines to customers placing orders. All of a sudden the public health risk goes up dramatically. The food in jars has the potential to make huge numbers of people ill with just one bad production batch. Since we no longer have a restaurant and now have a food production facility, the FDA now regulates this facility, as the public health risk is a federal issue. The same holds true if our doctor’s office decides to place stem cells in a vial and ship those to other doctors in other states, now the public health risk is much larger and involves potentially all 50 states. There is no doubt that we would all want the FDA to have regulatory authority over stem cells shipped in a vial. What would happen if we had FDA regulate restaurants? Since every kitchen would need a cGMP kitchen (meaning up to the standards of mass food production) the cost of eating out would become prohibitively expensive. A ten thousand dollar prime rib anyone? What would happen if FDA regulated your doctor? The cost of delivering medical care would explode as every time your doctor wanted to treat you, that treatment would have to undergo 7-10 year FDA approval. Since the vast majority of what doctors do day to day could never pass this muster, medical care around the country would effectively stop. Just as there is no public health rationale for having FDA regulate restaurants, there is also no public health reason for FDA to regulate the activities of medical offices or hospitals."
On the case report side, at this juncture, since there is limited human data on stem cell therapy case reports are valid (albiet taken with an appropriate grain of salt). This same group just published the world's largest safety study on stem cell therapy, easily exceeding the requirements for phase I/II clinical trials by more than 100 patients, so this needs to be referenced as it's important scientific work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.238.245 ( talk) 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I moved the boxed section below to here, because I don't think it's very helpful to the reader as it is written now. Rather, I fear it will become an ever growing target to dump any random trivia or rumor that has anything to do with stem cells. Rather, any new information is probably better sorted into their proper places in the rest of the article. Does anybody want to save it somehow by a major revision? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 07:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It was reported in the New York Times ( 14 August 2006), by Nicholas Wade, that some scientists see a shift in stem cell hopes. Several mentioned that the main role of stem cells was in research. Many no longer see cell therapy as the first goal of the research, parting company with those whose near-term expectations for cell therapy remain high. [1] Thomas M. Jessell, a neurobiologist at Columbia University said "Many of us feel that for the next few years the most rational way forward is not to push stem cell therapies." [1] In America, Barrack Obama has lifted the federal funding ban on stem cell research. [2] |
References
- Rod57 ( talk) 11:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I found this video online (and subsequentually elsewhere): http://gizmodo.com/5277456/stem-cell-contact-lenses-cure-blindness-in-less-than-a-month
An article from "The Australian", by Leigh Dayton, Science writer, May 28, 2009 "Stem cells used to restore sight for corneal disease sufferers" names some of the involved people and institutions who were responsible for the breakthrough.
Beginning 18 months ago, 3 Australian volunteers with near or total blindness from corneal disease in one eye underwent an uncomplicated, fairly inexpensive proceedure that improved and eventually restored vision in a short time with no negative side effects reported that I can find.
The team leader is University of New South Wales stem cell scientist Nick Di Girolamo. A team member is Stephanie Watson - an opthalmic surgeon with Sydney's Prince of Wales Hospital.
America is still working with mice and proposing theories. That's all good, but behind several less well financed nations in this research. The World has millions who could be seeing well before a dozen years go by. -- Jopower ( talk) 11:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
"Blindness and vision impairment" of main article does not reflect the above (or other) research and success. The recent results from Australia, China, et al, should be here. Unfortunately, I am not privy to the authoratative reports necessary for Wiki reference. Someone in such a position please provide! Thank you. Jopower ( talk) 09:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a way to block certain external links? It seems like certain websites reappear with regular frequency after being deleted as "spam" and non-neutral, unreliable sites. -- Abbaroodle ( talk) 13:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
“In stem cell therapy, cells are taken out and used when required. The same cells are energized without removing it from the body in zero therapy, thus harmonizing the mind, body and soul.” said Vipin Chand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepjjj ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Zero Therapy is the science of harmony of changing the individual cells of each family member and there by the side-effect takes care of the disease with food as a catalyst. Its food biochemistry and thought chemistry, which are complementary to each other. This is Ultimate Therapy, not Alternative Therapy. It works on the principle of balancing individual hormone, which varies from person to person. Ultimate Therapy is the name given to it, since no external material goes into the body. We don't prescribe food for organ. It is for individual body says Vipin Chand Bomb, www.zerotherapy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepjjj ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Just got to remove them manually. If the same person or same links keep appears, you can ask an administrator for more help.
This section received a major update as part of Saint Louis University Wikipedia:School and university projects. We are all newbies in this class, so a review by a more experienced editor is welcome and appreciated.-- Biolprof ( talk) 02:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Regeneration therapy, a content fork from this article, is being considered for deletion at AfD. Editors of this article may wish to comment or check that usable content from there is already covered in this article. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised to see nothing about the use of stem cell therapy as a treatment for autism. Such a trial was, in fact, approved by the FDA just last year. [4] Perhaps we should start a section on that. We could include this study, which suggests it might actually work. However, according to the Autism Science Foundation, it is a non-evidence based treatment. [5]. Jinkinson ( talk) 22:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Apparently, actor Ernie Lively underwent "the very first successful retrograde heart procedure" as part of the stem cell therapy. My field is not medicine, but I thought it could perhaps be added somewhere in the article, since "he became the first person treated with an experimental retrograde gene therapy"... -- Sofffie7 ( talk) 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Major breakthroughs in stem cell research for tissue regeneration appear in the News almost daily now and this is very exciting. However, will it be slowed down by years of Government review and approval process? Or is this different than approving a drug where the FDA may take years or decades to approve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 ( talk) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Stem-cell therapy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Just had a Neurodegeneration line removed "There have been preliminary studies related to [Multiple sclerosis|multiple sclerosis]." with comment "We need better source. (TW))".
I think that's a mis-fire since cite is National MS Society report and link to JAMA article. If that's not good enough, what is ?
But this raises a broader question -- what *is* 'good enough', particularly about medical research ? I interpret WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDRS/FAQ as it varies by context, which seems the normal and reasonable enough general principles of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' plus 'medical topics require extra care in cites'. But I'm thinking that there really should be some further guidance or draft guides specific to handling research so am asking -- can someone can point to any such guidance ? Markbassett ( talk) 14:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Lots of WP:MEDRS, including review articles, on stem cell transplantation for MS, and the review articles on MS generally usually contain a section on stem cell transplantation. JAMA and NMSS news stories are heavily reviewed in the process of editing, but if you don't like them, instead of deleting them, you can substitute the peer-reviewed articles that they usually cite. I think secondary sources like JAMA and NMSS are useful, because they usually summarize the peer-reviewed literature more accurately and clearly than most Wikipedia editors are capable of doing. Also, some of the best work in exposing fraudulent stemm cell therapy has been published not in peer-review journals, but in newspapers , TV news, and news sections of journals like Science. Here's a bibliography of MS that I created, most of which includes at least references to stem cell research. Be sure not to quote older studies without checking the latest research.
Stephen L. Hauser, Douglas S. Goodin 458. Multiple sclerosis and other demyelinating diseases Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 19th ed. 2015
Daniel S. Reich, Claudia F. Lucchinetti, Peter A. Calabresi Multiple sclerosis (Review) NEJM 11 Jan 2018
Alan J. Thompson, et al. Multiple sclerosis (Seminar) Lancet 22 Mar 2018
Joachim Burman, Robert J. Fox Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for MS. Safer than previously thought. Neurology 30 May 2017
MP Sormani, et al. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis Neurology 30 May 2017
Jan Dörr Haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for multiple sclerosis: what next? Lancet 9 Jun 2016 online
Harold L. Atkins, et al., Mark S Freedman, PI Immunoablation and autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for aggressive multiple sclerosis: a multicentre single-group phase 2 trial Lancet 9 Jun 2016 online
-- Nbauman ( talk) 06:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stem-cell therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/health/stem-cell-research-breakthrough/index.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bentham-direct.org/pages/content.php?CSCR/2010/00000005/00000001/0011CSCR.SGM{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://lccn.loc.gov/2004212209When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Since stem cells have the ability to replace old and diseased cells, they can be used to treat many diseases. Although using human embryonic stem cells has moral or religious objections and many scientists prefer to use adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells, Embryonic stem cells have the ability to produce all types of cells in the body, but adult stem cells have the ability to form just specialized types of cells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghadisu ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stem-cell therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
These are all unsourced or unreliably sourced; moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BRUDEN please don't restore without first finding reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them.
Stem-cell treatment is currently being practiced at a clinical level in Mexico. An International Health Department Permit (COFEPRIS) is required. Authorized centers are found in Mexicali, Tijuana, Guadalajara and Cancun. Currently undergoing the approval process is Los Cabos. This permit allows the use of stem cell. citation needed
Since 2008 many universities, centers and doctors tried a diversity of methods; in Lebanon proliferation for stem cell therapy, in-vivo and in-vitro techniques were used, Thus this country is considered the launching place of the Regentime [1] procedure. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281712114_Treatment_of_Long_Standing_Multiple_Sclerosis_with_Regentime_Stem_Cell_Technique The regenerative medicine also took place in Jordan and Egypt. citation needed
Today, Ukraine is permitted to perform clinical trials of stem-cell treatments (Order of the MH of Ukraine № 630 "About carrying out clinical trials of stem cells", 2008) for the treatment of these pathologies: pancreatic necrosis, cirrhosis, hepatitis, burn disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, critical lower limb ischemia. The first medical institution granted the right to conduct clinical trials became the "Institute of Cell Therapy"(Kiev).
References
-- 02:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I suggest adding this to lead section, "Some stem cells are harvested from adipose tissue. While the suctioned fat cells are permanently gone, after a few months overall body fat generally returned to the same level as before treatment. [1] This is despite maintaining the previous diet and exercise regimen. While the fat returned somewhat to the treated area, most of the increased fat occurred in the abdominal area. Visceral fat - the fat surrounding the internal organs - increased, and this condition has been linked to life-shortening diseases such as diabetes, stroke, and heart attack. [2]
References
-- Juliet Sabine ( talk) 23:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stem-cell therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's a good article about bad outcomes in unregulated, for-profit clincs, with links to peer-reviewed journals. There are many others, including a CBS 60 Minutes expose.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/miracle-cures-or-modern-quackery-stem-cell-clinics-multiply-with-heartbreaking-results-for-some-patients/2018/04/29/80cbcee8-26e1-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html
Miracle cures or modern quackery? Stem cell clinics multiply, with heartbreaking results for some patients.
by Laurie McGinley and William Wan
Washington Post
April 29, 2018
--
Nbauman (
talk)
06:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I will be adding a small negative section under the researcher paragraphs.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). "Nine Things to Know About Stem Cell Treatments". www.closerlookatstemcells.org. Retrieved 2018-10-30.
Cite error: There are<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)."What are the Side Effects of a Stem Cell Transplant? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute". Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 2018-02-09. Retrieved 2018-10-30. Cite error: There are<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)."Researchers Question Safety, Value Of Untested Stem Cell Treatments". NPR.org. Retrieved 2018-10-30. Mcqueetj ( talk) 11:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Can this Stem Cell therapy page be updated by appropriately qualified people. Presently I am working on a new manufacturing facility for a commercialized Stem Cell therapy for Crohn's disease. The page seems to be out-of-date.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stem-cell therapy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Stem-cell therapy.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Blawrence2019 (
article contribs).
It doesn't seem as if anyone is keeping this page abreast of new advancements made. For example, in the area of tooth replacement, I would have thought that something would have been included about the sheath and the chemical that was found to be necessary for this procedure to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.48.150 ( talk) 10:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't the passage "Some scientists see shift in stem cell hopes" deleted? Apparently, it's the view of one researcher! Add to this - a researcher previously unheard of. Are we going to cite every single individual on Gods gray earth from now on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.10.77 ( talk) 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The treatment for baldness discusses predictions that it may be treated by "as early as 2007", which doesn't fit at this time. I'm just leaving it in the open, could someone update this?
The case of the Korean scientists was found to have been faked. MSNBC Article MoHaG 14:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE NEEDED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.53.142 ( talk) 02:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The story of the spinal cord treatment which helped a woman (Hwang Mi-soon) walk, while true, it's not up to date. More recent articles have said that the second operation was a failure and question the results from the first treatment. Links: [2] [3]
See this press release from Newcastle university. This happened in July but seems to have made not a ripple on Wikipedia.
References that don't go anywhere,! Links that are unimportant! Aggh! I guess I better get to working. Kopf1988 18:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that the deafness section seems a tad bit small, couldn't something be taken from the reference and paraphrased into the section? 76.16.94.24 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Regenerative medicine is synonamus with Stem Cell therapy I think there are a wide veriety Regenerative medicines and therapies such as nanotechnologies in the future
I just took a firm hand and edited the page - it was becoming a bit wooly & out of control. Amongst the changes:
Anyway, that's my 2c for today. Dr Aaron 07:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been tagged the 10th of october, the reason is not present here. Incorrect facts? 50 or more revisions have been done since. If this article appears correct the cleanup tag can go. if this page is prone to innaccuracies and vandalism it should be a protected: stem cells is. if you are an expert on the subject, feel free to resolve this. cleanup tags are good but they just pile up as they are easy too use -- Squidonius ( talk) 00:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese therapy section here needed a lot of work. Beike is not the only company delivering therapy but I don't want to start a list inappropriately. At the same time, I'm interested to see how the Wikipedia community responds to sources outside of the western milieu. I'm researching the Chinese stem cell industry right now and, American standards of medical exploration aside, they're confidently delivering therapy to thousands of people here and now without fear. The top part of the article seems appropriate only through the lens of ethnocentric exclusion. Stem cell therapies are being delivered around the world--not just in China. It might be useful, and academically fascinating, to point out the dissonance between the eastern and western approaches to this science rather than simply deny therapy validity on western grounds of insufficient back-story--any FDA-approved process. The FDA's own historiographic vetting system is designed toward the anticipation of a short-term chemical rather than a long-term biological product.
It will be interesting to watch the development of this article. Like Columbus 'discovering' the new world and the native populations saying "Wait a sec," will the record resolve down to, as Eddie Izzard says, whether or not "you have a flag"?
Shoushan ( talk) 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Currently Regenerative medicine redirects here, and there is no obvious category Regenerative medicine to sit above both stem cells and Rejuvenation (aging). If there is no objection, I will create the category in a day or two.
Also organizattiosn such as New York Stem Cell Foundation and McEwan Center for Regenerative Medicine do not have a clear category.
Any ideas? History2007 ( talk) 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Stroke repair with cell transplantation: neuronal cells, neuroprogenitor cells, and stem cells Kondziolka D, Wechsler L. Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 24 (3-4):E13.
2 Neural stem cells for the treatment of ischemic stroke Bacigaluppi M, et al. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 265 (2008) 73–77
3. Cell Transplantation Therapy for Stroke Bliss T, Guzman R, Daadi M; Steinberg G. Stroke. 2007; 38[2]: 817-826.
4. Intravenous administration of human umbilical cord blood reduces behavioral deficits after stroke in rats. Chen J, et al. Stroke. 2001; 32 (11):2682-8
5. Stroke-induced migration of human umbilical cord blood cells Newman M, et al. Stem Cells Dev. 2005 Oct;14(5):576-86.
6. Human umbilical cord blood cells do not improve sensorimotor or cognitive outcome following cerebral artery occlusion in rats. Mäkinen S, Kekarainen T, Nystedt J, et al.. Brain Res. 2006 Dec 6; 1123 (1):207-15.
7. Human cord blood CD34+ cells and behavioral recovery following focal cerebral ischemia. Nystedt J, Mäkinen S, et al. Acta Neurobiol Exp. 2006; 66 (4):293-300
8. In vivo tracking of human mesenchymal stem cells in experimental stroke. Kim D, et al. Cell Transplant. 2008; 16(10):1007-12.
9. Intravascular cell replacement therapy for stroke Guzman R, Choi R, Steinberg G et al. Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 24 (3-4):E15.
10. Cell replacement therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage Andres R, Guzman R, et al Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 24 (3-4):E16.
11. Growth factors, stem cells, and stroke Kalluri H, Dempsey R. Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 24(3-4):E14.
Hello! I've just edited/added to the intro paragraph for this article. Please leave your feedback! RoodleDoodle ( talk) 04:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
In reading this, I saw nothing about the negative side effects of treatment. There are multiple cases of uncontrolled tumors, deadly rejections, and other potentially deadly side effects. Is it that they have not been added, or have they been removed when included? I find it hard to believe it should be so one sided. Mushrom ( talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Mushroom - I agree that its pretty one sided. I think it would be great if you added a section describing the "potential adverse outcomes" or something similar! -- Abbaroodle ( talk) 04:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This section contains a link to a private, commercial website. ("First Commercial Adult Stem Cell Application in the US." http://www.regenexx.com.) Furthermore, the treatment they are discussing is currently neither approved by the FDA nor in an FDA-approved trial. There have been a couple articles written about single individuals who seem to have benefitted from treatment, but there have no trials with more than one patient that have been published, not to mention there are no placebo controls in the studies. While perhaps someday stem cells will be used for orthopedic conditions, for now I think we need to make it very, very clear that this use is still in the early experimental stage. -- Abbaroodle ( talk) 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Since there has been no reply to this in the past week, I am going to assume it is not controversial and went ahead and corrected the section. -- Abbaroodle ( talk) 23:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Disagree with abbaroodle.
The FDA has no regulatory authority over the practcice of medicine, this is an easdier to understand discussion of those issues:
"This can be very confusing to understand, so an example from day to day life should help. We’d all accept at face value that a restaurant is not FDA regulated. Why? The public health risk of bad food served in a restaurant is a one on one risk. At worst, a restaurant with a bad kitchen might make tens to hundreds of people ill. This is similar to a doctor’s office or a hospital delivering bad medical care, which also have the theoretical risk of making tens to hundreds of people ill. For this reason, both the restaurant and the medical office/hospital are regulated at the state level (the state health board for the restaurant and the state medical board for the doctor). Now let’s say our restaurant has a popular menu item that it wants to place in jars and ship across state lines to customers placing orders. All of a sudden the public health risk goes up dramatically. The food in jars has the potential to make huge numbers of people ill with just one bad production batch. Since we no longer have a restaurant and now have a food production facility, the FDA now regulates this facility, as the public health risk is a federal issue. The same holds true if our doctor’s office decides to place stem cells in a vial and ship those to other doctors in other states, now the public health risk is much larger and involves potentially all 50 states. There is no doubt that we would all want the FDA to have regulatory authority over stem cells shipped in a vial. What would happen if we had FDA regulate restaurants? Since every kitchen would need a cGMP kitchen (meaning up to the standards of mass food production) the cost of eating out would become prohibitively expensive. A ten thousand dollar prime rib anyone? What would happen if FDA regulated your doctor? The cost of delivering medical care would explode as every time your doctor wanted to treat you, that treatment would have to undergo 7-10 year FDA approval. Since the vast majority of what doctors do day to day could never pass this muster, medical care around the country would effectively stop. Just as there is no public health rationale for having FDA regulate restaurants, there is also no public health reason for FDA to regulate the activities of medical offices or hospitals."
On the case report side, at this juncture, since there is limited human data on stem cell therapy case reports are valid (albiet taken with an appropriate grain of salt). This same group just published the world's largest safety study on stem cell therapy, easily exceeding the requirements for phase I/II clinical trials by more than 100 patients, so this needs to be referenced as it's important scientific work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.238.245 ( talk) 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I moved the boxed section below to here, because I don't think it's very helpful to the reader as it is written now. Rather, I fear it will become an ever growing target to dump any random trivia or rumor that has anything to do with stem cells. Rather, any new information is probably better sorted into their proper places in the rest of the article. Does anybody want to save it somehow by a major revision? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 07:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It was reported in the New York Times ( 14 August 2006), by Nicholas Wade, that some scientists see a shift in stem cell hopes. Several mentioned that the main role of stem cells was in research. Many no longer see cell therapy as the first goal of the research, parting company with those whose near-term expectations for cell therapy remain high. [1] Thomas M. Jessell, a neurobiologist at Columbia University said "Many of us feel that for the next few years the most rational way forward is not to push stem cell therapies." [1] In America, Barrack Obama has lifted the federal funding ban on stem cell research. [2] |
References
- Rod57 ( talk) 11:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I found this video online (and subsequentually elsewhere): http://gizmodo.com/5277456/stem-cell-contact-lenses-cure-blindness-in-less-than-a-month
An article from "The Australian", by Leigh Dayton, Science writer, May 28, 2009 "Stem cells used to restore sight for corneal disease sufferers" names some of the involved people and institutions who were responsible for the breakthrough.
Beginning 18 months ago, 3 Australian volunteers with near or total blindness from corneal disease in one eye underwent an uncomplicated, fairly inexpensive proceedure that improved and eventually restored vision in a short time with no negative side effects reported that I can find.
The team leader is University of New South Wales stem cell scientist Nick Di Girolamo. A team member is Stephanie Watson - an opthalmic surgeon with Sydney's Prince of Wales Hospital.
America is still working with mice and proposing theories. That's all good, but behind several less well financed nations in this research. The World has millions who could be seeing well before a dozen years go by. -- Jopower ( talk) 11:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
"Blindness and vision impairment" of main article does not reflect the above (or other) research and success. The recent results from Australia, China, et al, should be here. Unfortunately, I am not privy to the authoratative reports necessary for Wiki reference. Someone in such a position please provide! Thank you. Jopower ( talk) 09:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a way to block certain external links? It seems like certain websites reappear with regular frequency after being deleted as "spam" and non-neutral, unreliable sites. -- Abbaroodle ( talk) 13:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
“In stem cell therapy, cells are taken out and used when required. The same cells are energized without removing it from the body in zero therapy, thus harmonizing the mind, body and soul.” said Vipin Chand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepjjj ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Zero Therapy is the science of harmony of changing the individual cells of each family member and there by the side-effect takes care of the disease with food as a catalyst. Its food biochemistry and thought chemistry, which are complementary to each other. This is Ultimate Therapy, not Alternative Therapy. It works on the principle of balancing individual hormone, which varies from person to person. Ultimate Therapy is the name given to it, since no external material goes into the body. We don't prescribe food for organ. It is for individual body says Vipin Chand Bomb, www.zerotherapy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepjjj ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Just got to remove them manually. If the same person or same links keep appears, you can ask an administrator for more help.
This section received a major update as part of Saint Louis University Wikipedia:School and university projects. We are all newbies in this class, so a review by a more experienced editor is welcome and appreciated.-- Biolprof ( talk) 02:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Regeneration therapy, a content fork from this article, is being considered for deletion at AfD. Editors of this article may wish to comment or check that usable content from there is already covered in this article. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised to see nothing about the use of stem cell therapy as a treatment for autism. Such a trial was, in fact, approved by the FDA just last year. [4] Perhaps we should start a section on that. We could include this study, which suggests it might actually work. However, according to the Autism Science Foundation, it is a non-evidence based treatment. [5]. Jinkinson ( talk) 22:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Apparently, actor Ernie Lively underwent "the very first successful retrograde heart procedure" as part of the stem cell therapy. My field is not medicine, but I thought it could perhaps be added somewhere in the article, since "he became the first person treated with an experimental retrograde gene therapy"... -- Sofffie7 ( talk) 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Major breakthroughs in stem cell research for tissue regeneration appear in the News almost daily now and this is very exciting. However, will it be slowed down by years of Government review and approval process? Or is this different than approving a drug where the FDA may take years or decades to approve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 ( talk) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Stem-cell therapy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Just had a Neurodegeneration line removed "There have been preliminary studies related to [Multiple sclerosis|multiple sclerosis]." with comment "We need better source. (TW))".
I think that's a mis-fire since cite is National MS Society report and link to JAMA article. If that's not good enough, what is ?
But this raises a broader question -- what *is* 'good enough', particularly about medical research ? I interpret WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDRS/FAQ as it varies by context, which seems the normal and reasonable enough general principles of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' plus 'medical topics require extra care in cites'. But I'm thinking that there really should be some further guidance or draft guides specific to handling research so am asking -- can someone can point to any such guidance ? Markbassett ( talk) 14:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Lots of WP:MEDRS, including review articles, on stem cell transplantation for MS, and the review articles on MS generally usually contain a section on stem cell transplantation. JAMA and NMSS news stories are heavily reviewed in the process of editing, but if you don't like them, instead of deleting them, you can substitute the peer-reviewed articles that they usually cite. I think secondary sources like JAMA and NMSS are useful, because they usually summarize the peer-reviewed literature more accurately and clearly than most Wikipedia editors are capable of doing. Also, some of the best work in exposing fraudulent stemm cell therapy has been published not in peer-review journals, but in newspapers , TV news, and news sections of journals like Science. Here's a bibliography of MS that I created, most of which includes at least references to stem cell research. Be sure not to quote older studies without checking the latest research.
Stephen L. Hauser, Douglas S. Goodin 458. Multiple sclerosis and other demyelinating diseases Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 19th ed. 2015
Daniel S. Reich, Claudia F. Lucchinetti, Peter A. Calabresi Multiple sclerosis (Review) NEJM 11 Jan 2018
Alan J. Thompson, et al. Multiple sclerosis (Seminar) Lancet 22 Mar 2018
Joachim Burman, Robert J. Fox Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for MS. Safer than previously thought. Neurology 30 May 2017
MP Sormani, et al. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis Neurology 30 May 2017
Jan Dörr Haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for multiple sclerosis: what next? Lancet 9 Jun 2016 online
Harold L. Atkins, et al., Mark S Freedman, PI Immunoablation and autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for aggressive multiple sclerosis: a multicentre single-group phase 2 trial Lancet 9 Jun 2016 online
-- Nbauman ( talk) 06:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stem-cell therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/health/stem-cell-research-breakthrough/index.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bentham-direct.org/pages/content.php?CSCR/2010/00000005/00000001/0011CSCR.SGM{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://lccn.loc.gov/2004212209When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Since stem cells have the ability to replace old and diseased cells, they can be used to treat many diseases. Although using human embryonic stem cells has moral or religious objections and many scientists prefer to use adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells, Embryonic stem cells have the ability to produce all types of cells in the body, but adult stem cells have the ability to form just specialized types of cells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghadisu ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stem-cell therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
These are all unsourced or unreliably sourced; moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BRUDEN please don't restore without first finding reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them.
Stem-cell treatment is currently being practiced at a clinical level in Mexico. An International Health Department Permit (COFEPRIS) is required. Authorized centers are found in Mexicali, Tijuana, Guadalajara and Cancun. Currently undergoing the approval process is Los Cabos. This permit allows the use of stem cell. citation needed
Since 2008 many universities, centers and doctors tried a diversity of methods; in Lebanon proliferation for stem cell therapy, in-vivo and in-vitro techniques were used, Thus this country is considered the launching place of the Regentime [1] procedure. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281712114_Treatment_of_Long_Standing_Multiple_Sclerosis_with_Regentime_Stem_Cell_Technique The regenerative medicine also took place in Jordan and Egypt. citation needed
Today, Ukraine is permitted to perform clinical trials of stem-cell treatments (Order of the MH of Ukraine № 630 "About carrying out clinical trials of stem cells", 2008) for the treatment of these pathologies: pancreatic necrosis, cirrhosis, hepatitis, burn disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, critical lower limb ischemia. The first medical institution granted the right to conduct clinical trials became the "Institute of Cell Therapy"(Kiev).
References
-- 02:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I suggest adding this to lead section, "Some stem cells are harvested from adipose tissue. While the suctioned fat cells are permanently gone, after a few months overall body fat generally returned to the same level as before treatment. [1] This is despite maintaining the previous diet and exercise regimen. While the fat returned somewhat to the treated area, most of the increased fat occurred in the abdominal area. Visceral fat - the fat surrounding the internal organs - increased, and this condition has been linked to life-shortening diseases such as diabetes, stroke, and heart attack. [2]
References
-- Juliet Sabine ( talk) 23:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stem-cell therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's a good article about bad outcomes in unregulated, for-profit clincs, with links to peer-reviewed journals. There are many others, including a CBS 60 Minutes expose.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/miracle-cures-or-modern-quackery-stem-cell-clinics-multiply-with-heartbreaking-results-for-some-patients/2018/04/29/80cbcee8-26e1-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html
Miracle cures or modern quackery? Stem cell clinics multiply, with heartbreaking results for some patients.
by Laurie McGinley and William Wan
Washington Post
April 29, 2018
--
Nbauman (
talk)
06:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I will be adding a small negative section under the researcher paragraphs.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). "Nine Things to Know About Stem Cell Treatments". www.closerlookatstemcells.org. Retrieved 2018-10-30.
Cite error: There are<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)."What are the Side Effects of a Stem Cell Transplant? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute". Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 2018-02-09. Retrieved 2018-10-30. Cite error: There are<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)."Researchers Question Safety, Value Of Untested Stem Cell Treatments". NPR.org. Retrieved 2018-10-30. Mcqueetj ( talk) 11:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Can this Stem Cell therapy page be updated by appropriately qualified people. Presently I am working on a new manufacturing facility for a commercialized Stem Cell therapy for Crohn's disease. The page seems to be out-of-date.