Recently, Prentice and Tarne claimed that over 65 human diseases have been treated using adult stem cells. Closer examination reveals that adult stem cell treatments for 65 diseases are currently in the process of being tested for efficacy.

Is this false representation of research?

The site requires a subscription.

The site requires a subscription.

Ok

The accusations (Science, 8 June 2007)

Clearly, enrollment of an experimental therapy in a clinical trial does not mean that it is an effective therapy. The purpose of clinical trials is, first, to establish safety and, second, to document efficacy. Many promising experimental therapies fail when they reach larger Phase II or III trials. Such is the case with adult stem cell therapy for heart attacks and breast cancer--two conditions for which Prentice and Tarne improperly claimed that adult stem cells provide effective therapy.

The GDNF infusion trials they referenced do not document any contribution of stem cells to the apparent improvements in Parkinson's patients. A careful reading of the cited papers shows that stem cells were not even studied (3, 4). Further, they cite a case report of a single patient as evidence that bone marrow transplantation can be used to correct hair loss--a condition that remains on their posted list of adult stem cell treatments (5).

Prentice and Tarne further disregard scientific accuracy by stating, "There are currently 1238 FDA-approved clinical trials related to adult stem cells.…" They cite search results returned by the NIH Web site clinicaltrials.gov to support their assertion. However, many of the clinical trials retrieved by searching for "stem+cell" in the therapy category have nothing to do with stem cell therapy and thus overstate the number of adult stem cell trials posted to that database (7).


A repeat of Prentice's search found "system," "systemic," "brain stem," and the verb "stem" (as in "which stem from") in the last 10 listings of trials recruiting patients (647-656), but no mention of stem cells. The first 10 all relate to the use of stem cell transplants to replace blood-forming cells destroyed when chemotherapy or radiation is used as the primary treatment of the patient's disease (8). There are three trials for stem cell therapy in multiple sclerosis, but none for Parkinson's disease or spinal cord injury.


Prentice's erroneous claims are widely used and further embellished by opponents of embryonic stem cell research. For example, Focus on the Family set up a Web site last year opposing what they called "unproven, unsafe, and unethical experiments" with embryonic stem cells.

The Web site referenced Prentice's claims and falsely asserted that patients "have access to adult stem cell therapy which currently provides safe and successful treatments for more than 70 diseases and injuries.… These are tangible therapies that are available today" (9).

Is this false representation of research?

Yep. And anyone found doing that, or giving misleading statements, or lying should be shot at sunrise by a firing squad.

Baron Max

Ok

The accusations (Science, 8 June 2007)

OK, after having read that (thank you) I agree that it's not only false but borders on fraud! Misrepresentation of the highest order!!!

Recently, Prentice and Tarne claimed that over 65 human diseases have been treated using adult stem cells. Closer examination reveals that adult stem cell treatments for 65 diseases are currently in the process of being tested for efficacy.

Is this false representation of research?

Yes, here is another one.

In 1983 Luc Montagnier (L' Institute Louis PAsteur du Paris) the first to claim to have discovered HIV and claim it caused AIDS included an electron micrograph in the paper published in Science, claiming the picture showed some viruses discovered.. A few years later in an interview he was aked if the research team had found any viruses. He said, "we looked and looked", but did not find any viruses.

When then asked, why then was there an electron micrograph included in the paper showing claimed "viruses". Montagnier, explained, "we included it for educatiuonal purposes,."

Is this scientifiuc fraud?

geistkiesel