√ Hans Keirstead Interview On His Congressional Run, How You Can Help

Hans Keirstead is one of the top stem cell scientists in the world who has been doing cutting edge research including on using stem cells to reverse paralysis where he teamed up with super patient advocate Roman Reed (see the two pictured at right), but now he is also running for Congress.

How cool is that?

Here is a quick Q&A interview with Hans today (see below). Please consider making a campaign contribution to support his candidacy. He would be amazing as a Congressman!

1. When did you first get interested in running for Congress? Was there some particular “aha!” moment when you decided to go for it? 

HK: I chose to begin my career as a professor here, start all my businesses here, and my wife and I are raising our child here, because Orange County exemplifies excellence in opportunity.

Orange County offered me the opportunity to research and teach with a top educational institution, hire the most talented employees, and raise my son in a stunningly beautiful environment.

I am running for Congress because under our current representation I’ve seen those qualities and opportunities be degraded. Congressman Rohrabacher has held public office for almost three decades, but in recent years he seems more concerned with his career in Washington. Orange County needs a representative whose priority is us. And on the national front, I see a degradation of the medical, science and healthcare sectors. As this represents 1/5^th of our economy, it is important to have specialists in Congress with field experience in the sector.

So, the moments that made me run for Congress were spread out. But they crossed a threshold around the time that the administration changed and the new budget and healthcare programs were proposed.

2. As a scientist, what will you bring to Congress that is unique?

HK: Out of the current 435 members of congress only four members have PhDs. I want to be clear, you do not need a PhD to be smart or to be a good representative of your district. However, when it comes to tackling the monumental issues of our time, having a representative with field experience in the science, medicine and healthcare sectors will be a benefit to our nation. I have been developing medicines for spinal cord injury, cancer and other diseases all of my life. These are complex problems, that are tackled in a complex environment. I will bring a system of masalah solving and accountability to Congress.

3. Some of us in science feel that President Trump has views and has taken actions that are anti-science. Do you share that view? If so, what can we do about it?

HK: Unfortunately, we have recently seen anti-science positions being taken up by our President and our Congressman. As the leader of our nation, the President has vital responsibility to represent truth and fact — something he frequently ignores on even the smallest of matters.

At a time where facts seem to be up for debate, it is imperative that we bring a system of truth, unbiased analyses, and non-partisan solutions to Congress. That’s what scientists do in solving the greatest problems of our day; that’s what I intend to bring to Congress.

4. Do you have particular concerns about the incumbent in your district?

HK:Dana Rohrabacher has been focused elsewhere, on bizarre issues, and representing our district and country in a manner that is inelegant and untrue. Perhaps he represented the sentiments of our district 28 years ago, but he no longer does.

5. What are your main goals if you are elected?

HK: I will focus on our district, to protect and develop our infrastructure. This means protecting our unique environment, enhancing our roads/bridges/parks/beaches etc., and encouraging economic development in our district. On the national level, I will bring efficiencies to the healthcare system with a goal of lowering premiums and tax while bringing quality care to those that do not get it. The aged, sick, women’s issues etc. should not be sidelined as the current proposals mandate. And as we did with Prop 71 here in CA, I’d like to enhance scientific and medical funding while stimulating the economy…this has been done on a state level, and we can do it on a national level.

6. If readers of my blog want to support your candidacy what things can they do to help?

HK: Please contribute to my campaign at: www.hansforca.com/donate

Sumber aciknadzirah.blogspot.com

√ Tgif: Stem Cell Weekend Reads Links

Here are some stem cell weekend reads for your enjoyment along with various links and headlines.

Some science pubs that caught my eye:

Paul, et al. Figure 2G-J Science

• Human Neural Stem Cell Biodistribution and Predicted Tumor Coverage by a Diffusible Therapeutic in a Mouse Glioma Model


• High-Content Screening in hPSC-Neural Progenitors Identifies Drug Candidates that Inhibit Zika Virus Infection in Fetal-like Organoids and Adult Brain


• Identification for Differential Localization of Putative Corneal Epithelial Stem Cells in Mouse and Human


• Tracing the origins of relapse in acute myeloid leukaemia to stem cells


• Hypothalamic regulation of regionally distinct 4dukt neural stem cells and neurogenesis

There’s been a burst of stem cell policy papers recently focused on stem cell clinics that directly market unproven offerings to patients. These papers highlight what a mess we are all in within the stem cell field with a stem cell clinic industry that has run wild.

• Marketing of unproven stem cell–based interventions: A call to action by Sipp, Rasko, Caulfield, and colleagues.

and a duo of important, recent papers by Leigh Turner:

• On Clinicaltrials.gov featured here in the WaPo


• And then one from a few weeks back on stem cell court cases

Various news headlines:

• Innate reaction of hematopoietic stem cells to severe infections


• ‘Nano-in-micro’ stem cell delivery could rescue blood flow after injury


• Baby Boomers turn to stem cells for help with painful joints


• Stem cell ads: Promise much, deliver little

And this important, but not exactly good news story from RetractionWatch about a stem cell scientist Susana Gonzalez facing retraction of papers and more.

Any more stem cell weekend reads you can suggest?

Sumber aciknadzirah.blogspot.com

√ Stem Cell Magic Bus Cartoon

Reposted from my book, Stem Cells: An Insider’s Guide.

Sumber aciknadzirah.blogspot.com

√ Popping The Bubble Of Stem Cell Populism

Open source image

What happens if we mix stem cells with populism?

From a populist view of stem cells, everyday patients should be able to do nearly anything they want with stem cells without any governmental interference or excessive expense. Even stem cells not proven to be safe or effective. This can sound like an appealing idea to patients looking for hope and also to some companies looking for profits. Stem cell populism poses serious questions and risks too.

What exactly is “populism”? The Internet defines it these ways:

“support for the concerns of ordinary people.

the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people.”

In what we might call a stem cell populism worldview, stem cells should be available to the everyday folks across the U.S. and the world. It’s a simplistic notion today since for the most part, stem cell therapies haven’t yet been proven safe and effective other than in a few narrow cases such as bone marrow/hematopoietic transplants. Would wider availability of stem cells right now help people or potentially be more likely to hurt them (health-wise and economically)?

At this point, the former is much more likely and there would be concrete harms. To be clear, at some point with future proven stem cells therapies, I believe that such safe and effective treatments should be widely available and not at an exorbitant cost (insurance coverage of stem cells is and will continue to be an important area to discuss including related to cost as well), but that’s not the stem cell populism of 2018.

Some direct-to-consumer stem cell firms that market unproven and non-FDA approved stem cell “treatments” invoke a kind of stem cell populism to draw customers in the door. Certain clinics repeat catch phrases essentially as advertising like “you should be able to use your own cells however you want” and “you have a right to your cells.” In fact, as I’ve written in the past (see, “Our bodies, not our cells?”), our rights to our own biologic materials including our cells are much more limited than most people think.

Often times once a clinic or hospital has your cells, it is unclear who has ownership. More broadly, we don’t have a universal right to use biological products made from our bodies in any way we want. Such a right does not exist in any federal law that I know of nor in the Constitution, etc. So, no, there isn’t a clear inherent right to use (or even own) one’s stem cells that I know of, and that’s especially true if the stem cells have been turned into a drug product by processing or by use in a way unrelated to the intrinsic nature of the tissue from which the cells were isolated (non-homologous use).

Stem cell populism is also related to the Right-To-Try movement, which seeks much broader patient access to unproven drug products than is currently available in most cases, but some promoters of Right-To-Try comes off as being anti-FDA as well. For example, the current Right-To-Try legislation at the federal level has some provisions that would interfere with the FDA’s ability to oversee this arena. It’s also important to note that the FDA already has an expanded access (aka “compassionate use”) aktivitas that is streamlined and approves nearly 100% of applications with relatively much less paperwork and time required than in the past.

Notably, from a practical perspective for stem cells, I’m not aware of the various state level Right-To-Try laws having led to proven beneficial outcomes and they are almost never utilized. For some groups like the Goldwater Institute, it’s reasonable to ask the question the following: could Right-To-Try and perhaps also stem cell populism of a sort be more of a philosophical or ideological goal than anything else?

My hope is that in the next 10 years we’ll have a half dozen or so approved, proven new stem cell therapies. If that hopeful vision becomes a reality, again I also hope (and will work to make it a reality if what way I can via advocacy) that they are not so expensive as to fail to be widely available to patients in need. But I believe that the stem cell populism of today isn’t going to help people. Instead it is more likely to make profits for various firms or be used as a political device. In that sense now, it is often a bubble instead of a real thing that can help people.

Some might argue that one type of stem cell populism is already the reality today with ubiquitous stem cell clinics operating across the U.S. and the world without governmental approvals. Are they right?

Note: the idea of stem cell populism came up on Twitter last year, which is what sparked this post, but I can’t find the original twitter conversation.

Sumber aciknadzirah.blogspot.com