Home || Contact Us || Help Registering and Participating || Disclaimer

 SeaChange now offers CBD Oil


Barbara and Jeannine's Book

Bea Luis Memorial


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: "The Stem Cells They Don't Want You to Have" by Dr. Centeno

  1. #1

    Default "The Stem Cells They Don't Want You to Have" by Dr. Centeno

    Dr. Centeno's book really belongs in the Spotlight section, however, replies can't be posted there. He has asked me to post the link to his website where you can download the pdf for free. He is not going to charge anything right now, but would like members to provide feedback on whether or not he has clarified the arguments clearly enough. If you feel he has not, then please post a reply as to how better he could do that, in your opinion. Don't be shy as he truly welcomes any help we can give him. I will then forward him the comments. You can also send them to me in a private message if you prefer and I will send them to him.

    We have to get mobile and make the general public aware of this issue. His book will hopefully give you all the insight as to what really is at stake here. Many members of this forum have died. Could stem cell therapy have saved them? Does anyone care about those of us that are sick? Do we have a right to use our own stem cells or any of our own body parts as we wish? Are we being controlled like a flock of sheep by the FDA, Big Pharma, the research industry, politicians? What is it going to take to turn the tide? These are all important questions. His book will address many of these issues. Then it is up to us to decide if we are simply going to do nothing or if we are going to fight.
    First treatment in 2007. Pioneering ever since.


  2. #2

    Default Same old same old

    If big gov would get out of the way we could be healed or at least helped.I will do what i can to help.

  3. #3


    I am in for the long haul. Will add my two cents to every blog I find and lend support wherever needed. Also, after the November elections, we should hit all of our legislators hard, including those at the state level. Look at what Governor Perry accomplished even though the opposition is now trying very hard to make sure Texas doesn't get out of the starting chute.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    New Hampshire



    I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw how the FDA actively sabotaged the TX clinic with Gov Perry received treatment. If that wasn't political I don't know what was.

    in 2007 I wrote to Ann Romney regarding stem cells because I knew she had MS. She replied to my email with a very positive tone to what Barb and I were doing with Stem Cell Pioneers. I believe her email is posted on this site but that was over 5 years ago and hard to find.
    Still Pioneering
    Had UC treatment April 5th, 2007
    Had autologous treatment March 19, 2010
    Had bone marrow and adipose stem cell treatment (autologous) June 16, 2010

  5. #5


    I'm sure panic set in because this is no small company. It represents a real threat not only politically, but to all those that have a special interest in patients not being able to be treated by their own doctors with their own stem cells.
    First treatment in 2007. Pioneering ever since.


  6. #6

    Default Another blog

    THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2012

    FDA 1. RSI 0. Regenerative Sciences (Regenexx) vs FDA (2012)

    As followers of this blog will know I've been blogging about Regenerative Sciences and predicting their eventual run-in with the FDA since my first post in September 2008 (Cell Therapy is Not the Practice of Medicine) and again in February 2009 (Regenexx vs the FDA 2009). When the FDA finally proceeded with an injunction against RSI in August 2010,I helped spread the news (here).

    I've watched the development of the fight between RSI and the FDA with interest. In September 2001 I posted a rather lengthy commentary about the potential impact of the case (Potential far-reaching implications of the ongoing fight over point-of-care autologous cell therapy.

    Since then I have welcomed other bloggers and commentators who are now following and commenting on the case much more closely and frequently than I including @LeighGTurner (on Twitter) and Paul Knoepfler (@PKnoepfler on Twitter and his Knoeplfer Lab Stem Cell Blog). Recently I enjoyed being interviewed by Paul on the issue of unregulated stem cell activity and touched on the case for his blog.

    Consequently I read with interest yesterday's federal court ruling upholding the FDA's injunction against RSI and the immediate commentary from the New Scientist, Stanford's Scope Blog and Knopfler's multiple posts (here and here). As a long-term follower of this case, I've been asked to comment. Here is my brief reaction:

    This is a case that was always destined for the appellate courts regardless of which way the initial court ruled. The fact the federal court ruled in the FDA's favor certainly now sets the onus on RSI and what is anticipated to be a gamut of intervenors but taking this case to the appellate courts is what the legal team have anticipated and legal arguments designed for all along.

    This is just the beginning of what will be a long and interesting battle. The ruling was nothing more than the granting of an injunction in response to the government's motion for summary judgement. In granting the injunction the court agreed with the government's position that it was acting under the authority given it under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 321(g) but it provided little-to-no rationale for its ruling.

    The court chose, in its wisdom, not to address the bulk of the RSI's legal arguments which are largely jurisdictional in nature. These are the kinds of arguments which the lower courts prefer be dealt with by appellate courts and frankly the judge did us all a favor by ruling quickly, succinctly and punting the case where we all knew it was inevitably headed.

    In my opinion, other than chalking one up in the government's win column there is little to be gleaned from this ruling in terms of how RSI's arguments will be received in appellate court. The interesting day is yet to come.

    In terms of a short-term practical impact, frankly I see very little. RSI has already ceased distributing Regenexx within the US so there will be little-to-no impact there. As for the potential impact on other companies or clinics who might be operating on the fringes of FDA regulation within the US, I suspect it will be business as usual.

    Most of the clinics/companies offering cell-based treatments/products which are arguably in contravention of FDA regulation are operating under the clear knowledge of what they are doing and where the FDA stands with respect to the treatments/products they offer and yet they persist and continue.

    For the truly fraudulent there is the risk of criminal charges and/or litigation but for those companies or practitioners who are operating in this shade of grey which are not shady (and they do exist), the risks associated with this practice are barely higher than in the routine practice of medicine.

    In reality, with the exception of the most fraudulent examples, it takes a fair long-time for the FDA to catch up with these folks and there is good money to be made in the interim. When they get caught, they will stop. If they've recouped their initial investment (which is nominal and the margins are high) there is very little penalty to this course of action. Perhaps they set up shot elsewhere or simply enjoy the proceeds. I doubt we will see much of a slow-down of this kind of activity. Indeed it may strengthen the resolve of those committed to the cause.

    In my opinion yesterday's ruling was in interesting and important milestone in a continuing evolution in the debate of how best to regulate the use of cells in treating people but I'm not sure it's the seminal pivot point that some believe. I suspect we will not see any radical shift in terms of FDA or industry activity until (if then) the appellate courts rule.

    Just my two cents....

    Posted by Lee Buckler at 11:04 AM

    Here are the comments so far - (For the record Danilo Zangani, PhD. seems to have it out for Dr. Centeno. Evidently, he applied for a job at Dr. Centeno's clinic and did not get it. I ran into him myself in a discussion on LinkedIn in which the man called me a zero saying I had no degree when I defended Dr. Centeno. I don't even know this man and he obviously knows nothing about me, but he seems to be on some kind of quest to attack Dr. Centeno. You may find him posting elsewhere, so I wanted to give readers a head's up). Thankfully, his comment was removed from this blog and he was given a stern warning from Lee Buckler.

    Chris Centeno, M.D. said...

    Very accurate post-you're 100% right. This was always positioned as a case that would be decided by the DC circuit, so that's were it's headed now. Not much changes for now, as we haven't done the Regenexx-C (cultured) procedure in the US since the 2010 stipulation. The FDA has reviewed the same day autologous cell procedures we still perform here and found them to be "practice of medicine", so those will continue. In the meantime, we look forward to getting answers to many of the important legal, regulatory, and constitutional questions the DC district court didn't address.

    Chris Centeno, M.D.
    July 27, 2012 9:36:00 AM PDT

    Lee Buckler said...
    Thanks for the comment Chris. It scares me a little if we don't disagree on something! We will certainly continue to watch the case with interest.
    July 27, 2012 10:04:00 AM PDT

    Barbara Hanson said...
    Your blog was the most sensible I have read yet. Many seemed to be celebrating the ruling with champagne. As a patient and co-founder of the Stem Cell Pioneers forum, patients are devastated, but have a renewed vigor to support Dr. Centeno and to make our own voices heard. We do not need nor want regulatory protection like this. We have the protection of state licensing boards and malpractice insurance that physicians carry. So many refuse to have a dialog about patients that most of us believe that this issue is about their own protection, not ours.
    July 27, 2012 11:54:00 AM PDT

    Lee Buckler said...

    Barbara. Thank you for your comments. I am pleased to be tagged as "sensible".

    I would argue we DO need regulation like the FDA has created and that state licensing boards and other protections are NOT enough. There must be a line in the sand. The questions is where it should be drawn.

    Please do not misinterpret my 'sensibility' or ability to understand both sides of the issue as support for RSI's position. If I had to choose a side right now I would choose FDA's on this one. I don't have to choose so I can be 'sensible' and grey and sit in the middle without cheerleading for either side.

    I happen to think that where the FDA is currently drawing the line or how they are interpreting the regulation they created is less than ideal but I also happen to think it IS better than nothing.

    I also know that if the FDA is too strict, in this world of global commerce, patients will go where they can to get the treatments they want. I'm more comfortable with this than many of my colleagues because I happen to believe there is a legitimate way to do medical tourism that involves world-class science, good clinical and manufacturing practices, informed consent, and ethical business practices and yet still provides treatments that are not allowed in very strictly regulated jurisdictions.

    I don't think strict always equals safe just like I don't think permissive regulation always equals dangerous. I also don't think medical tourism is always fraudulent, unethical,and the result of poor science.

    I also happen to believe that the current regulation does not stifle doctor-driven innovation as Dr. Centeno suggests. We see lots of physician-initiated clinical trials. What this prevents is doctor's charging for certain things before they pass a certain threshold of safety and efficacy. Maybe that's the big issue here. RSI could be treating patients today with the cultured version of Regenexx if they wanted to (under clinical trial) but they couldn't be charging for it. Maybe that's the real issue?
    July 27, 2012 12:53:00 PM PDT

    Mario Salinas said...
    Hi,Lee. Thanks for this post. Just some thoughts and observations and questions:

    It seems that patients will go out of the country with or without the FDA ruling; it has been done by celebrities and lay folk alike. Dr C has taken his product out of the country, so it has already taken business out of the U.S. And it is assumed that’s where the patients will follow. Until the FDA gets its act together, the off shore business model will become more prevalent.

    Who checks on cell quality now? We need a way to assure the quality of the stem cells being used in the U.S. Dare I say? a regulatory entity to do QA certifications. DR. C mentioned companies doing quality checks on each other. This is commonplace, but does it improve overall quality? And how are patients to know they are getting the real deal? As it is now, one company just knows it has a better product than the competition.

    States are establishing stem cell regulatory and quality certifying entities. Among other things, these institutions will give patients a measure of confidence in the therapies they receive in the U.S.

    And lastly, Good luck to Dr C. He has a good chance of winning his case given the amount of evidence and knowledge to date with bone marrow stem cells. But the case in Texas is a little different.
    July 28, 2012 8:09:00 AM PDT

    Anonymous said...
    Hi Lee,
    Thanks for the great points. The decisions should be mutual and protective. As it comes to monetizing these research and applications should be evaluated case by case depending on the type of the disease, condition of the patient.

    There are many diseaases without a cure/treatment. Regulation and protection with choice should be visited. The point of personalized medicine is not one size fits all as we know.

    Furthermore, discouraging investigators and scientist to do research in this field since 90s due to ethical, legal or malpractice is not the solution. This is a cutting edge technology combined with single cell detection nanomedicine.

    Patients should receive nationwide transparent information to make the best choices for their or loved ones lifes.
    July 29, 2012 3:45:00 PM PDT

    Dr. Danilo Zangani said...
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    July 29, 2012 11:24:00 PM PDT

    Lee Buckler said...

    I've deleted Danilo's comment because while I have high tolerance for and even try to understand and consider all points of view, I see no need - and thus have no tolerance - for making criticisms or disagreements personal. I have zero tolerance for personal attacks either on this blog or in my LinkedIn group. In my opinion, Danillo's post crossed that line. I will accept any post discussing the issues on their own merits and certainly love a heated debate.
    July 30, 2012 10:16:00 AM PDT

    Dr. Danilo Zangani said...
    Mr. Buckler, you simply deleted my post because already Centeno menaced to sue you for the use of a correct common word that, in english, had the correct meaning in that contest. I read your conversation and Centeno menaces on your blog. So, please, avoid giving people this "ethic" stories. You are simply scared and you do not want any trouble.
    July 30, 2012 12:10:00 PM PDT

    Lee Buckler said...
    Danilo. I have never run scared from threats of litigation. I have made corrections to but have never retracted a statement. I encourage you to post comments and criticisms but please keep them related to the issues without making personal attacks. Thank you.
    July 30, 2012 1:55:00 PM PDT
    First treatment in 2007. Pioneering ever since.


  7. #7



    You know where I stand. Anything I can do too help the cause.

  8. #8


    The FDA is like the IRS. It's time for reform for both agencies.

  9. #9


    The question is: who or what organization represents the patients right to use their own stem cells to survive? We've got Dr Centeno duking it out in court. Anybody else? Maybe we need this case: We the (sick) People vs. FDA.

    Or how about the World Health Organization? They've got initiatives like "Strengthening Health Systems" that are supposed to involve all stake holders, even patients.

    Or even good old Compassionate Use: A term used in the US for a method of providing experimental treatments, generally for very ill individuals who have no other treatment options, prior to final FDA approval for use in humans.

  10. #10


    Sammy Jo - I like your idea - We the sick people vs FDA. We also need to include the vocal group of those that want regulation because of their own self interests which include research grants, patent protection, jobs, etc. They simply do not want anything that will not be profitable to them.
    First treatment in 2007. Pioneering ever since.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Copyright 2007 - 2011 Stem Cell Pioneers