Please Note: THIS FORUM IS PATIENT MODERATED AND IS NOT CONNECTED TO ANY CLINIC OR DOCTOR. IF YOU WISH TO CONTACT A CERTAIN DOCTOR OR CLINIC, PLEASE LOOK IN THE ASK THE DOCTOR SECTION FOR DOCTOR OR CLINIC PHONE NUMBERS AND EMAIL ADDRESSES.

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


 SeaChange now offers CBD Oil

 

Barbara and Jeannine's Book

Bea Luis Memorial

 


Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Doug Sipp blog exposed again as he uses ICMS as his whipping boy

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,869
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default Doug Sipp blog exposed again as he uses ICMS as his whipping boy

    http://sctmonitored.blogspot.co.uk/2...7_archive.html

    MUCH MORE THAN MINIMALLY MANIPULATIVE
    These next few blogs will get back to Doug Sipp’s carelessness accuracy and why any reporter who attempts to use Sipp’s blog as a source for anything others than giggles has a serious ethics problem (which Sipp himself can’t help with as the ex-trucking supervisor’s manual is mum on bioethics). One of Doug Sipp’s recurrent whipping boys appears to be the ICMS, a physician professional organization. I must admit that when I first read these Sipp posts, his attacks on ICMS made little sense. After all, Sipp espouses oversight over stem cell use and the only professional group trying to place guidelines around and restrictions on stem cell use was ICMS.

    So why attack the ICMS? Money. The iPS cells being hawked by Doug’s bosses at RIKEN are late to the proverbial stem cell soirée. An entire professional organization founded to treat patients resposibibly using their own stem cells is an incredible threat to the patent interests of Sipp’s paymasters, who must delay the use of any stem cells until they have had a chance to cash in.

    First, what is the ICMS? From their web-site, it’s clear that they are a physician professional organization. Unlike the rouge clinics Sipp loves to point to, ICMS has actually established written guidelines for a right and wrong way to use stem cells in patients in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (oops, Sipp never took that course…) They have also required accredited clinics to collect data on patients in a registry. So what’s wrong with ICMS? They represent a massive threat to Sipp’s puppet masters.

    To get a better sense of the who, what, where, and why for these ICMS related posts I actually did something that our ex-trucker turned pretend science policy guru never did; I made sure Sipp’s supporting links actually supported his vitriol and I e-mailed the people involved to check accuracy. Low and behold, Sipp’s precision is like a pub drunk walking the bobby line at closing time.

    Sipp first sets the scene of the his ICMS “freak show” by claiming that it's headquarters are nowhere . To do this, he uses a Google street view off the ICMS Facebook page which shows what appears to be an empty lot and claims that’s where the world headquarters of ICMS are located. Could a physician professional organization actually receive its mail in an empty lot? Well, turns out Sipp didn’t look too hard. The address on the Facebook page he quotes does indeed show this scene, but it doesn't take an advanced science to degree to figure out something is amiss. Turns out that Facebook's geolocation software can't handle a PO box, as it's not an actual physical address, so it has picked a random road in Salem, Oregon. What happens if you…I don’t know, actually see if there’s an address on the official web-site (www.cellmedicinesociety.org) rather than trusting Facebook as a source for narcissistic mirror peering journalistic integrity? Well if you did that, you’d get a different “picture”. When one looks up where PO Box 4432’s physical address is located on the Black Book service it’s actually:


    VISTA POST OFFICE
    3624 COMMERCIAL ST SE
    SALEM, OR 97302

    It didn't take a degree in rocket science or bioethics to find the actual physical place where ICMS has it’s PO Box.

    After setting the falsified place where his orgy of inaccuracy will begin (an abandoned lot a US Post Office), Sipp then libels digs his teeth into the individuals who founded ICMS. Let’s take these one by one:

    Michael Freeman, M.P.H., Ph.D.-Freeman legitimately holds a Ph.D. in Epidemiology and a Master of Public Health degree. No pretend bioethicist 4 year English major here. Freeman is an professor at Oregon Health and Science University and has a CV 14 pages long that makes Doug’s lack of education “life experience” look really bad (Freeman states he has total 130 publications on his OHSU site ). Let’s compare the real professor versus the fake bioethicist. A search of the American National Library of Medicine lists 41 publications for Freeman, most actual research studies. Doug Sipp has 16 publications, pretty much all of them marketing ads for RIKEN opinion pieces about the horrors of stem cell tourism. So why is our ex-trucker who his falsifying credentials as a researcher calling out a real university professor?

    Sipp loves to dig up dirt from people’s distant past and claim it has some bearing on their current credibility and Freeman is no different. Here Sipp cites a 1990's insurance dispute between then chiropractor Freeman (before his M.P.H. and Ph.D.) and the state of Oregon quasi-governmental insurance program. Sipp hyperlinks a court case as proof positive that Freeman is a Charlatan. However the link doesn’t actually point to a case where Freeman was found to be doing anything wrong, it’s actually a link to the verdict exonerating Freeman! So what Sipp would have the reader believe is proof positive of Freeman’s guilt, is actually the opposite. I guess understanding legal documents is also not in the ex-trucking supervisor's handbook.

    Christopher Centeno, M.D.- Centeno is a physician founder of ICMS. Centeno is a double boarded M.D. who was actually also awarded a graduate degree, unlike our ex-trucker. He also has far more publications than Sipp, again most focused on actual clinical research rather than sales jobs editorials. His attack of Centeno focuses on his court case against FDA. While Sipp claims that this is some sort of attempt at “deregulation”, what he hasn’t yet told his readers is that two former FDA commissions have agreed with Centeno’s position on stem cell regulations and published their thoughts in the Wall Street Journal (see ex-commissioner 1 and ex-commissioner 2). In particular this group of ex-FDA employees contains an M.D./ Ph.D, an M.D., and attorney. So far no ex-trucking supervisor editorials have been accepted by the Wall Street Journal, but I'm sure this science policy chief marketing manager is trying hard.

    Sipp then goes onto attack Centeno based on the written testimony of an expert hired by FDA to support it's position that the orthopedic stem cell therapy used by Centeno and colleagues represents a new drug. Here Sipp uses an old trick, only showing the side of this story that supports the smear campaign to colour his attack argument. In this case he points out the testimony of George Muschler, who himself is like a ticking time bomb about to explode all over Sipp's parade. Why? For this I will rely on a statement by Centeno given to me and a post by Centeno on Sipp's site.

    [Centeno]-"Muschler was commenting on our early case study research and comparing that to an FDA drug trial. There is no way to compare a physician trying different IRB approved remedies on individual patients with a massive FDA drug trial. Eventually, this early research led to two large papers, one n=227 and n=339, both better research than Muschler himself ever published on his own competitive device. Turns out Muschler was quite the hypocrite..."

    What does that mean? What competitive device? For this I will use Centeno's comments on Sipp's blog:

    "Dr. Muschler established his own standard for what constitutes effective research. Unlike our procedure, where we went through two years of an IRB where we didn’t charge patients, Dr. Muchler’s competitive procedure that spawned his “Cellect Device” was used by surgeons solely based on a study in dogs (i.e. without any human use or IRB oversight). This is despite the fact that under current FDA rules, the device more than minimally manipulates a bone graft sample by allowing stem cells to attach to the sample, as its stated goal is to alter the biologic characteristics of that bone graft. After that, it was used in thousands of patients before a single human trial was performed. When that study was finally published, it wasn’t an RCT with a placebo; instead it was a comparison trial similar to the one we published on our procedure (see http://www.box.com/s/vzlh0sqt3v987m33vnfj)."

    Centeno also pointed me to a Sipp source for this blog post, "Dr." Amy Price, a woman who turned out to be quite bonkers.


    Meet Amy Price, "PhD". Amy was a patient volunteer for the Spinal Injury Foundation (SIF), a non-profit meant to educate patients about spinal injuries that was begun by Centeno and Freeman. Over a several year period, Centeno donated several hundred thousand dollars to the organization and took no salary nor did he benefit in any way from the organization. The organization had a web-site that was ultimately taken over by Amy Price, "Ph.D". While Doug Sipp's posts point to the archived versions of the site, mine points to the contemproary version, where Amy Price's smailing face greets us.

    The way to understand this former patient volunteer for the non-profit is to use court documents where she sued both SIF and ICMS. For example, Amy holds herself out as a PhD, which she trumpets on her Linkedin business page. With that in mind, reviewing her deposition in this case says it all:

    Q [SIF Attorney] Okay. Could you tell me your educational history and what degrees you hold?
    A [Amy Price] I can't recall.
    Q Okay. Do you have a Ph.D. from Oxford?
    A No.
    Q Okay. Do you have a Ph.D. from any university?
    A I have a Ph.D.
    Q Okay. From what university do you have a Ph.D.?
    A I'm -- at this point, I don't recall. It's 14 many years ago.
    Q Okay. Isn't it true, in 2011, you received the Ph.D. from -- in psychology from -- an Oakland University?
    A No.
    Q Okay. Did you have a Ph.D. from Oakland University?
    A No.
    Q Do you have a Ph.D. from King's College?
    A I don't recall the names of all the colleges and things. I'm sorry.
    Q Okay. Where did you have a Ph.D. from?

    A I don't recall.

    Doug Sipp's star source, for "breaking open" the ICMS "Freak Show" is quite a freak herself. She claims to have a Ph.D. (even more brashly than our ex-trucking supervisor), but can't seem to remember where she got that degree (a cereal box top?). So what did the judge have to say about this "case" she brought against SIF about the same time she leaked all of the unreliable "reliable" information to Sipp? The judge found against her for abuse of process and makes her pay all costs and allows SIF to pursue punitive damages.

    In conclusion, rather than delving even deeper to Doug Sipp's ICMS bashing, it's likely best for Sipp just to end here. It's also a good idea to end with a statement from the Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism:

    "Journalists rely on a professional discipline for verifying information. When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information--a transparent approach to evidence--precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment. But the need for professional method is not always fully recognized or refined. While journalism has developed various techniques for determining facts, for instance, it has done less to develop a system for testing the reliability of journalistic interpretation."

    Huh...looks like the ex-trucker's manual is also mum on source verification, but the Pew Research Center sure isn't...
    First treatment in 2007. Pioneering ever since.

    Barbara

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara (most of the year)
    Posts
    7

    Default Doug Sipp Scam

    This Doug Sipp scam is getting more interesting everyday. Doug Sipp must be very embarassed and shaking in his boots now as he is not defending himself and hasn't updated his stem cell therapy monitor blog recently. I wonder if his ISSCR friends know about this new blog by Doug Sip. I must hand it to Doug Sip on Doug Sipp. The guy has exposed Doug Sipp as a huge scam and fraud.

    And now there is another scam in Dr. Amy Price. She can't remember where she got her PHD!!! Hilarious. I see now on Twitter she is supporting traumatic brain injuries, I guess she has moved on from spinal cord injuries.

    2 more fraudsters exposed. Unfortunately, I don't think 60 minutes will do an expose on these scammers.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,869
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    It does make a person wonder why no one until Doug Sip had bothered to scrutinize the information that Doug Sipp was blogging about and make it known to the public that much of what he was writing was simply unfounded and dishonest.

    Sipp isn't the only one blogging without verification of his statements. If you recall, Paul Knoepfler attacked Jeannine and me and when we challenged him and invited him on this forum to do a Q and A session, he didn't even have the courtesy to respond to us. His blog comments about the Stem Cell Pioneers were in no way based upon any facts he had gathered. What kind of acadamian must he be to blog before he brags that he somehow has inside knowledge about Jeannine and me? It makes me wonder if anything posted on his blog is credible. I know the information he posted about Jeannine and me was not.

    It's getting obvious that Sipp's information is more imagination than anything else and I believe the same will hold true for others if we can expose them and hold their feet to the fire.

    It is time to call those that choose to post untruths on the internet out. No more free passes. The media should be challenged as well when they use "experts" and so called industry spokespeople that they have not vetted.

    If anyone comes across any articles where it does not appear that the source(s) is vetted, please let us know as well as any blogs like Sipp's or Knoepfler's.
    First treatment in 2007. Pioneering ever since.

    Barbara

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