Stem cell miracles don’t live up to the hype

[David]

Stem cell miracles don’t live up to the hype.

Date: March 17, 2017
Author: Timothy Caulfield

Health science gets a lot of attention in the popular press. People love hearing about breakthroughs, paradigms shifts and emerging cures. The problem is, these stories are almost always wrong.

While optimistic miscalculations of the state of biomedical research may seem like a harmless distraction, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests it can be the source of real social harm. It can drive unrealistic expectations, impact the public use of health care resources and even shape a less-than-ideal research agenda. It can also help legitimize the marketing of unproven therapies.

This week, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) reported on three people who went blind after receiving an unproven stem cell treatment at a Florida clinic. The patients paid thousand of dollars for what they thought was a clinical trial on the use of stem cells to treat macular degeneration.

The primary fault, both legally and morally, for the marketing and use of unproven stem cell therapies lies with the providers who are involved with the practice. We need national regulators (such as Health Canada and the FDA) and the bodies that oversee the relevant healthcare professionals (such as the colleges that regulate physicians) to take a more active role in fighting this – a point noted by George Daley in an essay accompanying the NEJM case report.

Indeed, it is hard to blame patients for being drawn to providers that present optimistic portrayals of benefit. We live in confusing times. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tease out the real science from the bad and the “fake health news” from genuinely exciting scientific advances. Not only is the science twisted by innumerable systemic forces – publication pressures, overly enthusiastic press releases, commercial interests and media spin – but misinformation is being broadcast on a growing number of communication platforms. Social media, for example, has allowed for the rapid dissemination of false promises and the creation of confirmation bubbles where like-minded believers can trade anecdotes of success. And studies have shown that clinics exploit platforms like Twitter to create buzz about, and demand for, unproven therapies.

For the general public, here is a good rule of thumb: doubt absolutely every single claim that suggests a significant breakthrough. Doubt everything. This may sound a tad cynical, but if you adopt this approach you will be pleasantly surprised when something actually pans out. More important, this nothing-ever-works-as-promised strategy will be correct 99 percent of the time.

For patients seeking a treatment, be cautious of any clinic offering a therapy that seems too good to be true, because 99.9 percent of the time it will be too good to be true.

Consider stem cell research. Think of all the hype, the headlines about near-future applications, and the pronouncement about revolutionary regenerative therapies. This hand waving has been going on for almost two decades. So much so that the phrase “stem cells” has morphed into cultural marker for “cutting edge.” But despite all this unrelenting, upbeat noise, there are very few stem cell therapies that are ready for clinical application. George Daley, who is a renowned stem cell researcher and the current dean of Harvard Medical School, concludes that there are just a handful: those used for blood related ailments and for skin (epithelium) conditions. The International Society for Stem Cell Research agrees with George and notes that “the list of diseases for which stem cell treatments have been shown to be beneficial is still very short.”

Don’t get me wrong: I believe stem cell research remains a fantastically promising area of science. But true medical breakthroughs are rare. Incredibly rare. In fact, if a study claims a large effect size, which is often the case in stories about breakthroughs, there is a good chance the results will be overturned by subsequent work. In a well-known 2003 analysis, it was found that out of 101 studies published between 1979 and 1983 in top science journals and framed as clinically promising interventions, only one remains in common use today (yep, about 99 percent of the peer-reviewed predictions were wrong). The authors concluded that “even the most promising findings of basic research take a long time to translate into clinical experimentation, and adoption in clinical practice is rare.”

Yes, we need regulators to crack down on the marketing of unproven stem cell therapies. As demonstrated by these recent reports of treatment-induced blindness, these clinics can cause serious harm. But we also need to do our best to curb the science noise that helps legitimize the false claims made by the purveyors of stem cell products. Scientists, clinicians, policymakers and journalists should do their best to counter misinformation in all its forms.

We need more good science, and less science-y noise.

Timothy Caulfield is a Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, University of Alberta, a Trudeau Fellow and author of “Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?: When Celebrity Culture And Science Clash” (Penguin, 2015).


healthydebate.ca/opinions/stem-cells

[gerald]

In checking his background he does not have any medical background and not much of a scientific background;

But, unfortunately, he is correct.  Stem Cell treatments have become like the parmacueticals, 90+% mareting + hype and little int he way of results.

While Stem Cells may hold massive potential for curing a lot of things the negative results and press may serve to destroy the credibility of the entire field. We have seen this in other scientific advances where they are so badly damaged no one will associate with them for years.

[ozboy]

Thank you David for providing a LINK that verifies what many of us already knew, by seeing thru the hype and agenda....Preying on vulnerable people has been  tried many times in the past and still goes on but nothing comes close to the massive fraud covered up by an organised and cashed up group, operating under a facade of the ''Rah Rah Rah'' chant used often by the lack of transparency based on the Multi Level Recruiting Model...

No doubt Stem Cells are a way of the future, but promising immediate success, based solely on, often by ''Customers'' opinion that starts out with appraisal of how good they feel, is totally the result of what 99% of COPD sufferers realise..''A good Diet and Exercise Plan''.....but there is no $$$ to be generated in promoting such..

Silicon Valley at it's very Best....

[jarca]

This is so sad! How can these quack businesses keep treating people & not be closed down.
Even I might have been "taken" by this one because somewhere I thought I read that stem cell was working on eyes! or maybe it was the name "harvard" that made me think it would be an actual hospital program.
so sad & wish the FDA or who ever would do something to close these butchers down.

[gerald]

And then occasionally a reputable source comes up with some solid research.  But as they show it is still a while before it will be ready to work on people.


----------------------------

Study shows potential of stem cell therapy to repair lung damage

24 March, 2017

Estoril, Portugal: A new study has found that stem cell therapy can reduce lung inflammation in an animal model of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cystic fibrosis. Although, still at a pre-clinical stage, these findings have important potential implications for the future treatment of patients.

The findings were presented in Estoril, Portugal today at the Lung Science Conference.

The new research investigated the effectiveness of MSC therapy in a mouse model of chronic inflammatory lung disease, which reflects some of the essential features of diseases such as COPD and cystic fibrosis.

Researchers delivered stem cells intravenously to β-ENaC overexpressing mice at 4 and 6 weeks of age, before collecting samples tissue and cells from the lungs at 8 weeks. They compared these findings to a control group that did not receive the MSC therapy.

The results showed that inflammation was significantly reduced in the group receiving MSC therapy. Cells counts for both monocytic cells and neutrophils, both signs of inflammation, were significantly reduced after MSC therapy. Analysis of lung tissue revealed a reduction in the mean linear intercept and other measures of lung destruction in MSC treated mice. As well as reducing inflammation in the lung, MSC therapy also resulted in significant improvements in lung structure, suggesting that this form of treatment has the potential to repair the damaged lung.

Dr Declan Doherty, from Queens University Belfast, UK, commented: “These preliminary findings demonstrate the potential effectiveness of MSC treatment as a means of repairing the damage caused by chronic lung diseases such as COPD. The ability to counteract inflammation in the lungs by utilising the combined anti-inflammatory and reparative properties of MSCs could potentially reduce the inflammatory response in individuals with chronic lung disease whilst also restoring lung function in these patients. Although further research is needed to improve our understanding of how MSCs repair this damage, these findings suggest a promising role for MSC therapy in treating patients with chronic lung disease."

Professor Rachel Chambers, ERS Conferences and Research Seminars Director, commented: "This paper offers novel results in a pre-clinical model which demonstrates the potential of MSC stem cell therapy for the treatment of long-term lung conditions with exciting potential implications for the future treatment of patients with COPD and cystic fibrosis. Although, still at an early stage in terms of translation to the human disease situation, this paper is one of many cutting-edge abstracts from the Lung Science Conference, which aims to provide an international platform to highlight novel experimental lung research with therapeutic potential. We rely on high quality basic and translational respiratory science, such as these latest findings, to develop novel therapeutic approaches for the millions of patients suffering from devastating and often fatal respiratory conditions."

www.ersnet.org/the-society/news/study-shows-potential-of-stem-cell-therapy-to-repair-lung-damage