60 Minutes (CBS) Ambush Journalism—
My Entire Interview
I. Introduction
I first found out about stem cells when I was contacted by Laura Brown in about 2000. She was excited about the possibility of healing people with stem cells, and was looking for physicians to work with patients. She and her partner were later charged with 51 counts of fraud, and were to be extradited from South Africa, but when the Secretary of State (important criminals, these!) went down to extradite them, the South African government had conveniently misplaced their paperwork, and they went free.
I looked to see what these people had done which could have been considered fraudulent. It appeared that there were a couple of things. One, this was a powerful medicine which the powers that be did not want to be used on the public. Secondly, they PROMISED results, which they were not able to provide.
I learned not to trust CBS when I was 15 years old, at a Gene McCarthy rally in Madison, Wisconsin, where I saw Walter Cronkite with a news camera. Later, when I saw his piece on TV, it was NOT the same message that I had gotten from Clean Gene!
And when I was an intelligence officer in the Army, watching the Soviet buildup on the Afghan border in December of 1979, and then hearing CBS say that it was “an intelligence failure”. If a guy in a basement vault in Kansas knew that there was a Soviet build up, so much that I worried about losing my Christmas leave, then certainly the White House knew as much.
And now, we see how the news media are treating Ron Paul, who faces a concerted program by the media to first, ignore him, and then, make him irrelevant. This is what happens to someone who tries to work outside the prescribed political solutions. And the worst of the media in this regard is CBS.
II. Who Am I?
I know that most of you are sure that you have me pegged. I am that evil scammer child molester that was outed on 60 minutes. Pretending to be a doctor, yet! And tricking poor, helpless victims of diseases.
A little history—I am indeed a medical doctor. I graduated from the University of Wisconsin Medical School, and then went on to complete a Family Practice residency. I worked as a small town family doctor for several years.
I was severely reprimanded by the medical establishment because, after weeks of medical therapy, the wives of two of my physician partners had unremitting back pain, and I sent them to a chiropractor, and both of them got better! Why was this a bad thing? If a treatment for back pain that works is a bad thing, then how many other secrets are we prevented from exploring, because of our big “MD” egos? So, I began looking at alternatives to standard medical practice, and finding them.
I lost my job because I delivered a baby without a C-Section, so my partners and the hospital didn’t get as much money from Medicaid.
I lost another job as an emergency room doctor because I successfully treated a patient, vomiting and dizzy with an inner ear infection, by using acupressure, then provided standard drugs and hospital observation. “We don’t do things that way ‘round here” I was told.
I have lived in 7 countries, traveled to at least 35, speak several languages. I have been a missionary, a clergyman, a shaman, computer programmer, college instructor, soldier, intelligence officer, Radio/TV repairman, Reiki Master, and worn several more hats at various times. I am the father of six great young adults, and grandfather of three.
Is that who you “knew” I was?
III. What Happened
I had an appointment to interview with a patient who had sought us out for stem cell treatment for his son, who is cortically blind as a result of a birth injury 11 years ago. The father had supposedly read our website and was anxious to get his son treated. He had had stem cell therapy in the past, in Mexico, and he was anxious to get more of it. They wanted a doctor in the US to treat him, and I was unable to provide one. (I am sure glad that I didn't!) After a several weeks of negotiations, I agreed to treat him under a private contract as a physician unlicensed in the state. I sent him a contract, and he said that he signed it, and wanted to meet with me to discuss it.
After I got to his club, where we were to have brunch, he said that we missed the brunch and then said that he had rented a room for the day. I thought that was a bit odd, but went along with him. He sounded like he was expecting me to treat his son that day, which was never my plan. And I had told him a few days before that I needed to order a centrifuge before I could prepare the cells.
He was a little agitated as we went into the room, and asked me all sorts of questions about safety. I asked if it wouldn't be better to wait until his wife were there so I didn’t have to answer the questions twice. He called to her several times, then went into the other room (big penthouse suite!!!) to get her.
Instead of his wife, out comes one of the talking heads interviewers from 60 minutes. He gave me a Masonic hand shake and told me that I was being recorded. I answered his questions for 20 minutes or so, trying to explain things that he obviously did not understand about stem cells, the FDA, Big Pharma, and getting things published in medical journals controlled by drug corporations.
I finally gave up and walked out, and on my way out I was met by three video cameramen at various parts of my journey. I think my adrenalin has finally settled down!
Should I have just walked out when I was ambushed? Dunno. I thought that it might be a chance to educate someone, but these guys obviously aren't interested in understanding, only in character assassination.
IV. Ambush Journalism
I think that ambush journalism is, on its face, dishonest and dishonorable. There are no questions which we would not be able to answer better and more clearly, as well as just as honestly, if we had been given a list of questions to answer in writing or arranged for a scheduled interview. But these ambush journalists and their sponsors thrive on their ability to shock people, not only their targets, but also their audiences. Like supermarket tabloids, they seek the sensational while the truth becomes a casualty. They do not seek to find out the truth—by the time they have set up the interview, they think that they already know the truth, and they think that throwing their understanding of the truth into the faces of those who they have already judged as “perpetrators” is beneficial to their viewers. But, their viewers are demeaned by these tactics, and the exploration of the truth becomes the victim. Because their goal is not the truth, it is shock.
Ambush journalism depends on the likelihood that the subject of the interview will be shown in a bad light. This is journalistic bullying, with the goal of dominating the subject, making him look foolish, and themselves look good. Didn’t we learn in elementary school that bullying is a bad thing? So, why do we reward journalistic bullies with our attention and advertising dollars?
I am not a guy who thinks well on his feet. If I am asked a question which I have not considered before, I will almost always have a better answer the next day than I do at the time. This has nothing to do with me trying to be deceitful, it is just the way my mind works. The answers I have after sleeping on a question are almost always better than the answers given off the top of my head. Once again, the best way to get to the truth is NOT to ambush someone.
V. Crazy Conspiracy Nut?
Every time I brought it up, and gave examples, Mr. Pelley scoffed at the possibility that the medical establishment would ignore or suppress cures to diseases, or even treatments that did not come from Big Pharma. Well, I guess we could all see who sponsored this witch hunt! (See the Lipitor Ad at the end of the segment, if you missed it.) Witness Royal Rife, [Discovering a Cure for Cancer can be Dangerous to your Health] who discovered and proved a cure for cancer and all infectious diseases in the 1930s and was destroyed by the AMA, Philip Semmelweis, who tried to save the lives of women by teaching doctors to wash their hands between dissecting cadavers and delivering babies, and was driven mad by his colleagues, Burzynski, who discovered cures for brain and other cancers, began FDA trials and was sued by the FDA three times, winning all of them, or Max Gerson, driven out of the country by doctors because of his successful cancer cures, and many more.
I do not claim to have a cure for anything. But I do claim to have a treatment which has been successful in certain cases, both in the US and in other countries. And I claim that individuals in the United States, as well as in other countries, have the RIGHT to decide what kind of medical treatments that they receive in their own country, without having to travel internationally. And that if the Susser family had the RIGHT to travel to Mexico to receive a stem cell treatment for their son, as they did in 2003, that they should also have the RIGHT to receive the same treatment, with full disclosure of risks and benefits, in their own country.
Furthermore, I recognize that there is a Public Health System which seeks to limit care options TO THE PUBLIC. But that this does not effect the options available IN THE PRIVATE, as guaranteed by the US Constitution, Article II section 10, which states:
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts
VI. Point by Point
I would first like to point out that, on the “Making of CBS Ambush Journalism” video which accompanied the 60 minutes segment, it says that I was interviewed for 35 minutes. Did you notice that only about 4 minutes of that actually made its way into the broadcast segment? What might I have been talking about, for all that time? Could it have been that I was directly responding to the points that he aired on the broadcast, but that the producers did not feel that it was important to air my words? How much simpler it is to just say that I didn’t have a response, than to actually let my words speak for themselves!
I attempted, after the interview, to remember as many points as possible, both the questions I was asked, the answer that I gave, and the answers that I WISHED that I would have given, had I had the opportunity to think them through. I have then added points which I had not remembered, but which were in the broadcast segment.
The interviewer had a number of pages of questions prepared, printed in very large letters, as if to be seen from a distance, or without his usual glasses. He referred to these frequently as he interrogated me.
1. Q. How do you make the stem cells?
A. We get them from the afterbirth tissues of healthy babies. We separate the cells from the umbilical cord blood, just like in any cord blood program in the US. The blood is collected in the hospitals by a doctor there. We then separate out the cells with a centrifuge, and freeze the cells in liquid nitrogen.
The umbilical cord cells are separated from the tissue mechanically, and then these cells are frozen. They can stay alive for years in liquid nitrogen.
Then we check the mother for blood borne illnesses, like a blood bank does. We interview the family for genetic disorders and medical history.
2. IS your lab in Ecuador?
Yes.
3. Do you get your cells from anywhere else?
A. we have some cells from other countries for research only.
4. Q. Is your lab a “state of the art” lab?
A. No. (it is a production lab, not a state of the art research lab)
Comment: Although the documentary suggests that we have referred to our lab as a “state of the art lab”, I am unaware that we have ever referred to it that way. We have had hospital directors tell us that our lab is better than their hospital lab, but that does not make it State of the Art.
5. Q. How would you describe your lab?
A. We have had the directors of local city hospitals visit the lab, and they told us that our lab is better than their hospital lab. The lab has filtered air, UV sterilized, positive pressure. There is a video of our lab on our website.
Q. Is the lab in a geodesic dome?
6. A. No, it is in a concrete dome. (Why is that important?)
7. Q. What do you think about the Ethics of treating a boy with Cerebral Palsy boy WHEN NO MEDICAL STUDIES SHOW BENEFIT
A. There are not studies iin the US, but there are plenty of studies outside of the US. There is a book with studies listed on our website: http://www.stem-cell-treatment-now.com/SC_clinical.html
I have traveled to other countries, discussed with other researchers what is effective. Because it is not in any journals.
NO US studies. This was his main point, and he brought it up several times.
Me: There are no US studies because US medical system does not encourage such studies, nor the publication of studies if they are done. Most US medical stem cell research is done with embryonic or IPS cells, which are shown to cause tumors 10% of the time, so they cannot be used for in humans. The funding for stem cell research is mostly for embryonic stem cells and IPS cells, with little for neonatal or adult stem cells. The Vatican recently opened a symposium for adult stem cell research, because it has been so neglected. The reason the funding is mostly for embryonic cells is because the possibility exists for the creation of patentable products. That is what BIG PHARMA wants—a patentable product, which they totally control, and that is what the FDA wants to give them.
There is research on neonatal stem cell therapy being done in other countries, but you don’t see any of it published in the major US journals. That is because the US medical system is controlled by Big Pharma. From medical schools, through medical research (by means of funding), to post graduate education, continuing medical education, and medical journals.
If you were to take a main medical journal like the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and ripped out all of the drug advertisements, there would be hardly anything left. Advertisements pay for what is in the journals.
I am aware of studies for non-drug treatments of heart disease which were entirely funded by non-drug sources, which were cancelled by Tulane University and University of Washington medical school deans, because Big Pharma had threatened to pull out their research funds. Just the possibility that a non-drug treatment would be found to be effective was so threatening to Big Pharma that they shut down these studies!
Q: Is this a scam
A. No! Joel took the cells, couldn’t walk the driveway before, and a day later climbed a mountain! I have taken the cells myself. Would I have done that if it were a scam?
Pelley’s response: Of course, you know that I am not going to believe that.
DLE:I know that you are going to twist around everything I say, and take clips out of context.
A: I will let you tell your own story in your own words.
Q. Are you a doctor? You lost your license in Alabama.
A. I had12 cts of illegal drug distribution against me, all dismissed.
Why no studies in major medical journals?
Medical journals and medical education, from medical school to post graduate and continuing medical education, is controlled by the Big PHARMAceutical companies. They will never allow a stem cell treatment, using unmodified stem cells, to be available.
Congress, when they passed public law 1271, intended for unmodified stem cells to be available for medical use, WITHOUT being treated as a drug. Treating them as a drug makes them so expensive that only BIG PHARMA will have the money to do it. FDA has done as much as it can to bring stem cells under its control, even without legal jurisdiction. (should have talked about Joe Centino. What about Royal Rife, Stanislav Burzynski, Gershon?).
Q. Do you thinkt hat the Big Pharma want to keep treatments for CP away from the patients?
A. They want to keep unpatented, NON-DRUG treatments out of being available. They want to provide PATENTED treatments that they control. And the FDA wants to help them to do that.
Q. But someone who discovers an effective use of stem cells would get the nobel prize!
A Nobel Prize? OBAMA won the Nobel PEACE PRIZE! And then went on to bomb the heck out of 3 countries! The Nobel Prize is totally a political show. (Should have said, what happened to Pons when they announced cold fusion? They were mocked until they left the country. Yet Japan has continued to do research into this field. There are now journals publishing cold fusion research, and an Italian has just sold a megawatt cold fusion generator to NATO! Yet this technology was mocked and suppressed by the Big Fusion labs, who deliberately falsified the data to keep their own high dollar high temp fusion labs well funded. –give link from PEERS on cold fusion, PESWiki)
Q. There is no research showing stem cells are therapeutically effective.
A. Not in the US, because when we do such work in the US, then YOU show up! But there are successful programs in other countries. It just doesn’t get into the US press.
Look at the woman from Italy treated with stem cells for Alzheimers. LINK She wasn’t able to walk or eat on her own. After stem cells, she converses, eats by herself, walks. And what happened there? The hospital xcell was shut down by the government. That is how the West responds to successful stem cell therapy programs. (In another program in Costa Rica, a successful stem cell program was closed down under US government pressure.)
NOTE: The doctor who he quotes as saying that there is no research showing that stem cell therapies are effective is documented herself as using stem cells with positive outcome:
Here are a couple of past quotes from Dr. Kurtzberg:
"Cord blood stem cells appear to correct the organ damage better than adult bone marrow does," said Kurtzberg. "The children's cognitive skills continued to improve after transplant to such a degree that they actually gain mental skills faster than age-matched control children and cross over into the normal range at three to four years post transplant."
At this time, Kurtzberg said she does not know how long the effects of cord blood will last on kids like Chloe, but if there is a good chance it will be "durable and last indefinitely." This is essential, since most babies have enough cells for only one infusion.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573265,00.html#ixzz1iyM7JjVD
For evidence that stem cells can help brain disfunction, please watch these videos:
Alzheimers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxiI8PW77Q4
ALS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpnAKWDZDdg
Cerebral Palsy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-IJjoFf0BM&feature=relmfu
Unfortunately, the German government closed down this successful stem cell clinic.
Embryonic vs adult/neonatal
Q. You don’t even know Adam’s blood type
A. Not important. Only important if you give red blood cells, which we are not doing.
Q.You don’t know Adam’s tissue type.
A. Not important. These cells are not immunogenic. They do not usually trigger an immune response that would cause the body to reject them.
Q. You don’t give immune suppressants with stem cells. But the big hospitals all do. How could your stem cells possibly not be rejected by the body? Are you saying that YOUR program would work, when Duke University’s program wouldn’t?
A, Totally different things. Obliterated immune system, like those of the leukemia patients that Duke works with, who have had their immune systems destroyed with radiation and cancer drugs, requires tissue typed cells, because those cells end up reconstituting the bone marrow and the immune system. You need to have a matched immune system or else you will end up with the new immune system rejecting the body. This is called “Graft vs Host Disease”, or GVH.
GVH does not happen with stem cell transfers into a body with a normal immune system. This is what we do. Stem cell therapy with non-embryonic stem cells, given to a person without cancer, with a normal immune system, has nothing to do with the cancer therapy that is the only use of stem cells considered by mainstream physicians. GVH being absent when you have a normal immune system is something which it does not appear most stem cell physicians understand, though it is thoroughly documented in the literature. The differences between transplantation with a normal immune system for something other than cancer, and transplantation for cancer, with an obliterated immune system, also seems to be a complete mystery to most mainstream stem cell researchers (meaning, leukemia doctors). (I explained this a couple of times, because he asked several times, but he didn’t seem to understand the principles, either.)
Q. How do they get into the brain? How do they work?
A. It is not clear exactly how stem cells promote healing in the brain. We know that chemicals called Cytokines are given off by the cells. Cytokines stimulate growth of the remaining cells, and this is part of the healing process. Normally there is a barrier which prevents chemicals or cells or bacteria from getting into the brain. This is called the blood-brain barrier. When the brain is damaged, the blood brain barrier is disrupted, and this allows stem cells to enter the brain.
It is has also been seen that stem cells sometimes fuse with the host brain cells, forming a hybrid cell, and these cells then multiply and repair the defect,
Q. How are the stem cells administered for brain injury?
A. Usually intravenously. In some countries they get the best results for brain and spinal cord injuries by a combination of IV administration and injection into the space around the spinal cord by lumbar puncture. (for spinal cord injury in Russia and China, they put a gel full of stem cells into the defect in the spinal cord, and follow up with IV and lumbar puncture injections.)
Q. What are the risks when giving stem cells by lumbar puncture?
A. Anytime you get a lumbar puncture, there is the risk of headache and spinal fluid leakage.
When embryonic or fetal stem cells (not the cells that we use) were given by lumbar puncture, there are one or two cases in the literature of tumors being formed. But tumors occur 10% of the time in animal studies when embryonic stem cells are used, so I guess that is not surprising to have such a case. I did discuss the various methods of administration with the Sussers, and they chose IV administration. I have not personally ever administered stem cells by lumbar puncture. (But I would consider doing so, especially using a cultured mesenchymal cell preparation which was suitable for such an injection.)
Q. Stem cells were tested by Duke Univ lab. Said they were dead, and were “medical biological waste”. Later in the interview, he said that they were alive, but only 100 k living cells instead of 500 K as we had counted. THIS WAS EDITED OUT OF THE BROADCAST SEGMENT
A. We checked all of the cells (by thawing a sample in the lab and counting the living cells. Show our data records). If the cells were dead, it is likely that they were not processed appropriately. (Should have added: IF the cells had tissue fragments in them, it could have been that these were the umbilical cord cells.
The FDA does not allow us to culture them, and says that if we do culture them to get more cells, and increase the likelihood of effectiveness, that they will then be classified as a drug. Culturing them would allow the cells to be purified to a greater degree. By law, our cells cannot be “more than minimally processed”. If we were to process them as much as Duke University processes them, they would not be legal for our physicians.
Also, it the Duke researchers did not follow specifically our thawing protocols, which we provide to all purchasers, they will not get as many live cells. We did not witness what process they used to thaw the cells, but we have found that they are very sensitive to poor thawing procedures. Using blood plasma instead of blood serum, for example, would cause the cells to clot, and would yield a product which appeared to be exactly, and is, “biological waste”. And the number of living cells, in that case, would be diminished, as the numbers that Mr. Pelley told me in the interview.
Furthermore, the Duke University doctor said that it would be dangerous to administer these cells as delivered, because of the tissue fragments in the cells. I totally agree! That is why we insist that a transfusion IV set be used to administer the cells, because it has a filter which would remove any clots and tissue fragments.
If CBS so misrepresents Dr. Kurtzberg on her use of stem cells, or if Dr. Kurtzberg lies about her use of stem cells therapeutically, how can we trust what CBS reports that she said about the cells that CBS purchased for her? And Pelley DID misrepresent the stem cell report!
Q. You were “self taught” in stem cells. Did you tell the Sussers this? IS that ethical?
A. (should have said)I went to college for four years, medical school for four years, and post graduate medical education for another 3 years. Guess what? There were no Stem Cell programs anywhere at that time. And when the subject began showing up in the literature, I started studying it. Just like every other PhD and MD in the world who began to do stem cell research—they learned it from the literature, not by going to what CBS assumes is some “Stem Cell University” somewhere! In fact, the closest thing to Stem Cell University is the University of Wisconsin, where I went to medical school.
Was Pasteur “self taught” in bacteriology? Was Harvey “self taught” in cardiology? Of course they were, because they were the pioneers. And you can tell the pioneers, because they are the ones with the arrows in their backs.
Q. The contract lists the possible side affects and possible benefits. Do you really believe that any of these benefits are possible?
A. Sure. For example, look at this post from the CBS website:
my son is 5 years old and has spastic quadriplegia cerebral palsy. We took him to Germany for a stem cell treatment and he has had great results. We were never promised a cure for his cerebral palsy and we weren't looking for a cure. He is walking on his own, he can sign over 30 different things and tries to use his words, he is no longer on reflux medication, and the list goes on. To most people this list does not sound like major life changing things, but to a special needs kid these are HUGE improvements.
Mackfruits, 8 Jan 2012
It is important to note what the German government did to this clinic which treated his son, and many more, so successfully. IT SHUT THEM DOWN! The clinic was X-Cell www.xcell-center.com
The major reason that investment money is going towards ESC and ISP is that these technologies are likely to produce a patentable, ie controllable, product. The reason that adult and neonatal stem cells are being virtually ignored by media and investors is that they are not likely to produce a patentable product.
That is also why the media presents stem cells as if all stem cells were embryonic stem cells, and why government funding is almost exclusively in ESC and IPS—the pharmaceutical companies want a PATENTABLE PRODUCT to sell, and the government research institutions want to give one to them.
Notice that in almost all media reports about stem cells that the term “stem cell” is used synonymously with “embryonic stem cell”. This was more obvious in the past than now, but it is rare that you hear any news about stem cells which are not embryonic or IPS.
Clinicians, on the other hand, are NOT looking for a patentable product. They are looking for safe and effective treatments for their patients. But, the FDA appears to not want to allow stem cells to become unpatented, yet safe, treatments.
Just like Wall Street and the US Treasury, Big Pharma controls the FDA, through a revolving door hiring policy and huge lobbying budgets. For example, look at Donald Rumsfelt’s involvement in the approval of Aspartame. In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors."
The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (later the Secretary of Defense) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved.
On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.
It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.
Big Pharma also controls medical education, both undergraduate, through its allocation of research funds, and postgraduate through its control of medical journals. Take a medical journal and rip out all the drug ads—only a few pages remain. I have seen fully funded studies on chelation therapy by Tulane and U Washington shut down by the deans when pharmaceutical company threatened to boycott research funds if the studies proceeded, because these studies had the potential to verify the effectiveness of a non-patentable treatment.
Even though I have been told by FDA lawyers on several occasions that the FDA does not have jurisdiction over the practice of medicine, the FDA’s handling of stem cells unquestionably steps out of their Federal jurisdiction into private medical practice. Because physicians are not involved in genetic manipulation (a patent producing activity) but use only unmodified, naturally occurring stem cells in their practice, the FDA has sought to curtail the use of unpatentable stem cells by physicians.
The FDA furthermore only has jurisdiction over interstate commerce of food, drugs and cosmetics. Yet, they constantly try to exceed the bounds of their jurisdiction. The FDA has sent SWAT teams to raid Amish farms when someone from out of state purchased raw milk from the farmers.
Look at the case of Dr. Stanislav Burzynski, who developed a treatment for brain cancer which he was testing under FDA approval. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/11/burzynski-the-movie.aspx When a patient of his received a refill of his “antineoplaston” serum, the FDA claimed that this gave them jurisdiction, tried to shut Burzynski’s trials down, and engaged in a war against him for over 5 years and 3 federal trials, all of which were ultimately won by Dr. Burzynski. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac
The intent of Congress, when the Public Law 1271 regarding stem cells was created, was that unmodified stem cells (“minimally manipulated”) would remain available for individual physician use. I firmly believe that the crackdown by the FDA on the use of non-genetically modified stem cells is due to the desire of Big Pharma to control the stem cell industry. The plan to regulate mesenchymal stem cells and unmodified hematological neonatal stem cells “as if they were” drugs is further due to the desire of the Big Pharma-controlled FDA to control ALL stem cell use in therapy, contrary to the intention of the Congress. The battle that Dr. Centeno is engaged in is further evidence that the FDA has once again exceeded its jurisdiction, and is seeking to enter into regulation of individual physician practice, an area which is constitutionally and legally out of their jurisdiction.
VII. Summary
The following points are what I got out of the news segment:
1. Dr. Ecklund didn’t attend a stem cell residency program.
a. Well, there aren’t any.
2. Dr. Ecklund did not publish any articles about stem cells.
a. Your doctor didn’t publish any articles on high blood pressure. Does than mean that he cannot treat it?
3. There is no therapeutic use for stem cells.
a. Why don’t you ask that doctor at Duke, who is using stem cells for therapeutic purposes, including leukemia and cerebral palsy.
4. Dr. Ecklund’s lab is round, so it must be substandard.
a. Um, Duh!
5. The stem cells we bought from you were ALL DEAD. Biological trash! (Well, they weren’t actually all dead, 100,000 of them were alive, but we didn’t want to include that in the broadcast segment.)
a. We tested the cells by thawing an aliquot (sample) and counting them.
b. It is very important to follow our thawing protocol, or else you will have lowered cell count and viability, as the Duke group got.
c. Since the CBS crew lied to the public about the actual cell count, I don’t think that we can believe much about their report about the cells at all, can we?
6. The Sussers do not have the ability to make up their own minds about whether or not to have their son receive stem cells. Even if they have full disclosure about risks and benefits, they do not have the intellectual or moral ability to make such a decision.
a. If you say so
7. Dr. Ecklund is an evil pervert.
8. This was brought to you by Lipitor
VIII. Afterward
Ok, so now you have seen it. You have seen stem cell therapies in general, and me as an individual, labeled as “Fraud”. Without any documentation, of course. This attempt to humiliate me, and to label stem cells as “fraud”, is exactly the methods used by the Financial and Medical Powers That Be to keep the investigators away from, and the people in the dark about, promising new therapies.
And now, what are you going to do about it? How are you going to react? Are you going to let the big corporate bullies win, or are you going to fight back? Are you going to hold your nose and run away from the stink that they painted on to the stem cell community, or are you going to wonder, what is it that they are trying so hard to cover up?
The choice is yours.
IX. Comments
I am heartened by many of the comments on the CBS website. They actually come from thinking individuals! It is apparent that the ploy of CBS to denigrate stem cells has, in large part, failed. I have copied the majority of the comments, as I doubt that CBS has the integrity to leave them up, and they are mirrored here.
Several of the commentators have noted that both of the segments, the 60 Minutes segment and the “How to do Ambush Journalism” segment, were sponsored by a large drug company. So, either they were directly involved in creating this story, or there are so many drug companies involved with CBS that it was just the luck of the draw that a drug company sponsored these segments. NOT!
I would like to comment on a few of the comments that I read:
by mackfruits January 8, 2012 11:07 PM EST
It is sad that people are being scammed because stem cells can help. I guess that I don't understand why anyone would actually purchase stem cells online...that would be a big clue to me that something wasn't right. But my real reason for commenting is because my son is 5 years old and has spastic quadriplegia cerebral palsy. We took him to Germany for a stem cell treatment and he has had great results. We were never promised a cure for his cerebral palsy and we weren't looking for a cure. He is walking on his own, he can sign over 30 different things and tries to use his words, he is no longer on reflux medication, and the list goes on. To most people this list does not sound like major life changing things, but to a special needs kid these are HUGE improvements. It would be nice to see an episode about how stem cells have helped. Our family, as well as several other families that we network with have had great results and we would all be glad to share our stories and show the good side of stem cells!!!
That is really great testimony, mackfruits, thanks for that! But what did the German government do? They shut down that clinic! (www.Xcell-center.com)
I don’t understand why anyone would purchase stem cells from overseas.
Well, according to the FDA US stem cell producers produce only 21% of the stem cells produced in the US. Where do the rest come from? From overseas!
