Page 1,357«..1020..1,3561,3571,3581,359..1,3701,380..»

Stem Cell Ruidoso New Mexico 88345

Posted: September 26, 2018 at 2:44 pm

Stem cell therapy has ended up being a popular argument in the international medical scene. This highly controversial therapy has actually received combined opinions from numerous stakeholders in the health care industry and has actually also attracted the interest of political leaders, spiritual leaders and the basic population at large. Stem cell treatment is thought about an advanced treatment for people suffering from a large range of degenerative conditions. Some typical concerns regarding this treatment are addressed below.

Are you a stem cell therapy provider close to Ruidoso NM 88345? Contact us for more information about joining our website.

Stem cells can be referred to as blank state or non-specialized cells that have the ability to become specialized cells in the body such as bone, muscle, nerve or organ cells. This indicates that these unique cells can be used to regrow or develop a wide variety of damaged cells and tissues in the body. Stem cell therapy is for that reason a treatment that focuses on attaining tissue regrowth and can be utilized to treat health conditions and illnesses such as osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, spine injury, muscular degeneration, motor neuron illness, ALS, Parkinsons, cardiovascular disease and much more.

Being a treatment that is still under research, stem cell therapy has not been totally accepted as a practical treatment option for the above pointed out health conditions and illnesses. A lot of research study is currently being carried out by scientists and medical professionals in different parts of the world to make this treatment practical and efficient. There are nevertheless numerous limitations imposed by governments on research study involving embryonic stem cells.

Currently, there have not been numerous case studies carried out for this form of treatment. Nevertheless, with the few case studies that have actually been conducted, among the significant issues that has been raised is the increase in a clients danger of establishing cancer. Cancer is triggered by the quick multiplication of cells that tend not to die so quickly. Stem cells have been connected with comparable growth aspects that may cause formation of growths and other cancerous cells in clients.

Contact us for more information about stem cell therapy in Ruidoso NM 88345

Stem cells can be drawn out from a young embryo after conception. These stem cells are typically referred to as embryonic stem cells. After the stem cells are extracted from the embryo, the embryo is terminated. This is essentially one of the major reasons for debate in the field of stem cell studio. Lots of people say that termination of an embryo is unethical and undesirable.

Stem cells can still be acquired through other means as they can be discovered in the blood, bone marrow and umbilical cables of adult humans. Regular body cells can also be reverse-engineered to become stem cells that have restricted capabilities.

New studio has nevertheless shown promise as scientists target at developing stem cells that do not form into growths in later treatment phases. These stem cells can for that reason effectively transform into other kinds of specialized cells. This treatment is for that reason worth researching into as numerous clients can gain from this innovative treatment.

Find a stem cell provider close to Ruidoso NM 88345

59

Main address:Ruidoso, New Mexico, 88345

See more here:
Stem Cell Ruidoso New Mexico 88345

Posted in New Mexico Stem Cells | Comments Off on Stem Cell Ruidoso New Mexico 88345

Maternalfetal medicine – Wikipedia

Posted: September 25, 2018 at 10:46 pm

Maternalfetal medicine (MFM) (also known as perinatology) is a branch of medicine that focuses on managing health concerns of the mother and fetus prior to, during, and shortly after pregnancy.

Maternalfetal medicine specialists are physicians who subspecialize within the field of obstetrics.[1] Their training typically includes a four-year residency in obstetrics and gynecology followed by a three-year fellowship. They may perform prenatal tests, provide treatments, and perform surgeries. They act both as a consultant during lower-risk pregnancies and as the primary obstetrician in especially high-risk pregnancies. After birth, they may work closely with pediatricians or neonatologists. For the mother, perinatologists assist with pre-existing health concerns, as well as complications caused by pregnancy.

Maternalfetal medicine began to emerge as a discipline in the 1960s. Advances in research and technology allowed physicians to diagnose and treat fetal complications in utero, whereas previously, obstetricians could only rely on heart rate monitoring and maternal reports of fetal movement. The development of amniocentesis in 1952, fetal blood sampling during labor in the early 1960s, more precise fetal heart monitoring in 1968, and real-time ultrasound in 1971 resulted in early intervention and lower mortality rates.[2] In 1963, Albert William Liley developed a course of intrauterine transfusions for Rh incompatibility at the National Women's Hospital in Australia, regarded as the first fetal treatment.[3] Other antenatal treatments, such as the administration of glucocorticoids to speed lung maturation in neonates at risk for respiratory distress syndrome, led to improved outcomes for premature infants.

Consequently, organizations were developed to focus on these emerging medical practices, and in 1991, the First International Congress of Perinatal Medicine was held, at which the World Association of Perinatal Medicine was founded.[2]

Today, maternal-fetal medicine specialists can be found in major hospitals internationally. They may work in privately owned clinics, or in larger, government-funded institutions.[4][5]

The field of maternal-fetal medicine is one of the most rapidly evolving fields in medicine, especially with respect to the fetus. Research is being carried on in the field of fetal gene and stem cell therapy in hope to provide early treatment for genetic disorders,[6] open fetal surgery for the correction of birth defects like congenital heart disease,[7] and the prevention of preeclampsia.

Maternalfetal medicine specialists attend to patients who fall within certain levels of maternal care. These levels correspond to health risks for the baby, mother, or both, during pregnancy.[8]

They take care of pregnant women who have chronic conditions (e.g. heart or kidney disease, hypertension, diabetes, and thrombophilia), pregnant women who are at risk for pregnancy-related complications (e.g. preterm labor, pre-eclampsia, and twin or triplet pregnancies), and pregnant women with fetuses at risk. Fetuses may be at risk due to chromosomal or congenital abnormalities, maternal disease, infections, genetic diseases and growth restriction.[9]

Expecting mothers with chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure, drug use during or before pregnancy, or a diagnosed medical condition may require a consult with a maternal-fetal specialist. In addition, women who experience difficulty conceiving may be referred to a maternal-fetal specialist for assistance.

During pregnancy, a variety of complications of pregnancy can arise. Depending on the severity of the complication, a maternal-fetal specialist may meet with the patient intermittently, or become the primary obstetrician for the length of the pregnancy. Post-partum, maternal-fetal specialists may follow up with a patient and monitor any medical complications that may arise.

The rates of maternal and infant mortality due to complications of pregnancy have decreased by over 23% since 1990, from 377,000 deaths to 293,000 deaths. Most deaths can be attributed to infection, maternal bleeding, and obstructed labor, and their incidence of mortality vary widely internationally.[10] The Society for Maternal-fetal Medicine (SMFM) strives to improve maternal and child outcomes by standards of prevention, diagnosis and treatment through research, education and training.[11]

Maternalfetal medicine specialists are obstetrician-gynecologists who undergo an additional 3 years of specialized training in the assessment and management of high-risk pregnancies. In the United States, such obstetrician-gynecologists are certified by the American Board of Obstetrician Gynecologists (ABOG) or the American Osteopathic Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Maternalfetal medicine specialists have training in obstetric ultrasound, invasive prenatal diagnosis using amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, and the management of high-risk pregnancies. Some are further trained in the field of fetal diagnosis and prenatal therapy where they become competent in advanced procedures such as targeted fetal assessment using ultrasound and Doppler, fetal blood sampling and transfusion, fetoscopy, and open fetal surgery.[12][13]

For the ABOG, MFM subspecialists are required to do a minimum of 12 months in clinical rotation and 18-months in research activities. They are encouraged to use simulation and case-based learning incorporated in their training, a certification in advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) is required, they are required to develop in-service examination and expand leadership training. Obstetrical care and service has been improved to provide academic advancement for MFM in-patient directorships, improve skills in coding and reimbursement for maternal care, establish national, stratified system for levels of maternal care, develop specific, proscriptive guidelines on complications with highest maternal morbidity and mortality, and finally, increase departmental and divisional support for MFM subspecialists with maternal focus. As Maternalfetal medicine subspecialists improve their work ethics and knowledge of this advancing field, they are capable of reducing the rate of maternal mortality and maternal morbidity.[14]

Go here to see the original:
Maternalfetal medicine - Wikipedia

Posted in Genetic medicine | Comments Off on Maternalfetal medicine – Wikipedia

Stem Cell Seneca South Carolina 29678

Posted: September 25, 2018 at 10:44 pm

Stem cell treatment has actually become a popular debate in the worldwide medical scene. This highly questionable treatment has gotten combined opinions from numerous stakeholders in the health care industry and has also attracted the attention of politicians, religious leaders and the general population at large. Stem cell treatment is thought about an advanced treatment for individuals struggling with a vast array of degenerative conditions. Some common concerns regarding this treatment are answered listed below.

Stem cells can be referred to as blank state or non-specialized cells that have the ability to become specialized cells in the body such as bone, muscle, nerve or organ cells. This indicates that these unique cells can be used to restore or develop a wide variety of damaged cells and tissues in the body. Stem cell therapy is therefore a treatment that targets at attaining tissue regrowth and can be used to cure health conditions and illnesses such as osteoarthritis, degenerative disc illness, spine injury, muscular degeneration, motor nerve cell disease, ALS, Parkinsons, heart disease and a lot more.

Stem cells can be drawn out from a young embryo after conception. These stem cells are commonly referred to as embryonic stem cells. After the stem cells are drawn out from the embryo, the embryo is ended. This is basically among the major causes of debate in the field of stem cell research. Many individuals say that termination of an embryo is dishonest and undesirable.

Stem cells can still be obtained through other methods as they can be found in the blood, bone marrow and umbilical cords of adult people. Typical body cells can likewise be reverse-engineered to become stem cells that have limited abilities.

Being a treatment that is still under studio, stem cell treatment has actually not been completely accepted as a sensible treatment option for the above pointed out health conditions and illnesses. A great deal of research study is currently being performed by scientists and medical experts in various parts of the world to make this treatment viable and effective. There are nevertheless numerous restrictions imposed by federal governments on studio involving embryonic stem cells.

Currently, there have not been lots of case studies carried out for this form of treatment. Nevertheless, with the few case studies that have actually been performed, among the major issues that has been raised is the boost in a patients danger of developing cancer. Cancer is triggered by the rapid multiplication of cells that tend not to pass away so quickly. Stem cells have actually been connected with comparable development elements that might lead to formation of tumors and other malignant cells in patients.

New studio has actually however revealed pledge as researchers target at developing stem cells that do not form into growths in later treatment phases. These stem cells can therefore successfully transform into other types of specialized cells. This treatment is for that reason worth researching into as many patients can benefit from this advanced treatment.

stem cell provider near Seneca SC 29678

55

Main address:South Carolina

More:
Stem Cell Seneca South Carolina 29678

Posted in South Carolina Stem Cells | Comments Off on Stem Cell Seneca South Carolina 29678

The Ethics Of Transhumanism And The Cult Of Futurist Biotech

Posted: September 25, 2018 at 10:43 pm

Cryogenic pods. Computer illustration of people in cryogenic pods. Their bodies are being preserved by storing them at very low temperatures. They will remain frozen until a time when the technology might exist to resurrect the dead, a technique known as cryonics. Alternatively a new body may be cloned from their tissue. Some companies offer to store dead peoples bodies.

Transhumanism (also abbreviated as H+) is a philosophical movement which advocates for technology not only enhancing human life, but to take over human life by merging human and machine. The idea is that in one future day, humans will be vastly more intelligent, healthy, and physically powerful. In fact, much of this movement is based upon the notion that death is not an option with a focus to improve the somatic body and make humans immortal.

Certainly, there are those in the movement who espouse the most extreme virtues of transhumanism such as replacing perfectly healthy body parts with artificial limbs. But medical ethicists raise this and other issues as the reason why transhumanism is so dangerous to humans when what is considered acceptable life-enhancement has virtually no checks and balances over who gets a say when we go too far. For instance, Kevin Warwick of Coventry University, a cybernetics expert, asked the Guardian, What is wrong with replacing imperfect bits of your body with artificial parts that will allow you to perform better or which might allow you to live longer? while another doctor stated that he would have no part in such surgeries. There is, after all, a difference between placing a pacemaker or performing laser eye surgery on the body to prolong human life and lend a greater degree of quality to human life, and that of treating the human body as a tabula rasa upon which to rewrite what is, effectively, the natural course of human life.

A largely intellectual movement whose aim is to transform humanity through the development of a panoply of technologies which ostensibly enhance human intellect, physiology, and the very legal status of what being human means, transhumanism is a social project whose inspiration can be dated back to 19th century continental European philosophy and later through the writings of J. B. S. Haldane, a British scientist and Marxist, who in 1923 delivered a speech at the Heretics Society, an intellectual club at Cambridge University, entitled Daedalus or, Science and the Future which foretold the future of the end of ofcoalfor power generation in Britain while proposing a network of windmills which would be used for the electrolytic decomposition of water into oxygen and hydrogen (they would generate hydrogen). According to many transhumanists, this is one of the founding projects of the movement. To read this one might think this was a precursor to the contemporary ecological movement.

The philosophical tenets, academic theories, and institutional practices of transhumanism are well-known.Max More, a British philosopher and leader of the extropian movement claims that transhumanism is the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values. This very definition, however, is a paradox since the ethos of this movement is to promote life through that which is not life, even by removing pieces of life, to create something billed as meta-life. Indeed, it is clear that transhumanism banks on its own contradiction: that life is deficient as is, yet can be bettered by prolonging life even to the detriment of life.

Stefan Lorenz Sorgneris a German philosopher and bioethicist who has written widely on the ethical implications of transhumanism to include writings on cryonics and longevity of human life, all of which which go against most ecological principles given the amount of resources needed to keep a body in suspended animation post-death. At the heart of Sorgners writings, like those of Kyle Munkittrick, invoke an almost nave rejection of death, noting that death is neither natural nor a part of human evolution. In fact, much of the writings on transhumanism take a radical approach to technology: anyone who dare question that cutting off healthy limbs to make make way for a super-Olympian sportsperson would be called a Luddite, anti-technology. But that is a false dichotomy since most critics of transhumanism are not against all technology, but question the ethics of any technology that interferes with the human rights of humans.

Take for instance the recent push by many on the ostensible Left who favor surrogacy as a step on the transhumanist ladder, with many publications on this subject, none so far which address the human rights of women who are not only part of this equation, but whose bodies are being used in the this faux-futurist vision of life without the mention of female bodies. Versos publication of a troubling piece by Sophie Lewis earlier this year, aptly titled Gestators of All Genders Unite speaks to the lack of ethics in a field that seems to be grasping at straws in removing the very mention of the bodies which reproduce and give birth to human life: females. In eliminating the specificity of the female body, Lewis attempts to stitch together a utopian future where genders are having children, even though the reality of reproduction across the Mammalia class demonstrates that sex, not gender, determines where life is gestated and birthed. What Lewis attempts in fictionalizing a world of dreamy hopefulness actually resembles more an episode of The Handmaids Tale where this writer has lost sense of any irony. Of course pregnancy is not about gender. It is uniquely about sex and the class of gestators are females under erasure by this dystopian movement anxious to pursue a vision of a world without women.

While many transhumanist ideals remain purely theoretical in scope, what is clear is that females are the class of humans who are being theorised out of social and political discourse. Indeed, much of the social philosophy surrounding transhumanist projects sets out to eliminate genderin the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology andassisted reproductive technologies, ultimately inspired by Shulamith Firestone'sThe Dialectic of Sex and much of Donna Haraways writing on cyborgs. From parthenogenesisto the creation ofartificial wombs, this movement seeks to remove the specificity of not gender, but sex, through the elision of medical terminology and procedures which portend to advance a technological human-cyborg built on the ideals of a post-sex model.

The problem, however, is that women are quite aware that sex-based inequality has zilch to do with anything other than their somatic sex. And nothing transhumanist theories can propose will wash away the reality of the sexed human body upon which social stereotypes are plied.

Go here to read the rest:
The Ethics Of Transhumanism And The Cult Of Futurist Biotech

Posted in Transhumanism | Comments Off on The Ethics Of Transhumanism And The Cult Of Futurist Biotech

What is Diabetes?

Posted: September 25, 2018 at 7:41 am

Diabetes can strike anyone, from any walk of life.

And it does in numbers that are dramatically increasing. In the last decade, the cases of people living with diabetes jumped almost 50 percent to more than 30 million Americans. Worldwide, it afflicts more than 422 million people.

Diabetes is a leading cause of blindness, kidney failure, amputations, heart failure and stroke.

Living with diabetes places an enormous emotional, physical and financial burden on the entire family. Annually, diabetes costs the American public more than $245 billion.

Just what is diabetes?

To answer that, you first need to understand the role of insulin in your body. When you eat, your body turns food into sugars, or glucose. At that point, your pancreas is supposed to release insulin. Insulin serves as a key to open your cells, to allow the glucose to enter -- and allow you to use the glucose for energy.

But with diabetes, this system does not work.

Several major things can go wrong causing the onset of diabetes. Type 1 and type 2 diabetes are the most common forms of the disease, but there are also other kinds, such as gestational diabetes, which occurs during pregnancy, as well as other forms.

Do you want to learn more about the basics of diabetes?Read our brochure: "What is Diabetes?" in Englishor"Que es La Diabetes?" in Spanish.

The more severe form of diabetes is type 1, or insulin-dependent diabetes. Its sometimes called juvenile diabetes, because type 1 diabetes usually develops in children and teenagers, though it can develop at any age.

With type 1 diabetes, the bodys immune system attacks part of its own pancreas. Scientists are not sure why. But the immune system mistakenly sees the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas as foreign, and destroys them. This attack is known as "autoimmune" disease.

These cells called islets (pronounced EYE-lets) are the ones that sense glucose in the blood and, in response, produce the necessary amount of insulin to normalize blood sugars.

Insulin serves as a key to open your cells, to allow the glucose to enter -- and allow you to use the glucose for energy. Without insulin, there is no key. So, the sugar stays -- and builds up-- in the blood. The result: the bodys cells starve from the lack of glucose. And, if left untreated, the high level of blood sugar can damage eyes, kidneys, nerves, and the heart, and can also lead to coma and death.

So, a person with type 1 treats the disease by taking insulin injections. This outside source of insulin now serves as the key -- bringing glucose to the bodys cells.

The challenge with this treatment is that its often not possible to know precisely how much insulin to take. The amount is based on many factors, including:

Food

Exercise

Stress

Emotions and general health

These factors fluctuate greatly throughout every day. So, deciding on what dose of insulin to take is a complicated balancing act.

If you take too much, then your body burns too much glucose -- and your blood sugar can drop to a dangerously low level. This is a condition called hypoglycemia, which, if untreated, can be potentially life-threatening.

If you take too little insulin, your body can again be starved of the energy it needs, and your blood sugar can rise to a dangerously high level -- a condition called hyperglycemia. This also increases the chance of long-term complications.

The most common form of diabetes is called type 2, or non-insulin dependent diabetes.

This is also called adult onset diabetes, since it typically develops after age 35. However, a growing number of younger people are now developing type 2 diabetes.

People with type 2 are able to produce some of their own insulin. Often, its not enough. And sometimes, the insulin will try to serve as the key to open the bodys cells, to allow the glucose to enter. But the key wont work. The cells wont open. This is called insulin resistance.

Often, type 2 is tied to people who are overweight, with a sedentary lifestyle.

Treatment focuses on diet and exercise. If blood sugar levels are still high, oral medications are used to help the body use its own insulin more efficiently. In some cases, insulin injections are necessary.

Here is the original post:
What is Diabetes?

Posted in Diabetes | Comments Off on What is Diabetes?

Jim DeMint – Wikipedia

Posted: September 25, 2018 at 7:41 am

Jim DeMintPresident of the Heritage FoundationIn officeApril 4, 2013 May 2, 2017Preceded byEdwin FeulnerSucceeded byEdwin Feulner (Acting)United States Senatorfrom South CarolinaIn officeJanuary 3, 2005 January 2, 2013Preceded byErnest HollingsSucceeded byTim ScottMember of the U.S. House of Representativesfrom South Carolina's 4th districtIn officeJanuary 3, 1999 January 3, 2005Preceded byBob InglisSucceeded byBob InglisPersonal detailsBornJames Warren DeMint (1951-09-02) September 2, 1951 (age67)Greenville, South Carolina, U.S.Political partyRepublicanSpouse(s)Debbie HendersonChildren4EducationUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville (BA)Clemson University (MBA)

James Warren DeMint (born September 2, 1951) is an American writer and retired politician who served as a United States Senator from South Carolina from 2005 to 2013. He is a member of the Republican Party and a leading figure in the Tea Party movement.[1][2][3] He previously served as the United States Representative for South Carolina's 4th congressional district from 1999 to 2005. DeMint resigned from the Senate on January 1, 2013 to become president of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.[4] On May 2, 2017, the board of trustees at Heritage removed DeMint as president of the organization.[5][6]

In June 2017, DeMint became a senior advisor to Citizens for Self-Governance, an organization that supports a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution for the purpose of reducing federal government spending and power.[7] Also in 2017, DeMint became the founding chairman of the Conservative Partnership Institute, which focuses on the professional development of conservative staffers and elected officials.

DeMint was born in Greenville, South Carolina, one of four children. His parents, Betty W. (ne Rawlings) and Thomas Eugene DeMint,[8] divorced when he was five years old. Following the divorce, Betty DeMint operated a dance studio out of the family's home.[9][10]

DeMint was educated at Christ Church Episcopal School and Wade Hampton High School in Greenville. DeMint played drums for a cover band called Salt & Pepper.[11] He received a bachelor's degree in 1973 from the University of Tennessee,[12] where he was a part of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity, and received an MBA in 1981 from Clemson University.[12] DeMint's wife, Debbie, is one of three children of the late Greenville advertising entrepreneur and South Carolina Republican figure James Marvin Henderson, Sr.[13]

DeMint joined his father-in-laws advertising firm in Greenville in 1981, working in the field of market research.[12][14] In 1983, he founded The DeMint Group, a research firm with businesses, schools, colleges, and hospitals as clients.[14] DeMints first involvement in politics began in 1992, when he was hired by Republican Representative Bob Inglis in his campaign for South Carolinas Fourth Congressional District. Inglis defeated three-term incumbent Democrat Liz J. Patterson, and DeMint performed message-testing and marketing for Inglis through two more successful elections.[15] In 1998, Inglis ran for the U.S. Senate, and DeMint left his firm to run for Inglis old seat.[12][15]

DeMint was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1999 and served South Carolinas Fourth Congressional District until 2005, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate.[16] His peers elected him to be president of his GOP freshman class.[17][18] DeMint pledged to serve only three terms in the House, and in 2003 he announced his run for the Senate seat of outgoing Democrat Ernest Hollings in the 2004 election cycle.[14]

The Washington Post and The Christian Post have described DeMint as a "staunch conservative", based on his actions during his time in the House.[19][20] He broke rank with his party and powerful state interests several times: DeMint was one of 34 Republicans to oppose President Bushs No Child Left Behind program and one of 25 to oppose Medicare Part D.[17] He sought to replace No Child Left Behind with a state-based block-grant program for schools.[14] DeMint also worked to privatize Social Security by allowing the creation of individual investment accounts in the federal program. In 2003, DeMint sponsored legislation to allow people under the age of 55 to set aside 3 percent to 8 percent of their Social Security withholding income in personal investment accounts.[14] DeMint was also the only South Carolina House member to vote for normalizing trade relations with China, arguing in favor of free trade between the countries. He also provided a crucial swing vote on a free trade bill regarding Caribbean countries. His votes led South Carolinas influential textile industry to heavily oppose him in his subsequent House and Senate races.[21][22]

In November 2004, DeMint defeated Inez Tenenbaum, South Carolina's education superintendent, to fill Ernest Hollings' vacated seat in the 109th United States Congress.[23] For his first term, he was appointed to the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Special Committee on Aging.[24] In 2006, DeMint began leading the Senate Steering Committee.[25] DeMint also served as a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.[26][27] In 2008, DeMint formed the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee with the intention of supporting conservative candidates that may have otherwise been overlooked by the national party.[28]

As a member of the 111th United States Congress, DeMint joined the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.[29] In 2009, DeMint was one of two Senators who voted against Hillary Clinton's appointment to Secretary of State, and the next year he introduced legislation to completely repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare.[30][31] Later in 2010, he introduced another piece of legislation titled the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, which aimed to require congressional approval of any major regulation change made by a federal agency.[32] At the end of his first term, DeMint was appointed to the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee regarding the impeachment of federal judge Thomas Porteous.[33]

DeMint was reelected in 2010, at which time he became the highest-ranking elected official associated with the Tea Party.[34] During the first year of his second term, DeMint released a letter signed by over 30 other Senate Republicans asking the supercommittee tasked with balancing the federal budget to do so within the next ten years, and without creating any net tax increases.[35] In 2012, DeMint resigned his seat in order to become president of the Heritage Foundation.[36]

Jim DeMint is a member of the Republican Party[37] and is aligned with the Tea Party movement.[38] In 2011, DeMint was identified by Salon as one of the most conservative members of the Senate.[37][38][39] He founded the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee (PAC), which supports conservative, small government, Tea Partyallied Republican politicians in primary challenges and general elections.[40][41] In 2013, the PAC endorsed a strategy to defund the Affordable Care Act that culminated in the 2013 shutdown of the federal government.[42]

Throughout his political career, DeMint has favored a type of tax reform that would replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax and, in addition, abolish the Internal Revenue Service.[43] He has supported many changes to federal spending, such as prioritizing a balanced budget amendment instead of increasing the national debt limit.[44] As a senator, DeMint proposed a two-year earmark ban to prevent members of Congress from spending federal money on projects in their home states.[41] In 2008, presidential candidates John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama co-sponsored DeMint's earmark reform proposal, although it ultimately failed to pass in the Senate.[45] In March 2010, DeMint's earmark reform plans were again defeated.[46] In November of the same year, DeMint, along with nine other senators including Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, proposed another moratorium on earmarks which was adopted by Senate Republicans.[47][48]

DeMint has also been a proponent of free trade agreements, advocated for the privatization of Social Security benefits, and in 2009 authored the "Health Care Freedom Plan", which proposed giving tax credits to those who are unable to afford health insurance.[43][49][50]

DeMint was opposed to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the bailouts during the automotive industry crisis of 20082010. He also led a group of Senators in opposing government loans to corporations.[51][52] He supports a high level of government accountability through the auditing federal agencies.[51]

In October 2009, after the Honduran Army, on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, removed Manuel Zelaya as President, DeMint visited the country to gather information.[53] The trip was approved by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell but opposed by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry. DeMint supported the new government, while the Obama administration favored Zelaya's return to the presidency.[53]

In late 2009, DeMint criticized Barack Obama for waiting eight months into his first term as president before nominating a new head of the Transportation Security Administration.[54] After the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 in December 2009, DeMint stated that President Obama had not put enough focus on terrorism while in office.[54]

In 1999, DeMint voted against the NATO intervention during the Kosovo war.[51] DeMint voted to authorize military force in Iraq in 2002.[51] In 2011, DeMint voted in favor of Rand Paul's resolution opposing military involvement in Libya.[38][51] He favored preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons over a policy of containment after their development.[55]

DeMint has also expressed concern about various United Nations treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Law of the Sea Treaty.[56][57] DeMint favors legal immigration and opposes granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.[58] He has expressed opposition to the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 on the basis that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants may cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars.[59][60][61]

DeMint identifies as pro-life, opposing abortion except when the mother's life is in danger[62][63] and opposing research from stem cells derived from human embryos.[64][65] He supports school prayer and introduced legislation to allow schools to display banners including references to God.[62]

DeMint is firmly opposed to same-sex marriage. In his book Now or Never: Saving America from Economic Collapse, DeMint states:

Does government have the right to reshape cultural mores by redefining religious institutions to sanction behavior that is considered immoral by all the world's religions? In America, people should have a right to live with whomever they want, but redefining marriage to promote behavior that is deemed costly and destructive is not the proper role of government.[66]

DeMint also argues that same-sex marriage infringes upon religious liberty:

We just cannot have, particularly the federal government, redefining marriage or telling us what is right or wrong. And if we help America understand that, folks, we're not trying to get the government to do it our way or your way; what we're asking for is the freedom to allow people to live out their faith and values and their lives the way they want. And we believe that our side will win because I'm convinced that most Americans want to have decent moral lives and share our same values. But if the government continues to press in the wrong direction, it begins to change our culture.[67]

DeMint has repeatedly voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.[68] He has also voted to ban same-sex adoption in Washington, D.C.[68] DeMint drew considerable criticism by saying that openly gay teachers should be banned from teaching in public schools.[69]

The Human Rights Campaign gives DeMint a score of 0% on gay rights.[70]

DeMint voted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, in December 2009,[71] and he voted against the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.[72]

He voted in favor of declaring English the official language of the US government.[58]

DeMint served as an informal advisor to Fourth District congressman Bob Inglis from 1993 to 1999.[73] When Inglis kept his promise to serve only three terms and gave up his seat to run for the Senate against Fritz Hollings, DeMint entered the Republican primary for the district, which includes Greenville and Spartanburg. The district is considered the most Republican in the state, and it was understood that whoever won the primary would be heavily favored to be the district's next congressman.

DeMint finished second in the primary behind State Senator and fellow Greenville resident Michael Fair, even though he didn't carry a single county in the district.[74] In the runoff, DeMint defeated Fair by only 2,030 votes.[75] He then defeated Democratic State Senator Glenn Reese with 57 percent of the vote to Reese's 40 percentto date, the only time since 1992 that a Democrat has crossed the 40 percent mark in this district since Inglis recaptured it for the Republicans in 1992.[76] DeMint faced no major-party opposition in 2000, and defeated an underfunded Democrat in 2002.

DeMint declared his candidacy for the Senate on December 12, 2002, after Hollings announced that he would retire after the 2004 elections. DeMint was supposedly the White House's preferred candidate in the Republican primary.

In the Republican primary on June 8, 2004, DeMint placed a distant second, 18 percentage points behind former governor David Beasley and just barely ahead of Thomas Ravenel. Ravenel endorsed DeMint in the following runoff. DeMint won the runoff handily, however.

DeMint then faced Democratic state education superintendent Inez Tenenbaum in the November general election. DeMint led Tenenbaum through much of the campaign and ultimately defeated her by 9.6 percentage points. DeMint's win meant that South Carolina was represented by two Republican Senators for the first time since Reconstruction, when Thomas J. Robertson and John J. Patterson served together as Senators.

DeMint stirred controversy during debates with Tenenbaum when he stated his belief that openly gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools. When questioned by reporters, DeMint also stated that single mothers who live with their boyfriends should similarly be excluded from being educators.[77][78] He later apologized for making the remarks, saying they were "distracting from the main issues of the debate." He also noted that these were opinions based on his personal values, not issues he would or could deal with as a member of Congress.[79] In a 2008 interview, he said that while government does not have the right to restrict homosexuality, it also should not encourage it through legalizing same-sex marriage, due to the "costly secondhand consequences" to society from the prevalence of certain diseases among homosexuals.[80]

DeMint won re-nomination in the Republican Party primary. Democratic Party opponent Alvin Greene won an upset primary victory over Vic Rawl, who was heavily favored. Due to various electoral discrepancies, Greene received scrutiny from Democratic Party officials, with some calling for Greene to withdraw or be replaced.[81] DeMint consistently led Greene by more than 30 points throughout the campaign and won reelection by a landslide.

Prior to the 2010 elections, DeMint founded the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), a political action committee that is "dedicated to electing strong conservatives to the United States Senate" and that is associated with the Tea Party movement.[82][83][84] As of February 2011, DeMint continued to serve as Chair of SCF, which states that it raised $9.1 million toward the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and which endorsed successful first-time Senate candidates Pat Toomey, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio .[85] DeMint also supported Joe Miller of Alaska through the SCF. Miller was an attorney and former federal magistrate and the Tea Party's candidate opposing Lisa Murkowski the incumbent senator in the Alaska primary. Miller won in a close election, however Murkowski ran as a write in candidate and won the election by 39.1% to Miller's 35.1% and by a popular vote of 101,091 to 90,839 respectively.

On October 1, 2010, DeMint, in comments that echoed what he had said in 2004, told a rally of his supporters that openly homosexual and unmarried sexually active people should not be teachers.[86] In response, the National Organization for Women, the National Education Association, the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, GOProud (a GOP group), and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force asked for Demints apology.[77][87]

On December 6, 2012, DeMint announced he would resign from the Senate before the 113th Congress convened in January 2013 to become president of The Heritage Foundation.[4][88]

On December 17, 2012, South Carolina governor Nikki Haley announced that she would name Congressman Tim Scott to fill the vacated seat.[89] A special election was held on November 4, 2014, to fill the remainder of the term. On April 4, 2013, DeMint started his first full day as president of the Heritage Foundation.[90] The Washington Post reported that DeMint's predecessor at the Heritage Foundation, Ed Feulner, was paid a base salary of $477,097 in 2010 (compared to a senator's salary of $174,000) and that year DeMint was one of the poorest members of the Senate, with an estimated wealth of $40,501.[91]

On May 2, 2017, DeMint submitted his resignation after a unanimous vote by the Foundation's board of trustees.[6]

In June 2017, DeMint became a senior advisor to Citizens for Self-Governance, a group which is seeking to call a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution in order to reduce federal government spending and power. According to DeMint, "The Tea Party needs a new mission. They realize that all the work they did in 2010 has not resulted in all the things they hoped for. Many of them are turning to Article V." The proposed constitutional convention would impose fiscal restraint on Washington D.C., reduce the federal government's authority over states, and impose term limits on federal officials.[7]

In 2017, DeMint founded the Conservative Partnership Institute, of which he serves as chairman.[92][93] The stated purpose of the CPI is the professional development of conservative staffers and elected officials.[92]

View original post here:
Jim DeMint - Wikipedia

Posted in South Carolina Stem Cells | Comments Off on Jim DeMint – Wikipedia

Gene & Cell Therapy Defined | ASGCT – American Society of …

Posted: September 24, 2018 at 1:44 pm

Gene therapy is a field of biomedical research with the goal of influencing the course of various genetic and acquired (so-called multi factorial) diseases at the DNA/RNA level. Cell therapy aims at targeting various diseases at the cellular level, i.e. by restoring a certain cell population or using cells as carriers of therapeutic cargo. For many diseases, gene and cell therapy are applied in combination. In addition, these two fields have helped provide reagents, concepts, and techniques that are illuminating the finer points of gene regulation, stem cell lineage, cell-cell interactions, feedback loops, amplification loops, regenerative capacity, and remodeling.

Gene therapy is defined as a set of strategies that modify the expression of an individuals genes or repair abnormal genes. Each strategy involves the administration of a specific nucleic acid (DNA or RNA). Nucleic acids are normally not taken up by cells, thus special carriers, so-called 'vectors' are required. Vectors can be of either viral or non-viral nature.

Cell therapy is defined as the administration of living whole cells for the patient for the treatment of a disease. The origin of the cells can be from the same individual (autologous source) or from another individual (allogeneic source). Cells can be derived from stem cells, such as bone marrow or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), reprogrammed from skin fibroblasts or adipocytes. Stem cells are applied in the context of bone marrow transplantation directly. Other strategies involve the application of more or less mature cells, differentiated in vitro (in a dish) from stem cells.

Historically, the discovery of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s provided the tools to efficiently develop gene therapy. Scientists used these techniques to readily manipulate bacterial and viral genomes, isolate genes, identify mutations involved in human diseases, characterize and regulate gene expression and produce human proteins from genes (e.g. production of insulin in bacteria revolutionized medicine). Later, various viral and non-viral vectors were developed along with the development of regulatory elements (e.g. promoters that regulate gene expression), which are necessary to induce and control gene expression. Gene transfer in animal models of disease have been attempted and led to early success. Various routes of administrations have been explored (injection into the bloodstream, into the ventricles of the brain, into muscle etc).

The development of suitable gene therapy treatments for many genetic diseases and some acquired diseases has encountered many challenges, such as immune response against the vector or the inserted gene. Current vectors are considered very safe and recent gene therapy trials documented excellent safety profile of modern gene therapy products. Further development involves uncovering basic scientific knowledge of the affected tissues, cells, and genes, as well as redesigning vectors, formulations, and regulatory cassettes for the genes. While effective long-term treatments for many genetic and inherited diseases are elusive today, some success is being observed in the treatment of several types of immunodeficiency diseases, cancers, and eye disorders.

Historically, blood transfusions were the first type of cell therapy and are now considered routine. Bone marrow transplantation has also become a well-established medical treatment for many diseases, including cancer, immune deficiency and others. Cell therapy is expanding its repertoire of cell types for administration. Cell therapy treatment strategies include: isolation and transfer of specific stem cell populations, induction of mature cells to become pluripotent cells, administration of effector cells and reprogramming of mature cells into iPSCs. Administration of large numbers of effector cells has benefited cancer patients, transplant patients with unresolved infections, and patients with vision problems.

Several diseases benefit most from treatments that combine the technologies of gene and cell therapy. For example, some patients have a severe combined immunodeficiency disease (SCID) but unfortunately, do not have a suitable donor of bone marrow. Scientists have identified that patients with SCID are deficient in adenosine deaminase gene (ADA-SCID), or the common gamma chain located on the X chromosome (X-linked SCID). Several dozen patients have been treated with a combined gene and cell therapy approach. Each individuals hematopoietic stem cells were treated with a viral vector that expressed a copy of the relevant normal gene. After selection and expansion, these corrected stem cells were returned to the patients. Many patients improved and required less exogenous enzymes. However, some serious adverse events did occur and their incidence is prompting development of theoretically safer vectors and protocols. The combined approach also is pursued in several cancer therapies.

Genome editing (gene editing) has recently gained significant attention, due to the discovery and application of the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) system. Actually, genome editing dates back several years and earlier generation genome editing systems are currently tested in clinical trials (such as zinc-finger nucleases). The aim of genome editing is to disrupt a disease-causing mutation or correct faulty genes at the chromosomal DNA. Genome editing can be performed in the patients own cells in vitro and edited cells can be administered to the patient (thus genome editing can be combined with cell therapy). However, it is also possible to perform genome editing in vivo by administering the genome editing agent packaged in viral and non-viral vectors.

Go here to read the rest:
Gene & Cell Therapy Defined | ASGCT - American Society of ...

Posted in Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Gene & Cell Therapy Defined | ASGCT – American Society of …

Stem Cell Research Program – Grants – portal.ct.gov

Posted: September 24, 2018 at 1:44 pm

Connecticut Stem Cell Research Grants-in-Aid Program

The Connecticut Stem Cell Research Grants-in-Aid Program was established by the Connecticut General Assembly in June 2005 when it passed Connecticut General Statutes 19a-32d through 19a-32g. This legislation appropriates $20 million dollars to support embryonic and human adult stem cell research through June 30, 2007. In addition, for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 2008 through June 30, 2015, the legislation specifies that an additional $10 million dollars should be disbursed to support additional research. In total, at least $100 million in public support will be available over the next ten years for stem cell research.

Lay Summary Example

Below is an example of a lay summary excerpt from a technical report required of all grantees that meets the expectations of the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee:

5. Detailed lay language summary:

There is great promise in embryonic stem cell-based therapies to treat a variety of neurological disorders. It is key that we understand how the transplanted cells may interact with the host brain to guarantee the safety of this approach. We observe that robust transplants of embryonic stem cell-derived neural progenitors in the hippocampus are richly vascularized, associated with multiple blood vessels. In addition, the transplanted cells can migrate on these blood vessels some distance away from the initial transplant site. We are now studying how interactions with the blood vessels may nurture the transplant and support its successful integration into the host. We are also examining the factors that might promote or inhibit the migration of transplanted cells on the surface of existing blood vessels. This interaction could be used to target grafted cells to a specific site. Alternatively this could be a dangerous process we would like to block, as it could lead to cells present in undesirable places.

Significance of recent findings: When embryonic stem cell-derived neural progenitors are transplanted to the central nervous system, the general expectation is that they will remain where transplanted, or perhaps migrate short distances. Our observation that these cells can migrate on blood vessels long distances sets up a red flag: cells may well end up a great distance from where they were intended to be. By understanding the molecular basis for this migration, we hope to be able to control it, specifically inhibit it when the desire is to keep a transplant in place. Alternatively, it may be desirable to use this blood vessel highway to target cells to specific distant sites.

Frequently Asked Questions

How did Connecticuts Stem Cell Research Program come about?

The Connecticut Stem Cell Research Grant Project is the direct result of legislation passed by the General Assembly in 2005 (Connecticut General Statutes 19a-32d through 19a-32g.). This legislation provides public funding in support of stem cell research on embryonic and human adult stem cells. This legislation also bans the cloning of human beings in Connecticut.

Back to Questions

What kinds of research will be eligible for funding?

The Stem Cell Research Fund supports embryonic and human adult stem cell research, including basic research to determine the properties of stem cells.

Back to Questions

Where is the money coming from for this research?

Stem cell research fundscome from the Stem Cell Research Fund. This Fund will receive a total of $100 million dollars of state money over ten years. The General Assembly had set aside $20 million of state money for the purpose of stem cell research through June 2007. An additional $10 million dollars a year over the subsequent eight years will come from the Connecticut Tobacco Settlement Fund. The Stem Cell Research Fund may also contain any funds received from any public or private contributions, gifts, grants, donations or bequests.

Back to Questions

Who oversees the Stem Cell Research Fund?

The Commissioner of the State Department of Public Health (DPH) may make grants-in-aid from the fund. The Connecticut Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee), a legislatively appointed committee established by Connecticut General Statutes 19a-32d through 19a-32g, directs the Commissioner with respect to the awarding of grants-in-aid, and develops the stem cell research application process. The Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee is also required to keep the Governor and the General Assembly apprised of the current status of stem cell research in Connecticut through annual reports commencing June 2007.

The legislation further established a Connecticut Stem Cell Research Peer Review Committee (Peer Review Committee) to review all applications with respect to the scientific and ethical meritsand to make recommendations to the Advisory Committee and the Commissioner of DPH.

Back to Questions

How are the members of the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee determined?

The Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee is made up of 17 members. By statute, the Advisory Committee is chaired by the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH). Other members of the committee are appointed by the Governor and by various leaders of the General Assembly from the fields of stem cell research, stem cell investigation, bioethics, embryology, genetics, cellular biology and business. Committee members commit to a two-year or four-year term of service.

Back to Questions

Who evaluates the merits of the grant applications and decides how the grants are distributed?

The Stem Cell Research Peer Review Committee reviews all grant applications for scientific and ethical merit, guided by the National Academies Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The Stem Cell Research Peer Review Committee makes its recommendations on grants to the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee for consideration. The members of the Stem Cell Peer Review Committee must have demonstrated and practical knowledge, understanding and experience of the ethical and scientificimplications of embryonic and adult stem cell research. The DPH Commissioner appoints all committee members for either two or four-year terms. The Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee directs the Commissioner of the Department of Public Health with respect to the awarding of grants-in-aid.

Back to Questions

Who may apply for the stem cell research grants?

Any non-profit, tax-exempt academic institution of higher education, any hospital that conducts biomedical research or any entity that conducts biomedical research or embryonic or human adult stem cell research may apply for grants from the Connecticut Stem Cell Research Fund.

Back to Questions

What efforts are being made to assure the people of the state of Connecticut that all committee dealings and any research are ethically conducted?

The State of Connecticut is committed to implementing the Stem Cell Research Program according to the highest ethical and scientific standards, and committed to conducting all business activities in a transparent and consumer friendly manner. Meetings of the committee where decisions are being made will comply with Freedom of Information Act requirements for public meetings and public records. Proceedings of all scheduled meetings of the Advisory Board will be transcribed and made available to the public, and when possible, meetings will be televised via local public access television.

Members of the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee are considered to be public officials and are subject to state ethics laws, which require full accountability and transparency. Both the Peer Review and Advisory Committees are responsible for overseeing the standards of research funded from this grant program. Reports on scientific progress are required of grant recipients. Annual financial disclosures are required for all members of the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee.

Back to Questions

Who else is involved with overseeing this project?

The State of Connecticut Department of Public Health, working in conjunction with the legislatively mandated Advisory and Peer Review Committees, is responsible for the overall implementation of the stem cell legislation.Withinthe DPH, the Office of Research and Development is the organizational unit tasked with managing the stem cell research project components.

In addition, the stem cell legislation names Connecticut Innovations as the administrative staff of the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee, assisting the Advisory Committee in developing and implementing the application process, including application reviews and execution of agreements.

Back to Questions

What is the timeline for the application process?

The Advisory Committee developed and issued the first Request for Proposals on May 10, 2006. As of the July 10, 2006 deadline, 70 applications for public funding were received. Applications were made available for peer review on August 4, 2006.On November 21, 2006, the Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee awarded almost $19.8 million for 21 stem cell research proposals.

The second Request for Proposals was issued on July 25, 2007. As of the November 1, 2007 deadline, 94 applications for public funding were received. The Peer Review Committee completed their review and reported by teleconference on March 5, 2008. On April 1, 2008, the SCRAC awarded $9.84 million for 22 stem cell research projects.

The third Request for Proposals was issued on September 24, 2008. As of the December 8, 2008 deadline, 77 applications for public funding were received. The Peer Review Committee completed their review and reported by teleconference on March 17, 2009. On March 31, 2009, the SCRAC awarded $9.8 million for 24 stem cell research projects.

Back to Questions

Which grant applications received funding in 2006?

An Integrated Approach to Neural Differentiation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells, Yale University, Michael P. Snyder, Principal Investigator, $3,815,476.72

Directing hES Derived Progenitor Cells into Musculoskeletal Lineages, University of Connecticut Health Center and University of Connecticut, David W. Rowe, M. D., Principal Investigator, $3,520,000

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Core Facility at Yale Stem Cell Center, Yale University, Haifan Lin, Principal Investigator, $2,500,000

Human ES Cell Core At University of Connecticut and Wesleyan University, University of Connecticut Health Center, Ren-He Xu, Principal Investigator, $2,500,000

DsRNA and Epigenetic Regulation in Embryonic Stem Cells, University of Connecticut Health Center, Gordon G. Carmichael, $880,000.

Alternative Splicing in Human Embryonic Stem Cells, University of Connecticut Health Center, Brenton R. Graveley, Principal Investigator, $880,000

SMAD4-based ChIP-chip Analysis to Screen Target Genes of BMP and TGF Signaling in Human ES Cells, University of Connecticut Health Center, Ren-He Xu, Principal Investigator, $880,000

Directing Production and Functional Integration of Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Neural Stem Cells, Wesleyan University, Laura B. Grabel, Principal Investigator, $878,348.24

Role of the Leukemia Gene MKL in Developmental Hematopoiesis Using hES Cells, Yale University, Diane Krause, Principal Investigator, $856,653.72

Migration and Integration of Embryonic Stem Cell Derived Neurons into Cerebral Cortex, University of Connecticut, Joseph LoTurco, Principal Investigator, $561,631.84

Optimizing Axonal Regeneration Using a Polymer Implant Containing hESC-derived Glia, University of Connecticut, Akiko Nishiyama, $529,871.76

Development of Efficient Methods for Reproducible and Inducible Transgene Expression in Human Embryonic Stem Cells, University of Connecticut Health Center, James Li, Principal Investigator, $200,000

Pragmatic Assessment of Epigenetic Drift in Human ES Cell Lines, University of Connecticut, Theodore Rasmussen, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, $200,000

Cell Cycle and Nuclear Reprogramming by Somatic Cell Fusion, University of Connecticut Health Center, Winfried Krueger, Principal Investigator, $200,000

Function of the Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein in Early Human Neural Development, Yale University, Yingqun Joan Huang, Principal Investigator, $200,000

Quantitative Analysis of Molecular Transport and Population Kinetics of Stem Cell Cultivation in a Microfluidic System, University of Connecticut, Tai-His Fan, Principal Investigator, $200,000

Embryonic Stem Cell as a Universal Cancer Vaccine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Bei Liu, Zihai Li, M. D., Principal Investigators, $200,000

Lineage Mapping of Early Human Embryonic Stem Cell Differentiation, University of Connecticut, Craig E. Nelson, $200,000

Directed Isolation of Neuronal Stem Cells from hESC Lines, Yale University School of Medicine, Eleni A. Markakis, Principal Investigator, $184,407

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Directed Endogenous Neural Progenitor Cell Migration, Yale University School of Medicine, Erik Shapiro, Principal Investigator, $199,975

Generation of Insulin Producing Cells from Human Embryonic Stem Cells, University of Connecticut, Gang Xu, Principal Investigator, $200,000

Back to Questions

Which grant applications received funding in 2008?

Maintaining and Enhancing the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Core at the Yale Stem Cell Center, Yale University Stem Cell Center, New Haven, Haifan Lin, PhD, Principal Investigator, $1,800,000.

Translational Studies in Monkeys of hESCs for Treatment of Parkinsons Disease, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, D. Eugene Redmond, Jr., MD, Principal Investigator, $1,120,000.

Production and Validation of Patient-Matched Pluipotent Cells for Improved Cutaneous Repair, University of Connecticut Center of Regenerative Biology, Storrs, Theodore Rasmussen, PhD., Principal Investigator, $634,880.

Directed Differentiation of ESCs into Cochlear Precursors for Transplantation as Treatment of Deafness, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Ben Bahr, PhD, Principal Investigator, $500,000.

Synaptic Replenishment Through Embryonic Stem Cell Derived Neurons in a Transgenic Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Nada Zecevic, MD, PhD, Principal Investigator, $499,813.

Tyrosone Phosphorylation Profiles Associated with Self-Renewal and Differentiation of hESC, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Bruce Mayer, PhD., Principal Investigator, $450,000.

Directed Differentiation of ESCs into Cochlear Precursors for Transplantation as Treatment of Deafness, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, D. Kent Morest, MD, Principal Investigator, $450,000.

Targeting Lineage Committed Stem Cells to Damaged Intestinal Mucosa, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Daniel W. Rosenberg, PhD., Principal Investigator, $450,000.

Modeling Motor Neuron Degeneration in Spinal Muscular Atrophy Using hESCs, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Xuejun Li, PhD., Principal Investigator, $450,000.

Human Embryonic and Adult Stem Cell for Vascular Regeneration, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Laura E. Niklason, MD, PhD, $450,000.

Effect of Hypoxia on Neural Stem Cells and the Function in CAN Repair, Yale University, New Haven, Flora M. Vaccarino, Principal Investigator, $449,771.40.

Wnt Signaling and Cardiomyocyte Differentiation from hESCs, Yale University, New Haven, Dianqing Wu, Principal Investigator, $446,818.50.

Flow Cytometry Core for the Study of hESC, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Hector Leonardo Aguila, PhD., Principal Investigator, $250,000.

Cortical neuronal protection in spinal cord injury following transplantation of dissociated neurospheres derived from human embryonic stem cells, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Masanori Sasaki, MD, PhD, Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Molecular Control of Pluripotency in Human Embryonic Stem Cell, Yale Stem Cell Center, New Haven, Natalia Ivanova, Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Cytokine-induced Production of Transplantable Hematopoietic Stem Cells from Human ES Cells, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Laijun Lai, PhD, Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Functional Use of Embryonic Stem Cells for Kidney Repair, Yale University, New Haven, Lloyd G. Cantley, Principal Investigator, $200,000.

VRK-1-mediated Regulation of p53 in the Human ES Cell Cycle, Yale University, New Haven, Valerie Reinke, Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Definitive Hematopoitic Differentiation of hESCs under Feeder-Free and Serum-Free Conditions, Yale University, Caihong Qiu, PhD, Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Differentiation of hESC Lines to Neural Crest Derived Trabecular Meshwork Like Cells Implications in Glaucoma, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Dharamainder Choudhary, PhD., Principal Investigator, $200,000.

The Role of the piRNA Pathway in Epigenetic Regulation of hESCs, Yale University, New Haven, Qiaoqiao Wang, PhD., Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Early Differentiation Markers in hESCs: Identification and Characterization of Candidates, University of Connecticut Center for Regenerative Biology, Storrs, Mark G. Carter, PhD., Principal Investigator, $200,000.

Regulation hESC-dervied Neural Stem Cells by Notch Signaling, Yale University, New Haven, Joshua Breunig, MD, Principal Investigator, $188,676.

Back to Questions

Which grant applications received funding in 2009?

Continuing and Enhancing the UCONN-Wesleyan Stem Cell Core, University of Connecticut Stem Cell Center, Farmington, Ren-He Xu, MD, PhD, Principal Investigator, $1,900,000.00.

Williams Syndrome Associated TFII-I Factor and Epigenetic Marking-Out in hES and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Dashzeveg Bayarsaihan, PhD., Principal Investigator, $500,000.00.

Cellular transplantation of neural progenitors derived from human embryonic stem cells to remyelinate the nonhuman primate spinal cord, Yale University, New Haven, Jeffrey Kocsis, PhD., Principal Investigator, $500,000.00.

Mechanisms of Stem Cell Homing to the Injured Heart, University of Connecticut Health Center, Linda Shapiro, PhD., Principal Investigator, $500,000.00.

Originally posted here:
Stem Cell Research Program - Grants - portal.ct.gov

Posted in Connecticut Stem Cells | Comments Off on Stem Cell Research Program – Grants – portal.ct.gov

PRP vs Stem Cell Injections | Southwest Spine and Pain Center

Posted: September 24, 2018 at 1:43 pm

Platelet rich plasma and stem cell therapy are continuously studied for their regenerative benefit in sports medicine and chronic pain treatment. Insurance companies do not currently reimburse these non-surgical treatments because the long-term effects of them need to be studied longer. However, many physicians offer these life-changing treatments to patients in need of restored function, pain relief, and care for knee, ankle, foot, and shoulder injuries for example.

Southwest Spine and Pain Center is proud to announce that we now offer platelet rich plasma (PRP) injection therapy. Patients are encouraged to talk to their Southwest Spine and Pain physician about this treatment option and how it could benefit their chronic condition. With four locations across Utah, Southwest Spine and Pain Center is better able to provide the best pain treatment to suffering patients.

We often hear PRP injections and stem cell treatment grouped together. For PRP injections, a physician uses the patients own blood to separate platelets in a centrifuge. The platelets are then re-injected into the injured area, releasing growth factors that promote natural tissue healing.

Stem cell therapy is a completely different process of extracting rejuvenating cells. For the procedure, stem cells from either bone marrow or fat tissue used in conjunction with platelets. Stem cells from bone marrow, called autologous mesenchymal, produce cartilage and typically used in treating arthritic conditions and sports injuries. Stem cells from fat tissue are utilized with platelets to heal an osteoarthritic joint, for example, to regrow cartilage.

Remarkable results have come from PRP injections as well as stem cell therapy. Common injuries or conditions that are often improved with these treatments include:

To learn more about PRP injections and if you are a candidate for treatment, contact a Southwest Spine and Pain Center physician today.

If chronic pain is impacting your life, don't wait to schedule an appointment at Southwest Spine and Pain Center. With three locations and growing, the pain management specialists at Southwest Spine and Pain Center are dedicated to helping those who suffer from chronic pain live the life they want to! To schedule an appointment, visit our locations tab!

The advice and information contained in this article is for educational purposes only, and is not intended to replace or counter a physicians advice or judgment. Please always consult your physician before taking any advice learned here or in any other educational medical material.

Southwest Spine and Pain Center, 2014

Medical Marketing Solutions, 2014

See the article here:
PRP vs Stem Cell Injections | Southwest Spine and Pain Center

Posted in Utah Stem Cells | Comments Off on PRP vs Stem Cell Injections | Southwest Spine and Pain Center

Southwest Spine and Sports – Pain Management Doctor Arizona

Posted: September 24, 2018 at 1:40 pm

Disc Treatment Overcomes Lifes Speed Bumps

They might look harmless, but even low-rise speed bumps can do serious damage. Travelling at the 35 mph speed limit near the Ontario (CA) airport one night in 2009, Stephen Cases vehicle hit a poorly marked speed bump. The pain was instantaneous, Case said, and excruciating.Read more

I put too much stress on my shoulders when I was redecorating a house, Melano said. I was removing pictures from the house and had my arms up all day, hammering and hanging. The next day, Melano, 78, decided to work on the library in the house. I was on the last run, picking up one more box of books and it felt like a rubber band broke in my left shoulder. Read more

The original back injury remains a mystery, but add a torn hamstring and any active mom would have to slow down any active mom especially when the back injury resulted in two degenerative discs. For Astrid Corretjer, that meant the end of tennis, rollerblading, paddle boarding, and especially mountain biking.Read more

Walking up and down stairs might not seem exciting. For Carol Kichler, though, climbing and descending stairs without excruciating pain is a daily highlight. Kichler, 73, couldnt walk up or down even two steps without agonizing pain before September, when she received stem cell treatments in her knees.Read more

Eds retirement, and accompanying occasional rounds of golf, were threatened by a bad shoulder. A combination of bursitis and a small tear in the rotator cuff of his right shoulder made golf impossible.Read more

The doctors at Southwest Spine & Sports are board certified by the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation with advanced fellowship training in interventional spine care. We specialize in physical medicine, pain management, and comprehensive rehabilitation with one goal in mind restoring quality of life by relieving your pain.

Youll receive expert guidance designed to prevent re-injury and help you stay as active as possible at any age. Together well reduce your pain with innovative nonsurgical solutions that result in a quicker recovery, fewer lost workdays, and enhanced performance.

Who do we treat?

Autologous stem cells, which come from bone marrow aspirate concentrate from a patients own hip bone, are used to treat sports injuries and chronic musculoskeletal conditions. Professional athletes have used stem cells for years now its your turn! If you are a patient with chronic low back pain from degenerative disc disease, joint pain or tendinitis, come in for an evaluation and see if you are a candidate for treatment with one of our regenerative medicine procedures (autologous stem cell concentrate, PRP or Fibrin Disc Sealant). You may also qualify to participate in our ongoing study.

Looking for Regenerative Medicine in Glendale, Phoenix, Scottsdale, or Tempe? Click here or call (480) 860-8998 for a consultation to see how we can help you.

Go here to read the rest:
Southwest Spine and Sports - Pain Management Doctor Arizona

Posted in Arizona Stem Cells | Comments Off on Southwest Spine and Sports – Pain Management Doctor Arizona

Page 1,357«..1020..1,3561,3571,3581,359..1,3701,380..»