LA Times’ Michael Hiltzik who said “Trounson and Thomas --- miraculously disingenuous” may be too polite. If take a look at Prop71, probably something all California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) ICOC board members should do, the law was almost written bullet-proof for human pluripotent stem/progenitor cells. So far, only human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) fit into that category. However, according to CIRM’s own statistics on their website, ~ $900 millions out of $1.4 billion of Prop71 funds have been awarded to those who are NOT doing pluripotent stem/progenitor research, such as mesenchymal adult cells, endogenous tissue cells, skin cells, drug development, cancer research, gene therapy, antibody therapy, protein therapy, which can go on to become a very long list of selling stem cell frauds & lies where CNN should really look into. In the remaining awards of ~$500 millions for CIRM proudly denounce any public criticisms, many were actually gone to disguised stem cell research, such as abnormal induced pluriptoent somatic cells (iPS cells) invented by those lucrative opponents of hESC research after Prop71 was passed. How can CIRM pretend that they have followed any rules & regulations of the law? How can CIRM pretend that they have made California’ crucial life-saving hESC research impossible to get lawful public funds from Prop71 whereas given unlawful stem cell frauds and bad sciences of their selected individuals the green light as law-abiding?
It’s not just bad sciences or selling stem cell frauds & lies, CIRM has stepped over the ethical boundary to cover up some serious scientific misconducts using unlawful non-transparent grant review procedures. Martin Pera of USC has never done any defined culture work for pluripotent stem cells, we did, how come our proposal could not even pass CIRM pre-application selection, whereas Alan Trounson gave his own personal connection Martin Pera $Ms for developing defined culture systems? Yang Xu of UCSD has never done any heart cell work, we did, how come our proposal could not even pass CIRM pre-application selection, whereas Alan Trounson gave David Baltimore & Martin Pera’s personal connection Yang Xu more $Ms for cardiomyocytes? Why would Alan Trounson deny against the law that we even had any hESC grants for CIRM consideration of Prop71 funding? Although we can only speculate on the magnitude such scientific misconducts from our prospective, it may more widespread than anyone could imagine. How can CIRM pretend denying hESC researchers and research for lawful funding from Prop71 whereas covering up their internal scientific misconducts as law-abiding?
We had some questions for CIRM RFA 12-05 at CIRM Strategic Partnership Webinar (see below), including if CIRM will provide some help for the large up-front investment, otherwise, it would be “sunk costs” not incentives for Prop71 therapy development; this RFA gives green light to drug development and therapy not eligible for Prop71 funds and makes it difficult for new stem cell therapy of Prop71 enter clinical trials and the therapeutic market. However, Ellen Feigal/CIRM have never provided any answers to our questions. Someone at the Webinar specifically asked Ellen Feigal if mesenchymal adult cells, which are not pluripotent stem/progenitor cells of the law, can apply. Ellen Feigal said yes. To clarify it, this person asked Ellen Feigal again the same question. Ellen Feigal said yes again as if she is the law, nothing about Prop71 was mentioned. We all know Ellen Feigal came from UC Davis, which should not make any research of UC Davis become fundable by Prop71 as she has been doing very publicly. I asked CIRM to provide a detailed clarification to why CIRM has given Prop71 stem cell research and therapy development such a difficult time to get funding whereas given those research and development not eligible for Prop71 funds the green light? CIRM has never responded.
From: Xuejun H Parsons [mailto:parsons@SDRMI.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 4:38 PM
To: StrategicPartnershipWebinarQuestions@cirm.ca.gov
Cc: 'Xuejun H Parsons'
Subject: Strategic Partnership Webinar Questions
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 4:38 PM
To: StrategicPartnershipWebinarQuestions@cirm.ca.gov
Cc: 'Xuejun H Parsons'
Subject: Strategic Partnership Webinar Questions
1. Emerging regenerative medicine start-ups have very promising human embryonic stem cell therapy development for clinical trials that would meet the scientific merits of Prop71, but would not be unable to get co-funding from big industry/pharm or have sufficient assets, may not be able to meet the capital requirements of this RFA. Will CIRM provide some kind of help for the capital requirements and partnership between stem cell therapy start-ups and big pharms? Otherwise, the partnership would become a block for stem cell start-ups & stem cell therapy development, not incentives to Prop71’s clinical trial of stem cell therapy as this RFA intends.
2. Prop71 fund/capital is earmarked for pluriprotent stem/progenitor therapy/clinical trials. This RFA does not indicate the clinical trial project should be human pluripotent stem/progenitor cell therapy of Prop71. Will CIRM just fund any kind of clinical trials, such as conventional drug development & pills of company that already had the connections with big pharm/industry/capital (e.g., small molecule or biologics candidates)? New promising stem cell therapy development would not be able to compete with those big drug development companys for Prop71 capitals. This strategic partnership RFA would be more of an incentive to those drug development company/Pharms than to clinical trials of stem cell therapy of Prop71, block the better and more affordable stem cell therapy development of Prop71, and make it difficult for stem cell therapy enter clinical trials and the therapeutic market.
No comments:
Post a Comment