Legal Assaults on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A Sanford-Burnham Lab Technician’s Blackmail

Everyone knows that those opponents of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research love to go to court for ridiculous reasons, such as contestable job threats to the superior legal status of a couple of adult stem cell researchers. So much so even a lab technician in Sanford-Burnham knew how to abuse the law. As we announced publication of Regenerative Medicine Startup’s important hESC research advances and breakthroughs as the only available cures/treatments urgent for patients suffering from heart attack and heart disease [see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419496/ released by NIH public access and Press Release: Mending the Borken Heart — Towards Clinical Application of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy Derivatives], those opponents of hESC research know their legal status to steal public fund from stem cell research is numbered, even reckon on making baseless false complaints and legal threats to blackmail editors as their last resort to prevent the release of our important hESC research to the scientific community. We are shocked to learn that Andrew Crain, Evan Snyder’s lab technician at Sanford Burnham, made repeat unauthorized offenders behind our back to retract Regenerative Medicine Startup’s original hESC research that he has no knowledge no contribution by false complaints, as if it is being stolen from him; as if Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, built with California public funds for stem cell research (Prop 71) and required by the law to open to all stem cell researchers in San Diego scientific community, only belongs to Andrew’s boss Evan Snyder; as if Andrew Crain, Evan Snyder, Vincent Chen, Jean Loring generated any stem cell research data. In Andrew Crain’s exact reckless bully words --- “--- if not retracted immediately ---, legal action will be strongly pursued by our insitute and the NIH will be notified ---”. To see if Andrew Crain’s complaint has any truth in it or it has violated every canon of scientific conduct, maybe we should ask Andrew Crain, or any other plagiarizers Andrew Crain would like to name, if he can provide a single piece of data in this paper to show it was done by him, or write a interpretation for our data showed in this paper, where the data was from, what was for, how the experiment was designed, what was the question we want to answer, and how did we answer it. Why Andrew Crain or Evan Snyder, or any other repeat offenders Andrew Crain would like to name, dared not to send their complaints to me? May be he is totally aware that he is making false complaints and that making false claims or lying in front of judge is serious scientific misconduct or felony if he goes to court. Andrew Crain, Evan Snyder, Vincent Chen, and Jean Loring and their institutes care nothing about stem cell research, maybe their financial conflicts of interest are the real reason that Andrew Crain made the repeat false complaints to prevent publication and release of important hESC research of Regenerative Medicine Startup. If simply see how Evan Snyder/Vincent Chen/Yang Xu plagiarized Dr. Parsons’ original research data for California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) grants without any collaboration agreement or permission of Dr. Parsons, violated every canon of scientific conduct, but they never retract public stem cell research fund they have stolen immediately, WHY? If simply see how Evan Snyder, an adult stem cell researcher claimed himself to be the west coast correspondent of NIH and founder of Southern California Stem Cell Consortium, and Sanford Burnham executives lobbied CIRM to steal hundreds of millions of Prop 71 from hESC research through closely-connected Southern California consortium club members that include Larry Goldstein, Yang Xu, Inder Verma, Jean Loring, Vincent Chen, Catriona Jamieson, Leanne Jones, Kristin Baldwin, Bing Ren, and Clive Svendsen (more can be found listed on Stem Cell Meetings on the Mesa), violated every canon of scientific conduct, but they never retract public stem cell research fund they have stolen immediately, WHY? If simply see how Evan Snyder’s Duke, Florida, Harvard connections would give Robert Wechsler-Reya of Sanford-Burnham and those who have never done any stem cell research $ Ms of CIRM funding as ring leader awards, violated every canon of scientific conduct, but they never retract public stem cell research fund they have stolen immediately, WHY? If simply see how Evan Snyder and Sanford-Burnham executives and their consortium members lobbied CIRM to set up many exclusionary unlawful eligibility criteria and issue conflicts of interest RFAs to make sure public stem cell research to come their way without having to generate any scientific data, violated every canon of scientific conduct and Prop 71, but they never retract public stem cell research fund they have stolen immediately, WHY? If simply see why CIRM would set up many exclusionary unlawful eligibility criteria for their RFAs, such as leadership awards have to be out of state, cell line derivation awards have to be iPS adult cells, faculty awards have to be MD, etc., and who have been the biggest financial beneficiary of such conflicts, violated very canon of Prop 71 and Federal and State Laws. If simply see why Sanford-Burnham/UC connect and their associated Crops (e.g., Viacyte, International Stem Cell Corp, Capricor, ACT, Cedars Sinai, Pfizer, Millipore, Johnson & Johnson) would have seminars, meetings, public propaganda events closely corresponding to CIRM RFAs and awards. If simply see why CIRM would give Vincent Chen $Ms for iPS cell conflict of no Prop 71 scientific merit, while block hESC research of Prop 71 scientific merits, and who would be the financial beneficiary of such conflicts, violated every canon of scientific conduct and Prop 71, but Vincent Chen never retract public stem cell research fund he has stolen immediately, WHY? Voice of Regenerative Medicine (VORM) condemn such reckless bullies who have no knowledge no contribution of scientific research data but scientific misconduct and financial conflicts to falsify statements to prevent publication of hESC research breakthroughs and advances release to the scientific community.