CIRM Grant Review Not In Accordance with Proposition 71 --- CIRM Made Up Scores & Reviews with Biased Reviewers to Embezzle State Fund & Resources to Stem Cell Con Men Tied to CIRM Officials

According to California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) official grants policy via this link: http://www.cirm.ca.gov/sites/default/files/files/funding_page/NPGAP_11012012.pdf, CIRM Application Review should be in accordance with Proposition 71 & pursuant to Proposition 71 & consistent with Proposition 71. In accordance with Proposition 71, the Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group (Grants Working Group or GWG) makes funding recommendations to the ICOC. Pursuant to Proposition 71 (Health and Safety Code section 125290.60), the ICOC has established criteria for the evaluation of Applications by the GWG, including: A demonstrated record of achievement in the areas of pluripotent stem cell and progenitor cell biology and medicine ---. Consistent with Proposition 71, only the 15 scientist members of the GWG shall score Applications for scientific merit ---. However, CIRM grants reviews and awards have not been in accordance with Proposition 71 & pursuant to Proposition 71 & consistent with Proposition 71.

Not in accordance with Proposition 71 & pursuant to Proposition 71, > $ 1 billion of CIRM awards have gone to those stem cell con men who have no “demonstrated record of achievement in the areas of pluripotent stem cell and progenitor cell biology and medicine” but have financial ties to CIRM president, vice president, chair, directors, reviewers, and ICOC. Not in accordance with Proposition 71 & pursuant to Proposition 71, none of the university physicians in CIRM last round of faculty awards have demonstrated any record of achievement in the areas of pluripotent stem cell and progenitor cell biology and medicine. Not consistent with Proposition 71, CIRM officials not in the GWG, including CIRM president Alan Trounson & vice president Ellen Feigal & directors with 3 biased & conflict of interest (COI) unidentifiable reviewers selected by themselves, have been setting up grants selection criteria and making up CIRM policy according to their own opinions to score applications & select their own financial interests. Not consistent with Proposition 71, CIRM officials sell snake oil purveyors & make anti-Prop 71 comments in CIRM RFAs (e.g., CIRM RFA 12-02 to 12-06) and grant review statements, such as claiming “direct differentiation is the future approach” against scientific evidences. So CIRM officials can cover up Prop 71 stem cell research & make up scores & reviews themselves to ask the ICOC board in public meetings to give their companies/associates/institutions hundreds of millions, such as direct differentiation/reprogramming/iPS cells & MSC & tissue cells of UCs (no any stem cells involved, not even stem cell research) against CIRM grants policy & Prop 71. Whether their cells and hundreds of million dollar snake oil purveyor projects would work after they get the money would end up be the taxpayers & CA problems.

CIRM official grants policy & Prop 71 do not have anything about pre-application, nor anything about no appeal for pre-application as made up by Allan Trounson, Ellen Feigal & CIRM directors. Even if ICOC changed the law without any official amendment or notifying the State government, should CIRM pre-application also be in accordance with Proposition 71 & pursuant to Proposition 71 & consistent with Proposition 71? Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are the most potential stem cells for regenerative medicine & the priority of Prop 71. Any hESC research proposals of CIRM applicants should go directly to full application if CIRM grant review, indifference of pre- or full applications, is in accordance with Proposition 71 & pursuant to Proposition 71 & consistent with Proposition 71. Anything less only demonstrated CIRM officials & reviewers financial or scientific conflicts of interest that had a negative impact on the review process and resulted in a flawed review according to CIRM official grants policy.

Clinical applications of hESC therapy derivatives provide the right alternate for many incurable diseases & major health problems that the regular mode of treatment cannot. Each single one of those world-wide major health problems cost the health care system or taxpayers more than $10 billion annually. CIRM chair, president, vice president, directors, & ICOC are bound by the law to ensure Prop 71 go to stem cell research with high economic impact, not their own companies & institutions with financial ties. CIRM patient advocates are supposed to advocate stem cell research as the cure for patients, not the diseases. However, CIRM > $1.5 billion awards tell a different story of improper use of state fund & resources. CIRM president, vice president, & directors openly claim that they do not select Prop 71 stem cell research that has economic impact of >$10 billion annually for consideration & funding, but those snake oil purveyors of their own opinions & financial ties, such as direct differentiation & MSC. CIRM even gave a huge amount of Prop 71 to make the diseases to endanger public health, such as making very dangerous malicious cancer cells from skin by calling it as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells, no scientific evidence for self-renewal by the definition of stem cells). > $1.5 billion awards later, CIRM portfolio still lacks any representation to provide solution, treatment, or cure for heart disease or any other major health problems that clinical application of hESC therapy derivatives would. If has, CIRM officials do not have to waste another $300,000 state fund to degrade its economic impact to some job numbers and taxes with trivial impact to state’s economy.  

Why would CIRM president Allan Trounson, vice president Ellen Feigal & Directors, chair & ICOC be so resistant to transparency and accountability in government grant review process, not even up to the standard of transparency in Prop 71, if they have nothing to hide? Any responsible person would think it is CIRM officials’ responsibility to identify problems and loopholes in grant review process that jeopardy Prop 71 & the mission of CIRM, and make the recommendation to ICOC, to do things in accordance with Proposition 71 & pursuant to Proposition 71 & consistent with Proposition 71 according to CIRM official grants policy, rather than make up the rules and policy themselves to cover up their improper use of state fund & resources. However, CIRM top officials such as Ellen Feigal & directors claimed that they do not do their job according to CIRM official grants policy, even though they are paid top dollars from public fund. Instead of showing any support to Prop 71 & ensuring Prop 71 go to stem cell research, CIRM top officials & directors have been intentionally giving Prop 71 stem cell research in CA a difficult time to apply for Prop 71 funding, issuing RFAs and setting eligibility & grant review criteria against Prop 71, withholding state fund and resources from Prop 71 stem cell research against the law, sending applicants back some shocking anti-stem-cell-research & ant-Prop 71 comments & scores only those stem cell con men would say again and again, making Prop 71 stem cell research applicants have to go appeal, even changing the law themselves to use pre-application to counteract transparency & accountability & denying appeal in public; so those associates in UCs/Company tied to Ellen Feigal & CIRM board can easily get hundreds of millions from Prop 71. What would we call something like that in public? Government corruption & improper use of state fund and resources!!! If CIRM top officials & directors can make and have already made the changes of the law whenever they like and whatever they like to fit their own financial interest, why would they need to waste another $700,000 state fund to pay IOM to make the recommendation?

CIRM is publically well known for falsifying grant review statements for snake oil purveyors, such as CIRM review statements for Stem Cell Inc & disease teams tied to Ellen Feigal & CIRM board. CIRM pre-application scores & comments, which are not even close to equitable & informed review comments made by someone who have relevant scientific expertise, could be easily falsified by Ellen Feigal & CIRM directors with reviewers tied to themselves, considering > 1 billion of Prop 71 fund has gone to someone with financial conflicts of interest. It is hard to think 3 different highly-educated persons with different expertise and background would give exactly the same comments & scores, make the same errors & anti-Prop 71 opinions that are completely in common with Ellen Feigal & CIRM directors’ comments & opinions. Prop 71 requires 15 members on working group board to score grants and make recommendation to ICOC, and the 15 reviewers in GWG are publically identifiable according to Prop 71. Why would CIRM president, vice president, & directors change the law to use 3 outside unidentifiable reviewers not even in the GWG to score applications & cover up their outside pre-application reviewers tied to themselves against the law? If they are really expertise, they should have no shame of identifying themselves, so the public can know who are those so-called experts or stem cell con men hidden behind CIRM directors, Ellen Feigal, & Alan Trounson.

I want to ask CIRM top officials what they are going to do to fix flawed grant review against scientific evidences & having COI. Only UC & Sanford consortium groups with members on CIRM board have financial interests in direct differentiation & reprogramming, which has conflict of interest with Prop 71 & hESC research of regenerative medicine startup with no member on CIRM board. If Ellen Feigal is working for CA state stem cell agency not just her few industry & UC ties, her productive response for anyone like a state official should be like “I cannot believe this, what can we do to prevent flawed grant review from happening again.” Instead, she would never call me back, even hanged up on me. Do CIRM officials only serve the financial interests of CIRM board members and their few close connections such as Larry Goldstein/Jean Loring/Deepak Srivastava, not Prop 71?

Last year, CIRM top officials & directors refused my multiple requests to appeal CIRM biased & COI grant reviews for clinical application of hESC therapy derivatives urgent to patients & Prop 71. In urgent need of funding to keep running crucial hESC resources & infrastructure of regenerative medicine start up built with millions of taxpayers’ money, I had to go to ICOC public meeting to bring their attention and plead for CIRM to give Prop 71 funding to keep critical hESC research & medical innovation going vital to Prop 71 & extending healthy life and reducing the burden of illness & disability. I asked CIRM directors for some time and assistance to show some slides of those amazing hESC neuronal & heart cells that may bring hope to patients, CIRM directors said no and would only gave me 5 min. to speak. And I had to sit through a whole day ICOC meeting, probably the most bureaucratic meeting, for ICOC members, Alan Trounson & Ellen Feigal & Craig Venter to talk about giving $6 millions of CA stem cell research & cure fund to an out-of-state fruit fly person in Buck Institute tied to NIH CRM director Mahendra Rao & ISSCR (International Society for Stem Cell Research), another $40 millions to Larry Goldstein/Craig Venter/Jean Loring, and another $100 millions to UCs & their companies, as if it is their money, not even any slightest concern for improper use of state fund & resources, not even any slightest interest in Prop 71 & stem cell research & cures for patients. If we know that Ellen Feigal has close tie to NIH CRM director Mahendra Rao and ISSCR that overly favor their opinions to iPS cells & direct reprogramming & against Prop 71, perhaps we would not be too shocked to see Ellen Feigal have helped CIRM to make up scores & reviews with biased reviewers tied to ISSCR & NIH director Rao to embezzle hundreds of millions of state fund & resources to stem cell con men tied to CIRM officials against Proposition 71 against CIRM official grants policy via this link: http://www.cirm.ca.gov/sites/default/files/files/funding_page/NPGAP_11012012.pdf. Now they have got their money for their own company/institute and connect, got a lot, and want more. I wonder Stem Cell Inc & UC Davis & CIRM directors’ institutions/companies have not made their adult cells & projects work for any patients any diseases for >20 years, how are those CIRM top officials & directors going to make their cells & hundreds of million dollar snake oil purveyor projects to work for patients, or they are just some super con men in government funding agencies?