Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

cliveandrews

Regulars
  • Content Count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cliveandrews

  1. cliveandrews

    REGROW Act

    Adult stem cells show enormous theraputic potential for treating a large number of degenerative conditions. That promise is already being realized in several other countries whose governments are less hostile to biotech innovation, but in the U.S., their use remains utterly encumbered by the regulatory environment here. As a result, the U.S. is underperforming third-world shitcans like Mexico and Thailand in this vital new arena. To my amazement, Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill), with a Democrat co-sponsor, recently introduced a bill titled the REGROW Act that would drastically reduce the regulatory
  2. The FDA is about to strike again. Five years ago, the agency moved to begin regulating the use of adult stem cells as drugs. While it succeeded at curtailing the use of cells that have been expanded in culture (i.e. grown to greater numbers in an incubator), it did not gain control over "same-day" cell procedures in which cells are taken out of the patient's bone marrow and immediately re-injected in their original number. Lately these "same day" procedures have gained significant traction as viable treatments for orthopedic conditions, and the FDA apparently wants to put a stop to it by passi
  3. I’ve posted on this form before about the arthritis I suffer from and how government regulations are destroying the recent innovations that could potentially revolutionize the treatment of the disease. One such innovation involves adult stem cells that are extracted from a patient's body, cultured in a laboratory to multiply them to greater numbers, and re-injected into an arthritic joint. The cells have been shown to repair the damaged joint and restore the patient’s physical function. In the last 3-4 years, quite a bit of research has piled up demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of
  4. Just to further illustrate how much havoc the the FDA is wreaking on the cause, here's the second of the three questions I sent him: 2. I understand that your work focuses on in-vitro tissue engineering approaches to treating cartilage ailments, however, I’ve also read about several potential in-vivo, regenerative approaches to treating OA that apparently show promise. One such approach, direct injections of mesenchymal stem cells, has apparently been shown to have the potential to regenerate osteoarthritic cartilage (here's one study documenting this). Although the FDA shut this down in 201
  5. I got a reply today. It makes me so happy that the FDA protects the public...from the cure for the nation's leading cause of disability!! __________________ Dear Clive, Below in your original email you will find very brief responses. I am sorry in advance that I cannot provide fuller responses to such inquiries. The best of health. Kyriacos (Kerry) Kyriacos A. Athanasiou, Ph.D., P.E. Distinguished Professor of Biomedical Engineering and Orthopaedic Surgery Child Family Professor of Engineering University of California Davis Editor-in-Chief, Annals of Biomedical Engineering ath
  6. I've decided to write a letter to the researcher in question. Here's what I have so far; it includes everything I want to ask. However, it seems as though I'm bombarding him with too many questions, and it also seems too long. Is a letter like this appropriate, and can anyone suggest appropriate edits? Would it be better to first ask him if he would be willing to answer questions, then send him the questions in a separate document? Any advice would be appreciated. Dear Dr. Athanasiou, I hope this letter doesn't come as a nuisance. I'm writing because your work with articular cartilage
  7. I am afflicted with a rare and potentially devastating muscuoloskeltal disorder—osteoarthritis, a.k.a. degenerative joint disease, in virtually all of my joints. While many millions of people have osteoarthritis in at least one joint (it is the nation's leading cause of diability), I have it everywhere, which cumulatively is the mother of all orthopedic problems. Although the disease has progressed much slower than I originally expected, and is still in its early stages of progression after eight years, it's slowly getting worse. Osteoarthritis, if you don't know, is degenation of the cart
  8. There were no damages and I don't intent to sue. A doctor serious misjudged a serious situation and provided some bizarrely erroneous medical information that even a lay person should know is wrong.
  9. If a doctor gives you grossly negligent medical advice, is there anything wrong with filing a complaint with the state agency that regulates physician licensure?
  10. When I started the thread, I was seriously considering doing what I said; I have since vetoed the idea.
  11. I'm not going to do anything more than leave him a damning review online. It makes me irate that I have no real recourse, which I why I fantasize about doing stuff like messing up his office.
  12. You're wrong. It's wrong to dismiss the role that the podiatrist's terrible judgment played in precipitating my injury. By first pathetically misdiagnosing my running injury, and then prescribing a course of treatment that was both worthless and harmful, he needlessly created an abnormal danger that I had no way to be aware of. He is culpable.
  13. The running injury (shin splints) for which I originally sought treatment, and the arthritis that resulted from that treatment, are two different issues. The podiatrist in question misdiagnosed the cause of my shin splints and prescribed a course of treatment that was preposterously inappropriate. Most doctors would not have done that. However, I would not reasonably expect most doctors to understand how that treatment would lead to the injuries I sustained.
  14. So that doctors and therapists will stop questioning my mental health when I complain of serious problems that haven't been diagnosed and that they can't see.
  15. There are a handful of reasons I can't take this to court, the least of which is that the statute of limitations has expired. It is bordering on impossible to prove the relationship between this doctor's advice and the onset of my joint damage. At the time I originally tried to pursue a malpractice case, I couldn't even get my injuries diagnosed, let alone could I get other medical personnel to endorse the mechanism of injury I described here.
  16. #1 - This argument is an appeal to authority. Yes, I know some things that doctors don't, because like I said, the particular issue falls outside the scope of their normal practice. None of the doctors that I have seen have likely ever had a patient who injured himself in the manner that I did. Also, it happens to be the case that many doctors are simply not all that knowledgeable due to their second-handedness and the facts that their thinking revolves around what they were taught in school and they believe whatever they hear from people in positions of authority (in academica, government, et
  17. I agree, but I ran for love of the sport, not "cardio."
  18. No, and I'm 100% certain that he didn't know.
  19. Yes, I've seen docotors, but they haven't been able to diagnose my injuries. The doctors can't see the cartilage damage because it's too mild to appear on X-ray imaging. I realize that this may sound grandiose, but I've found that in general, doctors aren't very educated about the nature of cartilage injuries. None of the doctors I have dealt with seem to be aware that a negative X-ray doesn't rule out cartilage damage, but only confirms it if it's advanced enough that the evidence is conspicuous. I am 100% certain what the injury is based on the symptoms and history, but the doctors aren't pr
  20. Not seriously or competitively; only on a limited basis and with uncomfortable consequences, and doing so may accelerate the degenerative process. But I'm over running. The worst consequence is that it cuts me off from the careers I want.
  21. You know what, I shouldn't have acted on whim, but the fact that I did doesn't negate the fact that he gave me horrible, dangerous medical advice, and I have every right to denigrate him because he's a pathetic excuse for a doctor and his practice is a public health hazard.
  22. By the time I decided to discard the orthoses, I knew that the man I was dealing with was an irresponsible zealout for them. He has the mentality that the human foot is somehow innately defective and requires lifelong coddling in the form of massive orthoses, as though he hates the foot in its natural state. Had I expressed a desire to do so, he would not have advised me to make a slow, gradual transition back to normal ambulation; he is a quack who adamantly opposes normalcy and would never have approved of abandoning the orthotics. It was exactly that realizaion that caused me to lose all co
  23. Dispensing advice that destroys a person's ability to function normally isn't medicine, it's quackery, and the blame for the outcome falls on the quack.
×
×
  • Create New...