It is sure looking like its going to take stem cell stocks a while longer to reach the promised land.
I seriously doubt that there will be anything remarkable in GERN's report, even if they issue a report. The probably threw the baby out with the bathwater!!! Badly designed tests, badly implemented tests, badly reported tests!!! It will probably go down in history as a classical example of how NOT to develop a new drug!!!!!!
Even though ACTC has reported human testing success, we haven't heard the same from the patients. Recall that Maury Hill was the first ACTC patient treated in the 2nd cohort of 100,000 stem cells. She bloggs. Maybe the tests have detected some improvement but she has not indicated that she has noticed anything.
In Maury's case, maybe the disease has progressed too far? Maybe she needed 1,000,000 stem cells? Who knows?
It certainly looks like we are going to need some Phase III, large scale testing before we can determine what is really happening.
The current stem cell research may be like the promise of 163L, lots of initial hype but few really remarkable results.
Before you spin doctors flame me, go back and look at the 163L hype 5-6 years ago!!! It was proclaimed as the all-in-one cancer bullet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Black, while I agree with you on the overly done hype, you apparently are mixing up chemical Imetelstat (not a stem-cell product) and ACTC's RPE cells (a stem-cell product developed from hESC lines using the blastomere technology). Yes, Imetelstat is found to be effective on cancers with short telomeres but Imetelstat by itself is not a stem-cell product . Also, it is not fair to say that Miss Hill is not showing significant improvement with the RPE cell treatment because the trial is still in Ph I or the safety phase. Yes, FDA is extra cautious inforcing the trials move relatively very slowly for the fear of unknown long-term side effects of injecting stem cells in a human body and, hence, the delay. But, I believe, the ACTC trials will be allowed to move much faster than the one like OPC1 because of ACTC trials' localized effect. Also, the ACTC trials area regenerative medical treatment whereas Geron's Imetelstat trial is designed to kill the cancer cells - two entirely different goals.
Also, I see a tight-lip attitude of Geron management, reflective of its overcautiousness and is unfriendly to retail shareholders, whereas the current ACTC management is more transparent and shareholder friendly. Apparently, tight-lipness of Scarlett and Huh stems from both being medical professionals; and Rabin, being a non-technical guy, makes him more open and friendly to shareholders. It's the cultural difference between the two managements. However, I have no doubt that both companies ultimatey will come out with significantly successful products. The difference is how each management will take its company from this stage to the final goal and how we, as retail shareholders, would benefit from the success of the two companies that puzzles me. I am more inclined currently to ACTC in that respect.
yog: not confused. I just included my frustration with the Cancer Cure with comments on 163L. I know that it is NOT stem cell testing.
I must significantly differ with you on Maury Hill. I just went and looked at her blog today. There is nothing that says she has noticed improvement. If I missed something, please post it.
As for ACTC's testing, they say the study is a Phase I/ II. I don't know where the separation between Phase I and Phase II might be. I don't think that I ever saw it defined.
Yes, a Phase I study is for safety. That's in the definition. No doubt about it. However, we have discussed here on the GERN board that ACTC thinks that they will see significant results with somewhere around 100,000 - 200,000 stem cells. Maury was the first with 100,000. So, if we believe what we have been told, there should be some remarkable results in the study!!!! Of course, it might not happen until the 4th cohort of 200,000 stem cells.