Michael Joyce is a multimedia producer at HealthNewsReview.org and tweets as @mlmjoyce
Ten years ago this probably wouldn’t even have been a topic of conversation.
If it had, it likely would have been about medical tourism. There would’ve been outrage directed at “third world” countries who allow unregulated and unproven stem cell “therapies” to be offered to desperate patients.
Well, that concern is now closer to home.
There are now hundreds of such clinics across the U.S. The number of clinics is growing, more people are being hurt, state and federal oversight is shockingly inadequate, and the question has become urgent: What can we do about it?
That’s precisely why we produced a recent podcast and sought out the perspectives of these people:
It’s also why we’re hosting a Tweet chat about stem cells that will bring together journalists, stem cell researchers, ethicists, and hopefully many patients and family members.
The chat will be held on Wednesday, August 9 from 2 to 3 p.m. EDT under the hashtag #stemcellhype.
Questions we’ll be discussing during the chat include:
Stem cell therapies — when properly researched and applied — hold great promise. That makes it all the more critical to openly discuss stem cell interventions that are not evidence-based, not regulated, promoted in misleading ways, and have the potential to cause harm.
Please join the conversation!
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
For breakfast, @GarySchwitzer swallows 2 observational studies with an anti-irritant chaser. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/for-breakfast-give-me-2-observational-studies-and-an-anti-irritant/#.XvtqMk8i5e8.twitter
Sitting & cancer...alcohol & improved cognition. Waking up to a double whammy of miscommunicated observational studies.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/for-breakfast-give-me-2-observational-studies-and-an-anti-irritant/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like