Quote: "Yes the "truth" authored by renown eminent PhDs, MDs, and Ophthalmologists is clearly stated in the Peer Review Lancet Oct2014 publication. "
Wow, "renown" and Ph.Ds and M.D.'s - like micro studies by those kind of folks have Neeeeeeever had problems or issues before, LOL?? Only like EVERY DAY OF EVERY YEAR for as far back as one wants to look- legions of them working for biotechs and "big pharma" being legend for "studied" with ole little "problems" found out later in them. Forget the "renown" whatever- it means nothing IMO and makes no difference. There's studies published by the dump truck full all over this planet every day- and a huge percentage are from "renown" somebodies and most of those "studies" end up leading nowhere or are later proven incorrect or flawed or as "having problems" etc. I can go to PubMed right now and go back and read 10 plus years of "studies" and "papers" littered with M.D. and Ph.D. titles all over um- from top universities all over this planet- and most of those "studies" either amounted to nothing later, went nowhere or later were proven incorrect, the vast majority. That's just the way life works.
Lets look at some FACTS of that ole Lancet publication versus the msg board HYPE about it. Lets look at the author's own words and how many times then insert words like or similar to "maybe" or "this could" or "it's possible this could" or "we believe this may" or "there were adverse" or "we did find issues" or "this is not conclusive" or any similar variations thereof. Lets just take a few snippets- EXACT WORDS from the ole Lancet article to see how much the authors believe the MYTH OF THE STOCK MSG BOARD that this is all a 100% done deal, that it "proves anything beyond doubt" that it's months or maybe a yr from commercialization and ready to go as a "human treatment" etc. Lets see what they, the authors and the Lancet ACTUALLY SAY versus msg board "revisionists" of the actual article
EVERYTHING as quoted VERBATIM from the Lancet:
"Adverse events were associated with vitreoretinal surgery and immunosuppression. "
" Our results suggest that hESC-derived cells could provide a potentially safe new source of cells for the treatment of various unmet
medical disorders requiring tissue repair or replacement."
"Funding Advanced Cell Technology."
"Statistical analysis
The sample size in these studies was not based on
statistical power calculations. The size of the patient
population in the studies was not sufficient to permit a
conclusive statistical analysis. Summary data for each
dose group and for the two study populations were used
for the assessment of adverse events, quality of life, and
visual acuity information."
" and
thus in the patient groups we studied there seem to be no
complications associated specifically with hESC-derived
retinal pigment epithelium."
"Complications
were associated with systemic immunosuppression in
some of the older patients with age-related macular
degeneration (appendix), suggesting that future
trials might include a modified immunosuppression
regimen for older patients."
" Additionally, the possibility of
a placebo effect and examiner bias is inherent in the
study design because both examiner and patient were
aware of the eye that was undergoing surgery. Other
potential sources of bias in the measurement include
improvement due to repeat testing and intersession
variability. "
" Our results suggest that
hESC-derived cells could provide a potentially safe new
source of cells for the treatment of a variety of unmet
medical conditions caused by tissue loss or dysfunction. "
Just a FEW FACTS from the Lancet. NOTHING is stated as "proven safe" and /or conclusive. It's FULL of hypotheticals, maybes, we hope, we think, it might, etc. NOTHING is claimed "proven" and slam dunked as is claimed on this msg board over and over and over again. NOTHING.
