“The main commercial sources appear to be the Embryonic Tissues Center in the Ukraine; Medra, Inc, in the Dominican Republic; the Brain Cell (sic) Therapeutic Clinic (formerly the Health Restoration Medical Center) in Mission Viejo, California”
http://www.quackwatch.org/06ResearchProjects/stemcell.html
The Brain THERAPEUTICS Medical Clinic has NO involvement whatsoever in offering or participating in embryonic stem cell therapy. Steenblock Research Institute (SRI), a 501(c)3 nonprofit research institute located in San Clemente (CA.) does gather data garnered from the systematic use of umbilical cord progenitor (stem) cells by a group of foreign-based physicians who treat various neurological diseases and conditions. In an ongoing pilot study in which eight (8) children received an infusion of pure (CD34+/CD133) umbilical cord stem cells, results indicate that all 8 (eight) experienced clinically and statistically significant improvements in various motor skill and cognitive functions. See Links section to access one published paper.
Dr. Barrett should try contacting the people, clinics and institutes he writes about before posting information to the Quackwatch website. As a journalist, he owes it to his readers to at least ascertain whether he possesses accurate information and facts.
Dr. Barrett also states:
At least two other clinics have begun to advertise stem cell treatment. The Brain Cell (sic) Therapeutic Clinic, run by David Steenblock, D.O., who claims to have "put together a number of growth factors and natural products that are known to promote and protect new brain cells" and calls stem cell therapy a "new and exciting treatment for brain regeneration." (This is an endogenous stem cell mobilizing and activity enhancing program. Endogenous -- within the patient. Not exogenous -- introduced into the patient by IV or injection).
So why didn’t Dr. Barret bother to contact Dr. Steenblock concerning the technical details that underlie what is posted on www.strokedoctor.com -- as well as supportive documentation and citations from the scientific record that validates what he (Steenblock) asserts? Again, this does not reflect a very high standard of journalistic thoroughness.
Also, Dr. Barrett did not bother to ask for any input from Dr. Steenblock concerning the circumstances and legal wrangling that transpired between him and the California state osteopathic board that culminated in a compromise “sign off” on the regulatory actions (Barrett posted). Professional medical journalists usually solicit comments from the subject of a story or posting prior to going to press (as it were).
There were mitigating circumstances and issues not reflected in the “sign off” regulatory order. For example, one of the patients cited was seen only once and apparently disregarded advice given by Dr. Steenblock.
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/steenblock1.html
Dr. Barrett wrote:
“In 1991, David Alan Steenblock, D.O., of San Clemente, California, was charged with negligence in connection with two patients he had treated. One was a seriously ill 13-year-old girl who he saw over a 5-month period and allegedly misdiagnosed, mistreated, and failed to refer to a specialist. The other was a man who he allegedly treated with adrenal cortical extract for a complaint of fatigue. In 1994, the case was settled with a stipulation under which he agreed to serve five years of probation, pay $10,000 for costs, and take extra continuing education courses in pharmacology, medical charting, and ethics.”
Now look at this from the Regulatory Agreement:
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Amended Accusation No. 91-1, but for the purposes of this stipulation and for no other purpose, respondent agrees he is in violation of sections 2234(b) and 2234(d) of the Code as alleged in Amended Accusation No. 91~1 in that, he failed to adequately document his examinations and treatment in the charts of patients Ariann W. and James C., and that he failed to warn the family of patient Ariann W. about the possible side effects of the iron injectable medication.
Note that the only violation Dr. Steenblock signed off on in the Regulatory Action agreement with the California state osteopathic board concerned charting and issuing a warning concerning injectable iron. All the other allegations were contested from day 1 (And the charting allegation was contested as well, though Dr. Steenblock ultimately chose not to fight this in order to avoid a lengthy and costly court battle).
We all know that most chapters in life have a “flip side” or “untold story”. This is the case with respect to the patients and incidents cited. Among the things they are not reflected at all in the Regulatory Action documents, but are supported and corroborated by independent investigation and testimony:
(1) During his initial visit with the young girl, Ariann, Dr. Steenblock urged her aunt (who had assumed custody of the girl) to have her examined by doctors at a local children’s hospital. The aunt demurred, stating that Ariann had been through the hospital gamut many times and was not one whit better for it.
(2) Dr. Steenblock ordered an exhaustive array of diagnostic tests for the diarrhea-plagued little girl including a history and physical, a battery of urine and stool tests, a chest x-ray, UGI (Upper GI tract exam) and BE (Barium enema). The aunt had all the tests done, save for barium enema. The diagnostic tests indicated the child had thrush (fungal infection), iron deficiency anemia, massive dental caries, intestinal candidiasis, malnutrition and a urinary tract infection. All these conditions were subsequently treated by Dr. Steenblock using FDA approved drugs.
(3) Following these first few visits, the little girl started missing appointments. Dr. Steenblock’s office tried to reach the aunt and ascertain what as afoot, to no avail.
(4) The aunt eventually brought Ariann into see Dr. Steenblock, who ordered repeat blood and stool tests plus a barium enema. A colonoscopy and barium enema was also ordered, but declined by the aunt (The barium enema was eventually done and interpreted by the examining physician as being normal)
(5) Blood tests revealed that the girl’s anemia had not been phased by daily use of liquid iron. Injections of iron plus lidocaine were begun, which the aunt was taught to administer by Dr. Steenblock’s nurse. Lidocaine was included to help offset pain that the girl was acutely reactive to (This is an FDA approved combination).
(6) Another physician became involved in the case and, having never heard that iron mixed with lidocaine is an FDA approved combination readily available on the market, filed a complaint against Dr. Steenblock.
(7) The little girl was admitted to hospital and put on high dose steroids, which resulted in a clot in a major blood vessel to the heart. Ariann went into cardiac arrest, but was resuscitated. Three weeks later the physicians in charge of her case elected to do a colectomy (Remove part of the colon).
(8) The colectomy was done by a resident and was botched, which ultimately lead to the little girl’s death.
(9) Department of Consumer Affairs investigators visited Dr. Steenblock, examined his charts and declared that he was in the clear.
A little over a year after the Consumer Affairs investigation concluded, copies of Dr. Steenblock’s case records were examined by a state osteopathic board member who apparently was a non-practicing physician. These copies included charting and diagnostic information that was so poorly reproduced as to be illegible. The doctor did not request readable copies, but instead decided that Dr. Steenblock had committed grievous blunders that warranted legal action. He recommended that the state Attorney General revoke Steenblock’s license.
What followed was a legal struggle that basically forced Dr. Steenblock to accept a “plea bargain” on the charges brought against him. And even in this, Dr. Steenblock was misled and wound up signing off on a document that totally misrepresented what had transpired with regard to Ariann’s care.
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/steenblock2.html
Dr. Barrett wrote:
“In 1997, Steenblock was charged with violating his probation by not paying the $10,000 assessment and by using three unlicensed "physical therapy assistants" to administer patient services. (In 1997, the employees were convicted of practicing physical therapy without a license.) In 2000, after Steenblock had paid the $10,000 and hired a licensed physical therapist to supervise the others, the board assessed another $3,500 toward costs but decided not to penalize him "aiding and abetting the unlicensed practice of physical therapy." The proceedings also had the effect of extending his probation for three months (to March 28, 2000).”
Note the wording contained in the Regulatory Action immediately below. It tells the tale here.
"In view of Findings 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, the ALJ in the present instance concludes that at all relevant times, respondent was acting in good faith and at no time were his patients at risk of receiving substandard treatment. Respondent was, and currently is, intent on respecting the board's mandates and on complying fully with the laws, rules, and regulations governing his practice. Accordingly, the legitimate purposes of disciplinary proceedings, to protect the public and rehabilitate the practitioner, would not be furthered by disciplining respondent"
The salient part here:
"..respondent was acting in good faith and at no time were his patients at risk of receiving substandard treatment"
It should be noted that Quackwatch’s tactics and biases are being acknowledged in some mainstream scientific publications. For example, on page 64 of the May 8-14 edition of “New Scientist” (col. 3) this statement is appears:
“Finally, some readers have taken us to task for our recent endorsement of the Quackwatch website (24 April). We should, we now realize, have made it clearer that while this site does an excellent job of debunking many phony and fraudulent therapy claims, it does so from a position of medical conservatism that dismisses all forms of therapy that fall outside the orthodox mainstream. This may delight some readers, but others find it unacceptably narrow. Be warned.”
Ecce Signum
