Company displeased with scientists' skepticism

A company that develops "stem cell enhancers"

By | October 11, 2007

A company that develops "stem cell enhancers" as dietary supplements posted a linkurl:complaint; over 1,000 words in length on its website regarding an linkurl:article; I wrote in May about its product. StemEnhance is an algal extract linkurl:promised; to enhance circulating stem cells and promote wellness. In my article, responses from stem cell researchers on whether the product seemed like a plausible way to improve health ranged from "we simply don't know" to "great skepticism." The company, StemTech, did not enjoy the response. According to StemTech's comment, "We deplore the disinformation they offered their own readers." The comment accuses me of representing only the views of scientists who oppose their theory. "It seems rather obvious that if one wants to get a relevant answer about a product one should seek the opinion of scientists having knowledge and experience with that product. We could have given Grens the reference of many doctors and clinicians using StemEnhance in their practice." I appreciate StemTech's helpful offer, but in addition speaking with the developer of the product and representing the positive testimonials of users, I sought outside reviewers with an expertise in the field to comment on the merits of this product. Practitioners who give patients StemEnhance likely believe it works, and using them as a source would be biased reporting. The comment mentions an upcoming publication from an independent clinical study validating the effects of StemEnhance. As one of my sources mentions in my article (and about which StemTech did not complain), the mechanism of the extract seems plausible. I look forward to reading the results.


Avatar of: kamel


Posts: 1

October 18, 2007

I, too, am quite skeptical about this product and it's claims. If this product was such a home-run, why wasn't this in Nature or Cell instead of the journal (previously unheard of to me) Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine? Of course, that alone isn't an argument against StemEnhance. Look at the data for yourself. I did, and found it lacking. You can read my thoughts on the product and the paper here: \n\n

Popular Now

  1. Broad Wins CRISPR Patent Interference Case
    Daily News Broad Wins CRISPR Patent Interference Case

    The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board has ruled in favor of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard retaining intellectual property rights covered by its patents for CRISPR gene-editing technology.

  2. Cannibalism: Not That Weird
    Reading Frames Cannibalism: Not That Weird

    Eating members of your own species might turn the stomach of the average human, but some animal species make a habit of dining on their own.

  3. Henrietta Lacks’s Family Seeks Compensation
  4. Can Plants Learn to Associate Stimuli with Reward?
Business Birmingham