• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

According to the FDA, Your Stem Cells Are Now Drugs

According to the FDA, Your Stem Cells Are Now Drugs

In recent court filings, the Food and Drug Administration has asserted that stem cells—you know, the ones our bodies produce naturally—are in fact drugs and subject to its regulatory oversight. So does that make me a controlled substance?

The bizarre controversy revolves around the FDA's attempt to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Clinic in Colorado that performs a nonsurgical stem-cell therapy called Regenexx-C. It is designed to treat moderate to severe joint, tendon, ligament, and bone pain using only adult stem cells. Doctors draw your blood, spin it through a centrifuge, extract the stem cells and re-inject them into your damaged joints. It uses no other drugs. No drugs means no FDA oversight and that does not sit well with the administration.

The FDA has since argued that a) stem cells are drugs and b) they fall under FDA regulation because the clinic is engaging in interstate commerce. That's right, a process performed at the clinic using the patient's own bodily fluids constitutes interstate commerce because, according to the administration, out-of-state patients using Regenexx-C would "depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA."

Funny, that sounds less like the FDA protecting the health of the country's citizens and more like the FDA defending its enforcement turf. The two parties have been at odds for over four years now, so we may have a while until we know if every American has in fact become a regulatable good subject to government regulation. [ANH-USA via Slash Gear]

Does this mean that companies can now patent your stemcells? I had read that there are already patents on genes or something that your body produces naturally. How the hell is this even remotely legit? Can we be forced to undergo medical procedures if company needs to get more of "their" property that your body naturally produces?

I can understand calling a synthetically made substance that is chemically identical to something the body produces a drug and making it patentable but this is absurd. Can I file for a patent on red blood cells? Oxygen molecules? The color blue?

And how the hell do they get away with that bullshit "interstate commerce" clause? Is there any type of commerce that can't be considered "interstate commerce" under their definition?

source
 
Last edited:
I can see the need for preventing the abuse of treatments. The part about the commerce clause? Common wisdom supports the contention that there's little to no limit on that.
 
Fasting naked by yourself in the middle of the desert would be ruled as interstate commerce, because by not wearing clothes or eating food you're affecting companies in other states by not buying their produts.

Yes, this country is insane.
 
And how the hell do they get away with that bullshit "interstate commerce" clause? Is there any type of commerce that can't be considered "interstate commerce" under their definition?
Don't worry, you were a criminal long before this.

This is serotonin your brain naturally has. Its commonly used chemical name is 5-hydroxytryptamine or "5-HT":
230px-Serotonin_(5-HT).svg.png



This looks similar to serotonin. It's a drug called psilocin or "magic mushrooms" and its chemical name is 4-hydroxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine or "4-HO DMT"
0198529171.psilocin.1.jpg



Here is a chemical similar to the one above. Just remove the OH group and you get N,N-dimethyltryptamine or "DMT"
N,N-dimethyltryptamine.png


Since it's so similar to mushrooms, DMT is obviously illegal. That's a problem because this chemical is naturally found in human brains. Right now you are breaking the law just by being alive. Criminal scum like you make me sick. You shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine
 
Wow, a government bureaucracy growing too big and taking in more and more turf so they can secure more funding to gain more power to enlarge their turf. I'm surprised.
 
Does this mean that companies can now patent your stemcells? I had read that there are already patents on genes or something that your body produces naturally. How the hell is this even remotely legit? Can we be forced to undergo medical procedures if company needs to get more of "their" property that your body naturally produces?

I can understand calling a synthetically made substance that is chemically identical to something the body produces a drug and making it patentable but this is absurd. Can I file for a patent on red blood cells? Oxygen molecules? The color blue?

And how the hell do they get away with that bullshit "interstate commerce" clause? Is there any type of commerce that can't be considered "interstate commerce" under their definition?

source

How are you leaping from the contents of this story to the notion that an individual person's stem cells can be patented? The FDA has zero to do with what is patentable. Whether something is or isn't classified as a "drug" for purposes of FDA jurisdiction is irrelevant to its patent-ability. I'm sure that technologies used to harvest and culture stem cells could be patentable. But an individual person's stem cells? You're way off on a tangent here.
 
How are you leaping from the contents of this story to the notion that an individual person's stem cells can be patented? The FDA has zero to do with what is patentable. Whether something is or isn't classified as a "drug" for purposes of FDA jurisdiction is irrelevant to its patent-ability. I'm sure that technologies used to harvest and culture stem cells could be patentable. But an individual person's stem cells? You're way off on a tangent here.

Question- What are the limits on IP regarding the use of stem cells? If someone gets a suite of patents on the necessary techniques can they block the effective use of ones stem cells or is that not possible?
 
Question- What are the limits on IP regarding the use of stem cells? If someone gets a suite of patents on the necessary techniques can they block the effective use of ones stem cells or is that not possible?

It may be possible, yes. The technologies used to harvest and culture the cells may be patentable. I say they may be, because it depends on what the technologies consist of. If they are based on already widespread or patent-expired methods, then no. If it's something new and unique, then yes. But that doesn't preclude other techniques from being used, if possible.

The stem cells themselves, however, are very unlikely to ever be patentable without a major change in the law. The SCOTUS has a long line of precedent which basically says that naturally occurring phenomena are not patentable. This includes DNA, for example. If, however, the DNA is engineered into a new form, the new form may be patentable. So a bacteria genetically engineered by man could be patentable. Actual existing human DNA cannot. The test, BTW, is that the new form must be "markedly different" from the naturally occurring form. Slight alterations from the natural form do not qualify as patentable. The same logic, without a doubt, applies to stem cells.

- wolf
 
Last edited:
You have far more faith in our system than I do. 😉

It isn't a question of faith, really. It's based on long standing precedent and observation of how precedent develops generally. This particular precedent would have to change for stem cells to be patentable and it isn't likely to. The logic of DNA not being patentable is 100% identical. Human stem cells are a "naturally occurring phenomenon." Extracting them and putting them in a petri dish doesn't change that any more than it does for DNA.
 
Just another example of government expansion run amok, that's why agencies like the EPA, FDA and so forth need to be done away with and replaced with streamlined versions with a clearer mission.
 
It isn't a question of faith, really. It's based on long standing precedent and observation of how precedent develops generally. This particular precedent would have to change for stem cells to be patentable and it isn't likely to. The logic of DNA not being patentable is 100% identical. Human stem cells are a "naturally occurring phenomenon." Extracting them and putting them in a petri dish doesn't change that any more than it does for DNA.

That still requires faith. Our government makes contradictory laws all the time. That the judiciary can fix it after a long, drawn out, expensive court battle leaving a trail of bodies in its wake provides me little comfort.
 
Just another example of government expansion run amok, that's why agencies like the EPA, FDA and so forth need to be done away with and replaced with streamlined versions with a clearer mission.

This is a greater problem with the FDA creating a regulation like this. It gives the craziest of the batshit crazy on the right more fuel to add to their idiotic fire. They see this one ridiculous regulation and decide that means all regulation is bad and say we should eliminate the FDA, the EPA, the FCC, the ASPCA and anything else that is actually in place to protect the rights of the people. If there's a bad regulation, THAT regulation should be removed, not the entire organization.
 
How are you leaping from the contents of this story to the notion that an individual person's stem cells can be patented? The FDA has zero to do with what is patentable. Whether something is or isn't classified as a "drug" for purposes of FDA jurisdiction is irrelevant to its patent-ability. I'm sure that technologies used to harvest and culture stem cells could be patentable. But an individual person's stem cells? You're way off on a tangent here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRCA1

You are right that this specifically doesn't have anything to do with patent-ability but it being classified as a "drug" could definitely pave the way. I would bet serious money that as we speak there are teams of lawyers being paid to look into it.
 
Question- What are the limits on IP regarding the use of stem cells? If someone gets a suite of patents on the necessary techniques can they block the effective use of ones stem cells or is that not possible?

"Professional societies of pathologists have criticized patents on disease genes and exclusive licenses to perform DNA diagnostic tests. In the 2009 Myriad case, doctors and pathologists complained that the patent on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes prevented patients from receiving second opinions on their test results. Pathologists complained that the patent prevented them from carrying out their medical practice of doing diagnostic tests on patient samples and interpreting the results.[7]
Another example is a series of lawsuits filed by the Alzheimer’s Institute of America (AIA) starting in 2010, concerning a gene patent it controls. The patent covers a genetic mutation that predisposes to Alzheimer's, and more importantly, it applies to transgenic mice carrying the mutation. These mice are widely used in Alzheimer's research, both by academic scientists doing basic research and by companies that use the mice to test products in development. Two of these suits are directed to companies that were started based on inventions made at universities (Comentis and Avid), and in each of those cases, the university has been sued along with the company. While none of the suits target universities that are conducting basic research using the mice, one of the suits is against Jackson Labs, a nonprofit company that provides transgenic mice to academic and commercial researchers and is an important repository of such mice.[8]"

source
 
They see this one ridiculous regulation and decide that means all regulation is bad and say we should eliminate the FDA, the EPA, the FCC, the ASPCA and anything else that is actually in place to protect the rights of the people. If there's a bad regulation, THAT regulation should be removed, not the entire organization.

All government bureaucracies grow and expand over time until they become a mess. Tweaking one regulation or another won't fix systemic problems, you need a real overhaul for that. All agencies look to expand their power and influence over time, the only way you keep that from happening is to start from scratch every now and again.
 
That still requires faith. Our government makes contradictory laws all the time. That the judiciary can fix it after a long, drawn out, expensive court battle leaving a trail of bodies in its wake provides me little comfort.

It's also a matter of faith that things will go wrong, and it requires greater faith that things will not comply with past patterns than that they will comply with past patterns. In the past the SCOTUS has not reversed itself on these kinds of issues often. Sure, Congress could step in and change the law, but there really isn't any point to them doing so, nor have I heard of any such proposal being made. You're right about one thing though: nothing is certain.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRCA1

You are right that this specifically doesn't have anything to do with patent-ability but it being classified as a "drug" could definitely pave the way. I would bet serious money that as we speak there are teams of lawyers being paid to look into it.

No, you are employing a syllogism with an invalid premise:

1. "Drugs" are patentable.
2. The FDA is asking that certain stems cell be classified as drugs;
Therefore,
3. Stem cells may therefore become patentable.

Premise 1 is wrong. The status of something as a "drug" or not a drug is totally irrelevant to its patent-ability. The laws governing the regulatory reach of the FDA and the laws governing patent-ability are totally separate bodies of law. Whether or not something is subject to regulation by this entity has no bearing on its patent-ability. "Paving the way"? I don't even know what that means here. SCOTUS precedent clearly says NO.

On the separate but legitimate issue of the FDA's actual regulatory reach, I will note that the FDA was recently smacked down in court on the question of whether it could regulate electronic cigarettes as "drugs." They don't always win.

- wolf
 
Last edited:
Back
Top