Stemedica/Dr. Art Tucker letter
02 September 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
The Royal Gazette newspaper in Bermuda has recently reported in a number of articles the proposal to create a Stem Cell laboratory and treatment centre in Bermuda (1). The clinic is proposed to be sited in a converted private dwelling in Smith’s Parish.
The articles pertain to a joint press release by the current Bermudian Premier Dr Ewart Brown, his wife, Mrs Wanda Brown and Stemedica Cell Technologies Incorporated (2). The articles describe the origin of Stemedica Inc as a Russian company based in California. Stemedica Inc is reported to have existing facilities in Moscow, Seoul, Paris, Mexico and Switzerland.
The disclosed targets of Stemedica Inc are the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases by the use of adult stem cells (possibly autologous: a situation in which the donor and recipient are the same person). The company seeks to gain credibility by linking to a National Institute of Health Website which outlines stem cell developments (3) and NIH information sites, together with groups like www.michaeljfox.org, www.alz.org and www.strokecentre.org. It is unknown if Stemedica Inc is acknowledged or supported by these organisations. A search of these linked sites provides no reference to Stemedica Inc, thereby suggesting an opportunist association.
Review of the Stemedica Inc website clearly indicates that their activities are focussed upon clinical Trials, principally in the areas of Neurodegenerative disease, ophthalmology, Urology and Tissue regeneration (ulcerative wounds and burns). This is further emphasised by Dr Brown’s press release which confirmed that “To begin with it [the clinic] will focus solely on research, but eventually hopes to be able to treat one or two stem cell patients per week”.
Claims for ‘successful outcomes’ of stem cell therapy in every category by Stemedica Inc are not defined or reported.
A search of the NIH Clinical Trials website identifies 773 currently registered stem cell studies associated with the USA. I was unable to find reference to Stemedica in any of these clinical Research Studies. The vast majority of studies are associated with cancer therapy utilising bone marrow transplantation.
Following a scientific literature search via Medline®, I was unable to identify any peer reviewed papers associated with Stemedica Inc to support their claims of breakthrough technologies. In particular with reference to the Senior Management:
· The President & Chief Medical Officer, Nikolai I. Tankovich, I was only able to identify nine papers in Russian, none of which were related to the stem cell keywords. · Vice President, Medical Research, Alex Kharazi, two papers, none of which were related to the stem cell keywords. · Vice President Global Research, Eugene Baranov, twenty-seven papers, none of which were related to the stem cell keywords.
After performing a search on the Board of Advisors, I note a surprising lack of Peer-reviewed Scientific Publications and a complete absence of such publications related to the stem cell keywords.
Finally a similar search on Dr Ewart Brown was hampered by the commonality of the name “Brown E”, but there was complete absence of such publications related to the stem cell keywords.
Neither was I able to identify any intellectual property linked to Stemedica Inc registered with the US Patent & Trademark Office or the European Patent Agency. However, the IP position may be pending at this time, prior to publication or held within shell or parent companies.
"I wish to voice my extreme concerns as detailed below in relation to this proposed development as attempts by Bermudians to raise questions and concerns on this issue have apparently gone unanswered by Dr. Brown."
Stem Cell Overview
Stem-cell-based therapies have existed since the first successful bone marrow transplant in 1968. The recent development of techniques to grow human embryonic stem cells in culture and an increasing understanding of the pathways of cell differentiation have expanded the horizon of likely therapeutic uses. This letter is focused on a sub-group of these applications – the use of embryonic pluripotent or adult multipotent stem cells to create human tissues for ex vivo transplantation into patients with medical conditions caused by the degeneration or injury of cells, tissues or organs.
Stem cells have two main characteristics that distinguish them from other types of cells. First, they are unspecialized cells that may replicate for long durations via normal cell division. The second is that under certain conditions, they can be induced to differentiate into specialised cells such as myocardium or the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. Currently there are two types of stem cell available for research: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Human embryonic stem cells were the first area of study derived from embryos created by in vitro fertilization therapy. These embryos were no longer suitable or required for that purpose, and were donated for research.
Clearly the use of such materials remains highly emotive for religious and moral reasons. An alternative is adult stem cells which may be collected via the bone marrow or more recently isolated from the general circulation via apheresis cell separation.
Stem cells are important for many reasons. In the 3- to 5-day-old embryo (a blastocyst), stem cells in developing tissues may give rise to the multiple differentiated cell types that make up discrete tissues and organs. In some adult tissues, such as bone marrow, muscle, and brain, discrete populations of adult stem cells can generate replacements for cells that are lost through normal wear and tear, injury, or disease. These observations have prompted some in the scientific community to hypothesise that stem cells may, at some point in the future, become the basis for treating diseases such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and heart disease. Central to this proposal is a clear comprehension that the medical and scientific community does not possess the knowledge base or experience at this time to manipulate stem cells for therapeutic purposes.
· Immaturity of the scientific field of stem cell therapy. The most advanced model of stem cell applications in the human is the heart; in which clinical research has been undertaken and is evolving. However, current reported developments have been contradictory and of modest benefit. This was very eloquently summarised in a 2006 Editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) by Rosenzweig (4).
“Recent randomized studies of cell therapy for heart disease represent a milestone in this rapidly developing filed while serving as a cogent reminder that many important clinical and fundamental questions have yet to be addressed. We should guard against both premature declarations of victory and premature abandonment of a promising therapeutic strategy. The ultimate success of this strategy is likely to depend on continued and effective coordination of rigorous basic and clinical investigations.
In the interest of public safety, (as will the MHRA in the United Kingdom), the FDA in the United States of America has jurisdiction over the production and marketing of any stem-cell-based therapy involving the transplantation of human cells into patients (5). An excellent report summarising these requirements may be found in a 2006 NEJM article by Halme & Kessler (6). Usefully the authors provide specific recommendations about how scientists should address the inherent safety and efficacy issues with these therapies.
What oversight or regulatory framework is present or proposed in Bermuda?
· Clinical Research and Medical Ethics Review Origin and History
o 1927 Food Drug and Insecticide Administration formed o Death of 107 people from elixir of sulphanilamide containing solvent diethylene glycol o Federal (Food Drug & Cosmetics) Act - approval of new drugs before marketing
Nuremberg Doctor’s Trial 1946/7 (United States of America v. Karl Brandt, et al.)
Twenty three physicians and scientists were tried for crimes against humanity. Five were acquitted, seven received death sentences; the remainder received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment. The Nuremberg principle forms a basis for war crime prosecutions. Trial judges defined the essential obligation of physician to human research subject – Nuremberg code. Established the principle of Informed consent: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”.
The Nuremberg code includes such principles as informed consent and absence of coercion; properly formulated scientific experimentation; and beneficence towards experiment participants.
World Medical Association - Declaration of Helsinki (7).
The Declaration of Helsinki, developed by the World Medical Association, is a set of ethical principles for the medical community regarding human experimentation. It was originally adopted in June 1964 in Helsinki, Finland, and has since undergone eight revisions, most recently in the year 2000. The Declaration expands upon the principles first stated in the Nuremberg Code and applies these ideas specifically to clinical research.
The Declaration considers the conduct of clinical research and makes an important distinction between therapeutic and non therapeutic research. However, this distinction was eliminated in later versions of the Declaration. Like the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration made informed consent a central requirement for ethical research while allowing for surrogate consent when the research participant is incompetent, physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, or a minor. The Declaration also states that research with these groups should be conducted only when the research is necessary to promote the health of the population represented and when this research cannot be performed on legally competent persons. It further states that when the subject is legally incompetent but able to give assent to decisions about participation in research, assent must be obtained in addition to the consent of the legally authorized representative.
The key elements of the Declaration are: o Protection of patients rights o Informed consent o Independent approval o Scientific / Medical basis o Appropriate risk benefit o Subject well being takes precedence over other considerations
Ethics remains the fundamental backbone of the structure of clinical research today. One of the principal underlying values of both the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonisation – Good Clinical Practice (ICH GCP) guidelines ( is the protection of the patient who is under investigation.
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are the committees convened to provide independent advice to participants, researchers, funders, sponsors, employers, care organisations and professionals on the extent to which proposals for research studies comply with recognised ethical standards (9).
RECs are responsible for acting primarily in the interest of potential research participants and concerned communities, but they should also take into account the interests, needs and safety of researchers who are trying to undertake research of good quality. However, the goals of research and researchers, while important, should always be secondary to the dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of the research participants.
RECs also need to take into consideration the principle of justice. This requires that the benefits and burdens of research be distributed fairly among all groups and classes in society, taking into account in particular age, gender, economic status, culture and ethnic considerations. In this context the contribution of previous research participants should also be recalled.
RECs should provide independent, competent and timely review of the ethics of proposed studies. In their decision-making RECs need to have independence from political, institutional, profession-related or market influences. They need similarly to demonstrate competence and efficiency in their work, and to avoid unnecessary delay.
RECs should have due regard for the requirements of relevant regulatory agencies and of applicable laws. It is not for the REC to provide specific interpretation of regulations or laws, but it may indicate in its advice to the researcher and host institution where it believes further consideration needs to be given to such matters.
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is similar in nature, however due to the specific nature of the Bermuda healthcare system; a non-affiliated independent review committee must be created.
These obligations will apply equally to situations of experimental therapy and non-therapeutic research requiring donation/collection of stem cells for research and development purposes.
As the Chairman of a National Research Ethics Committee, I am intimately familiar with the issues related to stem cell clinical research as my committee is responsible for the permissions in the United Kingdom to experimentally treat coronary heart disease with stem cells.
I am very concerned that there is insufficient infrastructure in Bermuda to ensure the compliance of this proposed clinic with internationally agreed standards.
· Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) & Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)
Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) embodies a set of principles that provides a framework within which laboratory studies are planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived. These studies are undertaken to generate data by which the hazards and risks to users, consumers and third parties, including the environment, can be assessed for pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, veterinary medicines, industrial chemicals, cosmetics, food and feed additives and biocides. GLP helps assure regulatory authorities that the data submitted are a true reflection of the results obtained during the study and can therefore be relied upon when making risk/safety assessments.
Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is that part of quality assurance which ensures that medicinal products are consistently produced and controlled to the quality standards appropriate to their intended use. GMP is concerned with both production and quality control.
Origin and Legal Status
In 1981 the International Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (10) principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) were finalised and led to the OECD Council Decision on the Mutual Acceptance of Data (MAD): 'Data generated in the testing of chemicals in an OECD member country in accordance with OECD Test Guidelines and OECD principles of Good Laboratory Practice shall be accepted in other member countries for purposes of assessment and other uses relating to the protection of man and the environment.' At a meeting in 1983, concerning the mutual recognition of compliance with GLP, the OECD recommended that implementation of GLP compliance should be verified by laboratory inspections and study audits.
The European Community (EC) later adopted the OECD principles and a number of Directives stipulate that tests must be carried out to the principles of GLP and also that EC Member States must incorporate into their laws the requirement for all the non-clinical safety studies which are listed in the sectoral directives, to be conducted to GLP and that premises conducting such studies must be inspected by a national authority. Consequently, on 1 April 1997 there came into force in the UK a Statutory Instrument (SI) entitled 'The Good Laboratory Practice Regulations 1997' which superseded the voluntary United Kingdom Good Laboratory Practice Compliance programme. In 1998 the OECD issued the revised Principles of GLP and Compliance Monitoring. These were adopted by the EC in October 1998 and issued as Directives 99/11/EEC and 99/12/EEC. Consequently, in 1999, the UK Regulations were updated by SI 3106, as amended by SI 994, 2004, and are accompanied by a guide that interprets them and explains how compliance will be verified.
Parallel regulations exist under the jurisdiction of the FDA, in the United States of America. So far over 30 countries (the member states of the OECD) have signed agreements that make the OECD GLP principles binding on them. This effectively makes the OECD principles an international text.
Further considerations should also include reference and compliance to GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) and ISO principles.
Would the Bermuda Government and by extension, the people of Bermuda be liable for any resulting litigation, be it civil or criminal due to failure to establish and enforce international standards of conduct?
Will stem cells be imported or exported from Bermuda? What regulations and oversight exists in Bermuda?
For Donor to Recipient treatments, what facilities and safeguards have been established to manage the risk of transmitting infectious or genetic diseases?
Does cell or tissue processing pose a risk of contamination? How will this be managed in the absence of GLP and GMP accreditation?
What types of cells are in the product and what are the purity and potency? How will this be managed in the absence of GLP and GMP accreditation?
Will the product be safe and effective? What are the potential patients being told to ensure legal and medical informed consent? These patients, by definition, are desperate and suffering from debilitating and/or life threatening illness. What safeguards will be established to ensure against malpractice and false claims of safety and benefit?
Although the declared focus of the clinic will be adult stem cells, who is able to independently verify their origin or type? Or the quality or safety of the materials?
Finally, in this context a converted private dwelling is unlikely to provide the required infrastructure for compliance.
· Emergency provision
The very limited and restricted acute emergency provision currently available in Bermuda must be considered. In relation to the very invasive and potentially life threatening procedures proposed by Stemedica Inc. there is an absolute requirement to clearly delineate the provision of emergency care.
Transfer of patients from the proposed clinic would place an immediate burden upon the intensive care facilities of the Bermudian healthcare system; with the potential to critically disadvantage the health and welfare of Bermudians. Critical/Intensive Care beds are allocated on clinical need and a first-come basis.
Who would be responsible for the incurred costs of such transfers and care?
Would the Bermudian Government, the hospital system and by extension, the people of Bermuda be liable for any resulting litigation, be it civil or criminal due to failure to provide professional standards of clinical care?
Again, a converted private dwelling is unlikely to provide the required infrastructure for emergency care.
The apparent attempt to avoid and circumvent mature and established governance via bodies such as the Federal Drug Authority (USA) or the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (Europe) brings discredit to Bermuda.
Bermuda must guard herself against this type of questionable medical tourism where a substantive objective is financial.
In summary there is an apparent absence of applicable legislation and there is a moral, legal and financial duty of care to ensure the most stringent oversight and monitoring of this proposed clinic.
There is a central and specific question of legal jurisdiction to be confirmed and considered.
I remain at your disposal to further elaborate upon these concerns.
Dr Art Tucker
 http://www.theroyalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?sectionId=60&articleId=7d77c0d300301f5 http://www.theroyalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?sectionId=60&articleId=7d77bce30030000 http://www.theroyalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?sectionId=60&articleId=7d7678d3003014a http://www.theroyalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?sectionId=60&articleId=7d76bb330030006
 Rosenzweig A (2006) Cardiac Cell Therapy – Mixed Results from Mixed Cells. NEJM 355:12:1274-1277.
 Halme DG & Kessler DA (2006) FDA Regulation of Stem-Cell-Based Therapies. NEJM 355:16:1730-1735.
 FDA: 21 C.F.R §1271 (2006) Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products