Skip to Main Content

A few weeks ago, if you’d been scouring the ever-expanding mass of digitized federal paperwork, you might have noticed a contradiction.

On the one hand, the Food and Drug Administration issued a letter stating that what an Arizona distributor was selling as stem cell therapies were “unapproved” and posed “safety concerns.” On the other, a National Institutes of Health database — clinicaltrials.gov — went right on listing the same merchant’s studies, with a link to the company’s website and the word “Recruiting” displayed invitingly in green.

advertisement

Similar scenarios have been popping up like fungi after rain. When a judge ruled last week that the FDA could stop the work of U.S. Stem Cell, the firm’s trials remained on clinicaltrials.gov; the postings were no longer actively enlisting patients, but they didn’t mention that the company’s injections had blinded at least four people, either.

STAT+ Exclusive Story

STAT+

This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers

Unlock this article — plus daily intelligence on Capitol Hill and the life sciences industry — by subscribing to STAT+.

Already have an account? Log in

Monthly

$39

Totals $468 per year

$39/month Get Started

Totals $468 per year

Starter

$30

for 3 months, then $399/year

$30 for 3 months Get Started

Then $399/year

Annual

$399

Save 15%

$399/year Get Started

Save 15%

11+ Users

Custom

Savings start at 25%!

Request A Quote Request A Quote

Savings start at 25%!

2-10 Users

$300

Annually per user

$300/year Get Started

$300 Annually per user

View All Plans

To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+.

Subscribe

To submit a correction request, please visit our Contact Us page.