Not only will I be the first to post a comment on this fabulous research being done but I'm also the patient Dr Doty selected to receive the very first dose back In August while undergoing by-pass surgery. My report? Everything went as planned with no ill effects detected to the kidneys. Dr Doty did a fantastic job and I was up and out of the hospital in six days and back at work in five weeks. Ya gotta love modern medicine!

This article is misleading in a number of places. First, this is a Phase I trial. A phase I trial is performed to show the treatment is safe, not that it is effective. Second, "half of patients who have kidney damage during surgery die" is so far from the truth that the writer must not have done any research into what they were reporting on. Third, stem cells injected into the aorta go to the entire body not just preferentially to the kidneys. The concept that the injured kidneys will "call" the stem cells to help repair damage is inciteful, it fails to recognize that every injured cell in the body is making the same call.

Reporting on a Phase I trial that has only enrolled two patients appears to be propaganda from a company that just wants to get their name in the paper.

East of Utah misses the point. This kind of study is the first step in what may be a very important development for these patients. As a person with a family history of valve failue, I'm thrilled to hear they are working on this and that it may benefit me in the future. Why must there be so many negative people like East of Utah who have to criticize everything good???

No I think you missed the point. This story was filled with errors. It was written to try and convince people that there is this great miracle about to happen with stem cell therapy and that just isn't true. A phase I trial is designed to see if the treatment hurts anyone at the dosages given. So do you see the problem here? They are taken a product with no proven benefits and given it to someone to see if it causes any harm. And then putting an article in the paper with a huge spin on it.

This isn't good science, this isn't good research, and it certainly isn't good journalism.

Just as a rebuttle there do appear to be some discrepancies between what I was first told and what the article states as fact. I was told that this procedure has been practiced in Europe and that this was the first in the US, not the first ever. Secondly, the first five will receive small dosages, like mine, the second group a larger one and so on. But like I said earlier, tests show no ill effects to my kidneys so far. The monitoring will continue for 6 months intensively and then 3 years thereafter. I'm in favor of the research as it may prove to be of value to other.

How clear do you want it to be? Lead says safety study. Second paragraph reemphasizes Phase 1 safety study.