I do have the education (degrees) and scientific background (more than 20 years in the field) to understand. A good example is bone grafting material taken from the hip or from a cadaver (that of a deceased person) that is used in a cage around a spine that has failed due to compression fracture or discectomy. These are used to generate growth of a functional nature...... none is regulated by the FDA. It is a medical treatment and procedure performed in the Practice of Medicine. There is no difference in extracting stem cells and coaxing them into regenerating the same growth and fusion of bone structure. The bone and the stem cells are not medicine... they are part of a medical procedure..... not the same at all. Multitudes of examples if you would like more?
Now if you were to create special cells generalized to a vast demographic of patients and used broadly instead of the patients own their might be an argument but again.... how would that be different from using powdered cadaver bone? Osteophyte or Stem Cell is only a matter of the evolution of the stem cell into bone instead of Erythrocyte or blood cell.
It just seemed a bit rude to just assume you are the only one with knowledge. We all have our specialties. Can't just state them all on here due to security or I would indeed give you mine.
On another note, a thread about Ron Paul is the perfect place to discuss over empowerment of Department of the Federal Government.
Peace
Are you kidding me?
The FDA regulates bone grafts- allografts, xenografts, cadaver grafts...
10 seconds on Google turns up more pages of regulations, straight from the FDA, than you could read in a day.
If you think taking out a few stem cells, sending them to a lab to be cultured to multiply them, and then injecting them back into a person is equivalent to an autograft taken from a persons iliac crest and transplanted, in the same operative session, to another bone in the persons body, then I'm afraid you aren't really thinking it through.