| Search results - "Induction," |
Are iPS Cells Really Induced from Differentiated Cells?Rejecting submitted and then ignoring published criticisms (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm) Nature and other “top” journals are pushing hard an invalid claim in the so-called “milestone” discovery. Let us see what evidences were there for supporting this “great” breakthrough of “inducing” stem cells from differentiated cells and what other explanations would be more truthful.
Abstract
|
|
Open Letter to Nobel Prize Selection Committee against Awarding Yamanaka and other iPS Cell ResearchersThe discovery of iPS cells has been heralded as a milestone discovery that is equivalent to the first biological airplane. Rumors have been circulated that Yamanaka should win a Nobel Prize for this and this link is now even made into the print of Science. However, not only iPS cells are just some man-made cancer cells but also many claims for iPS cells are outright deceptions. It is thus would be a great irony this discovery will be nominated and even win a Nobel Prize.
Abstract
|
|
IPS Cells versus ES CellsiPS cells are said to be indistinguishable or very similar to embryonic stem (ES) cells or even equated directly with ES cells. However, from a correct knowledge of cell biology, iPS cells cannot be ES cells and must be different from ES cells.
Abstract
|
|
The Method of the Year 2009 and Its Intrinsic ProblemsWhile iPSCs are being treated as unnecessary for regenerative medicine and a thing of the past, Nature Methods claimed generating iPSCs as a Method of the Year. Is this not amazing?
Abstract
|
|
From Reprogrammable Mice to Man: Why Misrepresentation Cannot Lead to Real Application
After repeated failures in enhancing the real reprogramming efficiency to a useful level by various “primary systems”, some “secondary systems” were invented. Some amazingly high iPSC reprogramming efficiency rates were reported for these systems. Reprogrammable mice were also created and have been hyped as proof-in-principle for “fast” and “efficient” generation of patient-specific iPSCs. But all of these new “developments” in iPS research were reflections of some desperate efforts in maintaining the deceptions that could not longer be covered by any of the “primary systems”. How far the iPS cheating should go?
Abstract
|
|
|
|
