Online Censorship of Health Information Is Authoritarianism

By A. Rahman Ford, PNN columnist

Critics of stem cell therapy have taken their censorship campaign to another frightening and paternalistic step up the authoritarian ladder. Not only does it threaten freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of health, but now it’s targeting poor people.

The campaign to stop people from accessing stem cell therapy (SCT) has been building for some time. First there was fearmongering to scare patients away from SCT, followed by a push to have regulatory agencies increase enforcement.  Then came a call for social media platforms like YouTube to censor patient testimonials about the benefits of SCT.

Now, in a disturbing turn, critics are pressuring fundraising platforms like GoFundMe to purge campaigns that seek to raise funds for SCT.

In a recent op/ed in the BBC’s Future, London-based neurologist Dr. Jules Montague argues that crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe need to crackdown on patients seeking to raise money for stem cell treatments. Montague says their testimonials omit the “unfounded hype” and potential risks associated with SCT. These “bad actors,” according to Montague, should be banned to “halt the spread of misinformation.”

To propose that crowdfunding sites be tasked with choosing winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas, and to impose quasi-criminal sanctions on poor patients is to enter a decidedly dictatorial dimension. “Bad actor” is a legal term of art, and should be left to the jurisdiction of a court of law or other legislatively-authorized tribunal. That’s how things work in a democracy.

On the other hand, authoritarian regimes censor whatever speech they see fit, arbitrarily and without explanation. As it pertains to crowdfunding sites, what we absolutely do not need is unelected and unappointed “experts’” selling misplaced fears.

The question that should be asked is why do the SCT critics fear the agency of the people? Is the notion that people can make their own medical decisions – and accept the risks of those decisions – without “expert” stewardship, consultation or approval such a terrifying prospect?

censorship-610101_640.jpg

Ultimately, this “purge and censor” line of argument represents a slippery slope that is distinctly anti-democratic. And at the bottom of the slope, are piled the bodies of the sick, whose desperation is fueled by the abject failures of mainstream medicine.

Equally disturbing is the fact that stem cell censorship on fundraising platforms would be a clear and unmistakable attack on the poor. Poor people are the ones who need to raise money, not the wealthy. The average person doesn’t have the finances of a star athlete like Max Scherzer or a celebrity actress like Selma Blair to get stem cell treatment. Instead, they have to rely on the generosity of others, a generosity that crowdfunding sites facilitate. To censor SCT fundraising is to not only censor a voice, but a livelihood, and maybe even a life itself. Poor people should not be punished for being poor.

Does Dr. Montague really expect GoFundMe and other sites to establish their own internal ethics boards and become the online sentinels of poor people’s health? There is no defensible or rational justification for preventing chronically ill poor people from raising the money they need to save their own lives.

Online Censorship Increasing

Unfortunately, online censorship of alternative health information is not new. In fact, it’s increasing. Facebook recently deleted dozens of alternative health pages without any notice or explanation. Some, such as Natural Cures Not Medicine and Just Natural Medicine, had millions of followers.

GreenMedInfo was kicked off Pinterest for violating its “misinformation policy” which bans “false cures” for chronic illnesses. And who helps Pinterest determine what health advice is false?

“We rely on information from nationally and internationally recognized institutions, including the CDC and WHO, to help us determine if content violates these guidelines,” Pinterest explained in an email.

Recent changes to Google’s Broad Core Algorithms have also suppressed search results for alternative medical information. As a consequence, hundreds of health websites have experienced drastic drops in traffic, including Pain News Network. One website, owned by alternative health advocate Dr. Joseph Mercola, lost about 99% of its traffic.

“Big Tech has joined the movement, bringing in a global concentration of wealth to eliminate competition and critical voices,” Mercola warned. “This year, we’ve seen an unprecedented push to implement censorship across all online platforms, making it increasingly difficult to obtain and share crucial information about health topics.”

We’ve seen an unprecedented push to implement censorship across all online platforms, making it increasingly difficult to obtain and share crucial information about health topics.
— Dr. Joseph Mercola

Even Wikipedia, which relies on open source editing for its content, has succumbed to the “deletionism” of alternative health information.

“We believe that organised skeptic groups are actively targeting Wikipedia articles that promote natural, non-drug therapies with which they disagree,” says the Alliance for Natural Health. “The new trick of these editors is to rewrite or entirely remove pertinent information from such articles or, worse still, delete entire articles altogether.”

It now appears that stem cell therapy is the next hooded subject to be escorted into the Star Chamber of deletionism. The call for fundraising censorship is distinctly ant-human, and denies the most essential and primordial of human instincts – to assist a fellow human being in their time of need.

It is not the place of GoFundMe or any other fundraising site to police people’s medical choices. GoFundMe, your core principles are turning “compassion into action” and the sharing of people’s stories “far and wide.” Please do not capitulate to the SCT bullies.

A. Rahman Ford.jpg

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China. 

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Stem Cell Fearmongering

By A. Rahman Ford, PNN Columnist

In a recent Canadian Medical Association Journal case report, Canadian researchers report the case of a 38-year-old man who suffered an adverse event from a very specific form of stem cell therapy – an olfactory mucosa graft.

Rather than simply present the medical particulars of the case itself, the authors proceed to make a broad indictment of stem cell therapy (SCT) as a whole. This politicization is unnecessary, irresponsible and patently unscientific.

Furthermore, it undermines the objectivity of the research itself and regrettably continues the trend of SCT fearmongering prevalent in certain mainstream publications like STAT and the Los Angeles Times, which immediately ran with the story, pushing a fear-based narrative.

In the procedure in question, nasal cells were transplanted into a spinal cord lesion that resulted from a spinal fraction that occurred when the patient was 20 years old, leaving him partially paralyzed .

He had the olfactory mucosa graft in Portugal at age 26 to potentially treat his pain and paralysis. The treatment was unsuccessful.

A dozen years later, the patient experienced deteriorating neurological function and doctors discovered a large mass on his spine “with mucinious material and tissue consistent with ectopic olfactory mucosa.”

This discovery confirmed the doctors’ preoperative diagnosis that the spinal mass was related to the stem cell procedure the patient had undergone years prior.

If the authors had stopped there, this could be considered an important contribution to the stem cell literature. Cases of adverse events from any medical procedure should be reported and taken seriously.

Unfortunately, the authors proceed much further to extrapolate wildly from their one very unique case of a very specific and experimental form of SCT. Rather than present the data and their scientific analysis, they stray into the political, diminishing the overall value of their work. Sadly, the paper reads more like an op-ed rather than objective peer-reviewed research.

The paper’s most glaring and egregious problem is that it lumps all forms of SCT together with no mention of the different types of cells, different tissues those cells come from, different methods of administration of those cells, and the differences in the clinics offering those therapies. These distinctions are critical and the authors’ failure to discuss them is troubling to say the least.  

Instead, the authors condemn the stem cell “industry” in toto, lumping cosmetic and medical procedures together, with no justification as to why the two are technically comparable, and lamenting the phantom maelstrom of SCT adverse advents that curiously has yet to materialize.

The authors then make a rather supreme leap in logic with the unsubstantiated claim that, “although some of the reported adverse events might relate to surgical technique alone, others are likely the direct result of the yet unproven treatments using stem cells.”

They provide absolutely no evidentiary basis for such a sweeping claim. If a claim cannot be supported by evidence then it should not be made. Otherwise, anyone who reads the claim might be left to make reasonable inferences about professionalism, undisclosed subjectivities and possible hidden agendas.

A. Rahman Ford.jpg

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China. 

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

The Push for Stem Cell Censorship Has Begun

By A. Rahman Ford, PNN Columnist

A new study published in journal Stem Cell Reports, entitled “How to Peddle Hope: An Analysis of YouTube Patient Testimonials of Unproven Stem Cell Treatments,” looks at over a hundred videos by stem cell patients posted on YouTube. 

The study appears to have an underlying anti-democratic agenda – to shame YouTube and other internet platforms into removing positive patient testimonials about stem cell therapy (SCT).  Indeed, the use of the pejorative term “peddle” in the article’s title immediately undermines the study’s credibility.

This research epitomizes how propaganda can masquerade as scientific research, and how data can be twisted to meet its masters’ agenda.

The study comes on the heels of a recent federal judge’s decision that the FDA could regulate stem cells made from adipose tissue – a patient’s own fat cells. Although SCT critics generally praised the ruling as a victory for government oversight, outlets like the Washington Post lamented that it would likely not deter clinics from offering the therapy. 

A New York Times article accused the FDA of not acting until patients were harmed, and using enforcement actions that consist only of warning letters without any real teeth.  

bigstock-woman-assistant-in-laboratory--118996760.jpg

STAT News even criticized the National Institutes of Health for allowing stem cell clinics to “co-opt” the nation’s clinical trial database.

Stem cell critics have apparently realized that the three previous stages of their vilification campaign have failed. These stages were:

  1. Vilify the patients:  Promote the condescending narrative that patients are desperate, ignorant and too stupid to research stem cell therapy for themselves and decide whether it is best for them.

  2. Vilify the clinics: Stem cell clinics are run by shady charlatans who engage in duplicitous business practices that take advantage of desperate, ignorant and pitiful Americans by selling them “unproven” products that couldn’t possibly help them.

  3. Vilify the federal government: Federal agencies have not acted quickly or robustly enough to enforce the regulations that govern regenerative medicine, thus tacitly approving the growing “wild west” of clinics offering SCT.

The Push for YouTube Censorship

Critics now appear to be setting their sights on a fourth vilification stage.  In their desperation, they have decided to take a more authoritarian turn towards internet censorship.

The new study’s authors examined 159 YouTube testimonials from patients who had SCT for ALS, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, cerebral palsy and spinal cord injury.  Not surprisingly, they found that most of the videos were published by providers and nearly all discussed the benefits of SCT in improving pain, overall health and quality of life. 

The authors concluded the YouTube testimonials “may be a potent marketing tool” and “are likely to have a wider reach and significant impact on influencing health behavior.” 

The article’s final sentence reveals the authors’ true motive: “Adopting multiple approaches, including patient education, enhancing patient treatment options, and regulatory oversight, are required to make a significant dent in reducing the number of clinics providing unproven SCTs.”

Setting aside the numerous, glaring and egregious methodological shortcomings of the study, the more important issue is one of broader public policy.  These authors appear to be implicitly advocating that YouTube and other internet sites censor videos that are “misleading” or “deceptive” or not published by “reputable organizations.” 

And who or what is to determine whether any particular video meets this criteria?  Wired published an article with the ominous headline “YouTube Testimonials Lure Patients to Shady Stem Cell Clinics,” implicitly calling on YouTube to take action. The notion isn’t farfetched. YouTube has been in the news a lot recently for censoring videos, using nebulous criteria and subjective standards.   

Apparently, SCT critics have jumped on the YouTube censorship bandwagon.  It’s a wagon that seems to claim a new victim every day, and its victims are usually those who threaten the status quo.  Unfortunately, it’s a wagon that travels the pothole-riddled road of authoritarianism.  It’s a road patrolled by people in strange uniforms, with sophisticated and articulate weapons, who dispense a vicious propaganda, and who always claim to have your best interest at heart.

Please make sure to call, email and/or tweet your state and federal legislators to voice your support for the availability and affordability of stem cell therapy.  The people who suffer with pain and disability will not be silenced and will not be censored.  Our democratic voice will be the response to their authoritarianism.

A. Rahman Ford.jpg

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China. 

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Why Stem Cell Critics Are Wrong

By A. Rahman Ford, PNN Columnist

In a recent and rather lengthy New York Times article entitled “Stem Cell Treatments Flourish With Little Evidence That They Work,” authors Denise Grady and Reed Ableson do their absolute best to convince their readers that stem cell therapy (SCT) is based on strange, magical hocus-pocus, and its practitioners are all mad scientists. 

They portray stem cell clinics as shadowy castle dungeons lit only by the occasional lightning strike, and filled with glass beakers that froth with fluorescent-colored liquids.  The authors even use the phrase “unproven cell cocktails.”  That little piece of anti-SCT propaganda even scares me a little, and I’ve had SCT.

In the article, the authors trot out the same tired, empty and underhanded tropes that all articles of its ilk like to employ:

  • “no clear evidence that these treatments work”

  • “gotten way ahead of the science”

  • “no regulatory oversight”

  • “rogue clinics”

  • “scant data”

  • “not covered by insurance”

  • “high risk”  

  • “lack of solid medical evidence”

  • “snake oil”

A recent New Yorker article isn’t much different.  Both articles do contain some valid points, but those points are obscured by the scare tactics, fear-charged language and cherry-picked patient cases.

These SCT hit pieces appear from time-to-time, but rarely in publications with the broad readership of the New York Times and the New Yorker.  After reading so many of them over the years, I began to wonder – if stem cell clinics are flourishing, then isn’t that a tacit admission that the fear-mongering isn’t working? 

And if the fear-mongering isn’t working, why do they keep publishing these less-than-objective articles?  

bigstock--123393728.jpg

Maybe it’s because they feel like they are part of some consumer protection vanguard to protect Americans from sleazy medical charlatans.  Or maybe it’s because the scare tactics have failed and they have no idea what else to do. 

The fact is, as I wrote in a recent PNN column, the SCT tipping point appears to have been reached. The American public simply isn’t buying what the critics are selling. As many as 1,000 stem cell clinics are now operating in the United States, according to The Washington Post, which predicts the industry is “likely to flourish” despite a judge’s ruling that upheld the FDA’s authority to regulate — and stifle — the industry.    

The Basquiat Effect

But it gets even worse for the anti-SCT purveyors. They may be suffering from what I refer to as the Basquiat Effect.  Jean-Michel Basquiat was a graffiti-inspired painter, sculptor and musician who rose to prominence in the 1980s in New York City. 

Basquiat’s work is laden with social and political commentary, with primordial figures, abstract arrangements and linguistic devices.  One of his more popular motifs was to write words and cross them out. 

Why did he do this?  As quoted from the documentary Jean-Michel Basquiat: Radiant Child, “I cross out words so you will see them more.  The fact that they are obscured makes you want to read them.”

One of Basquiat’s paintings recently sold for $110.5 million.  He was clearly on to something.

Put simply, the Basquiat Effect holds that the more one tries to hide something, the more the people they are trying to hide it from pay attention to it.  This effect becomes even more powerful after the phenomenon that is attempting to be hidden reaches it tipping point. 

Because the American public’s curiosity is already piqued, any mention of the phenomenon, regardless of context, compels the reader to look into it. The principle seems counter intuitive, but SCT critics may have provided a perfect example.  The New York Times and New Yorker articles may actually drive more people toward SCT rather than away. 

One of Basquiat’s trademark graffiti tags was “SAMO,” short for “Same Old.”  It essentially illustrated his disenchantment with the prevailing cultural orthodoxy and his intention to introduce something new, radical and revolutionary as a solution. 

In the same way, SCT is a radical response to the failures of medical orthodoxy. The “SAMO” pills and surgeries that exemplify the “treatment” approach to healthcare have given way to an expanding desire by the American people for procedures that actually “cure” chronic conditions and don’t just mask their symptoms.

blog4.jpg

The best approach for the anti-SCT purveyors may be to join a pro-cure movement that is clearly succeeding despite their efforts.  Or, they can continue to publish their criticism.  Either way, stem cell therapy will flourish.

A. Rahman Ford.jpg

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China. 

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Stem Cell Therapy Can Cure Sickle Cell Disease

By A. Rahman Ford, PNN Columnist

Sickle cell disease is a debilitating illness that affects the hemoglobin in red blood cells.  The disorder causes the normally-round hemoglobin molecules to adopt an abnormal crescent or sickle shape. As a result, the patient suffers from anemia, repeated infections and periodic episodes of pain. 

According to the National Institutes of Health, sickle cell disease affects millions of people worldwide and is the most commonly inherited disorder in the U.S.  It affects approximately 70,000 – 80,000 Americans.  Blacks and Latinos are hit especially hard, with 1 in 500 and 1 in 1,000 being affected, respectively.

Pain is a major symptom of sickle cell disorder.  According to the Mayo Clinic, the pain develops when the sickle-shaped red blood cells block blood flow to the tiny blood vessels in your chest, abdomen and joints.  Pain in the bones can also occur.  Pain crises may last from hours to weeks and may require hospitalization.  According to mainstream medicine, there is no cure.  The only option is symptom management.

However, stem cell therapy (SCT) has brought new hope. Recently, it was reported that 11-year-old Valeria Vargas-Olmedo was cured of painful sickle cell disease.

That’s right. Cured.

In its first stem cell transplant for sickle cell disease, doctors at Loma Linda Children’s University Hospital in California used a stem cell transplant from Valeria’s father to cure the disease. This is noteworthy because the genetic match was only half – what is called haploidentical transplant. 

VALERIA VARGAS-OLMEDO AND HER PARENTS

VALERIA VARGAS-OLMEDO AND HER PARENTS

Prior to treatment, Valeria could not walk, go to school and experienced debilitating chronic pain. After conditioning with chemotherapy, the father’s cells were transfused directly into his daughter. After the treatment, Dr. Akshat Jain pronounced young Valeria “disease free.” 

The University of Illinois Hospital also offers SCT for sickle cell disease.  Using cells from a healthy, tissue-matched full sibling, patients receive immunosuppressive drugs and very low dose radiation before being infused with the cells. This method is less harsh and has fewer side effects than chemotherapy. The donor blood cells produce healthy new blood cells in the patient, eliminating symptoms and making the disease undetectable. 

In 2011, Iesha Thomas was the first patient to receive SCT for sickle cell disease at UI Health.  Six months later, she was cured.

Brothers Julius and Desmond Means were cured the following year.  In this video, Julius says having sickle cell disease as a young child was “like being tortured from the inside out.”


Saint Louis Children’s Hospital offers a similar therapy and uses cells from bone marrow, circulating blood or donated umbilical cord blood.

Unfortunately, not every hospital offers SCT for sickle cell disease.  However, if you are suffering from the illness it might be a good idea to contact a hospital that does, make an appointment with an experienced physician, and see what your options are. 

It is extraordinarily rare that mainstream medicine uses the term “cure” in association with any chronic disease.  Stem cell therapy has ushered in a new cure-based paradigm of medicine.  We need to take advantage of it.

A. Rahman Ford.jpg

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China. 

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Have We Reached the Stem Cell Tipping Point?

By A. Rahman Ford, PNN Columnist

One morning while watching TV, I was astonished by one of the commercials that ran.  It was an ad for stem cell therapy.  That was when it dawned on me – stem cells had finally hit the mainstream.  It was no longer a procedure of myth and mystery that people saw as strange or taboo.  It was now real, obtainable and, dare I say, normal. 

The public discourse over the legitimacy of stem cell therapy (SCT) has taken a clear turn in recent years, away from fearmongering and misrepresentation, and toward medical innovation and less restrictive federal regulation. 

Stem cell therapy may have officially reached its tipping point.

The term “tipping point” was popularized by Malcolm Gladwell.  He describes it as “that one dramatic moment in an epidemic when everything can change all at once.”  For Gladwell, certain large-scale social phenomena – which he terms “epidemics” or “contagions” – take hold through small, incremental changes that tend to happen in a hurry.  

Gladwell asserts that, like medical epidemics, “tipping point” social epidemics obey three laws:

  1. Law of the Few: They are driven by a handful of people

  2. Stickiness Factor: At a certain point a message “sticks” in the memory

  3. Power of Context: Human beings are sensitive to their environment 

Three groups of people facilitate successful social epidemics:

  1. Mavens, who possess the specific information or knowledge

  2. Connectors, who bring people together and disseminate that information

  3. Salesmen, who persuade others to believe the information. 

It’s ironic that Gladwell uses examples of medical epidemics to describe a theory that could be applied to a modality with the curative power of SCT. The increasing and diverse number of patient testimonials online shows how SCT has reached its tipping point.

Roar Africa CEO Deborah Calmeyer used her own stem cells to repair a bone chip on a toe she injured falling down a flight of stairs at a Manhattan restaurant.  After two years, her pain was gone and the cartilage completely healed. 

Grandmother Andrea Coleman of Charlotte, NC used her own stem cells to heal her arthritis pain, pain which she described as “10+.”  Less than two months after the therapy, her pain was at a “2 or a 3.”  And how did she find the clinic?  Her husband did a simple online search.

bigstock-Asian-Female-Doctor-Or-Scienti-5696866.jpg

High school wrestlers like JD Peralta of small-town Clovis, California used SCT to heal a torn ACL and meniscus. 

South Florida mother Marty Kelly credits SCT with curing her non-verbal autistic son Kenneth.  At eight years old, Kenneth couldn’t talk or reread and was still in diapers. Now, after nine treatments, 17-year-old Kenneth is about to graduate high school.  How did Marty Kelley find out about SCT?  She “stumbled” across a little boy in Orlando who also benefitted from the therapy. 

Finally, Superman actor Dean Cain used SCT to heal chronic pain from a knee injury he suffered playing college football.  He even invited DailyMailTV cameras to record the procedure.  Cain also credits SCT with controlling his father’s Parkinson’s Disease. 

When Superman becomes an SCT connector and salesman, you know you’ve reached the tipping point.

Small Clinics and Large Hospitals Tip the Scales

More and more clinics are offering SCT.  This proliferation is occurring despite the restrictive FDA regulatory regime that dictates stem cells should be “minimally manipulated” and only for approved treatments. Clearly, the medical professionals are not overly concerned with FDA policing and investigation. This is similar to marijuana which, while still illegal under federal law, is legally sold in dispensaries in dozens of states without fear of a crackdown.  

This perception that the FDA has adopted a permissive, laissez-faire stance is telling and evidences another SCT tipping point.

Not only is the number of small clinics increasing, but the availability of SCT in large, mainstream hospitals is further evidence of a tipping point.  As Liz Szabo points out in Kaiser Health News, major hospitals like the Swedish Medical Center – Seattle’s largest non-profit health provider – have begun offering SCT with infomercial-like advertisements.  The Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic and the University of Miami have also entered the field to provide options to patients who have exhausted mainstream remedies. 

“We have patients in our offices demanding these treatments,” said Dr. Shane Shapiro of the Mayo Clinic. “If they don’t get them from us, they will get them somewhere else.”

A serious argument can be made that the SCT tipping point has indeed been reached.  Gladwell’s theory fits the SCT movement well.  Although the SCT movement’s initial push was driven by the few, as Gladwell conceptualized, it is the stories of the many that drive it now. 

Context has also been important. The pain and suffering of countless Americans has provided the context that has forced more clinics and hospitals to provide SCT.  And progress has been quick. Just nine years ago I had to go all the way to China for my SCT.

A. Rahman Ford.jpg

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. Rahman earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.