• Combination Therapy

    Regenetek’s Combination Stem Cell and Vascular Therapy

    read more
  • Regenerative Medicine

    ‎The Most Current Information Available from Leading Scientists and Clinical Trials World-wide

    read more
  • Patient Registry Software

    Application of Technology to Make Any Size of Study Self-Managing and Affordable

    read more
  • Neurodegenerative Disorders

    The Latest Updates on Diseases Treatable Through Regenerative Medicine

    read more
  • Topical Commentary

    Opinions from Regenetek and Leading Authorities in Regenerative Medicine

    read more

About: Doug Broeska

Doug Broeska is a PhD Medical Researcher and CEO of Regenetek Inc, a Canadian Biotech Research firm working with several hospitals and clinics world-wide to develop medical procedural protocols for neurodegenerative disease management.

Recent Posts by Doug Broeska

Introductory word

Hundreds of thousands of undocumented therapies occur in clinics world-wide each year under the label of ‘medical tourism’. Even if physicians in these clinics wanted to follow their patients, there has been no method of doing so. Until now. Regenetek Research recognizes that there is a high need for a method and a study design that provides proof of both safety and efficacy for new treatment interventions such as autologous stem cell therapies or unsanctioned vascular surgeries. These types of medical interventions present viable choices for patients beyond conventional drug therapies that only treat symptoms.

Deb O’Connell (click to watch)

MS Patient Under Study

Dr. Doug Broeska, PHD

Medical Researcher, Author

Risk Factors and Potential Causes of MS*** The UNUSUAL Suspects

Someone asked me the other day what exactly causes the neurotoxic leakage of fibrinogen across the blood brain barrier in the MS central nervous system leading to lesions in the brain and subsequent neurologic symptoms. They meant, WHY are these vessels in the MS brain so prone to injury? If you’ve been reading my blogs here, you know that I’ve been heavily promoting that this leakage of fluids sets off the cascade of events that incites an immune response in the brain (CNS) and subsequent inflammation. This is where the research is taking us (although neurologists do not generally know of this research because it’s in the area of vascular medicine). We can also turn that question around to ask why that same type of injury and subsequent leakage doesn’t occur in the vast majority of the population. The Davalos UCSF study (among other studies) has shown that this leakage is most certainly ‘the cause’ of MS in those patients who are predisposed to disease development. We have seen thinner walled veins and strange valvular anomalies in most if not all MS patients. Zamboni based his hypothesis around weakened jugular veins but didn’t carry his observations, nor his treatment far enough. He had to look further upstream to find the real problem. So what is really going on here that is causing these venous lesions in the MS brain?

Reduce Inflammation and Claim an Effective Treatment for MS

Finding a treatment for MS has been a powerful allure for many medical entities. Investigations into treatment strategies originate from pharma-sponsored academic researchers all the way through to pseudo-scientists and esoteric holistic healers who practise on the edges of medicine. MS is a compelling target for research not only because of its fast-growing patient population, but because of the ability to easily affect the symptoms of MS by applying considerably different therapeutic strategies to treatment modalities. The success in reducing MS symptoms as a result of applying so many different approaches leads many researchers down rabbit holes that ultimately do not direct us towards a cure. Dreadful side-effects sometimes accompany these therapies, especially the pharma-based medications. Incredible financial rewards await a cure, but the drug companies are doing their best to maintain the status quo. They are no longer even pretending to look for a cure. As the entrenched incumbents who control the entire medical system world-wide, they privately and secretly argue behind board room doors that whether they can or not, it’s financial folly to do so. It’s much more profitable to keep patients on medications for decades while they fend off, and attempt to discredit other promising therapeutic strategies from other clinical investigators that might actually work. In this respect, the slow-moving disease process of MS makes for their ‘dream disease’, and the drug companies own the entire domain.

Muscle spasticity becomes muscle flaccidity in virtually all patients receiving the Stem cell Combination Therapy Protocol (CTP). The following is a description of what is happening within the body and why individual patient response to therapy is highly variable. Muscle spasticity is defined as an increase in muscle tone (resistance or tension) secondary to a central nervous system (CNS, brain and spinal cord) disorder or trauma. It refers to involuntary muscle stiffness or spasms. In the normal human body, in any coordinated movement, muscles on one side of the joint relax while those on the other side contract. Spasticity occurs when this coordination is impaired and muscles on both sides of the joint contract at the same time as a result of an imbalance of signals. This results in very awkward movements. MS-related spasticity can occur with active movement, or can be present at rest. Although not completely understood, spasticity is thought to be caused by increased sensitivity in the parts of the muscles responsible for tightening, relaxing and stretching. This is currently understood to occur as a result of the demyelination of the nerves connected to these muscles leading to a loss of inhibitory function of the affected nerves leading to an imbalance of excitatory impulses resulting in muscle contraction.

The Vascular Connection to MS

As part of the subject qualification process for our clinical trial, I include questions to candidates regarding trauma or stressors that preceded the patient’s symptoms of MS. My interest in this is more than mere curiosity. Clinical trials that are intended to evaluate the efficacy of a particular therapeutic protocol in patients with a particular disease need to be properly evaluated with a view to treating or preventing the disease along with determining side effects (if any) and risks associated with the protocol. If a new indication (valid reason to use an intervention) for a disease or medical condition is discovered during any part of the investigational process, it is appropriate to make note, collect data and analyze that particular aspect of the disease within the parameters of the trial. From the outset of our research, I noticed that a preponderance of MS patients (over 90%) independently reported a significant traumatic ‘event’ in their lives prior to their diagnosis of MS that we have called the ‘primary antecedent’; a premorbid risk factor that may have induced the subject’s first MS symptoms leading to their subsequent diagnosis.