R3 Stem Cell Publishes Podcast Called Stem Cell Genius to Educate Consumers on Regenerative Medicine
The world's largest provider of regenerative therapies, R3 Stem Cell, has launched a new podcast called Stem Cell Genius.
'With R3's Podcast Stem Cell Genius, we will provide accurate information to FAQ's in layman's terms so people understand what these wonderful stem cell and exosome therapies can or can't do!'— David Greene, MD, PhD, MBA
SCOTTSDALE, AZ, UNITED STATES, May 23, 2025 / EINPresswire.com / -- The world's largest provider of regenerative therapies, R3 Stem Cell, has launched a new podcast called Stem Cell Genius. The podcast will touch on regenerative medicine subjects that will educate consumers on frequently asked questions and provide accurate information to delineate fact from fiction in the industry.
The topics will be generated from the vast majority of frequently asked questions received on a daily basis. For instance, in the first episode R3 Stem Cell CEO David Greene, MD, PhD, MBA, explains the basics of what stem cells and exosomes are. In the second episode, Dr. Greene clarifies the differences between stem cells used in the USA versus internationally.
According to Dr. Greene, 'There are so many questions surrounding stem cell therapy from the public, and unfortunately there are many unscrupulous actors spreading misinformation. With R3's President Samantha Brechner as the host, we will provide accurate information to FAQ's in layman's terms so people understand what these wonderful therapies can or can't do!'
With over 26,000 stem cell procedures performed in the past decade, R3 Stem Cell has over 70 Centers in 7 countries. The company has published 10 peer reviewed research papers over the past 2 years, on regenerative therapies for conditions such as autism, Cerebral Palsy, premature ovarian failure, diabetes and more. With an incredibly broad experience, R3's CEO Dr. David Greene is able to convey a deep understanding of not just what the biologics are, but how they work for individuals and what to expect.
Dr. Greene added, 'I'm not interested in fluff content involving stem cell research that won't help people. The topics are directly tied to existing therapies that are changing lives every day. For example, stem cell therapy for autism works amazingly well and is safe. Parents need the latest information to be able to make educated decisions regarding their child's healthcare.'
R3 Stem Cell has stem cell clinics in Turkey, Philippines, Pakistan, India, Mexico, USA and South Africa. Each clinic utilizes R3's biologics and best practice protocols.
New episodes will be added weekly, with the Stem Cell Genius podcast being available on all major content platforms.
David Greene, MD, PhD, MBA
R3 Stem Cell International
+1 (888) 988-0515
email us here
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
12 minutes ago
- E&E News
Atmospheric CO2 buildup broke another record in May
Climate-warming carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere broke another record last month, breaching 430 parts per million for the first time in recorded history. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, whose researchers track atmospheric CO2, publicly announced the findings Thursday morning. NOAA announced the findings in social media posts on X and Facebook, linking to the public data on its website. The agency also typically reveals the annual CO2 in a news release, like last year's announcement, but hadn't done so as of 12:30 p.m. ET on Thursday. Advertisement Kim Doster, NOAA's director of communications, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
UnitedHealthcare accused The Guardian of looking to ‘capitalize' on CEO's murder in lawsuit
UnitedHealthcare sued The Guardian and its parent on Wednesday for defamation, claiming the US version of the British daily newspaper ran information it knew to be incorrect in order to 'capitalize' on the assassination of the medical insurer's CEO. The article in question was produced and published by The Guardian's US investigations team as part of a series titled 'Too Big to Care' and was available worldwide at publication. In the article, George Joseph, an investigative reporter for The Guardian's US publication, wrote that UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare's parent, had engaged in cost-cutting tactics by paying off nurses to cut down on hospital transfers. Citing internal emails, documents and interviews with more than 20 current and former staffers, the report claimed that the payments were made 'as part of a UnitedHealth program.' Nursing home residents in need of 'immediate hospital care under the program failed to receive it' because of 'interventions from UnitedHealth staffers,' per the report. The lawsuit from UnitedHealth Group, United Healthcare Services and Optum, the group's health services segment, filed in Delaware's Superior Court, accused The Guardian of publishing 'knowingly false claims' in the story, alleging it used 'deceptively doctored documents' and 'patently untruthful anecdotes' to produce the article. 'The Guardian knew these accusations were false, but published them anyway, brazenly trying to capitalize on the tragic and shocking assassination of UnitedHealthcare's then-CEO, Brian Thompson,' the lawsuit alleged. The Guardian is strongly pushing back against UnitedHealthcare's lawsuit, emphasizing in a statement that it will defend Joseph's reporting. 'The Guardian stands by its deeply-sourced, independent reporting, which is based on thousands of corporate and patient records, publicly filed lawsuits, declarations submitted to federal and state agencies, and interviews with more than 20 current and former UnitedHealth employees — as well as statements and information provided by UnitedHealth itself over several weeks,' The Guardian said in a statement. 'It's outrageous that in response to factual reporting on the practice of secretly paying nursing homes to reduce hospitalizations for vulnerable patients, UnitedHealth is resorting to wildly misleading claims and intimidation tactics via the courts,' the publication said. The health care giant's accusations echo a statement published by UnitedHealth Group the same day The Guardian released its investigation. In the statement, the company accused the publication of building a 'narrative' using 'anecdotes rather than facts.' The company noted that the Justice Department had investigated the allegations, interviewed witnesses, and combed through thousands of documents, only to find 'the significant factual inaccuracies in the allegations.' A UnitedHealth Group spokesperson told CNN that The Guardian 'refused to engage with the truth and chose instead to print its predetermined narrative.' 'The Guardian knowingly published false and misleading claims about our Institutional Special Needs Program, forcing us to take action to protect the clinician-patient relationship that is crucial for delivering high-quality care,' the company said in a statement. However, despite the claim, a spokesperson for The Guardian told CNN that it has 'received no requests for correction or retraction on any aspect of the story.' UnitedHealthcare is being represented by Clare Locke, a law firm known for taking on defamation cases against media organizations. The firm has also represented Project Veritas; and one of its partners, Jered Ede, who is working on the UnitedHealthcare lawsuit, was also Project Veritas's chief legal officer.
Wall Street Journal
16 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Proof' Review: Finding Truth in Numbers
Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence read: 'We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable . . . ' It was supposedly Benjamin Franklin who suggested instead announcing the truths to be 'self-evident,' as though they were fundamental mathematical axioms providing an incontestable foundation for the new republic. The idea of self-evident truths goes all the way back to Euclid's 'Elements' (ca. 300 B.C.), which depends on a handful of axioms—things that must be granted true at the outset, such as that one can draw a straight line between any two points on a plane. From such assumptions Euclid went on to show, for example, that there are infinitely many prime numbers, and that the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal. If the axioms are true, and the subsequent reasoning is sound, then the conclusion is irrefutable. What we now have is a proof: something we can know for sure. Adam Kucharski, a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, takes the reader on a fascinating tour of the history of what has counted as proof. Today, for example, we have computerized proofs by exhaustion, in which machines chew through examples so numerous that they could never be checked by humans. The author sketches the development of ever-more-rarefied mathematics, from calculus to the mind-bending work on different kinds of infinity by the Russian-German sage Georg Cantor, who proved that natural integers (1,2,3 . . . ) are somehow not more numerous than even numbers (2,4,6 . . .), even though the former set includes all the elements of the latter set, in addition to the one that contains all odd numbers. My favorite example is the Banach-Tarski paradox, which proves that you can disassemble a single sphere and reconstitute it into two spheres of identical size. Climbing the ladder of proof, we can enter a wild realm where intuitions break down completely. But proof, strictly understood, is only half the story here. Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Kucharski relates, taught himself to derive Euclid's proofs to give himself an argumentative edge in the courtroom and in Congress. Yet politics is messier than geometry; and so the dream of perfectly logical policymaking, immune to quibble, remains out of reach. What should we do, then, when a mathematical proof of truth is unavailable, but we must nonetheless act?
