Business
Column: A stem cell clinic tees up a Supreme Court challenge to rules protecting patients' health and safety
For years, the Food and Drug Administration has taken up arms against clinics hawking unproven and ineffective stem cell treatments to desperate patients looking for cures of intractable diseases and conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and even erectile dysfunction.
As the FDA has repeatedly cautioned, there is no scientifically validated evidence that these treatments work. They’re typically not covered by insurance. For the clinics, however, they’re money-makers, with fees of $9,000 or more per treatment; the clinics often recommend multiple treatments.
But now the FDA’s campaign against these bogus therapies is facing serious headwinds on two fronts.
[The FDA is] likely to be subjected to enormous political pressure during Trump 2.0 to weaken oversight of cell and regenerative products.
— Paul S. Knoepfler, UC Davis
One is the Supreme Court. A California stem cell network that recently lost a lawsuit brought by the FDA has signaled that it intends to appeal to the Supreme Court. It’s far from certain that the court will take up the appeal, at this stage — but a majority of the justices have looked favorably on efforts to rein in administrative agencies such as the FDA.
“I think it’s highly unlikely … but not impossible” that the court will take up the stem cell case, says Henry T. Greely, an expert in the legal issues involving bioscientific technologies.
The case doesn’t have the customary hallmarks of cases that warrant Supreme Court action, Greely told me, such as disagreements among appellate circuits requiring resolution. But it may suit the ideological bent of four justices — the minimum number required to place a case on the Supreme Court docket.
“Some of these justices really hate administrative agency power,” Greely says.
In a landmark ruling last year, the Supreme Court struck down a 40-year-old precedent—the Chevron doctrine — that required courts to accept federal agencies’ interpretations of the laws they administer as long as their interpretations weren’t openly unreasonable. That sharply narrowed agency authority. The FDA has ranked high on the list of agencies that conservatives see as exercising excessive authority.
It may not take a Supreme Court decision to hamper the FDA’s campaign against bogus stem cell treatments.
“Just the possibility that [the Supreme Court] could take this case may have a chilling effect on FDA activity in the stem cell clinic space,” Paul S. Knoepfler, a UC Davis biologist who has assiduously tracked the industry, told me. Even without the case, he says, the FDA is “likely to be subjected to enormous political pressure during Trump 2.0 to weaken oversight of cell and regenerative products.”
That brings us to the second threat, coming from Donald Trump’s nominee as secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Even before his nomination, Kennedy made clear that he was girding to go to war against the FDA, which would come under his jurisdiction at HHS.
In an Oct. 25 tweet, he declared “FDA’s war on public health is about to end.” He specifically accused the agency of “aggressive suppression” of stem cells as well as “psychedelics, peptides, … raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine … and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”
Kennedy wasn’t clear what he meant by his reference to stem cells or whether he was referring to the unproven stem cell treatments marketed by the clinics facing FDA regulation.
Many of the other items in his litany have been shown to be ineffective for their marketed purposes — ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, for example, have been touted as treatments for COVID-19 even though scientific studies have shown them to be useless against the disease. I asked Kennedy to clarify his reference to stem cells but haven’t received a reply.
Here’s a brief primer on what these clinics are selling. Typically, their method involves removing fat cells from a customer via liposuction, treating the fat ostensibly to extract stem cells, and injecting those cells into the customer’s body.
For instance, Cell Surgical Network, a defendant in the FDA’s California case, boasts of offering “innovative solutions” for spine disease, knee problems and other orthopedic conditions; lupus, Crohn’s and other autoimmune diseases; ALS, Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis; cardiac conditions; and glaucoma, among other issues. None of these claims has been supported by scientific research.
The only stem cell products the FDA has approved for use are stem cells extracted from umbilical cord blood, and then only for rare blood disorders.
Like other clinics, Cell Surgical has asserted that its products are exempt from oversight because, as reimplantations of a customer’s own tissue, they don’t meet the law’s definition of “drugs.”
They also claim the “same surgical procedure” exemption from FDA regulation, which the agency typically applies to procedures in which a patient’s tissue is given only minimal processing before being used, such as in skin grafting or coronary artery bypass surgery. The FDA holds that the stem cell clinics subject the tissues to significant processing and that the procedures are separate surgical events.
Before the FDA acted, both the Florida and California clinic networks had been operating for years. The Florida company had been operating since at least 2014, and Lander and Berman had founded their California Stem Cell Treatment Center in Rancho Mirage in 2010. By 2018, the FDA said in its lawsuit, Lander had claimed that affiliated clinics had administered the technique he and Berman developed to more than 6,000 patients.
Yet the FDA sometimes seems to be fighting a losing battle, or at least a whack-a-mole battle, against clinics offering dubious stem cell treatments. There are just too many — more than 1,000, by Knoepfler’s reckoning — making pitches to desperate customers seeking cures against intractable conditions.
That has left things up to state and local regulators, but the record there is spotty. A notable recent success can be chalked up to Georgia Atty. Gen. Chris Carr, who announced on Jan. 8 that in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission he had obtained judgments totaling more than $5.1 million from the operators of bogus stem cell clinics. The sum includes refunds of more than $3.3 million for 479 customers, most of whom were “older or disabled adults” who had been “sold expensive, unproven stem cell products.”
In June 2019, federal Judge Ursula Ungaro of Miami ordered U.S. Stem Cell of Florida effectively shut down, siding with the FDA in a lawsuit the agency had filed in May 2018.
The FDA’s case against California-based Cell Surgical Network and its affiliates took a somewhat different course. The agency filed suit in California federal court against the network and its physician-proprietors, Elliott B. Lander and the late Mark Berman, the same day it sued the Florida firm. But it lost at the trial stage in August 2022, when federal Judge Jesus Bernal of Riverside accepted the defendants’ claim that they were entitled to the “same surgical procedure” exemption from FDA oversight.
Bernal’s decision, however, was overturned last September by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which found in a 3-0 ruling that the FDA’s interpretation of the law “is the only interpretation that makes sense.” The appeals court sent the case back to Bernal with instructions to reconsider the case in light of its finding.
That’s where things stood until Jan. 6, when Cell Surgical Network and its affiliated defendants asked the appellate court to suspend its order to remand the case to Bernal, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. The FDA opposed the motion, arguing that the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up the case. The appellate court rejected the network’s motion Tuesday, but the network hasn’t indicated that it intends to drop the Supreme Court appeal. I asked its lawyers if their plans have changed but haven’t received a reply.
As I’ve written before, undermining the FDA’s authority has been a right-wing project for years. That’s because the agency’s duty is to stand in the way of businesses desiring to push unsafe and ineffective nostrums at unwary consumers, and also in the way of a perverse idea that personal freedom includes the freedom to be gulled by charlatans.
In 2018, then-President Trump signed a right-to-try law that purportedly gave victims of terminal diseases access to experimental treatments that might save them.
But despite claims that it was designed as a “compassionate measure” for terminal patient, the law was a scam perpetrated by the Koch network and its allies, aimed at undermining the FDA’s authority to make sure our drugs are safe and effective. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) ultimately gave the game away, informing then-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, a critic of the law, that its purpose was to “diminish the FDA’s power over people’s lives, not increase it.”
In 2023, GOP-appointed judges on the right wing-dominated 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FDA had exceeded its authority in advising against the use of ivermectin against COVID. “The FDA can inform,” the court said, “but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ‘stop’ taking medicine.” (Emphasis in the original.)
There may not be much distance between that finding by the 5th Circuit and a decision by the current Supreme Court majority that the FDA overstepped its bounds in not only informing consumers of the dangers of taking unproven and even dangerous stem cell treatments, but blocking the treatments by seeking to put clinics that sell them.
“MAGA loves stem cell clinics,” Greely says. “Why? It gives people a chance to make a lot of money, and because it’s a change for people to say ‘no bureaucrat is going to tell me what to do.’”
If the trend continues along these lines, you can expect more providers collecting more dollars by pushing worthless therapies to desperate customers. The threat to Americans’ health will be very real indeed.
Business
After Warner Bros. merger, changes are coming to the historic Paramount lot. Here’s what to expect
With Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of Warner Bros. expected to saddle the combined company with $79 billion in debt, Paramount executives are looking to do away with redundant assets including real estate — and there is a lot of that.
Chief in the public’s imagination are their historic studios in Burbank and Hollywood, where legendary films and television show have been made for generations and continue to operate year-round.
“Both of these studios are in the core [30-mile zone,] the inner circle of where Hollywood talent wants to be,” entertainment property broker Nicole Mihalka of CBRE said. “It’s very prime real estate.”
When Sony and Apollo were bidding for Paramount in early 2024, their plan was to sell the Paramount property, but there is no indication that Paramount would part with its namesake lot.
For now, Paramount’s plan is to keep both studios operating with each studio releasing about 15 films a year, but the goal is to eventually consolidate most of the studio operations around the Warner Bros. lot in Burbank in order to to eliminate redundancies with the Paramount lot on Melrose Avenue, people close to Chief Executive David Ellison said.
A view of the Warner Bros. Studios water tower Feb. 23, 2026, in Burbank.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
Paramount would not look to raze its celebrated studio lot — the oldest operating film studio in Los Angeles — because of various restrictions on historic buildings there. Paramount also has a relatively new post-production facility on site and will likely need to the studio space.
Instead, the plan would be to lease out space for film productions, including those from combined Paramount-HBO streaming operations. Ellison also is considering plans to develop other parts of the 65-acre site for possible retail use, as well as renting space for commercial offices.
The studios’ combined property holdings are vast, and real estate data provider CoStar estimates they have about 12 million square feet of overlapping uses, including their studio campuses, offices and long-term leases in such film centers as Burbank, Hollywood and New York.
Century-old Paramount Pictures Studios is awash in Hollywood history — think Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond desperately trying to enter its famous gate in “Sunset Boulevard,” and other classics such as “The Godfather,” “Titanic” and “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.”
The lot, however, is a congested warren of stages, offices, trailers and support facilities such as woodworking mills that date to the early 20th century. The layout is byzantine in part because Paramount bought the former rival RKO studio lot from Desilu Productions to create the lot known today.
Warner Bros. occupies 11 million square feet and owns 14 properties totaling 9.5 million square feet, largely in the United States and United Kingdom, CoStar said. About 3 million square feet of that commercial property is in the Los Angeles area.
The firm’s portfolio also includes the sprawling Warner Bros. Studios Leavesden complex in the U.K. and Turner Broadcasting System headquarters in Atlanta.
Paramount Skydance occupies 8 million square feet and owns 14 properties totaling 2.1 million square feet, according to CoStar. In addition to its Hollywood campus, Paramount’s holdings include prominent buildings in New York such as the Ed Sullivan Theater and CBS Broadcast Center.
Warner Bros. operates a 3-million-square-foot lot in Burbank with more than 30 soundstages — along with space for building sets and backlot areas — where famous movies including “Casablanca” and television shows such as “Friends” were filmed. Paramount’s 1.2-million-square-foot Melrose campus anchors a broader network of owned and leased production space, CoStar said.
Paramount’s lot is already cleared for more development. More than a decade ago, Paramount secured city approval to add 1.4 million square feet to its headquarters and some adjacent properties owned by the company.
The redevelopment plan, valued at $700 million in 2016, underwent years of environmental review and public outreach with neighbors and local business owners.
The plan would allow for construction of up to 1.9 million square feet of new stage, production office, support, office, and retail uses, and the removal of up to 537,600 square feet of existing stage, production office, support, office, and retail uses, for a net increase of nearly 1.4 million square feet.
The proposal preserves elements of the past by focusing future development on specific portions of the lot along Melrose and limited areas in the production core, architecture firm Rios said.
The Warner Bros. and Paramount lots “are two of the most prime pieces of real estate in the country,” Mihalka said. “These are legacy assets with a lot of potential to be [tourist] attractions in addition to working studios.”
Hollywood is still reeling from previous mergers, in addition to a sharp pullback in film and television production locally as filmmakers chase tax credits offered overseas and in other states, including New York and New Jersey.
Last year, lawmakers boosted the annual amount allocated to the state’s film and TV tax credit program and expanded the criteria for eligible projects in an attempt to lure production back to California. So far, more than 100 film and TV projects have been awarded tax credits under the revamped program.
The benefits have been slow to materialize, but Mihalka predicts that the tax credits and desirability of working close to home will lead to more studio use in the Los Angeles area, including at Warner Bros. and Paramount.
“These are such prime locations that we’ll see show runners and talent push back on having shows located out of state and insist on being here,” she said. “I think you’re going to see more positive movement here.”
Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.
Business
How our AI bots are ignoring their programming and giving hackers superpowers
Welcome to the age of AI hacking, in which the right prompts make amateurs into master hackers.
A group of cybercriminals recently used off-the-shelf artificial intelligence chatbots to steal data on nearly 200 million taxpayers. The bots provided the code and ready-to-execute plans to bypass firewalls.
Although they were explicitly programmed to refuse to help hackers, the bots were duped into abetting the cybercrime.
According to a recent report from Israeli cybersecurity firm Gambit Security, hackers last month used Claude, the chatbot from Anthropic, to steal 150 gigabytes of data from Mexican government agencies.
Claude initially refused to cooperate with the hacking attempts and even denied requests to cover the hackers’ digital tracks, the experts who discovered the breach said. The group pummelled the bot with more than 1,000 prompts to bypass the safeguards and convince Claude they were allowed to test the system for vulnerabilities.
AI companies have been trying to create unbreakable chains on their AI models to restrain them from helping do things such as generating child sexual content or aiding in sourcing and creating weapons. They hire entire teams to try to break their own chatbots before someone else does.
But in this case, hackers continuously prompted Claude in creative ways and were able to “jailbreak” the chatbot to assist them. When they encountered problems with Claude, the hackers used OpenAI’s ChatGPT for data analysis and to learn which credentials were required to move through the system undetected.
The group used AI to find and exploit vulnerabilities, bypass defences, create backdoors and analyze data along the way to gain control of the systems before they stole 195 million identities from nine Mexican government systems, including tax records, vehicle registration as well as birth and property details.
AI “doesn’t sleep,” Curtis Simpson, chief executive of Gambit Security, said in a blog post. “It collapses the cost of sophistication to near zero.”
“No amount of prevention investment would have made this attack impossible,” he said.
Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment. It told Bloomberg that it had banned the accounts involved and disrupted their activity after an investigation.
OpenAI said it is aware of the attack campaign carried out using Anthropic’s models against the Mexican government agencies.
“We also identified other attempts by the adversary to use our models for activities that violate our usage policies; our models refused to comply with these attempts,” an OpenAI spokesperson said in a statement. “We have banned the accounts used by this adversary and value the outreach from Gambit Security.”
Instances of generative AI-assisted hacking are on the rise, and the threat of cyberattacks from bots acting on their own is no longer science fiction. With AI doing their bidding, novices can cause damage in moments, while experienced hackers can launch many more sophisticated attacks with much less effort.
Earlier this year, Amazon discovered that a low-skilled hacker used commercially available AI to breach 600 firewalls. Another took control of thousands of DJI robot vacuums with help from Claude, and was able to access live video feed, audio and floor plans of strangers.
“The kinds of things we’re seeing today are only the early signs of the kinds of things that AIs will be able to do in a few years,” said Nikola Jurkovic, an expert working on reducing risks from advanced AI. “So we need to urgently prepare.”
Late last year, Anthropic warned that society has reached an “inflection point” in AI use in cybersecurity after disrupting what the company said was a Chinese state-sponsored espionage campaign that used Claude to infiltrate 30 global targets, including financial institutions and government agencies.
Generative AI also has been used to extort companies, create realistic online profiles by North Korean operatives to secure jobs in U.S. Fortune 500 companies, run romance scams and operate a network of Russian propaganda accounts.
Over the last few years, AI models have gone from being able to manage tasks lasting only a few seconds to today’s AI agents working autonomously for many hours. AI’s capability to complete long tasks is doubling every seven months.
“We just don’t actually know what is the upper limit of AI’s capability, because no one’s made benchmarks that are difficult enough so the AI can’t do them,” said Jurkovic, who works at METR, a nonprofit that measures AI system capabilities to cause catastrophic harm to society.
So far, the most common use of AI for hacking has been social engineering. Large language models are used to write convincing emails to dupe people out of their money, causing an eight-fold increase in complaints from older Americans as they lost $4.9 billion in online fraud in 2025.
“The messages used to elicit a click from the target can now be generated on a per-user basis more efficiently and with fewer tell-tale signs of phishing,” such as grammatical and spelling errors, said Cliff Neuman, an associate professor of computer science at USC.
AI companies have been responding using AI to detect attacks, audit code and patch vulnerabilities.
“Ultimately, the big imbalance stems from the need of the good-actors to be secure all the time, and of the bad-actors to be right only once,” Neuman said.
The stakes around AI are rising as it infiltrates every aspect of the economy. Many are concerned that there is insufficient understanding of how to ensure it cannot be misused by bad actors or nudged to go rogue.
Even those at the top of the industry have warned users about the potential misuse of AI.
Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, has long advocated that the AI systems being built are unpredictable and difficult to control. These AIs have shown behaviors as varied as deception and blackmail, to scheming and cheating by hacking software.
Still, major AI companies — OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, and Google — signed contracts with the U.S. government to use their AIs in military operations.
This last week, the Pentagon directed federal agencies to phase out Claude after the company refused to back down on its demand that it wouldn’t allow its AI to be used for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons.
“The AI systems of today are nowhere near reliable enough to make fully autonomous weapons,” Amodei told CBS News.
Business
iPic movie theater chain files for bankruptcy
The iPic dine-in movie theater chain has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and intends to pursue a sale of its assets, citing the difficult post-pandemic theatrical market.
The Boca Raton, Fla.-based company has 13 locations across the U.S., including in Pasadena and Westwood, according to a Feb. 25 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach division.
As part of the bankruptcy process, the Pasadena and Westwood theaters will be permanently closed, according to WARN Act notices filed with the state of California’s Employment Development Department.
The company came to its conclusion after “exploring a range of possible alternatives,” iPic Chief Executive Patrick Quinn said in a statement.
“We are committed to continuing our business operations with minimal impact throughout the process and will endeavor to serve our customers with the high standard of care they have come to expect from us,” he said.
The company will keep its current management to maintain day-to-day operations while it goes through the bankruptcy process, iPic said in the statement. The last day of employment for workers in its Pasadena and Westwood locations is April 28, according to a state WARN Act notice. The chain has 1,300 full- and part-time employees, with 193 workers in California.
The theatrical business, including the exhibition industry, still has not recovered from the pandemic’s effect on consumer behavior. Last year, overall box office revenue in the U.S. and Canada totaled about $8.8 billion, up just 1.6% compared with 2024. Even more troubling is that industry revenue in 2025 was down 22.1% compared with pre-pandemic 2019’s totals.
IPic noted those trends in its bankruptcy filing, describing the changes in consumer behavior as “lasting” and blaming the rise of streaming for “fundamentally” altering the movie theater business.
“These industry shifts have directly reduced box office revenues and related ancillary revenues, including food and beverage sales,” the company stated in its bankruptcy filing.
IPic also attributed its decision to rising rents and labor costs.
The company estimated it owed about $141,000 in taxes and about $2.7 million in total unsecured claims. The company’s assets were valued at about $155.3 million, the majority of which coming from theater equipment and furniture. Its liabilities totaled $113.9 million.
The chain had previously filed for bankruptcy protection in 2019.
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Wisconsin4 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Maryland5 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Florida5 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Oregon6 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling