Recent orders
Mireya Ibanez (2)
Mireya Ibanez
March 7, 2021
BME 295C
Ms. Barton
Annotated Literature Review:
1. Mesenchymal Stem Cells in the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury.Hasan A, Deeb G, Rahal R, Atwi K, Mondello S, Marei HE, Gali A, Sleiman E.
Front Neurol. 2017 Feb 20;8:28. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00028. eCollection 2017.
PMID: 28265255
The review introduces the use of the Mesenchymal stem cells in Traumatic Brain injury. Studies have shown that using a MSC approach can be a treatment to patients who have a TBI. One study conducted by Cox involved implanting Mesenchymal stem cells into 10 children. The results showed improvement for 7, and no significant result on the remaining children. The most effective result reoccurred the sooner the patient received the Mesenchymal stem cells. MSC is growing to be an enormous opportunity for helping people post- TBI repair.
2. Potential of mesenchymal stem cells alone, or in combination, to treat traumatic brain injury.Willing AE, Das M, Howell M, Mohapatra SS, Mohapatra S.
CNS Neurosci Ther. 2020 Jun;26(6):616-627. doi: 10.1111/cns.13300. Epub 2020 Mar 10.
PMID: 32157822
Mesenchymal stem cell therapy has been showing promising results in ongoing clinical studies. There is different therapeutic approaches for a Traumatic Brain Injury in combination with clinical Mesenchymal stem cell trials. The clinical trials have at least entered the beginning stages (safety phases) for multiple diseases and injuries including TBI’s. Researchers have been able to get a better understanding of what occurs to the body after sustaining a TBI and how Mesenchymal stem cells repairs the brain and improves functional outcomes. A lot of research and clinical trials is still needed to be able to create an effective therapy for patients suffering from Traumatic Brain injury.
3. Systemic administration of cell-free exosomes generated by human bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells cultured under 2D and 3D conditions improves functional recovery in rats after traumatic brain injury.Zhang Y, Chopp M, Zhang ZG, Katakowski M, Xin H, Qu C, Ali M, Mahmood A, Xiong Y.
Neurochem Int. 2017 Dec;111:69-81. doi: 10.1016/j.neuint.2016.08.003. Epub 2016 Aug 15.
PMID: 27539657
A study has been conducted to see if the administration of cell-free exosomes derived from h-Mesenchymal stem cells can promote functional recovery and neurovascular remodeling in rats after a Traumatic Brain injury. Wistar rats were tested by giving them an induced TBI and 24 hours later injecting them with the exosomes. The exosomes treatment significantly improved functional recovery in rats after obtaining a Traumatic Brain injury. The results included promoting endogenous angiogenesis and neurogenesis and reducing inflammation. hMSCs have the potential to be a cell-free therapy for a TBI and exosomes can possibly enhance spatial learning.
4. Human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells for acute and sub-acute TBI.Ruppert KA, Prabhakara KS, Toledano-Furman NE, Udtha S, Arceneaux AQ, Park H, Dao A, Cox CS, Olson SD.
PLoS One. 2020 May 26;15(5):e0233263. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233263. eCollection 2020.
PMID: 32453741
There are many attempts of intervention focusing on protection and, repair or regeneration when traumatic brain injury occurs. The use of stem cells from a variety of sources and applications has been studied in many disease and injury models. This study involves administering h-Mesenchymal stem cells into a rat. The earliest administration at 3 days after and delayed administration 14 days after a controlled cortical impact injury. The treatments show improvements in neurocognitive outcome and a change in the neuroinflammation one month after the injury. There is significant data and results that support the idea of using adMSC to treat a TBI. There is still ongoing research to find the optimal time to administrate the therapy to have the most successful results.
5. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells combined with Sox2 increase the functional recovery in rat with traumatic brain injury.Hao Q, Zheng J, Hu Y, Wang H.
Chin Neurosurg J. 2019 May 15;5:11. doi: 10.1186/s41016-019-0158-7. eCollection 2019.
PMID: 32922911
In many studies, it is found that the stem cell transplantation holds potential results for modifying motor dysfunctions caused by Traumatic Brain injuries. 26 rats were used in a study, with 2 rats being bone marrow stem cell donors. 2 days after a Traumatic Brain injury, the rats were induced with SOX-2 and the study examined the effects of SOX-2 with the differentiation of bsMSCs. The motor function was tested using NSS. (Neurological severity score) The study showed there was neurological function improvements. This treatment is another step to creating a promising therapy for Traumatic Brain Injuries.
6. Transplantation of R-GSIK scaffold with mesenchymal stem cells improves neuroinflammation in a traumatic brain injury model.Sahab Negah S, Shirzad MM, Biglari G, Naseri F, Hosseini Ravandi H, Hassani Dooghabadi A, Gorji A.
Cell Tissue Res. 2020 Dec;382(3):575-583. doi: 10.1007/s00441-020-03247-0. Epub 2020 Jul 27.
PMID: 32715374
Neural tissue engineering has been introduced by using Mesenchymal stem cells and R-GSIK to provide a therapeutic strategy for a Traumatic Brain injury. The study was designed to promote the behavior of the stem cells by incorporating R-GSIK in rats. There was significant recovery of motor function observed in the rats that received Mesenchymal stem cells and R-GSIK. Compared to other control groups there was a reduction in pro-inflammatory cytokines. This helped to strengthen the idea that R-GSIK and Mesenchymal stem cells are a step in helping patients who suffer from a Traumatic Brain injury.
7. Transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells genetically engineered to overexpress interleukin-10 promotes alternative inflammatory response in rat model of traumatic brain injury.Peruzzaro ST, Andrews MMM, Al-Gharaibeh A, Pupiec O, Resk M, Story D, Maiti P, Rossignol J, Dunbar GL.
J Neuroinflammation. 2019 Jan 5;16(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s12974-018-1383-2.
PMID: 30611291
Traumatic Brain injury are major causes to long term disability with a limit on the treatments available. In order to see responses of the methods, researchers look at the Neuroinflammatory responses. One specific method involves transplantation of Mesenchymal stem cells. These Mesenchymal stem cells release trophic and pro-repair cytokine, specifically interleukin10. The study tests the therapeutic effects when transplanted into rats that endured a Traumatic brain injury in the frontal cortex. There were significant improvements to reduce inflammation and promote functional outcomes, although further testing and research needs to be conducted. This could be very good in human research, if the rats continue to show good results.
8. Treating childhood traumatic brain injury with autologous stem cell therapy.Dewan S, Schimmel S, Borlongan CV.
Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2018 May;18(5):515-524. doi: 10.1080/14712598.2018.1439473. Epub 2018 Feb 15.
PMID: 29421958
A significant contributor to developmental disorders occurs from childhood related Traumatic Brain Injuries. Stem cell therapy, meaning using stem cells from the own individual is a believed therapy to enhance the repair of the injured neonatal brain. The use of autologous stem cells can delay ad possibly stop the neuroinflammation that causes cell death to occur. This therapy has very promising potential to treating neuroinflammation related with acute and progressive stages of neonatal Traumatic brain injury. There is a bunch of room of new information that can help the therapy, such as introducing new components to ensure a good outcome.
Miranda v. Arizona 1966
Miranda v. Arizona 1966
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Tittle
Professor’s Name
Date
Miranda v. Arizona 1966
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), there was an order by the Supreme Court that said detained defendants needed information on their rights to get an attorney constitutionally before the questioning. The Miranda v. Arizona case started with the arrest of a resident in Phoenix named Ernesto Miranda around 1963. He was then booked on the charges of robbery, kidnapping, and rape. At that time, the suspect (Miranda) was not conversant about his constitutional rights before the police interrogation. The interrogation between Miranda and the police took about two hours. Allegedly, Miranda admitted to having committed the wrongdoings during the interrogation that the police had recorded. He was illiterate as he had not completed his ninth grade. Additionally, he had a mental disorder history and had no counsel available. At the time of his trial, the prosecution’s case comprised only of Miranda’s confession. Ultimately, he was sentenced to the crime of kidnapping and rape hence being penalized to 20 to 30 long years in jail. Later on, Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court in Arizona, and he claimed that the law enforcement agency had executed his verdict unconstitutionally. The Court disagreed and maintained the sentence. Miranda did an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which finally revised the case in the year 1966.
The case had several participants. The Supreme Court had chief justice, Earl Warren, within a 5-4 decision. He ruled that the prosecution team would not present Miranda’s confession as proof in a criminal trial since the police did not first let Miranda be aware of his constitutional right, get an attorney, and against self-accusation. The judge, in his participation, asserted that the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution obligated the police role in offering those warnings. It offers the suspects the right to deny being self-witness on themselves and the Sixth Amendment assures criminal offenders the constitutional right to get an attorney. The Court held that the perpetrator’s right against self-accusation has been for a long period being part of Anglo-American ruling as a method to balance the helplessness inherent in being imprisoned (Ponte Carvalho, 2017). Such kind of position, if left unchecked, might every so often result in government misuse. The perpetrator’s right to get an attorney is also a fundamental right since an attorney’s appearance during interrogations, in the view of C.J Warren, allows the accused to say his incident with no fear, efficiently, and in a manner that removes the troubles in the interrogation procedure.
Therefore, to defend those rights in the existence of a widespread unawareness of the rule, the Court planned declarations that law enforcement agencies are needed to let the defendant know who is being interrogated and detained. These compulsory “Miranda Rights” start with “the right to remain silent” and goes on the words with the usual statement of “anything said can and will be used against you in a court of law.” The law enforcement agencies are bound to inform the suspected person of their right to acquire an attorney and permit for a perpetrator’s attorney who may escort him/her at the time of interrogations (Zelechoski, 2017). Miranda Ernesto was not given any of those rights, and the “confession” was therefore unconstitutionally used at the trial. The Court also had lawyer Alvin Moore; another main person involved at the trial. He came into the case when the prosecutors gave out Miranda’s written confession as proof. Moore protested that since those facts, the declaration of guilt was not truthfully voluntary and ought to be left out. Moore was involved in filing the suspect’s appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asserting that Miranda’s admission was not entirely voluntary and should not have been utilized during the Court proceedings. Another participant was John Paul Frank, the Attorney, who was a former law clerk. He also represented Miranda in his appeal. The other participants were the five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who made up the majority and merged a view put down by C.J Earl Warren. The judges ruled that since the forced nature of the questioning by police, no admission might be allowable under the Fifth Amendment’s self-accusation clause and the constitutional rights to get an attorney under the sixth amendment (Dressler, 2017). Justice Tom C. Clark, also a participant of this case, argued that C.J Earl Warren Court went a bit too far and too fast. In his place, Justice Tom Clark said he would utilize the entirety of the situations test articulated through Justice Goldberg in Haynes v. Washington.
Miranda Ernesto was re-tried in 1967 after the novel case against him was dismissed. At that period, the prosecution, as an alternative to utilizing the prior self-confession, came up with a different kind of proof and called upon witnesses. Twila Hoffman was one of the witnesses. She was a woman who used to stay with Miranda during the crime period. As a witness, she claimed that Miranda told her about committing the offense. Ernesto Miranda was sentenced in the year 1967 to 20 to 30 years in prison (Douglass, 2017). In 1972 Miranda Ernesto was paroled. He was then set free. He went back to his long-time neighborhood, and his job was to autograph police officers’ “Miranda cards” that had the text of cautioning for interpretation to arrestees. He met his death by being stabbed to death at a time of a bar argument on January 31, 1976.
Miranda v. Arizona, a legal case, resulted in the Supreme Court of the United States creating a police interrogation code of conduct for the illegal suspects detained in custody. Early Warren maintained that prosecutors could not utilize statements formed by defendants under interrogation in the custody of police lest specific minimum routine safeguards were adhered to. Warren assisted in the criminal justice system reform. He specified fresh guidelines to ensure that a suspect is given the freedom not to be forced to do self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment (Douglas, 2017). These fresh guidelines were known as the Miranda cautions. The fresh guidelines comprised informing persons arrested before interrogation that they possess the right to stay silent and that whatever they say can be utilized against them as proof. Those suspects have the right to acquire an attorney, and that in the circumstance they cannot pay for an attorney, the state will be assigned for them. In his declaration, C.J Warren declared that the law enforcement agency could not continue questioning a suspect in detention if at any phase of the process the suspect shows that he does not wish to be questioned or shows that he needs to ask an attorney. All this helped shape criminal justice reform in terms of policy processes, trial processes, and court proceedings. As these reforms took root in the ground, critics of the Miranda decision claimed that the Court’s undertaking to guard the individuals’ rights had significantly damaged law enforcement.
Reference
Douglass, D. L. (2017). Department of Justice consent decrees as the foundation for community-initiated collaborative police reform. Police Quarterly, 20(3), 322-336.
Dressler, J. (2017). Miranda v. Arizona: Be Grateful for Small Favors. Tex. Tech L. Rev., 50, 51.
Zelechoski, A. D., Wolbransky, M., & Riggs Romaine, C. L. (2018). To waive or not to waive? Miranda rights and due process.
Marketing Concepts in Coca-Cola and Pepsi Part A
Introduction to Marketing
BUMKT1502
Business Report: PART A
Tutor’s Name:
Assignment Due Day
Week 7 Friday Table of Contents
Executive Summary………………….………….……………..…………………3
Introduction………………………………………………………………………3
Company Overview……………………………………..…………………………3
Marketing Concepts………………………………………..………………………4
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………5
Marketing Concepts in Coca-Cola and Pepsi
Executive Summary
The existence of various companies offering similar products has caused intense competition in the market. As each of them grapple to satisfy the demand, various marketing strategies have been used. In this paper, two rival companies, Coca-Cola and Pepsi would be analyzed for the marketing strategies they use and how effective these strategies have been.
Introduction
The beverage and food industry selected for this paper has been experiencing continual evolution due to global market forces. Changing customer preferences, government regulations and consolidations have been pointed out by Baldwin as great influencers of strategies used in marketing in this industry (2011). There is need to offer customers a variety of choices in accordance with their demand while being cost effective and producing high quality products. Focus should be laid on the target market and competitors. There are two beverage brands, almost causing a duopoly, widely recognized globally, namely; Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
Company Overview
Coca-Cola Company, an American public company, manufactures retails and markets non-alcoholic beverages. Its SWOT analysis by Taylor (2008) reveals a brand has been a market giant since its engineering by John Stith Pemberton in 1886 and founding in 1892 by Asa Candler. Currently, the company has over 500 brands distributed in more than 200 countries worldwide. It operates on franchising where the company produces syrup concentrate sold to those with exclusive rights worldwide. Its headquarters is in Atlanta Georgia and its stock listed on NYSE. Nonetheless, its large manufacturing capacity could make realignment so as to respond to changes in consumer preference a difficult venture. Coca-Cola has had Pepsi as its major rival for a long time despite beating it many times in their cola battle. Pepsi, with its headquarters in New York, sells soft drinks such as Mountain Dew, Slice and Pepsi (Pepsi, 2011). Sales of its non-carbonated drinks contribute most to its revenues. It remains a leader in sales of sport drinks, PET bottled water, chilled juice and bottled tea and coffee. Its over 100 brands are distributed worldwide. Just like Coca-Cola, it produces beverage concentrates and sells to independent bottlers in addition to overseeing product promotion. Its major weakness is its dependence on the American market as 52% of its revenue originates from the US.
Marketing Concepts
The two most popular products of these beverage giants are Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola. Coca-Cola was voted the best brand globally in 2010 according to the Coca-Cola Company (2011). To distribute these products, various macro-environment and microenvironment factors have to be considered. Among the macro environment factors, external to the organization, affecting marketing as discussed by Kotler and Armstrong include culture, politics, technology, economy and demography (2010). The microenvironment factors to be considered, which are internal to the organization include suppliers, customer markets, competitors and the public.
In spite of targeting the same market, Coca-Cola and Pepsi have adopted different strategic marketing techniques to meet their individual objectives. Kotler and Armstrong define product positioning as “the place the product occupies in consumers’ minds relative to competing products” (2010, p.259). Both of these beverage companies have worked towards promoting their brands as the most superior in the market, hence worth purchasing. They have effectively used their websites to achieve this. Segmentation has previously worked against Pepsi when it introduced breakfast product because it could not sell to this segment of the market who did not believe in having cola beverages for breakfast. But these companies have had to come up with proper segmentation strategies by grouping countries according to their traits and producing what best fits them. This strategy has helped Coca-Cola penetrate markets like India and China. Baldwin acknowledges that these companies spend a lot in promotions, sales and advertising (2011). Other than growing their customer base, these companies also aim at retaining the existing market. They sponsor important sporting events and charity activities that would enhance their brands. For example, Coca-Cola has been known to sponsor the world cup for a long time now while Pepsi would be found sponsoring many football matches.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the two beverage giants in the industry have used innovative marketing strategies in reaching out to their target markets. They have integrated their products in entertainment including sports and music to reach out to a wider market, with the aid of the internet. Hence, strategic marketing could be pointed out as a driver of sales in these organizations, just like any other.
Reference
Baldwin, M. D. (2011). Posts Tagged ‘Market Segment.’ Retrieved 4 December, 2011 from HYPERLINK “http://www.cssp.com/strategicplanning” http://www.cssp.com/strategicplanning
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of Marketing, 10th Ed. United States of America:Prentice-Hall.
Staff, G. (2010, 7 February). The Coca-Cola Case Review. Retrieved 4 December, 2011 from HYPERLINK “http://www.greenmuze.com” http://www.greenmuze.com
Taylor, J. (2008, June 21). SWOT Analysis. Retrieved 4 December, 2011 fromhttp://www.tomspencer.com.au
The Coca-Cola Company. Retrieved 4 December, 2011 from HYPERLINK “http://www.cocacola.com” www.cocacola.com
The Pepsi Cola Company. Retrieved 4 December, 2011 from HYPERLINK “http://www.pepsi.com” www.pepsi.com