Perspective

Perspective
For reprint orders, please contact: reprints@futuremedicine.com

Stem cell stratagems in alternative medicine

Stem cell research has attracted an extraordinary amount of attention and expectation due to its potential
for applications in the treatment of numerous medical conditions. These exciting clinical prospects have
generated widespread support from both the public and private sectors, and numerous preclinical studies
and rigorous clinical trials have already been initiated. Recent years, however, have also seen alarming
growth in the number and variety of claims of clinical uses of notional ‘stem cells’ that have not been
adequately tested for safety and/or efficacy. In this article, I will survey the contours of the stem cell
industry as practiced by alternative medicine providers, and highlight points of commonality in their
strategies for marketing.

KEYWORDS: alternative medicine n cosmetics n fresh cells n nutraceuticals n stem cell
applications n stem cell tourism
Alternative medicine is broadly defined as the
set of healthcare practices that falls outside of
the mainstream of established medical practice
in a given country or culture [101] . An equally
important defining characteristic, however, and
one that I will use in this article, is reliance on
speculation, anecdote and appeals to authority,
rather than evidence from rigorously designed
scientific experiments to support claims.
Indeed, in an influential editorial, the editors
of the New England Journal of Medicine based
their own definition on evidentiary standards,
calling alternative medicine the set of health-
care practices that has “not been scientifically
tested and [whose] advocates largely deny the
need for such testing” [1] , which was echoed in
a statement by the editors of the Journal of the
American Medical Association, which went so
far as to repudiate the distinction: “There is no
alternative medicine. There is only scientifically
proven, evidence-based medicine supported by
solid data or unproven medicine, for which sci-
entific evidence is lacking” [2] . For the purposes
of this article, I define ‘alternative medicine’
as any purportedly therapeutic approach that
is not validated by, or which does not seek to
attain, rigorous scientific evidence for its claims
prior to offering them commercially. The areas
of wellness, cosmetics, esthetics and quality of
life, which are typically subject to less rigorous
testing and regulation than medical products,
fall into the same spectrum of poor evidentiary
support, and have here been classed together
with alternative medicines to illustrate the diver-
sity of untested claims surrounding the use of
Douglas Sipp
RIKEN Center for Developmental
Biology, 2–2-3 Minatojima
Minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe,
stem cells, and in recognition of the wide range 650-0047, Japan
of assertions made by many such practices that Tel.: +81 783 063 043
Fax: +81 783 063 990
range from therapeutic applications to poorly sipp@cdb.riken.jp
defined improvements in wellbeing, appearance
and vitality.
Alternative medicine, and the related realms
of complementary, holistic and integrative medi-
cine, encompass a wide range of approaches
to healthcare, including practices adapted
from Chinese, Indian, Native American, and
European folk medicine, homeopathy, chiro-
practic medicine, naturopathy, aromatherapy,
crystal therapy, herbal supplements, nutrient
megadoses, biofeedback, electric and magnetic
therapies, and faith healing. These approaches
are distinguished from evidence-based medi-
cine in that either their therapeutic claims for a
wide range of conditions have been tested and
found to be no more effective than placebo, or
they have not been subject to any rigorous stud-
ies of safety and efficacy [3,4] . Given the diverse
nature of the approaches categorized as alterna-
tive medicine, it has proven difficult to develop
reliable figures on usage and market size, but it
has been estimated that between 30 and 50%
of all Americans use at least one alternative or
complementary treatment, giving a total market
size of over US$40 billion [5,6] .
I will argue that untested and under-regulated
uses of ‘stem cells’ represent a new and increas-
ingly popular class of alternative medicine prod-
ucts. The marketing of these nostrums relies on
claims that such products use, mimic, activate
or enhance stem cell functions for medicinal,
cosmetic, anti-aging or other quality-of-life

10.2217/RME.11.13 © Douglas Sipp Regen. Med. (2011) 6(3), 407–414 ISSN 1746-0751 407
Perspective Sipp
purposes. It is important to note that in the
great majority of instances, it is impossible to
determine whether the substances that are being
used in these alternative treatments are com-
posed entirely of, or even contain, bona fide stem
cells, and that in a great many cases, such as
alleged applications of injected human embry-
onic [201] or induced pluripotent stem cells [102]
(which would be associated with a significant
risk of tumor formation), they clearly do not.
For this reason, I would like to emphasize that
in using the term ‘stem cell(s)’ in the present
article, I am referring to claims made by the
advertisers of such products, and that the true
identity of the material in question is unverified,
and should be treated as such.
Alternative medical uses of the stem cell
concept (meaning those that have not been
subjected to rigorous testing for safety and
efficacy) can be categorized roughly into one
of four varieties: putative therapeutic uses of
human ‘stem cells’; ‘fresh’ or ‘live’ cell treat-
ments using lyophilized animal cells; nutritional
supplements that purport to enhance endo­
genous stem cell function, or to contain stem
cell extracts; and cosmetic products claiming
either to contain or act on stem cells. Each of
these categories in fact represents a diverse col-
lection of products, with heterogeneous, often
conflicting, theoretical bases and therapeutic
aspirations. I will nonetheless seek to provide
an overview of each before highlighting features
that appear to be common to all.
Human stem cell treatments
Much has already been written about the pheno­
menon commonly referred to as ‘stem cell tour-
ism’ in both the mainstream and scientific
media, as well as in the peer-reviewed literature.
Studies of the commercial delivery of unproven
stem cell-based treatments have focused on the
claims made by providers [7] , the global scope of
the industry [8,9] , legal, regulatory and ethical
issues [10,11] , and ana­lysis of patient blogs [12] and
media accounts [13] . Research societies and dis-
ease-focused advocacy groups have additionally
issued warnings to patients regarding untested
and unregulated cell-based products [14,103] .
The intensity of this response seems justi-
fied by the growing number of companies now
engaged in marketing unproven stem cell treat-
ments and patients seeking out their services,
as well as the breadth of the therapeutic claims
made by providers and the increasing sophis-
tication of their marketing efforts. Providers
of ‘stem cell’ treatments make a broad range
408 Regen. Med. (2011) 6(3)
of claims regarding the types of cells used,
methods of delivery and conditions treated.
A scan of English-language websites reveals
unsupported claims for therapeutic uses of
bone marrow cells  [104] , umbilical cord blood
cells [105] , adipose-derived stem cells [106] , olfac-
tory ensheathing glial cells [107] , fetal stem cells
[108,109] , embryonic stem cells [110] and, in at least
one case, induced pluripotent stem cells [102] .
Cell solutions may be delivered intravenously,
or in  situ into tissues including spinal cord,
­peritoneum, myocardium and brain.
The range of therapeutic claims varies by
provider, but these tend to cluster around
neuro­logic, metabolic, cardiovascular and auto­
immune disorders. One list maintained by the
Repair Stem Cell Institute claims that somatic
stem cells of various types are effective in the
treatment of more than 180 conditions [111] .
Beike Biotechnology includes more than 80
diseases and traumas among its “treatable con-
ditions” [105] . EmCell, a “fetal stem cell” clinic
in Russia lists around 70 [109] . Geeta Shroff, an
Indian obstetrician who uses “embryonic stem
cells” at her clinic in Delhi filed a patent claim-
ing utility in the treatment of nearly 80 specific
conditions, in addition to general efficacy in
“cancer, liver and kidney disorders, nervous
system disorders, skin disorders, autoimmune
disorders, genetic disorders, eye disorders, mus-
culoskeletal disorders, fertility and reproductive
disorders and cardiovascular disorders” [201] . A
separate Indian clinic boasts of “successfully
treating over 500 diseases” [112] by combining
stem cells with ayurvedic medicine.
The opacity and volatility of this industry
makes it is nearly impossible to gauge its true
extent. A noted Chinese bioethicist stated in
2009 that there were between 100 and 150
stem cell clinics in that country alone [15] , while
one report on stem cell clinical activities in
Russia asserted that as many as 500 clinics were
engaged in the marketing of unproven stem cell
treatments [16] . English-language websites have
also proliferated in recent years, and while no
systematic attempt has been made to enumerate
them, representative samples have appeared in
mainstream and scientific publications [7,9,17,18] ,
and the International Society for Stem Cell
Research is currently developing a database of
stem cell treatment providers based on degrees
of compliance with internationally recognized
standards of practice and ethical conduct [14] .
Information on revenue is also scarce, but
estimations for some clinics can be made on
self-reported fee structures and patient numbers,
future science group

as well as other indirect sources. Regenerative
Sciences, a small US-based company that
marketed injections of cultured autologous
stem cell for joint disorders, stated that it was
treating approximately 20 patients per month
at US$7000–$9000 per treatment [19] , which
would amount to an annual revenue of from
$1.7 to $2.1 million. The owner of a second US
clinic shut down by federal authorities, Stem
Cell Pharma, is reported to have earned over
$900,000 by arranging for the treatment of
just 34 patients over a 5‑year period prior to his
arrest [113] . A judgment in favor of one principal
in the company Stem Cell Biotherapy against a
former partner indicates that the business was val-
ued at least $1,700,000 at the time of its dissolu-
tion [114] . And, in its Summer 2010 Information
Guide, the Shenzhen-based Beike Biotechnology
reports that its cells are used in the treatment of
“over 200 patients every month” [115] at an aver-
age rate (for patients from outside of China) of
$26,300 per treatment; Chinese patients pay a
fraction of this amount. The X‑Cell Center in
Köln (Germany) states on its website [116] that
it has treated over 3000 patients, and provides a
price list ranging from €5550 to 25,500 ($7000
to $27000), depending on the procedure [117] .
There would appear to be little to no inde-
pendent oversight over the formulation of mate-
rials used at many stem cell clinics, making it
impossible to verify whether bona fide stem cells
are being used. In several cases, patients have
not received the treatment advertised. In 2010,
the UK General Medical Council determined
that a clinic in Rotterdam that had been visited
by multiple British patients used bovine, not
human cells, in its treatments, and sanctioned
the physician in charge [118] . In 2009, ana­lysis
of a transplant-derived growth that developed
in a boy treated at a Moscow clinic with “fetal
neural stem cells” revealed that the content of the
injection “was little more than a poorly charac-
terized heterogeneous slurry of dissociated fetal
brain” [20] .
Fresh cell therapy
The use of conditioned animal cells, tissues and
extracts in the treatment of human health con-
ditions dates back nearly a century, to work in
the 1920s and 1930s by European physicians
such as Paul Niehans in Switzerland and Sergei
Voronoff in France. Niehans, who worked with
freeze-dried (lyophilized) cells, mainly from
sheep, was particularly influential in building
the therapeutic reputation of such treatments,
spawning a cottage industry of Frischzellen
future science group
Stem cell stratagems in alternative medicine Perspective
(fresh cell) therapy spas in Switzerland and
Germany, and attracting prominent clien-
tele, including several heads of state [119] . This
approach, which clearly predates the modern
concept of the stem cell, has remained a fea-
ture of the alternative medicine landscape in
Germany and Switzerland for decades, and has
spread to other parts of the world, including
Mexico and Southeast Asia [120,121] , as well. In
general terms, the supposed theoretical basis for
fresh cell treatments appears to be that young
cells from different species have the ability to
rejuvenate aging or damaged tissue.
The increased public awareness of stem cells
in the 21st century appears to have given this
unconventional practice a new lease on life, and
practitioners that previously labeled their prod-
ucts ‘live’ or ‘fresh’ cells, now use stem cells as a
familiar point of reference and marketing tool.
As with companies that sell human ‘stem cell’
treatments, there is great diversity in the types of
cells used and therapeutic claims. MF‑III, a Swiss
franchising operation, advertises sheep placenta
extracts in capsule form as “Live Cell Therapy
(Sheep Stem Cell Therapy),” and asserts that its
product will “effectively stimulate the cells of
the specific organ systems concerned with obes-
ity, arthritis, chronic fatigue, asthma, degenera-
tive brain disease, osteoporosis, circulatory dis-
turbances, sexual dysfunction, male impotence,
diabetes mellitus, hormonal disturbances, skin
eruptions, and many other metabolic ailments”
[122] . BRCO Stem Cell Indonesia prescribes the
use of fetal animal (rabbit) precursor cells for
conditions including spinal cord injury, diabe-
tes, Down syndrome, infertility and aging [121] .
The company Stem Cell Biomedics [123] , which
advertises “fetal precursor stem cell therapy,”
lists over 150 medical indications.
Some ‘fresh cell’ practitioners have sought
to enter more highly regulated markets as
well. Stem Cell Biomedics, in association with
the Malaysian firm Fetal Cell Technologies
International, which purports to use prepara-
tions from fetal rabbits and is advised by physi-
cians in Switzerland and Germany [124] , held
educational programs in Australia in 2010
advertising treatments for a wide range of condi-
tions, including autism, Down’s syndrome and
aging [125] . As the treatments are delivered in
other countries, they fall outside the jurisdic-
tion of the Therapeutic Goods Administration,
Australia’s competent authority in this area,
providing an example of the evasion of over-
sight enabled by cross-border marketing and
­regulatory arbitrage.
www.futuremedicine.com 409
Perspective Sipp
Stem cell-enhancing
nutritional supplements
A number of stem cell entrepreneurs have
developed ingestible products that they claim
activate, mobilize or cause the proliferation of
the customer’s own stem cells. Distinct from
both human stem cell and animal ‘fresh cell’
treatments, these products are noninvasive,
and do not require the consumer to visit a spe-
cific treatment location, making them ideally
suited to mail-order sales over the internet.
StemEnhance®, a botanical extract purported
to increase the number of circulating stem
cells, is perhaps the most widely promoted of
these products. Using a multilevel marketing
approach [126] , StemTech HealthSciences, the
US-based company that developed the prod-
uct, has succeeded in generating global promo-
tion of its products through an international
network of distributors. The company claims
to have sold more than $1  million worth of
StemEnhance capsules in its first month in
business [127] , and to be approaching $100 mil-
lion in total sales. (Given the nature of the mar-
keting scheme, however, it is unclear whether
these products reached end users or remain in
distributor inventories.)
Perhaps encouraged by this apparent mar-
keting success, others have begun to release
stem cell-activating products. Aidan Products
(AZ, USA), established by the founder of the
Institute of Cellular Medicine, has begun to
market Stem-Kine, a product combining a pro-
prietary mix of high-dose vitamin D, b‑glucan
and ellagic acid, which it claims achieves a last-
ing increase in circulating CD133 and CD34
cells [21] . The company suggests on its website
that such stem cells have been shown to have
“effects on health, wellness, and regeneration,”
with impacts on such ailments as myocardial
infarction, Alzheimer’s disease and erectile dys-
function [128] . MF‑III, the Swiss maker of sheep
live cell capsules, also offers a line of “vegetal pla-
centa” products with “stem cell extraction meth-
odology,” which it states are of equal efficacy to
sheep placenta [129] in their rejuvenating effects.
The market for stem cell ‘nutraceuticals’ has
since become more specialized, with the intro-
duction of niche products such as Stemulite,
which promises to “improve the immune system
and stimulate your own bone marrow to pro-
duce new adult stem cells that are transfered
[sic] throughout your body via the blood stream
repairing damaged cells,” [130] and StemPets®,
which similarly claims to “promote the natu-
ral release of stem cells from the bone marrow
410 Regen. Med. (2011) 6(3)
into circulation in the body where they can be
used for repairing and replacing dysfunctional
cells” [131] .
Cosmetic applications
& esthetic surgery
In addition to the therapeutic and rejuvenation
claims made for stem cells and related products,
there is an emerging industry sector that uses the
stem cell label to sell treatments and products
for purely esthetic purposes. These can take the
form of injections of human or animal cells, food
supplements, or skin creams and lotions that are
purported to either include stem cell extracts or
activate endogenous stem cells transdermally.
Mibelle Biochemistry has developed a line of
skincare products that makes use of “an encap-
sulated extract of cultured apple stem cells,”
which it claims reduce facial wrinkles and other
effects of aging [132] . (They also sell a separate
product based on stem cells from grapes [133] .)
BioLogic Solutions advertised the Stem Cell
Therapy skin cream, which it claimed “awakens
your skin’s stem cells so they generate many new
skin cells like when you were younger” [134] (The
BioLogic Solutions company website appears
now to be defunct.)
In Korea, RNL Bio, a company with aspira-
tions to develop stem cell therapies for diabetes,
spinal cord injury, ischemic heart disease and
stroke, launched a line of stem cell-based cos-
metics branded as Dr Jucre, claiming it to be the
“first cosmetics line that contains human adipose
derived stem cells [as] the active ingredient” [135] .
An investor relations presentation made by the
company’s CEO in 2007 referred to the cosmet-
ics line, along with its private stem cell banking
and pet cloning businesses as a “cash cow” [136] .
The Dr Jucre online shop currently sells 30 ml of
eye cream for $119, and a 28‑vial set of “Million
Stem Cell Magic Concentrate” for $1220 [137] .
Some stem cell treatment providers also
specialize in cosmetic applications. CellPort
Clinic in Yokohama was the first in Japan to
offer autologous adipose-derived stem cell injec-
tions for breast and buttock augmentation [138] .
Numerous other plastic surgery clinics followed
suit, and the practice has spread to neighboring
countries as well. In Barbados, the now-defunct
Institute of Regenerative Medicine offered injec-
tions of unethically sourced “fetal stem cells”
for tourists seeking cosmetic enhancement and
anti-aging effects [139] .
Esthetic surgery is one of the two areas of
medicine in which US-based physicians are
actively challenging the regulation of clinical
future science group

uses of autologous cells by the US FDA (the
other being orthopedics). A number of clinics
treat patients domestically using adipose-derived
“stem cells” in the enhancement of breast, lower
body or facial appearance [140,141] . This appears
to have escaped regulatory oversight at present,
but a recent joint statement by the American
Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS)
and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons
(ASPS) recommends “that patients considering
facial rejuvenation procedures avoid ‘stem cell
face lifts’ or other fad procedures that have not
been demonstrated to be effective in clinical
trials” [142] . An analogous situation had arisen
in the field of orthopedic surgery, but attracted
the attention of federal regulators who sought
an injunction against one of the more visible
treatment providers, Regenerative Sciences, in
2010  [19] . Given the methodological similari-
ties in obtaining cells for these procedures, the
results of that case may have bearing on the
viability of domestic cosmetic surgery clinics
offering autologous stem cell injections as well.
The selling power of stem cells
Use of the term ‘stem cells’ has evolved into a
powerful meme in the marketing of human or
animal cell-based tratments, supplements and
cosmetics, with associations of health, youth and
beauty. Over the past 10 years, a new alterna-
tive medicine sector has sprung up to meet con-
sumer demand for healthcare, nutritional and
esthetic ‘stem cell’ products, and it appears that
business is for the most part, good. This may
be in part due to the acceleration of demand
by incautious statements by scientists in the
field, or uncritically positive descriptions of the
therapeutic potential of stem cells in the mass
media. Indeed, a recent report by Caulfield et al.
found that media accounts of patients traveling
to receive stem cell injections are increasingly
positive in recent years [13] . Similarly, Scott et al.
found that descriptive terminology in registered
clinical trials of the use of stem cells in heart
failure tended to be more likely to foster “thera-
peutic misconception,” in which an experimen-
tal procedure of undetermined clinical efficacy
is described in such a way as to suggest that
it is efficacious, than drug trials for the same
­condition [22] .
Efforts have been made to rein in clinics,
particularly those engaged in promoting inter-
national travel by patients seeking unproven
stem cell treatments for serious medical con-
ditions  [14] , and a number of clinics have been
forced to shut down by government authorities
future science group
Stem cell stratagems in alternative medicine Perspective
[113,143–145] or local medical associations [146] .
The industry does not, however, show immedi-
ate signs of receding.
It appears that, in addition to the reputa-
tion of stem cells as potential medical miracle-
workers, there are a number of other concepts
that may account for their present popularity.
First of these is the idea of stem cells as a ‘natu-
ral’ product, distinct from ‘artificial’ drugs and
devices. The phrase ‘natural healing process’,
for example, is used in descriptions of cardiac
repair by autologous cells [147] , lyophilized cell
skincare products [148] , adipose-derived cells
for diabetes  [149] and an algae extract stem cell
supplement [150] , among others.
In addition to their naturalness, autologous
cells have the advantage of being taken from the
patient’s own body. This has legitimate advan-
tages given that the use of autologous cells mini-
mizes the risk of immune rejection, but it is pow-
erful as a marketing concept as well. Not only do
autologous cells have connotations of safety, but
they raise ownership and identity issues as well.
In the USA, autologous cells that are more than
minimally manipulated or intended for non­
homologous, metabolic or systemic uses are regu-
lated as biologics, but intense efforts have been
made by organizations that seek to deregulate
the clinical use of such cells by appealing directly
to patients with the idea that the government
wants to classify their own cells as drugs  [151] .
The enthusiastic portrayal of the clinical poten-
tial of stem cells, as described by Zarzeczny et al.
[13] and Scott et al. [22] , has almost certainly con-
tributed to the popular perception of their thera-
peutic value as well. For all of these reasons, it
appears that stem cells have rapidly given rise to
a niche in the alternative medicine market space,
which has not evidently been the case for other
promising fields of life sciences research, such as
gene therapy, RNA interference or monoclonal
antibodies. A more detailed examination of the
distinctions in the public consciousness between
stem cells and these other advanced biotechnolo-
gies may be a fruitful area for future study, as has
been suggested previously [152] .
The drive to deregulate also seeks to por-
tray restrictions on the immediate use of stem
cell products in clinical applications in terms
of limitations on patients’ freedom to choose
[111] . Patient autonomy is one of the fundamen-
tal principles of medical ethics, and is being
exercised with increasing frequency, as more
patients feel empowered by the free availability
of information over the Internet. What some
stem cell providers have sought to do, however,
www.futuremedicine.com 411
Perspective Sipp

is to depict any restriction on the marketing of
unproven treatments as a curtailment of patient
choice  [111,153] . In its most extreme forms, this
is framed as a conspiracy in which the medical
establishment, the pharmaceuticals industry,
research societies and government agencies are
colluding to keep effective treatments out of the
hands of patients in the interests of protecting
status quo business models [154] .
While they are undoubtedly persuasive, even
compelling, none of these conceptualizations
overcome the bare fact that very few stem cell
treatments have been shown to be both safe and
effective in well-designed and rigorous trials.
Despite their great promise, the true potential of
stem cells in medicine remains largely unrealized
at present, with the notable exception of hemato­
poietic stem cells in the treatment of blood and
immune disorders. The popularity and profit-
ability of stem cell products in alternative med-
icine speaks more to the power of expectancy
and desire than it does to any objective effect in
the specific clinical contexts in which they are
being delivered. In my opinion it is this power
of persuasion, of manufactured convictions and
the ‘triumph of hope over experiments’ that
­characterizes alternative medicine as a whole.
Future perspective
Despite the surging expansion and diversity of
the commercialization of untested and under-
regulated stem cell interventions in recent years,
there are signs that this growth may abate in
the near- to mid-term. Competent authorities
in numerous countries have begun to develop or
enforce regulations over the clinical application
of human cells and tissues. China enacted a new
law on advanced medical technologies in 2009,
and the Thai Medical Council passed binding
guidelines on such applications in the same year.
Germany has revised its rules on the clinical
use of autologous stem cells, with a deadline for
seeking approval for such uses of 30 December,
2012. In Costa Rica, the Ministry of Health shut
down a prominent stem cell clinic in 2010, while
in Hungary arrests were made over the illegal
marketing of fetal stem cell injections.
Should stem cell interventions currently being
tested for safety and efficacy gain regulatory
approval, this will also presumably affect the
commercialization of unsubstantiated stem cell
products. Not only will this provide a solid evi-
dentiary basis on which patients will be able to
make informed healthcare decisions, it will open
up the possibility of having approved treatments
reimbursed by insurers. It is uncertain at present
which, if any, stem cell-based applications will
clear these thresholds, but the availability of true
therapies based on scientific evidence will be a
welcome alternative to the baseless offerings of
alternative stem cell medicine at present.
Financial & competing interests disclosure
The author has no relevant affiliations or financial involve-
ment with any organization or entity with a financial
interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or
materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes
employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or
options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or
pending, or royalties.
No writing assistance was utilized in the production of
this manuscript.

Executive summary
ƒƒ The concept of stem cells has been adopted in an aggressive and widespread manner by providers of unproven medical treatments.
ƒƒ Untested interventions claiming to use human stem cells of various types have emerged into a major international industry.
ƒƒ The use of freeze-dried animal cells is also seeing a resurgence, and frequently adopts terminology from stem cell biology to modernize
the conceptual basis of these products.
ƒƒ A number of nutritional supplement products claiming to enhance stem cell counts or function have been introduced, typically via
web-based marketing approaches.
ƒƒ In addition to medical uses, the use of stem cell products and procedures in cosmetics and esthetic surgery is growing.
ƒƒ Alternative stem cell practitioners appeal to concepts such as naturalness, patient identity and choice, and an us versus them mentality,
in promoting their products and claims.

2 Fontarosa P, Lundberg G: Alternative of complementary and alternative

Bibliography medicine meets science. JAMA 280, medical practices.
Papers of special note have been highlighted as:
1618–1619 (1998). 4 Singh S, Ernst E: Trick or Treatment:
n of interest

nn of considerable interest
1 Angell M, Kassirer P: Alternative
medicine – the risks of untested and
unregulated remedies. N. Engl. J. Med. 339,
839–841 (1998).
3 Bausell RB: Snake Oil Science: The Truth
About Complementary and Alternative
Medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
UK (2007).
n Comprehensive, book-length examination
of the weak evidence basis for a wide range
Alternative Medicine on Trial. Corgi Press,
London, UK (2009).
5 Kligler B, Maizes V, Schachter S et al.:
Core competencies in integrative medicine
for medical school curricula: a proposal.
Acad. Med. 79(6), 521–531 (2004).

412 Regen. Med. (2011) 6(3) future science group


6 DeSylvia D, Stuber M, Fung CC, Bazargan-
Hejazi S, Cooper E: The knowledge, attitudes
and usage of complementary and alternative
medicine of medical students. eCAM
doi:10.1093/ecam/nen075 (2011) (Epub
ahead of print).
7 Lau D, Ogbogu U, Taylor B, Stafinski T,
Menon D, Caulfield T: Stem cell clinics
online: the direct-to-consumer portrayal of
stem cell medicine. Cell Stem Cell 3(6),
591–594 (2008).
nn First systematic study of stem cell tourism to
compare claims made on clinic websites to
evidence from randomized clinical studies.
8 Kiatpongsan S, Sipp D: Monitoring and
regulating offshore stem cell clinics. Science
323, 1564–1565 (2009).
9 Regenberg A, Hutchinson LA, Schanker B,
Mathews DJH: Medicine on the fringe:
stem-cell based interventions in advance of
evidence. Stem Cells 27, 2312–2319 (2009).
10 Lindvall O, Hyun I: Medical innovation
versus stem cell tourism. Science 324,
1664–1665 (2009).
11 Zarzeczny A, Caulfield T: Stem cell tourism
and doctors’ duties to minors – a view
from Canada. Am. J. Bioethics 10(5), 3–15
(2010).
12 Ryan KA, Sanders AN, Wang DD,
Levine AD: Tracking the rise of stem cell
tourism. Regen. Med. 5(1), 27–33 (2010).
13 Zarzeczny A, Rachul C, Nisbet M,
Caulfield T: Stem cell clinics in the news.
Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 1243–1246 (2010).
14 Taylor PL, Barker RA, Blume KG et al.:
Patients beware: commercialized stem cell
treatments on the web. Cell Stem Cell 7(1),
43–49 (2010).
n Important patient resource developed
by the world’s largest stem cell
research organization.
15 Cyranoski D: Stem cell therapy faces more
scrutiny in China. Nature 459, 146–147
(2009).
16 Cohen CB, Cohen PJ: International stem cell
tourism and the need for effective regulation:
Part I: Stem cell tourism in Russia and India:
clinical research, innovative treatment, or
unproven hype? Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 20(1),
27–49 (2010).
17 Baker M: Stem cell therapy or snake oil? Nat.
Biotech. 23, 1467–1469 (2005).
18 Enserink M: Selling the stem cell dream.
Science 313, 160–163 (2006).
19 Cyranoski D: FDA challenges stem-cell
clinic. Nature 466, 909 (2010).
20 Jandial R, Snyder E: A safer stem cell: on
guard against cancer. Nat. Med. 15, 999–1001
(2009).
future science group
Stem cell stratagems in alternative medicine
21 Mikirova NA, Jackson JA, Huninghake R
et al.: Nutraceutical augmentation of
circulating endothelial progenitor cells and
hematopoietic stem cells in human subjects.
J. Transl. Med. 8, 34 (2010).
22 Scott TC, DeRouen MC, Crawley LM: The
language of hope: therapeutic intent in stem
cell clinical trials. AJOB Primary Res. 1(3),
4–11 (2010).
Websites
„„
101 National Center for Complementary and
Alternative Medicine (NCAAM)
http://nccam.nih.gov
102 Nepsis Institute presentation ‘Visionary
progress’
www.recovery4als.com/NepsisPP.ppt
103 Multiple Sclerosis Society UK
www.mssociety.org.uk/news_events/news/
press_releases/ibs_stem_cells.html
104 X-cell Center at the Institute for Regenerative
Medicine
www.xcell-center.com
105 Beike Biotechnology
www.beikebiotech.com
106 International Stem Cell Institute
www.istemcelli.com
107 Neuro-regeneration, repair and functional
recovery
www.nrrfr.com
108 Medra
www.medra.com
109 EmCell
www.emcell.com
110 Healing therapies
www.healingtherapies.info/hESC.htm
111 Repair Stem Cell Institute
www.repairstemcells.org
112 Best Stem Cell Therapies
www.beststemcelltherapies.com
113 Kanigher S: Las Vegas man, 84, indicted
in medical fraud case. Las Vegas Sun
(2010)
www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/15/
las-vegas-man-84-indicted-medical-fraud-case
114 Stem Cell Biotherapy
www.stemcellbiotherapy.com/cn/index/lang/
SCB_Final_Judgment.pdf
115 Beike Biotech Information Guide
http://beikebiotech.com/information/
Beike-Information-Guide.pdf
116 XCell-Center
www.xcell-center.com
117 XCell-Center Frequently Asked Questions
www.xcell-center.com/treatments/faq.aspx
118 Press Association: Stem cells doctor exploited
MS patients, GMC panel finds. Guardian
page 16, 13 April 2010
www.futuremedicine.com
Perspective
www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/12/
stem-cells-doctor-gmc-hearing
119 Alexander B: Selling longer life – or snake
oil? msnbc.com (Updated on
18 April 2008)
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23358976
120 The Center for Holistic Life Extension
(ExtendLIfe)
www.extendlife.com/livecell.php
121 BRCO Stem Cell Indonesia
http://xenostemcell-indonesia.com
122 MF‑III
www.youngeryounger.com
123 Stem Cell Biomedics
www.stemcell-biomedics.com
124 Fetal Stem Cell International medical advisory
panel
www.fetal-cells.com/index.
php?Content=advisory
125 Dayton L: Rabbit fetus therapy risky,
scientists warn. The Australian, 30 April 2010
www.theaustralian.com.au/news/rabbit-fetus-
therapy-risky-scientists-warn/story-
e6frg6n6–1225860356280
126 StemTech Training Manual
www.teamstemtech.com/images/stories/pdf/
business-building-taining-guide.pdf
127 Enhance Stem Cells
www.enhancestemcellsnaturally.com/
distributors.htm
128 Stem-Kine
www.stem-kine.com
129 MFIII Vegetal Placenta
www.youngeryounger.com/#vegetalplacenta
130 Stemulite
http://stemulitefitnessformula.com/stemulite?
gclid=CNHKlZuRqqcCFQzxbwodKHf0Ag
131 StemPets
http://wellnesshealth.stemtechbiz.com/
stempets.aspx
132 Mibelle Biochemistry Malus Domestica
www.mibellebiochemistry.com/products/
latest-developments/PhytoCellTec.php
133 Mibelle Biochemistry PhytoCellTec
Solar Vitis
www.mibellebiochemistry.com/products/
PhytoCellTecSolarVitis.php
134 BioLogic Solutions Stem Cell Therapy
www.freestemcelltherapy.
com/?mid=899493&a=115598&s=
135 RNL Bio press release
www.prlog.org/10149618-rnl-bio-launches-
new-line-of-stem-cell-based-cosmetics-
dramatically-reversing-the-signs-of-aging.html
136 RNL Bio Investor Relations 2007
www.rnl.co.kr/eng/RNL_IR_Sep_2007.pdf
137 Dr Jucre online store
www.drjucreonlinestore.com
413
Perspective Sipp
138 Cellport Clinic
www.cellport.jp/english
139 Thompson A: A barbaric kind of beauty.
Daily Mail, 7 August 2006
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/
article-399376/A-barbaric-kind-beauty.html
140 Plastic Surgery Center Internationale
www.youthfulneck.com/stem-cell-face-lifts.
htm
141 Dr Calabria
www.drcalabria.com/procedures_face_
vertical.asp
142 American Society for Aesthetic Plastic
Surgery website
www.surgery.org/media/news-releases/
major-plastic-surgery-societies-commend-los-
angeles-times’-balanced-reporting-of-
controversial-“stem-cell-fa
143 Carroll R: Costa Rican health ministry bans
experimental stem cell treatment. Guardian
page 15, 7 June 2010
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/07/
costa-rica-stem-cell-treatment
144 Coghlan A: ‘Guerrila’ stem cell clinic
raided by police. New Scientist, August 2009
414
www.newscientist.com/article/dn17551-
guerrilla-stem-cell-clinic-raided-by-police.
html
145 Eggington S: Pair fights US extradition.
Times Live, 18 July 2010
www.timeslive.co.za/local/article557236.ece/
Pair-fights-US-extradition
146 Novelo A: Medical Council says stem cell
surgeon should be arrested. The Reporter,
19 October 2007
www.reporter.bz/index.php?mod=archive&a
ct=view&article=2274&highlight=ghen&ma
tch=
147 Cytopeutics
www.cytopeutics.com/Pilot_Programmes.
html
148 Clinika MD
www.clinikamd.com/stem_cell_therapy.html
149 Returning Hope
www.returninghope.com/diabetes/
diabetes-treatment-process.html
150 Dr Kraft
http://drkraft.net
Regen. Med. (2011) 6(3)
151 Morris J, Coles LS: Will the FDA kill adult
stem cell medicine? H+ Magazine,
1 May 2009
http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/
will-fda-kill-adult-stem-cell-medicine
152 Levine AD: Stem cell Tourism: Assessing the
State of Knowledge. SCRIPTed 7(2),
274–282 (2010)
www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7–2/
levine.pdf
153 ICMS Open Letter to Stem Cell Clinics
www.cellmedicinesociety.org/physicians/
stem-cells-in-clinics/open-letter
154 Repair Stem cell Institute press release.
24 August 2010
www.prweb.com/releases/stem-cells/
Margolis/prweb4401904.htm
Patent
„„
201 Geeta Shroff: WO 2007141657 20071213
Compositions comprising human embryonic
stem cells and their derivatives, methods of
use, and methods of preparation.
future science group