Evidence and research
What the published research actually supports, where it is thin, and where it does not exist at all. Written to be useful even if you decide not to be treated here.
Why this page reads differently from other clinics'
Most clinics have a research section built to reassure. Studies are cited, journal names appear, and the impression is that everything on offer rests on settled science. Very little of it does.
Regenerative medicine is an active field with genuine results in some areas and almost nothing in others. Presenting all of it as equally supported is the single most common misrepresentation in this industry, and it is the reason patients cannot tell a careful clinic from a confident one.
Where the evidence is strongest
Knee osteoarthritis
This is the most studied application of mesenchymal cell therapy, with multiple randomised trials and meta-analyses examining pain and function. Results are generally positive for symptom improvement in mild to moderate disease, with effect sizes that are real but moderate.
What the evidence does not show is structural regeneration — cartilage does not measurably regrow. Improvement is understood to come from modulation of the inflammatory environment rather than rebuilding tissue.
Other joints and tendinopathy
Less studied than the knee, but the mechanism is the same and early results are broadly consistent. We treat these, and we tell patients the evidence base is thinner.
Where the evidence is developing
Hair restoration
A growing number of small studies report increased hair density following cell and exosome-based scalp injection in androgenetic alopecia. Sample sizes are small, follow-up is short, and standardised photography is inconsistent between studies. Promising, not established.
Skin and aesthetic use
Exosome-assisted microneedling has reasonable mechanistic logic and a small clinical literature. Most published work measures patient-reported satisfaction rather than objective change, which is a meaningful limitation.
Erectile dysfunction
Early trials exist and some report functional improvement, particularly in vascular and post-surgical presentations. The literature is small and heterogeneous. This is a field where marketing has moved considerably faster than evidence.
The part other clinics leave out
Where the evidence does not support treatment
Neurodegenerative disease. Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and ALS are advertised widely by clinics in this region. Published human trials have not demonstrated meaningful clinical benefit. We do not treat these conditions, and we would encourage anyone considering it elsewhere to ask the clinic for the specific trials they are relying on, and to read them.
Autism. Marketed by several clinics in Mexico. The evidence does not support it. We decline these cases without exception.
Cancer. Beyond the absence of supporting evidence, the interaction between mesenchymal cell activity and an active tumour is not adequately characterised. We treat this as an absolute exclusion.
Systemic infusion for named diseases generally. Intravenous administration is often presented as a treatment for whatever the patient has. Our IV programme is described in terms of recovery and inflammatory support, not disease treatment, because that is what the evidence permits us to say.
How to read a clinic's research page
- Look for named studies, not journal logos. A logo tells you a journal exists. A citation tells you what was measured.
- Check whether the study matches the offer. Research on cells in a laboratory dish is frequently used to justify treatment in a patient.
- Check the indication. Evidence for knees is regularly used to imply evidence for everything.
- Look for the word “preliminary”. If it never appears anywhere, the page is marketing.
- Ask what they consider unproven. A clinic with no answer has not thought about it.
Our own data
Citing other people's research has an obvious limitation: it tells you what happened to other patients, in other clinics, under other protocols.
We follow up our own patients at three, six and twelve months and record outcomes on a consistent scale. Once that dataset is large enough to mean anything, we will publish it here — including the proportion of patients who saw no improvement.
Outcome data collection in progress
Nothing here is medical advice, and none of it establishes that treatment is appropriate for you. Published evidence describes populations; your case is individual, and that is what the physician review is for.
Find out whether we can help you
A few questions about your condition, reviewed by a physician at no cost. If regenerative therapy isn't right for your case, we will tell you that instead of selling you something.
Start the case reviewA physician replies within two working days. No obligation, no payment at this stage.