What is stem cell therapy, and how does it work?
In most legitimate clinics today, stem cell therapy means an infusion or injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs): adult donor cells sourced most often from umbilical-cord tissue donated after a healthy birth. The cells do not, for the most part, become new tissue. They sense damaged tissue and secrete signals that instruct the body's existing repair machinery to do its job better.
A signal is not a cure. The evidence is strong for some uses, mixed for others and speculative for the rest, and this page sorts them.
Written for the patient, often a physician, engineer, lawyer, or the careful family member of one, who wants to understand what they'd be paying for before they consider paying for it.
What is a stem cell, and which cells do clinics use?
The phrase "stem cell" covers at least five different kinds of cells with wildly different abilities, risk profiles, and regulatory treatment. When a clinic says "stem cell therapy" without specifying which cell, in what preparation, from what source, they are either being sloppy or deliberately opaque. Most of what is actually offered in the regenerative-medicine clinics you've heard of is not, strictly, a stem-cell therapy at all.
Read moreShow less
The two most common preparations in legitimate clinics today are mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and the extracellular vesicles they secrete (often called exosomes). MSCs are adult cells, sourced most often from umbilical-cord tissue donated after a healthy birth. At Celva they are always donor cells; your own blood is used only for PRP. They are emphatically not embryonic stem cells, which are a different category with a different legal and ethical history and are not used in any Celva protocol.
MSCs do not, for the most part, become new tissue. They do not turn into cartilage the way you'd grow a new fingernail. Their role is closer to that of a dispatch center: they sense damaged tissue, park nearby, and secrete a complicated soup of signals that instruct the body's existing repair machinery to do its job better. This is called paracrine signaling, and it is the mechanism most of the evidence actually supports.
The honest limit: we do not, in 2026, fully understand the dose-response curve, the optimal route of administration for every indication, or why some patients respond dramatically and others not at all. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling.
How does stem cell therapy work?
Signals, not replacements.
The useful mental model is not "new cells build new tissue." It is "your existing cells get a memo." MSCs and exosomes carry a payload of cytokines, growth factors, and small RNAs that do three things well: they dampen chronic inflammation, they recruit local progenitor cells to repair sites, and they modulate the behavior of the immune system.
Read moreShow less
This is why the same preparation can plausibly help a knee joint, a post-viral inflammatory state, and a neurological condition with an autoimmune component. It isn't treating the indication directly. It is shifting a biochemical environment. It is also why the therapy is systemic on an IV route and local on an injected route, and why we argue with clinics that administer both the same way regardless of target.
The cells are the trigger. The signaling cascade they initiate (quieter inflammation, improved biomarker trajectory, symptom relief) continues well beyond the cells themselves. Duration varies by indication, tissue environment, and individual response; the physician team discusses what's realistic for your case during review. Whether a further treatment makes sense is decided at your follow-up reviews.
The honest limit: paracrine signaling is real and measurable, but "signal" is not "cure." For degenerative processes with tissue already lost, like neurological disease with significant neuronal death or advanced structural collapse, the signal cannot rebuild what's gone. For late-stage bone-on-bone arthritis, the signal can still meaningfully reduce pain and improve function for patients who want to delay joint replacement; we just won't promise a regrown joint. In many cases the signal slows the curve.
What happens after the IV
A schematic, not anatomical, not to scale. The point is to show where cells go, what they do when they get there, and why the effect on the body is systemic rather than local.
-
Infusion
Peripheral vein ~45 min
-
Pulmonary transit
Cells lodge briefly in lung capillaries
-
Paracrine signaling
Cytokines, growth factors, exosomes released
-
Tissue
Local repair, immune rebalance
Read moreShow less
The cells are the trigger. The therapeutic effect (reduced inflammation, modulated immune activity, activated repair processes) continues well beyond the cells themselves.
Some patients report more energy in the first 2 weeks. The response peaks around 12 to 16 weeks, and the 6-month review decides what happens next.
MSCs do not, in most indications, differentiate into new tissue. They signal. This is the single most common misconception.
Does stem cell therapy work?
Where it's strong, weak, and speculative.
Not all cell-therapy claims are equal. It is useful, if uncomfortable, to separate them into three buckets.
Strong evidence. IV MSCs for steroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease have regulatory approvals in several jurisdictions. Hematopoietic stem-cell transplants, a different and older branch of the field, have been standard care for certain blood cancers for four decades.
Mixed evidence. Injections for knee osteoarthritis: for many patients they can reduce pain and help delay a knee replacement, and how much depends on how far the knee has worn. IV MSCs for autoimmune and inflammatory conditions (Crohn's, multiple sclerosis, certain cardiomyopathies) show promise in phase-II trials but inconsistent results at larger scale. The biology is plausible; the protocols are not yet standardized. Many patients improve; we cannot yet predict reliably which ones.
Speculative. "Anti-aging" longevity claims, IV cell therapy for late-stage neurodegenerative disease (advanced Alzheimer's, advanced Parkinson's), most cosmetic applications, and cell therapy for conditions with no inflammatory or regenerative component. The biology is often not even plausible for some of these.
The honest limit: a clinic that offers the same protocol for chronic pain, autoimmune disease, and aging is not practicing medicine. They are pattern-matching on hope. Our candidacy list is narrow on purpose.
What stem cell therapy cannot do
Every month we decline patients for whom the therapy cannot help. It is the least enjoyable part of the job and the most important one. A short, non-exhaustive list of what cell therapy, as it exists in 2026, cannot do:
It cannot rebuild what's gone.
Late-stage osteoarthritis with bone-on-bone contact often points to joint replacement; for patients who want to delay surgery, we'll still consider treating them, with a frank conversation about lower expected response. A grade 4 joint is sometimes treated, case by case; the usual range is grades I to III. Cells do not regrow a meniscus that was removed ten years ago.
It cannot reverse neurodegeneration.
For advanced Alzheimer's, advanced Parkinson's, or ALS we are cautious and case-by-case: where there is documented inflammatory contribution and a realistic, honestly framed goal there is sometimes a narrow case, and for many patients there is not. We never promise what the biology can't deliver, and a significant share of these inquiries are declined.
It cannot cure autoimmune disease.
It can, in some patients, meaningfully quiet it. That is a different claim and we hold to it.
It cannot make you live longer.
No published evidence supports that claim.
It cannot replace a proper diagnosis.
If you've been told you need a surgical workup, get the workup. If you haven't had imaging, get imaging. If the clinic you're considering doesn't ask for these things, that is the red flag.
Why Tijuana, and not the U.S.?
The most common question we get, and the most honest answer: because most of what we do is not an FDA-approved product in the United States, and we will not pretend that it is.
Read moreShow less
Cell therapy in the U.S. is in an odd regulatory state. The FDA regulates cell preparations as biological drugs when they are "more than minimally manipulated" or used in a "non-homologous" way, which covers nearly every interesting modern cell-therapy application. A product has to go through an Investigational New Drug pathway and eventually a Biologics License to be marketed. That takes a decade or more and several hundred million dollars per indication. Only a small number of cell products have completed it.
Mexico's COFEPRIS is the federal health regulator, and it regulates cell therapy in Mexico. This is not a loophole. Protocols that are supported by peer-reviewed evidence but that have not yet run the full FDA approval gauntlet are offered under the supervision of physicians at licensed facilities.
Hospital Angeles Tijuana is a private hospital with full surgical, imaging, and emergency infrastructure, part of Angeles Health, one of Mexico's largest private hospital networks. Celva coordinates care performed by a licensed regenerative medicine practice in Mexico: the physician team at Hospital Angeles, regulated by COFEPRIS. The physician team's laboratory operates in a cleanroom environment, and the protocols are published. This is not a clinic in a strip mall. The border is a regulatory fact, not a marketing one.
What Tijuana is not. It is not a jurisdiction without rules. The rules are different, not absent. The physician team is asked to administer protocols they will not touch, and those requests are turned down. "Medical tourism" is not the identity we claim; Celva coordinates patients with a physician-led practice that happens to be on the other side of a border.
Red flags we'd walk out of
If you are considering a cell-therapy clinic, ours included, here is the list we'd use ourselves. It's written to help you rule out a bad option, not to pitch a good one.
"Stem cells" with no cell type specified
Any clinic offering "stem cell therapy" without telling you which kind of cell, from what source, at what dose, is being sloppy or opaque. The cell type matters enormously. MSCs, iPSCs, HSCs, and "stromal vascular fraction" are four very different things with four different evidence profiles.
Ask What exact cell type, what source, what cell count per kg?
The same protocol for every indication
A clinic that offers one IV dose for knee arthritis, long COVID, autoimmune disease, and anti-aging is not practicing medicine. They are pattern-matching on hope. Different indications need different routes, doses, and eligibility criteria, or, in many cases, they need to be declined entirely.
Ask How does the protocol for my condition differ from your other patients'?
Testimonials as the main evidence
A wall of five-star stories is marketing, not data. Legitimate clinics can point you to peer-reviewed literature for their indications, and to aggregated outcome data on their own patients (if they track it). If the only evidence on offer is anonymized personal stories, that is the evidence.
Ask What's your aggregate outcome data, and where is it published?
Unlimited-dose or subscription billing
"Unlimited sessions" or "monthly maintenance at high doses forever" are billing models that exist because they're profitable, not because they're medically sound. More is not always better with cell therapy, overdosing can produce diminishing or paradoxical returns. A real protocol has an endpoint.
Ask What's the decision rule for stopping or spacing infusions?
No intake process, no screening, no imaging
If a clinic will book you for an infusion after a form and a credit card, without reviewing records, ordering or reviewing imaging, or declining patients, they are selling, not practicing. We decline the inquiries we cannot meaningfully help. Every patient has a 15-minute call with a patient coordinator and a review by the physician team before a protocol is offered.
Ask How many patients did you decline last month, and why?
"Anti-aging" or "cure" language
Cell therapy does not cure autoimmune disease. It does not reverse aging. It does not cure cancer, Parkinson's, ALS, or Alzheimer's. Any clinic using those words is either inexperienced or dishonest, and the FTC agrees, it is the single most frequent basis for enforcement actions in this industry.
Ask Is that claim consistent with FTC guidance on cell-therapy advertising?
No named physicians, no hospital affiliation
Who, specifically, is treating you? Are they a licensed physician in the jurisdiction where you'll receive treatment? Is the facility a hospital, a clinic, or a medical spa? "Team of international experts" with no named people on a website usually means the people on staff are not the draw.
Ask Who is my treating physician, what's their license number, where do they operate?
No willingness to tell you "no"
The clearest signal of a good clinic is whether it has, on occasion, turned you away. If every inquiry is a "yes" waiting to happen, the triage isn't triage, it's sales. The best clinics we know are the ones whose waitlists exist in part because they decline patients.
Ask What would make you decline me as a candidate?
evaluation
checklist.
- Before you book6
- Credibility & trust6
- Consultation quality6
- Treatment clarity5
- Safety & confidence5
Use this on any clinic, ours included.
A twenty-eight-item checklist drawn from the red flags on this page, written so a spouse or adult child can run it in your stead. Score each answer Yes · Somewhat · No, then read the interpretation on page 8. No email, no wall, no follow-up sequence.
Read moreShow less
Three companion guides for vetting any regenerative clinic, ours included.
A curated reading list
Peer-reviewed papers that represent the state of the evidence for the indications we treat. Not exhaustive: our full reference list is in the patient handbook. Each title links to the primary source.
-
01
Honest limits
Stem cell injections for osteoarthritis of the knee
Whittle, S.L. et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025 · 4(4), CD013342 · PMID 40169165
The Cochrane review of 25 randomized trials (1,341 patients). Compared with placebo, stem cell injections may slightly improve knee pain and function; the certainty is low, and serious side effects were rare. The fairest single summary of the knee evidence, including where it is thin.
-
02
Honest limits
Cell-based versus corticosteroid injections for knee pain in osteoarthritis: a randomized phase 3 trial
Mautner, K. et al. · Nature Medicine · 2023 · 29(12), 3120–3126 · PMID 37919438
The largest head-to-head trial: 480 patients, with arms for bone-marrow concentrate, fat-derived cells, and umbilical-cord MSCs. At one year, no cell injection beat a steroid injection. A careful reader should know this result, so we put it near the top.
Read moreShow less
-
03
Joint program
Umbilical Cord-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSCs) for Knee Osteoarthritis: Repeated MSC Dosing Is Superior to a Single MSC Dose and to Hyaluronic Acid in a Controlled Randomized Phase I/II Trial
Matas, J. et al. · Stem Cells Translational Medicine · 2019 · 8(3), 215–224 · PMID 30592390
Randomized phase I/II trial of umbilical-cord MSCs for knee osteoarthritis (26 patients). Two doses six months apart beat hyaluronic acid on pain at 12 months; a single dose did not. The closest published match to the cells we use.
-
04
Joint program
Efficacy and Safety of Stempeucel in Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Phase 3 Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Study
Gupta, P.K. et al. · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2023 · 51(9), 2254–2266 · PMID 37366164
Phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of donor bone-marrow MSCs in 146 patients with grade 2 to 3 knee osteoarthritis. Pain and function improved at 6 and 12 months, and cartilage did not worsen on MRI.
-
05
Joint program
Intra-Articular Injection of Human Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial
Lee, B.W. et al. · Cell Transplantation · 2025 · 34, 9636897241303275 · PMID 39874108
Double-blind trial of donor bone-marrow MSCs against saline (24 patients). Better pain and function scores at 9 months, and slower cartilage change on MRI over a year.
-
06
Joint program
Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis With Allogeneic Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Vega, A. et al. · Transplantation · 2015 · 99(8), 1681–1690 · PMID 25822648
Randomized trial of donor bone-marrow MSCs against hyaluronic acid (30 patients). Better pain and function at one year, and better cartilage quality on MRI.
-
07
Honest limits
Mesenchymal stem cells for chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Sadeghirad, B. et al. · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · 2024 · 32(10), 1207–1219 · PMID 38777213
A review of 16 randomized trials (807 patients) that found MSC injections probably make little to no difference to knee pain or function, with more pain and swelling at the injection site. The skeptical end of the evidence.
-
08
Spine program
Intervertebral Disc Repair by Allogeneic Mesenchymal Bone Marrow Cells: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Noriega, D.C. et al. · Transplantation · 2017 · 101(8), 1945–1951 · PMID 27661661
Randomized trial of donor bone-marrow MSCs injected into the disc, against a sham (24 patients). Pain and function improved at one year, concentrated in a subset of patients who responded, and disc grade improved on MRI.
-
09
Spine program
Allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells treatment for chronic low back pain associated with degenerative disc disease: a prospective randomized, placebo-controlled 36-month study of safety and efficacy
Amirdelfan, K. et al. · The Spine Journal · 2021 · 21(2), 212–230 · PMID 33045417
Multicenter randomized trial of donor mesenchymal precursor cells injected into the disc, followed for 36 months. Pain and disability improved more than in controls at points through three years.
-
10
Spine program
Efficacy and safety of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells with and without hyaluronic acid for treatment of chronic low back pain: a prospective, randomized, double blind, concurrent-controlled 36-month study
Beall, D.P. et al. · The Spine Journal · 2025 · 25(9), 1997–2013 · PMID 40174800
The larger follow-up trial of the same cells, at 49 sites. It missed its main goal. Pain still came down more than in controls in one arm, most in patients who had had back pain for under about five and a half years.
-
11
Shoulder
Intratendinous Injection of Mesenchymal Stem Cells for the Treatment of Rotator Cuff Disease: A 2-Year Follow-Up Study
Jo, C.H. et al. · Arthroscopy · 2020 · 36(4), 971–980 · PMID 31805388
The patient's own fat-derived MSCs injected into partial rotator cuff tears (19 patients, two years). Pain fell substantially and the tears shrank on MRI. Not our cell type, and there was no control group.
-
12
Shoulder
A randomized controlled trial of stem cell injection for tendon tear
Chun, S.W. et al. · Scientific Reports · 2022 · 12(1), 818 · PMID 35039529
Randomized trial of stem cell injections into partial rotator cuff tears (23 patients analyzed). No better than the control injection. The shoulder evidence is thin, and this is part of it.
-
13
Safety
Cell therapy with intravascular administration of mesenchymal stromal cells continues to appear safe: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Thompson, M. et al. · EClinicalMedicine · 2020 · 19, 100249 · PMID 31989101
55 randomized trials (2,696 patients) of MSCs given into the bloodstream. More short-lived fever; no more infection, clots, deaths, or cancer than in controls.
-
14
Safety
The safety of MSC therapy over the past 15 years: a meta-analysis
Wang, Y. et al. · Stem Cell Research & Therapy · 2021 · 12(1), 545 · PMID 34663461
62 randomized trials (3,546 patients), given by IV or local injection, across about 20 conditions. Safe compared with placebo; the side effects were mainly short-lived fever and reactions at the injection site.
-
15
Safety
Safety of cell therapy with mesenchymal stromal cells (SafeCell): a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials
Lalu, M.M. et al. · PLoS One · 2012 · 7(10), e47559 · PMID 23133515
The original safety review (36 trials, 1,012 patients). MSC therapy appears safe; the authors ask for larger trials with careful reporting of side effects.
-
16
Safety
Complications of Stem Cell-Based Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review
Riggle, C. et al. · HSS Journal · 2025 · 21(4), 476–484 · PMID 39564419
Complications of stem cell knee injections. No major complications in the short term, and a moderate risk of pain and swelling at the injection site lasting under four weeks.
-
17
Mechanism
Concise review: MSC-derived exosomes for cell-free therapy
Phinney, D.G. & Pittenger, M.F. · Stem Cells · 2017 · 35(4), 851–858 · PMID 28294454
The foundational review establishing that MSC effects are primarily paracrine, mediated by exosomes and extracellular vesicles, rather than via engraftment. Reframed the field's understanding of how these cells actually work.
-
18
Neuro program
Mesenchymal stem cell-derived neural progenitors in progressive MS: two-year follow-up of a phase I study
Harris, V.K. et al. · Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation · 2021 · 8(1), e928
Twenty-patient phase I trial of repeated intrathecal MSC-derived neural progenitors in progressive MS; two-year follow-up showed sustained improvement in a subset of patients and no long-term adverse events. Supports narrow, carefully-selected use in neurologic indications; not a license for advanced or non-responder cases.
-
19
Honest limits
Mesenchymal stromal cells: clinical challenges and therapeutic opportunities
Galipeau, J. & Sensébé, L. · Cell Stem Cell · 2018 · 22(6), 824–833 · PMID 29859173
A sober, useful counter-voice from two leading researchers, outlining the protocol heterogeneity, potency-assay gaps, dose uncertainty, and overclaiming that still plague the field. We agree with more of it than we disagree.
What do patients ask on the intake call?
Fifteen questions, grouped. These are the ones we answer on almost every intake call, written down once, honestly, so you can read them in advance, at whatever hour the questions show up.
Biology & mechanism
Are these embryonic stem cells?
No. We use adult mesenchymal stromal cells, most often from umbilical-cord tissue donated after healthy, full-term births. They are always donor cells; your own blood is used only for PRP. Embryonic stem cells are a different cell type with a different legal and ethical history; they are not used in any of our protocols.
Do the cells turn into new tissue in my body?
For the indications the physician team treats, MSCs work primarily through paracrine signaling: they release cytokines, growth factors, and exosomes that instruct your existing cells to repair and rebalance. Thinking of them as "replacement cells" is the most common misunderstanding the team corrects during intake calls. The goal is to change the conditions so the body's own repair capacity can function again.
How long do the cells stay in my body?
The cells are the trigger. The signaling cascade they initiate (reduced inflammation, improved biomarkers, symptom relief) continues well beyond the cells themselves. Duration varies by indication and individual response; the physician team discusses what's realistic for your case during review. The mental model is "the cells initiate a cascade," not "the cells stay forever."
What's the difference between cells and exosomes?
Exosomes are the signaling packets that MSCs secrete. A cell-free exosome preparation can be an option for patients who cannot tolerate a cellular infusion or for specific adjunct uses. The regulatory and manufacturing requirements are different, and the evidence base is smaller. We use exosomes selectively, not as a primary therapy for most indications.
Safety
What are the actual risks?
The most common events are transient: low-grade fever, headache, fatigue, occasional mild flushing during infusion. Serious adverse events in the peer-reviewed MSC literature run at rates comparable to placebo (see reference 13 in the research list). Unusual but possible events include allergic reaction to preservatives, and, very rarely, transient pulmonary symptoms when IV cells lodge briefly in lung capillaries. We screen for risk factors in advance.
Can cell therapy cause cancer?
This is the question we get most often and the one worth taking seriously. There is no credible evidence that the MSC preparations we use are tumorigenic in humans. The concern is biologically reasonable. MSCs can support cell growth in certain contexts, which is why we screen carefully for active malignancy and why every batch passes six release tests (sterility, identity, viability, potency, endotoxin, mycoplasma) before it is used. We will not infuse a patient with active cancer.
What if I have an autoimmune condition?
Depending on the condition and its stage, an autoimmune diagnosis can be either an indication (in quiet or early-stage disease) or a contraindication (in active flare). We review records and, when needed, consult with your existing specialist before making a recommendation. Some autoimmune patients we accept; some we decline.
Practical
How many treatments will I need?
Depends on indication. A joint or spine protocol is one session, and whether a second treatment makes sense is decided at your follow-up reviews. For an IV, the 6-month review decides what happens next. Neurologic programs are individualized, and repeats are decided at review. An unlimited-dose model is a red flag; our protocols have a defined endpoint.
How soon will I feel different?
It varies. After an IV, some patients report more energy in the first 2 weeks, and the response peaks around 12 to 16 weeks. In a joint, the first change comes between weeks 4 and 12, and improvement can keep building through the first year. Some patients notice no change at all. We set expectations on the first call.
Can I travel back the same day?
Yes. Most patients are home the same day, joint and spine patients included, after the attending physician signs your discharge. A Celva driver takes you back across the border. An overnight happens only when your intake says so; you are told before you travel, not on arrival.
Does insurance cover any of it?
U.S. insurance does not cover cell therapy performed in Mexico, and most U.S. policies do not cover cell therapy performed in the U.S. either, because the products are not FDA-approved for the indications involved. Treatment is generally self-pay and out-of-pocket. HSA and FSA eligibility depends on your plan; verify with your plan administrator. We do not advertise insurance coverage we cannot deliver.
Honest limits
Why would you decline me?
Most common reasons: active malignancy; a diagnosis where cell therapy genuinely can't help and we won't pretend otherwise; a complete rotator cuff tear or similar structural problem that needs surgical repair; unrealistic expectations we cannot correct; or an incomplete medical workup that needs to happen before we make a recommendation. Bone-on-bone joints are not an automatic decline; we'll still consider treating you if you want to delay joint replacement, with a frank conversation about the lower expected response.
What if I don't respond?
Some patients show little or no change. We do not repeat protocols on non-responders as a default, that is selling, not medicine. We review the case, consider whether a different route or adjunct is appropriate, or whether cell therapy was not the right tool. Honesty here is part of the service.
Will this let me put off surgery I actually need?
It can. For early-to-moderate joint disease, some patients delay replacement. For late-stage bone-on-bone disease, the expected response is lower; we'll still consider treating you if you want to delay surgery, with realistic expectations. For structural problems (torn ligament, complete tendon rupture), cell therapy is not the primary treatment. The honest answer depends on imaging and clinical exam, which is why we ask for them.
Should I trust this page?
Read it with the same skepticism you'd bring to any medical-marketing page, including ours. Then compare it with the references linked above, with ClinicalTrials.gov, and with your own doctor's view. If you find something on this page that is wrong or misleading, email [email protected] and we will correct it. That offer is standing.
A quick glossary
- MSCMesenchymal stromal cell
- An adult cell type with signaling and immunomodulatory properties. Sourced from umbilical cord, bone marrow, or adipose tissue. The workhorse of most legitimate regenerative protocols.
- ExosomeExtracellular vesicle
- A small membrane-bound packet secreted by cells, carrying signaling molecules. Sometimes used as a cell-free alternative preparation; effect profile and regulation differ from whole-cell MSCs.
- ParacrineShort-range signaling
- Cell-to-cell signaling over short distances. The dominant mechanism by which MSCs exert their therapeutic effect: anti-inflammatory, anti-fibrotic, immunomodulatory, and pro-angiogenic signaling.
Read moreShow less
- AutologousFrom the patient
- Cells harvested from your own body (commonly adipose or bone marrow), processed, and re-administered. No donor-match concerns; cell count and quality depend on your biology.
- AllogeneicFrom a donor
- Cells from a screened donor, typically umbilical-cord tissue from healthy births. Higher cell counts; requires the donor tissue bank to meet strict screening standards.
- COFEPRISMexican regulator
- Mexico's federal regulatory authority for health products, the national analog of the FDA. Cell therapy in Mexico is regulated by COFEPRIS.
- GMPGood manufacturing practice
- A set of production and quality-control standards applied to pharmaceuticals and cell therapies. Our cell product is manufactured in a GMP-compliant laboratory with full chain-of-custody.
- IRBInstitutional review board
- An independent committee that reviews research involving human subjects. Any research use of our data or protocols goes through IRB review before publication.
You're the kind of patient we want to meet.
Your intake is a conversation, not a sales call. A patient coordinator gathers your records, and the physician team reviews them. It ends in one of three ways: a protocol they'd recommend, a referral elsewhere, or a declined case with an explanation.