Who should not get stem cell therapy?
Celva will not give stem cell therapy to anyone with an active cancer or one in remission for under 24 months, an untreated infection, a pregnancy, or one of four other absolute exclusions. We decline four more outright, and eight depend on specifics. A no is a decline or a deferral. Every decline is delivered by a physician on a call, with the reasons stated.
What are the contraindications for stem cell therapy?
The conditions below are absolute exclusions for our program. They are not "we'd prefer not to"; they are "we will not." Each is grounded in a real safety concern: either the cells themselves carry risk in that physiology, or the underlying condition makes the procedure unsafe in a way no protocol modification fixes.
A "not now" (active infection, a pregnancy, a recent remission) can become a "yes later." Every no is a decline or a deferral, and we say which.
-
Active or recent malignancy
Any active cancer, or one in remission for under 24 months. We will not run cell therapy alongside an active cancer. Five-year remission threshold for some indications.
-
Pregnancy or breastfeeding
No data exists on MSC transfer in pregnancy or via breast milk. We will not be the clinic that generates that data. Six-month interval after weaning.
-
Unmanaged active infection
Untreated infection of any kind, including sepsis, untreated HIV, active TB, or unresolved abscess. Treatable and reversible: when the infection is resolved, intake reopens. Not now ≠ never.
-
End-stage organ failure
Decompensated cirrhosis, ESRD on dialysis, NYHA class IV heart failure. The infusion itself is safe; the post-procedure recovery is not. You should not travel for this procedure.
-
Severe immunosuppression
Patients on high-dose chemotherapy, recent organ transplant on heavy immunosuppression, or untreated primary immunodeficiency. The procedure risk profile shifts in ways we don't accept.
-
Active substance dependence
Active untreated alcohol or opioid use disorder. Not a moral judgment; a clinical one. The post-treatment protocol requires reliable cooperation, and active dependence makes that unreliable. Treatment-engaged, reversible.
-
Inability to consent
Patients who cannot meaningfully consent (severe dementia, severe psychiatric incapacity) and whose family is seeking treatment for them. The patient has to want this, in a way they can describe.
Which conditions does Celva not treat with stem cells?
The list below is not a judgment on whether MSCs could someday help these conditions. The biology is genuinely interesting in several of them, and active research is ongoing. The judgment is whether the evidence today supports charging a patient to offer it. For these four conditions, it does not.
-
Anti-aging as a promise
DeclinedNo primary endpoint to measure against. We offer IV therapy for measurable markers, and we decline anyone asking for anti-aging as a promise. "Feeling better" alone is not a clinical signal we can honestly promise, and clock-rewinding is a marketing position, not a medical one.
-
Erectile dysfunction
Not treatedCleaner, cheaper, evidence-based treatments exist. MSC infusion is not the right tool here, and any clinic offering it is selling marketing, not medicine.
-
Hair loss / alopecia
Not treatedLocal cellular therapies under investigation; systemic MSC infusion is not the intervention being studied. Mismatch between mechanism and offer.
-
Spinal cord injury
Refer to trialSome active, structured trials are running with implantation-based protocols. IV MSC infusion is not the intervention being investigated here, and offering it would imply more than the evidence supports.
For any condition on the second list, we're glad to point patients toward NIH's ClinicalTrials.gov for any active, IND-cleared studies in their indication. That referral is free and unconditional.
Which conditions are decided case by case?
Where the answer is "tell us more."
The yellow zone is where the clinical judgment actually happens. These aren't auto-declines; they're conditions where specifics flip the decision.
Severe rheumatoid arthritis
On multiple biologics
Tilts toward yes:
Stable disease on current biologic, reasonable functional status, willing to coordinate with the rheumatologist on holding doses around the procedure window.
Tilts toward no:
Active flare; no rheumatologist of record; expectation that MSCs replace biologic therapy.
Multiple sclerosis
Relapsing-remitting only
Tilts toward yes:
Stable disease modifying therapy; neurologist supportive; recent (under 6 months) MRI baseline; clear functional goal.
Tilts toward no:
Primary progressive MS; recent relapse within 90 days; off-DMT against medical advice.
Type 1 diabetes
Pediatric or adult
Tilts toward yes:
Recent-onset disease and residual beta-cell function, in an adult or in a child with medical-team approval; engaged endocrinologist; realistic expectations about insulin reduction, not cure.
Tilts toward no:
Long-standing disease with zero C-peptide; no engaged endocrinologist; expectation of cure.
Post-COVID long-haul
Persistent > 6 months
Tilts toward yes:
Documented persistent inflammatory markers, a symptom history you can point to over time, and a willingness to follow up honestly.
Tilts toward no:
Symptoms under 6 months (let recovery run); no objective markers; expectation of single-infusion cure.
Early-to-mid Alzheimer's & dementia
Capacity to consent
Tilts toward yes:
Early-to-mid stage, the patient can meaningfully consent, a documented inflammatory component, an engaged specialist, and a realistic quality-of-life goal rather than reversal.
Tilts toward no:
Late-stage with loss of capacity to consent; family hope alone as the indication; expectation of reversal or cure.
ALS
Early-to-mid, palliative intent
Tilts toward yes:
Early-to-mid stage, a quality-of-life goal stated up front, neurologist involved, and a clear understanding that this is palliative, not disease-modifying.
Tilts toward no:
Late-stage with significant loss; expectation of a cure or of halting progression; no specialist of record.
Autism spectrum disorder
Evidence remains early
Tilts toward yes:
A documented inflammatory or immune component, objective markers to follow, appropriate consent or guardianship, and a narrowly framed, honest goal. The evidence here is early and we say so.
Tilts toward no:
Expectation of a cure or developmental reversal; no objective markers; hope alone as the indication.
On a blood thinner
IV, joint, or spine
Tilts toward yes:
The medication named on your intake, so the medical team can review it before your date. IV, joint, and spine treatment are all possible on a blood thinner.
Tilts toward no:
A blood thinner we first hear about on the day, or one the medical team cannot clear once it has reviewed the case.
What does a decline call sound like?
A significant share of inquiries are declined, most of them for one of the reasons above. The decline is delivered by a physician on a call, not by an email; the reasons are stated; we send the records back.
Below are three composites of how the decline call actually goes. They aren't transcripts; they are typical phrasings, anonymized. The point is to show that the language is direct, the reasoning is specific, and the door is not always closed.
We can't take you forward right now. The reason is the breast cancer treatment 14 months ago. We don't treat anyone in remission under 24 months, because the data on MSC interaction with residual tumor cells isn't where it needs to be for us to be confident. I know that's not the answer you were hoping for. The right answer for you is to revisit this in 10 months, and we'll do a full re-review then.
I can't recommend our IV program for spinal cord injury. The trials that matter here use implantation-based protocols, not a systemic infusion, so offering it would imply more than the evidence supports. What I'd point you to instead is the active, IND-cleared studies on ClinicalTrials.gov for your specific injury. If you'd like, I can email you the links.
I'd like to do this for you, but the relapse six weeks ago changes the timing. I want to wait until you've been clinically stable for at least 90 days from that event and your neurologist signs off. Realistically, that's about a 7-week delay from where we are today. Let's put a hold on the slot, get a note from your neurologist, and revisit then.
The shapes above are intentionally different. The first is a deferral until the remission threshold is met. The second is a referral elsewhere. The third is a short delay. None of them is an email; all three are physician phone calls. That's a deliberate choice. Declines deserve the same time investment as approvals.
Why does Celva publish who it turns away?
It saves your time before our call. If you have an active malignancy under 24 months, you don't need to fill out a form to learn we can't help you right now. The whole page exists so you can screen yourself before you spend time on anything else.
Read moreShow less
It is a competitive disclosure, intentionally. Several clinics in this market will treat conditions on the not-treated list. Publishing ours tells you what we think about that market, without us having to say it about any specific competitor.
It is a public commitment. Putting the list on the website means we cannot quietly drift on it when a tempting case comes in. The not-treated list is what we are willing to be held accountable to in writing.
The standard format for a clinic site is to list "conditions we treat." That list is always longer than it should be, because every condition added to it produces another inquiry, and most inquiries convert at some non-zero rate. The omitted list, the not-treated list, is the one that matters more. It's the list that tells you whether a clinic is making clinical judgments or marketing judgments.
Seven hard exclusions, four conditions we don't treat, eight yellow-zone case-by-case calls. Declines are delivered by a physician on a call, with reasoning. Sometimes the answer is "not now" rather than "never", and when it is, we say which.
If your condition isn't here, the first call is the right next step.