On this page
Every clinical claim on this site is meant to be traceable to something you can read yourself. This research library holds the evidence summaries the condition and treatment pages draw on — with the trials named, their designs described, and their limitations stated rather than omitted.
How this library is built
Each page here summarises published human research on one question. Where the evidence is thin, the page says so; where it is mostly animal work, the page says that too. Several pages here conclude that the evidence does not support what is commonly claimed, which is the main reason a library like this is worth having.
References are resolved against PubMed during the site build. A reference that does not resolve is removed rather than rewritten, which is a rule with a history behind it — during construction it caught several identifiers that looked plausible and pointed at unrelated papers.
Nothing here cites another clinic’s marketing as evidence.
The pages are also written to be read by someone who has already been given a sales pitch elsewhere and wants to check it. That shapes what they cover: less on how promising the biology looks, more on what was measured, in how many people, for how long, and against what comparison.
Start with the distinction that matters most
If you read one page in this library, read HSCT versus MSC infusion.
It sets out why evidence for a hospital transplant procedure is routinely used to sell an outpatient infusion, and how to tell which one you are being offered.
Then what the evidence levels mean, which explains the grading used at the top of every clinical page.
Evidence by condition
Where the clinical questions are strongest.
- Knee osteoarthritis studies — the most developed evidence base discussed here.
- Cartilage regeneration research — structural repair versus symptom relief.
- MSC clinical trials — the registered trial landscape across conditions.
Each links back to the corresponding condition page, and each condition page links here. Reading the pair together is the intended use: the condition page describes what the disease does and what standard care offers, while the research page sets out what the trials measured and where they fall short.
Evidence by cell type and method
The practical variables that make two treatments called the same thing behave differently.
- Umbilical cord MSC research — allogeneic cells from donated cord tissue.
- Autologous versus allogeneic — your own cells or a donor’s.
- MSC dosage research — why trial doses vary by more than tenfold.
- MSC immunomodulation — the proposed mechanism, labelled as a proposal.
Safety and harm
The part of the literature that marketing pages tend to summarise in a single reassuring sentence.
- Safety studies — what the data covers and how long it followed people.
- Adverse events — documented harms, including from the unregulated sector.
Short-term tolerability has generally been reported as good. That is a narrower statement than “safe”, and the difference is the follow-up period.
The harms that have been documented in the unregulated sector are largely not the ones people worry about in advance. They cluster around contamination, poor preparation, injection into places cells were never studied being injected into, and treatments sold for conditions with no evidence at all.
Regulation and limits
Stem cell regulation in Thailand — what the framework permits, from official sources.
The limits of current evidence — where the research stops, stated plainly rather than left for you to discover after paying.
Regulatory status and evidence quality are separate questions, and neither predicts the other. A country can permit something the evidence does not yet support, and can restrict something that works perfectly well elsewhere. Reading one as a proxy for the other is how people end up disappointed in both directions.
It is also why this library keeps the two apart. The regulation page describes what is lawful; every other page describes what has been shown. Where those two answers differ, the difference is stated rather than smoothed over.
How to read a study you find yourself
You will find claims elsewhere that are not discussed here. A few questions make most of them assessable.
- Was there a control group, and were participants randomised to it?
- Which cells, from which source, at what dose, by which route?
- What was actually measured, and was it a symptom or an image?
- How many people, and for how long?
- Who funded it, and who ran it?
A study that cannot answer the first question is describing what happened, not what the treatment did.
Two more habits help. Read the limitations section, which is where authors say plainly what their own study cannot support — it is usually the most honest paragraph in any paper. And check whether the conclusion in the abstract matches the numbers in the results, because the gap between the two is where a great deal of overstatement lives.
What this library will not tell you
Whether a treatment suits you. That needs your history and imaging read by a clinician, and for several conditions the honest answer after that review is no.
It also will not tell you that a decision is easy. For most of what is discussed here the evidence is genuinely mixed, and a page claiming otherwise would be selling rather than summarising.
See the main treatment page for how this connects to what is actually offered, and the cost page for why price varies so widely across treatments that sound identical.
If a page here changes your mind about proceeding, it has done its job. A library that only ever encouraged treatment would not be a library.
The conditions index maps each of these evidence summaries onto the condition pages that rely on them.
Frequently asked questions
Who writes these pages?
They are written from the published literature, with every reference linked to its PubMed record so you can check the source rather than take the summary on trust.
Why do some pages conclude the evidence is weak?
Because for several conditions it is. A library that found strong evidence everywhere would not be worth reading.
Are these systematic reviews?
No. They are summaries of published research, and they prioritise systematic reviews and randomised trials where those exist.
How current are they?
Each page shows when it was last updated. Evidence moves, particularly in this field, and a summary is only as good as its date.
Can I bring these to my own doctor?
Yes, and that is a good use of them. Every reference links to the source so your doctor can read the study rather than the summary.
Do you cite other clinics?
No. Clinic marketing is not evidence, however confidently it is written.
Requesting a medical evaluation
Nothing on this page establishes whether any treatment is appropriate for you. That needs your history, your imaging and your current medications read by a clinician. If you would like that review, send your records and we will tell you honestly whether there is anything worth discussing — including when the answer is no.
This page is general information, not medical advice, and does not create a doctor–patient relationship. Regenerative treatments discussed here are in most cases investigational. Discuss any treatment with a clinician who knows your history.