Patients exploring stem cell therapy are often confused by conflicting medical opinions. One physician may dismiss stem cells as ineffective or unproven, while another incorporates them into clinical practice. This divide is not driven by ignorance or bad faith. Rather, it reflects how regenerative medicine differs fundamentally from standard treatments, how evidence is evaluated, and how risk is interpreted in evolving fields of medicine.
Understanding this nuance is essential for patients seeking clarity rather than certainty.
Stem cells belong to regenerative medicine, not standard first-line care
Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy is currently best understood as part of regenerative medicine rather than conventional, guideline-driven treatment. Unlike medications or surgical procedures with clearly defined indications, MSC therapies do not yet have universally accepted protocols, standardized dosing, or consensus guidelines across medical societies.
This alone explains why some doctors are cautious or opposed. In evidence-based medicine, lack of standardization often signals uncertainty—not necessarily inefficacy, but incomplete validation. Physicians trained to practice strictly within guideline-approved frameworks may reasonably choose not to recommend therapies that remain outside formal standards of care.
In this context, stem cell therapy is often viewed as an option rather than a default treatment.
Regulatory status and the FDA misunderstanding
Much of the skepticism surrounding stem cell therapy stems from its regulatory status, particularly in the United States. Most MSC-based therapies are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for routine clinical use in specific indications. Importantly, this does not mean that stem cells are biologically inactive or clinically meaningless.
FDA approval is indication-specific and requires large, costly, long-term trials. MSCs are living cells with complex, context-dependent behavior, making them fundamentally different from fixed pharmaceutical compounds. As a result, regulatory pathways are slower and more restrictive.
Many physicians interpret “not FDA-approved” as “does not work.” Others interpret it as “not yet standardized.” Both interpretations originate from legitimate medical caution, not denial of biological plausibility.
A useful comparison: PRP as a clinical precedent
A helpful parallel is platelet-rich plasma (PRP). PRP is not FDA-approved as a drug, has no universal dosage standard, and shows variable results depending on preparation technique and patient factors. Yet PRP is widely used in orthopedics, sports medicine, and dermatology because clinicians observe real-world benefit in selected patients and its safety profile is acceptable.
Stem cell therapy follows a similar—but more complex—adoption curve. The biology is more potent, the regulatory scrutiny is higher, and the ethical risks are greater if misused. This explains why some doctors accept PRP but remain hesitant about stem cells, even though both belong to regenerative medicine.
Why some doctors say stem cells don’t work
Physicians who dismiss stem cell therapy often do so based on legitimate concerns. Clinical studies are heterogeneous, sample sizes are frequently small, and outcomes are variable. Effect sizes are typically modest rather than dramatic, especially in advanced disease.
Additionally, irresponsible marketing has damaged credibility. Clinics claiming to cure neurodegeneration, reverse aging, or eliminate the need for surgery undermine trust in the entire field. Doctors encountering patients harmed financially or emotionally by such claims may reasonably reject stem cell therapy altogether.
From this perspective, skepticism is a protective stance.
Why other doctors use stem cells clinically
Other clinicians—particularly in orthopedics, neurology, sports medicine, and immunology—see a different pattern. When used selectively, earlier in disease progression, and with realistic goals, MSC therapy may reduce inflammation, improve function, or slow deterioration.
Umbilical cord–derived mesenchymal stem cells (UC-MSCs) act primarily through paracrine signaling and immunomodulation. They release cytokines, growth factors, and extracellular vesicles that influence inflammatory pathways, immune balance, vascular signaling, and tissue repair. They do not permanently engraft or rebuild organs, but they can meaningfully alter the biological environment.
Doctors who use stem cells clinically tend to frame them as supportive biological therapy, not as cures.
Different definitions of “working”
A central reason for disagreement is how success is defined. For some physicians, a treatment works only if it permanently reverses disease or replaces the need for surgery. By that definition, stem cell therapy often falls short.
For others, reducing pain, improving mobility, stabilizing symptoms, or delaying progression is a valid therapeutic outcome—especially in chronic, degenerative, or inflammatory conditions where cures are not available. Stem cell therapy operates primarily in this space.
Both perspectives are medically defensible.
Why disagreement persists
Medicine advances through refinement, not unanimity. Many treatments once considered promising were later restricted, while others gained acceptance only after years of debate. Stem cell therapy is still in this evaluative phase.
As higher-quality trials emerge and regulatory clarity improves, clinical guidelines will continue to evolve. Until then, disagreement reflects uncertainty—not fraud or futility.
How patients should interpret conflicting opinions
When doctors disagree, patients should look for transparency rather than absolutes. A physician who says stem cells “don’t work” may be responding to misuse or lack of standardization. A physician who uses stem cells should be able to clearly explain indications, limitations, risks, and expected duration of benefit.
The absence of guarantees is a sign of responsible care.
At EDNA Wellness, stem cell therapy is approached as an evidence-informed regenerative option—not a replacement for standard care. UC-MSCs are used to modulate inflammation and support tissue repair pathways, with patient selection, dosing strategy, and follow-up guided by published research and clinical judgment.
Patients are informed that outcomes vary, benefits are time-dependent, and repeat treatment may be necessary. This conservative approach reflects why some doctors use stem cells responsibly while others choose to wait for further standardization.
The divide among doctors regarding stem cell therapy is not a conflict between science and belief. It reflects how regenerative medicine challenges traditional frameworks of evidence, regulation, and expectation. Stem cells are neither miracle cures nor meaningless interventions. They are an evolving medical tool that demands careful application, honest communication, and continued research.
For patients, understanding this nuance is essential to navigating conflicting opinions and making informed decisions grounded in science rather than hype.
About EDNA Wellness
EDNA Wellness is a private Stem Cell Clinic and Regenerative Medicine Center in Bangkok, Thailand, specializing in Umbilical cord–derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells (UC-MSCs) for knee osteoarthritis and joint pain, stroke and other neuro-related conditions, and stem cell IV infusions for longevity and healthy aging. All treatments are doctor-designed and performed in a sterile clinical setting.
For more information or to book a consultation:
LINE: @ednawellness
WhatsApp: +66 (0) 64 505 5599
Website: www.ednawellness.com
References
- Pittenger MF et al. (2019) “Mesenchymal stem cell perspective: cell biology to clinical progress” NPJ Regenerative Medicine
- Wang Y et al. (2022) Paracrine mechanisms of mesenchymal stem cells in regenerative medicine
- Sipp D et al. (2017) Marketing of unproven stem cell-based interventions, Science Translational Medicine