The controversy around stem cell treatments mostly comes from where the cells are sourced, how they are used, & whether the science is proven or not

If you’re thinking about getting stem cell therapy treatment, our article on Questions to Ask Stem Cell Clinics might be helpful, or set up a conversation with our team here. They can can guide you in deciding if it’s the right fit, help you choose the best clinic & region, and even assist you in securing some great discounts!

Source of Stem Cells: Why it’s controversial

• Embryonic stem cells: Controversial because taking them destroys an early embryo, raising moral and religious concerns.
• Umbilical cord cells: Generally accepted, but in some countries there are concerns about donor consent and potential exploitation.
• Adult stem cells (like MSCs): Seen as less ethically fraught, but questions remain about donor safety, screening, and whether private clinics collect them responsibly.

Safety Concerns around Stem Cell Treatments

One of the biggest controversies around stem cell therapy is safety. There’s so many clinics that make misleading claims to take advantage of patients.

• Tumor formation: Pluripotent stem cells like embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells can form benign growths called teratomas if they aren’t carefully prepared. Clinical trials tightly control for this, but it remains a concern in unregulated settings.
• Infections and contamination: If stem cells are not collected, processed, or stored under strict medical standards, patients may be exposed to dangerous infections or complications.
• Unproven claims: Some clinics market things that just aren’t true. Like MSC Cells turn into new cells in every treatment. In the UK recently, the guardian reported a UK firm misleading parents with milk teeth autism treatment claims in an article published in August 2025.
• Regulatory gaps: In countries with weak oversight, clinics may bypass safety protocols altogether, creating a higher chance of harm.

Why are Stem Cell Regulations so different in countries?

• Global differences: Some governments, like those in Japan, South Korea, and parts of Latin America, allow regenerative therapies to reach patients sooner under special frameworks.
  • Others, like the European Union and the US FDA, keep treatments locked inside trials until long-term safety and effectiveness are proven. This creates a patchwork of laws where the same therapy may be seen as “innovative care” in one place and “unapproved” in another.
• The US battle: Even within one country, the rules aren’t always clear-cut. In the US, the FDA has taken a strict stance, but states like Florida and Utah have pushed back, passing laws that give clinics more freedom to offer stem cell procedures. This has fueled a tug-of-war between federal regulators and local legislators, leaving patients caught in the middle.
• Why so many opinions? Stem cell science is new, complex, and fast-moving. Some countries prioritize giving patients quicker access to new treatments, even if evidence is still emerging.
  • Others emphasize long-term safety and want more data before approving widespread use. Both approaches have trade-offs — speed versus certainty.