Journal of Cell Science & Therapy
Open Access

Scrutinizing the Experimental Evidence Supporting Live Cell Therapy Innovations

Amitava Das^{* *}Correspondence: Amitava Das, Department of Applied Biology, CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, India, Email:

Author info »

Description

Live cell therapy, also known as cellular therapy or cellular medicine, is a holistic approach that utilizes injections of live animal cells to purportedly rejuvenate and regenerate damaged tissues and organs in the human body. This alternative medical practice traces its roots back to the early 20th century and has gained popularity in recent years as a form of anti-aging treatment and a supposed remedy for various health conditions. Advocates of live cell therapy claim that it can enhance vitality, improve immune function, and even slow down the aging process, but the scientific evidence supporting these assertions remains controversial.

Mechanisms and claims

Proponents of live cell therapy assert that the injection of live animal cells, typically from organs such as the liver, placenta, or embryo, can introduce beneficial factors and stimulate regeneration in the recipient's body.

They argue that these live cells contain growth factors, enzymes, and other bioactive molecules that can promote tissue repair, modulate immune responses, and restore youthful vigour. However, the mechanisms underlying these purported effects are not well-understood, and scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of live cell therapy is limited and largely anecdotal.

Controversy and lack of scientific evidence

Despite its long history and widespread use in some alternative medicine circles, live cell therapy remains a highly controversial practice within the medical community.

Critics argue that the claims made by proponents of live cell therapy are not supported by rigorous scientific evidence and that the risks associated with the procedure may outweigh any potential benefits. Furthermore, the lack of standardized protocols for cell preparation, dosage, and administration makes it difficult to evaluate the safety and efficacy of live cell therapy in a systematic manner.

Regulatory oversight and legal status

The regulatory oversight of live cell therapy varies widely from country to country, with some jurisdictions strictly regulating or outright banning the practice due to concerns about safety and efficacy. In the United States, for example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers live cell therapy to be a form of biological product and regulates it accordingly.

Potential risks and side effects

Like any medical procedure, live cell therapy carries potential risks and side effects that must be carefully considered by patients and healthcare providers. These risks include infection, allergic reactions, immune rejection, and the transmission of infectious diseases from donor animals to recipients. Additionally, there is a lack of long-term safety data on the use of live cell therapy, raising concerns about its potential for causing adverse effects or long-term complications.

Ethical considerations

Live cell therapy also raises ethical concerns related to the use of animal-derived cells and tissues in medical treatments. Critics argue that the extraction of cells from donor animals, often through invasive procedures or slaughter, raises questions about animal welfare and the ethical treatment of animals.

Conclusion

Live cell therapy remains a controversial and poorly understood practice within the field of medicine. While proponents of live cell therapy tout its potential benefits for rejuvenation and regeneration, the scientific evidence supporting these claims is limited and inconclusive. Moreover, the lack of standardized protocols, regulatory oversight, and ethical considerations surrounding live cell therapy raise significant concerns about its safety, efficacy, and ethical implications. As such, patients and healthcare providers should approach live cell therapy with caution and skepticism, and further research is needed to better understand its potential risks and benefits.