Politics & FDA OK of 2 stem cell clinic COVID-19 efforts

The FDA and its CBER branch have been doing a good job overall in the last 3+ years to tackle the unproven stem cell clinic problem, but lately on the stem cells for COVID-19 front there is reason for real concern.

I believe the agency is taking on major risk overall by clearing a vast number of cell therapy trials for COVID-19 mostly without much data, but the clearance of a few programs by for-profit stem cell clinics is especially problematic in my view.

FDA on the ball more generally on clinics

For background and on the positive, the FDA is taking the problem of the stem cell clinic industry very seriously and taking action on clinic firms that are injecting patients with unapproved stem cell drugs.

It has sent off dozens of untitled and warning letters to clinic firms pitching unproven stem cells and other regenerative biologics like exosomes. The agency’s biologics branch called CBER is really on the ball on this these days. Its Director Peter Marks deserves big kudos for the serious commitment and marathon work here over many years to make things happen on this problem. Dr. Marks was the subject of an interesting piece in the WaPo by Laurie McGinley recently: Meet the most important federal official you probably don’t know — the man who holds the fate of the coronavirus vaccine in his hands.

Beyond the letters, the agency has done more on the clinic industry as well, especially as compared to during the Obama yearsFor instance, the FDA has also filed suit against two firms selling unapproved fat stem cells, one in California and one in Florida, and prevailed in the latter case already getting a permanent injunction. The California federal district court case is still pending. It is a major undertaking for the FDA to file suit via the DOJ so these suits are a big deal in a positive way.

Clinic firm Giostar’s compassionate use clearance from FDA

Anand Srivastava of GIOSTAR, FDA clearance
Anand Srivastava, Founder of stem cell clinic firm GIOSTAR, which got some kind of FDA compassionate use OK for unproven stem cells in COVID-19 patients.

However, it’s more of a mixed bag when it comes to COVID-19. While the agency has rightly taken some firms to task for unsupported claims about treating COVID-19 with stem cells, it has also green lighted others to inject patients.

One of the most concerning stem cells for COVID-19 clearance I’ve seen reported so far involves Giostar.  This headline and article from a media firm called India West about GIOSTAR, “Indian American-founded GIOSTAR Announces FDA Approval for COVID-19 Clinical Trial with Stem Cells” raises some red flags.

What’s the problem?

To start with, in my opinion GIOSTAR fits the bill of being an unproven stem cell clinic chain. It has been marketing unproven stem cell injections for years around the world for a variety of health conditions.

The firm makes some highly questionable claims to biomedical legitimacy, such as this on the Chicago clinic’s website:

“GIOSTAR is comprised of a world-renowned international group of researchers, doctors, and scientists in the field of stem cell biology, cancer, and gene therapy. The team has won several awards, conducted pioneering studies, and published extensive research in leading medical journals. Further, the GIOSTAR team has helped develop stem cell research programs for prestigious institutions in the United States, such as the University of California San Diego (UCSD), Salk Research Institute in San Diego, University of California Irvine (UCI), Burnham Institute of Medical Research in San Diego, and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA).”

But is this accurate?

Past problematic claims from Giostar

Michael Hiltzik over at the LA Times caught the firm on some of these claims just last year in 2019.  Here’s one particularly striking passage about the UCLA-related and other academic claims of GIOSTAR leader Anand Srivastava (pictured above; note that Patel here refers to Giostar Chief Executive Deven Patel):

“Now let’s turn to Srivastava’s credentials, which are the bedrock of Giostar’s assertion of stem-cell treatment leadership. Patel acknowledged in an email that some of Srivastava’s descriptions of his prior academic appointments have been exaggerated. They include his claims on the company website to have been an associate professor in the department of cellular and molecular biology at UCLA’s medical school, an associate professor at UC Irvine medical school, and an assistant professor at UC San Diego medical school.

According to the schools, Srivastava held none of those posts, which almost certainly would have been tenure-track appointments. UCLA says its medical school does not have a department of cellular and molecular biology.”

To me that kind of stuff does not build trust in the firm, yet it does appear the FDA cleared their COVID-19 work in some way. Does the company has some compelling data that convinced the FDA? As the West India article stated, does the firm have an “approved clinical trial”? It doesn’t quite seem like a trial.

How much data should be required?

The India West article provides some details on the compassionate use clearance:

“San Diego, California-based Global Institute of Stem Cell Therapy and Research, a leader in stem cell research, has announced that they have received an approval for a COVID-19 clinical trial, led by their Indian American medical director Dr. Prabhat Soni. GIOSTAR will conduct the trial using stem cells to treat COVID-19 patients under the approval of the United States Food and Drug Administration “expanded access for compassionate use” program, said a PRNewswire report. The institute is exploring a promising alternative approach to the devastating disorder, which leverages the anti-inflammatory properties of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). According to Soni, the investigation is based upon two decades of stem cell research by GIOSTAR’s Indian American co-founder, chairman and chief scientific officer Dr. Anand Srivastava.”

It’s not clear to me how much rigorous, relevant data they have.

More generally, how much data and of what quality are needed for clearance to infuse patients with stem cells for COVID-19 these days?

It seems like things are very different now than in the past for non-COVID-related health conditions. For example, for other kinds of cell therapy efforts the FDA might require rigorous, directly relevant pre-clinical data collected over a few years. A pandemic may justify speeding things up via a lower data requirement, but how low is OK?


The FDA recently cleared an IND by the long-time stem cell clinic firm Celltex in Texas for fat MSCs for COVID-19. Celltex has a long history with the FDA. Years ago it moved its clinic doing stem cell injections down to Mexico. You can see a YouTube video of a Celltex TV commercial above.

There seems to be a focus in the new Celltex COVID-19 program at least in part on using stem cells as a preventative measure for COVID-19, which in my view is even less likely to be proven helpful than employing the cells for treatment. Routine injections of stem cells for purported immune modulation for COVID-19 protection or other reasons could end up being very profitable though.

I won’t go into more depth here since I recently covered the new Celltex clearance here, but I see real reasons for concern. You can check out the 3 Celltex clinicaltrials.gov listings here.


Politics is clearly at play in the agency’s evaluation of cell therapies for COVID-19. It feels like the Trump administration and its allies have pressured the FDA to move as many COVID efforts forward as possible.

Celltex customer, former board member, and long-time advocate, Rick Perry, recently went on Fox News to plug the clinic firm. Perry was also the DOE Secretary for a time for the current administration.  Earlier, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani hosted Celularity CEO Bob Hariri on his show, which felt to me somewhat like an infomercial. Both Celltex and Celularity got their IND clearances from the FDA. How much of a role did politics play in these cases?

Looking ahead

Can we expect the FDA to continue clearing so many applications for experimental cell therapies for COVID studies including by other stem cell clinics and related regenerative firms?


Now apparently under pressure from Trump, Hahn just approved an EUA for convalescent plasma for COVID-19 after earlier the agency seemed to indicate it wasn’t that upbeat about this approach. Check out this new, frank conversation between STAT’s Adam Feuerstein and Matt Herper on Hahn’s approval of convalescent plasma and politics at the FDA.

Overall, I see major risk from the FDA letting so many stem cell-related trials and compassionate use programs to proceed including especially by clinics. In the bigger picture, the perception that politics is now potentially playing a sizable role in FDA decision making also risks undermining faith in their decisions. That trust is particularly important during the COVID-19 pandemic with potential new vaccines being considered in the next few months.

5 thoughts on “Politics & FDA OK of 2 stem cell clinic COVID-19 efforts”

  1. Political Scientism to be politically, “ correct, “ nothing to do with actual science. Where is the
    “ material” For these purported “stem cell” therapies actually sourced? How is it harvested and are there any actual living stem cells in the so called “stem cell” therapies? How are the products made “sterile,” since the FDA/CDC stated in their September 2018 MMWR about Liveyon, specifically and States that there is “no known method of sterilization for these unlawfully marketed and sold products,” implies all of them. Furthermore, according to the CDC and the Florida Department of Health, at least 8 communicable diseases and possibly more were caused by Liveyon whose exact address is the same as DV Biologics/ DV Biosciences that was shut down in 2016 along with Planned Parenthood for harvesting and selling aborted fetuses and aborted fetus material. It is interesting to know that Liveyon opened in the exact location 4 days post the closing of DV and Planned Parenthood. Where did inventory go? Are these a byproduct of aborted fetal cells or human trafficked aborted fetal cells? These are seriously important questions that are always side stepped in any type of publication and the public really needs to know where this material is sourced since in the United States I find it hard to believe that hospitals and cord blood banks would just hand it over to these companies knowing that it’s not donor host matched or sterile or even legal.
    Having met John Koslochareon face to face, the CEO of Liveyon, he never answered my questionS about where the material in his product came from. Answers, please.

  2. Hi Paul,

    Are you ONLY being critical of compassionate use programs from stem cell clinics or are you also critical of FDA approvals of the COVID-19 IND’s that the FDA has given for placebo controlled stem cell studies from the likes of Athersys, PluriStem and Mesoblast? If not you should have made that distinction clear.

    1. @WST, I think the FDA has cleared too many regenerative/cell therapy COVID-19 INDs & compassionate use programs overall.

      However, amongst the biotechs there are some such as Athersys and Mesoblast that have more data than others and have a firmer foundation so those stand out as better. See the post a few days ago here about Mesoblast for instance. Even in these cases I personally think it’s a high hurdle for cells to do better than steroids in terms of efficacy and safety, if one assumes they have strongly overlapping mechanisms.

      Perhaps part of the overall trend of FDA green lighting so much regenerative stuff for COVID we get to the more concerning realm of clinics also getting OKs for their efforts from the FDA.

      1. So you think steroids are a better avenue to go down to save a life for a moderate to severe patient than are stem cells with a (so far) good efficacy?

  3. COVID-19 is making some people very panicky, apparently even in the FDA. This is just more evidence of politics polluting science.

Leave a Reply