In the past, when people have asked about Kim Kardashian stem cell treatments, they usually meant those vampire facelifts she did years ago. It’s hard to forget the blood-smeared face. However, that’s not really a stem cell treatment. It’s good that Kim later expressed regrets about vampire facelifts due to the pain involved. From a safety perspective, the microneedling associated with vampire facelifts has led to people getting sick including with HIV.
Now the mention of “Kardashian stem cells” in the news is somewhat different. It is related to unproven stem cells she got down in Mexico. Let’s discuss what’s going on here. I wonder if she might regret these stem cell injections later too.
Keeping up with the Kardashian stem cell injections
First, it’s not just Kim. Apparently Khloé Kardashian got “stem cells” too.
What kind of stem cells did the sisters get, you ask? These cells fall into kind of a nebulous category.
The sisters appear to have gotten something called MUSE cells.
As I’ve written many times, I’m skeptical of MUSE cells. I see them as in the same kind of orbit as VSELs. Both are claimed to be naturally occurring adult pluripotent stem cells, but I have big doubts about that.
The cells were reportedly given in Mexico by Dr. Adeel Khan. This same physician apparently has treated other celebs too like Tony Robbins. As readers of The Niche may recall, Tony Robbins is quite interested in stem cells.
What are the health issues that the Kardashians aim to address here?
Why did they get MUSE cells?
It seems to be intended for chronic pain and injury recovery.
Perhaps also longevity.
Why go to Mexico?
These kinds of “stem cells” are not approved by the FDA.
Neither MUSE cells or VSELs have been proven helpful or safe for any health condition.
The risks here
I believe that going outside the U.S. can increase risks. The risks here include that the injected cells could grow uncontrollably. There’s also concern about possible blood clots and immune system problems. I always worry about recipients getting infections too.
A bigger picture worry here is that celebrities promoting unproven regenerative therapies encourages everyday people, potentially in the thousands, to follow suit. That amplifies overall risk.
At another level, it’s important to ask whether celebrities who engage in such things and then post about them like on Instagram are getting paid. Do they at least get free procedures?
Why MUSE cells don’t make sense to me
The science on MUSE cells is relatively narrow compared to other types of cells. Many of the articles are by Mari Dezawa, the leading MUSE cell researcher. The cells are sometimes now even called “Dezawa Muse Cells.” Perhaps that’s a licensed version?
The narrow scope of MUSE cell work is a concern for me. Adding to that, some labs reported trouble isolating them.
It also just doesn’t make sense for me that we adult humans (or even umbilical cords) would have pluripotent stem cells. Could putting some cells from the body under intense stress in the lab like during isolation procedures create something like MUSE cells? This brings to mind the whole STAP cell situation.
Another question comes to mind: how does one know a MUSE cell say from an MSC, which can have some similarities in gene expression? SSEA-3 is the most commonly used MUSE cell marker, but there are examples of SSEA-3 expression on non-stem cells.
The bigger picture on unproven stem cell use in the U.S.
The bottom line is that even if we assume that MUSE cells are real stem cells for a moment, it’s vital that solid later-stage clinical trials are done before they are used clinically. I haven’t seen such data.
Beyond the Kardashian sisters, many other celebrities including pro athletes post about getting stem cells. It’s not clear why more people seem to be using MUSE cells around the globe.
We’re likely to see MUSE cell use in the U.S. expand too, including under permissive state stem cell laws. The recent Florida stem cell law is a good example. However, these laws conflict with federal law and FDA regulations, which supersedes state law. For that reason I can’t imagine MUSE cell use in patients being legal in the U.S.
Still, even if the FDA were to agree with that assessment (and the agency is the one that decides such questions unless something goes to court), will today’s FDA take action on stem cell procedures based on state laws? We still don’t know and RFK Jr.’s famous tweet that the FDA was suppressing stem cells comes to mind again here now that he is HHS Secretary above the FDA.
Prof Knoepfler – is there a reason you don’t simply have a conversation with the lead researcher (Dezawa) or the company that holds the IP to answer some of the questions you pose in these articles? I’d be curious what they have to say…..
Deepa, thanks for attending my talk. I must not have been clear enough about heterogeneity. No living cell population, in vivo or in vitro, is homogeneous. Every time a cell divides, it acquires a few nucleotide changes in its genome. Usually the changes are benign, but occasionally the cells acquire a selective advantage, and the seed of a cancer is born. Again, no problem if our immune systems find and kill the abnormal cells.
Each iPSC line is initially derived from a single fibroblast or white blood cell that is part of an innately heterogeneous population, so it starts out as a homogeneous clone. Since the starting cells are heterogeneous, each iPSC line is slightly different. As the clonal iPSCs divide, they acquire their own heterogeneity.
I attended a public lecture delivered by Prof Loring on Pluripotent Stem Cells and also interacted with her. I asked her whether iPS cells can be obtained from a ‘pure’ population of mature cells, or does the starting cell population always remain heterogeneous? It is always heterogeneous! As a result, it is the stem cells present as a subpopulation that grow in culture. I do not believe in dedifferentiation and reprogramming of mature cells, both in vitro and in vivo. I shall be grateful if a publication suggesting the differentiation of mature cells from iPS or ES cells in vitro is shared. I am aware of this excellent article (PMID: 39626658).
Beneficial effects are observed whether MUSE or MSCs are transplanted or the exosomes obtained from them. They only help provide paracrine support, and the tissue-resident VSELs ensure both regeneration and rejuvenation. With age, the microenvironment for stem cells gets compromised in multiple organs. This disrupts the normal functioning of VSELs – implying differentiation into tissue-specific cell types. Improving the niche by transplanting MUSE cells, or MSCs, or exosomes will help restore the normal functioning of VSELs.
Thanks, Paul, for this platform for discussions.
I think we need to not confuse belief with evidence. Belief is the basis of the placebo effect, which is not a terrible thing, but people shouldn’t have to pay for it.
I don’t believe in MUSE or VSELs. Scientists can believe in religious concepts that can’t be proven to exist. But scientists have an obligation to be critical about what they believe in here on earth (which has been shown to not be flat).
Only cells that can make every cell type in the body are pluripotent. They exist in embryos five days after they are fertilized eggs. But they don’t exist in fetuses, birth-associated products, or at any other time of life.
That’s why induced pluripotent stem cell technology has changed our views of what is medically possible. iPSCs are like the cells that we had when we were barely visible embryos, and can be used for autologous cell therapies when they are differentiated into a cell type that has degenerated. And they can make fully differentiated cells, like mature pigmented retina for AMD or mature pancreatic islet cells for Type 1 diabetes, now in clinical trials.
The scientific community needs to take note rather than continue to doubt VSELs and MUSE cells.
iPS and ES cells differentiate into fetal counterparts in vitro and thus the relevance for drug screening and precision medicine remains questionable. iPSC-cardiomyocytes beat spontaneously like fetal hearts, while the neurons fire sparsely and have immature ion-channel distributions. iPSC-hepatocytes and β-cells rely mainly on glycolysis, not oxidative phosphorylation — typical of fetal cells. Fetal hepatocytes lack the critical enzymes required for drug metabolism, for which human liver cells might be screened for drug discovery. The same is the story for 3D organoids- despite all the complexity. We still wait (>25 years) to see the promise of iPS and ES cells unfold for regenerative medicine!
VSELs exist in all tissues and have a role in maintaining homeostasis, participating in regular turnover and in regeneration upon injury. Dysfunctional VSELs, due to various insults, initiate cancer (PMID: 38457060) and are responsible for disease progression, metastasis and recurrence. Dedifferentiation and reprogramming of epithelial cells and EMT have no role in cancer spread and metastasis (PMID: 41191204). There is no need to describe in detail the impact of cancer on human health!
MUSE cells are more primitive and differentiate into MSCs. Published literature suggests that they are safe and show relief in disease symptoms upon transplantation.
@Deepa, you always say positive things about VSELs and MUSE, but do you believe it’s OK to already be injecting people with them for many different conditions at clinics? Like the sisters in this post got them for all kinds of things including longevity. Is that OK?