Stemedix's Marketing Strategy

This section will discuss how Stemedix advertises their therapy. In a general overview, Stemedix tends to mislead you by by sharing research conducted by third parties - not Stemedix themselves. This research does not directly correspond to Stemedix's own research because Stemedix does not take into account that the research is being done with other types of stem cells or that the research is not yet being done on human trials. Stemedix does not offer any of their own research as evidence of their own therapies' efficacy. Stemedix relies heavily upon patient testimonial videos of supposed patients describing their experience with Stemedix.

Social Media Presence:

Facebook: Stemedix uses their About page like an advertisement like an advertisement. They present themselves as a caring company that merely wants to help others and eliminate suffering. Overall, it presents a very favorable view of the company.

Picture taken from https://www.facebook.com/stemedix/info/?tab=page_info on 10/15/15

There is nothing inherently wrong with this. In fact, it actually makes sense that a business would use their Facebook About page as an advertising method. Still, after reading this, I have to wonder how Stemedix is a pioneer in stem cell research and biotech fields. The About page does not describe any research that Stemedix is currently conducting, only the treatments they offer.  

Picture taken from https://www.facebook.com/stemedix/info/?tab=page_info on 10/15/15 

Just offering these treatments does not equate to conducting research. Is Stemedix gathering data on the safety and efficacy of these treatments? I could not find any research published by Stemedix. I only found patient testimonial videos, not published data.

Stemedix also fails to mention whether or not their treatments are FDA approved on their About page. This should be a red flag - if their treatments were FDA approved, wouldn't they mention them? We already learned that Stemedix's treatments are not FDA approved. Sure, Stemedix doesn't lie to you, and they do tell the truth on their FAQ page on their website, but Stemedix isn't straightforward with you either. Patients must think to ask questions - or at least to view the questions other people asked, in order to access this information. 

Their Facebook page is filled with recruiter patients - patients that advocate for this clinic, for whatever reason. These could be legitimate patients that that sincerely believe in Stemedix and just want to spread positive words about Stemedix, or they could have ulterior motives (such as receiving reduced-price therapies or other compensation). This is not an unheard of idea, although it is one that is hard to track. Respected stem cell voice Paul Knoepfler published an article on his blog about this topic, which can be found at http://www.ipscell.com/tag/recruiter-patients/.

Picture taken from https://www.facebook.com/stemedix/reviews on 10/15/15. The names and pictures are blocked out because we are not making any accusations directed towards these commenters.

The only reviews posted on their Facebook page are 5 Stars. While this does not necessarily prove anything, it is suspicious. 

Picture taken from https://www.facebook.com/stemedix/timeline on a post dated March 24, 2015. The screenshot was captured on 10/15/15.

Cost is not publicly discussed by Stemedix, but some commenters almost immediately begin to explain why they believe the cost is worth it. Of course, this does not prove anything, but it does raise my suspicion.

One of Stemedix’s marketing strategies appears to be sharing misleading articles from outside sources on their Facebook page. One such example is this.

Picture taken from https://www.facebook.com/stemedix/timeline on a post dated September 1, 2015. The screenshot was captured on 10/15/15.

Not only was this case not associated with Stemedix, but the case refers to a different type of stem cell procedure. While Stemedix uses autologous adipose stem cell therapy (which come from the patient’s own stem cells and not a donor), the stem cell donation referred to in the article (which can be found at http://www.people.com/article/5-year-old-saves-twin-brother) is a bone marrow transplant. Bone marrow transplants are currently the only FDA approved stem cell therapy, and the donated stem cells are hematopoietic stem cells (not adipose stem cells). Therefore, there is no connection between Stemedix and their therapies and the situation in this boy’s case. So why share the article on their Facebook page? The article is from a major magazine (People), and the article gives good publicity to stem cells in general. Therefore, Stemedix is able to present stem cells as being a powerful tool in healing and hope that their potential patients do not think too much about the differences between the stem cell therapies.

This is not the first time Stemedix shared a promising article about stem cells without differentiating between the different types of stem cells.

Picture taken from https://www.facebook.com/stemedix/ on October 19, 2015.

First off, it is important to note that the shared article, clearly, refers to trials in animal models. This does not necessarily mean that the same results can be produced in human models. Also, in stem cell therapy, large animal models are considered to be a better predictor of human responses than rodent models. (A reference for this can be found in the John Harding, R Michael Roberts, and Oleg Mirochnitchenko article “Large Animal Models for Stem Cell Therapy” published on March 28, 2013 in Stem Cell Research & Therapy. A copy of this article can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3706788/)

The shared article does not refer to the scientific article itself, but rather Stemedix’s own blog post about the research conducted by University of Utah Health Sciences. 

Picture taken from http://stemedix.com/stem-cell-study-mice-ms-symptoms-walk/ on October 19, 2015.

From Stemedix’s article, you can follow a link to a University of Utah Health Sciences article about the research, but not the published research itself. (The link to the University of Utah Health Sciences article is http://healthcare.utah.edu/publicaffairs/news/current/05-15-14-MS-Mice-Walk-After-Human-Stem-Cell-Treatment.php) From the University of Utah Health Sciences article, you can follow a link to the published research in Stem Cell Reports.

Picture taken from http://www.cell.com/stem-cell-reports/abstract/S2213-6711%2814%2900112-X on October 19, 2015.

The scientific journal states that the stem cells used were neural precursor cells. Please note that Stemedix does not lie. Stemedix’s own article about this research states that adult stem cells were used successfully in this research, and neural precursor cells are a type of adult stem cell, as are adipose stem cells. Still, despite both being adult stem cells, adipose stem cells and neural stem cells are not the same thing, so they might not produce the same results.

Of course, this research is not associated with Stemedix, so Stemedix tries to establish a link between this research and their own on Stemedix’s own article about this research.

Picture taken from http://stemedix.com/stem-cell-study-mice-ms-symptoms-walk/ on October 19, 2015.

Please note that Stemedix does not establish how the results of University of Utah’s research are similar to their own. Stemedix also references that they are collecting data without publishing this data. By not publishing their data, Stemedix makes it impossible to determine whether or not their claims are supported by their data.

Another interesting tidbit of information that can be gathered from this is the fact that the main highlight of this article is that the mice were able to walk again after treatment. Please note the article links the mouse model to the disease Multiple Sclerosis. Stemedix does have an adipose stem cell therapy designed to target Multiple Sclerosis.

Picture taken from https://stemedix.com/multiple-sclerosis-responding-well-stem-cell-therapy/ on October 19, 2015.

Picture taken from https://stemedix.com/multiple-sclerosis/ on October19, 2015.

Stemedix does not claim that their therapy can allow patients with Multiple Sclerosis to walk again (although they also do not claim that their therapy cannot allow patients to walk again). So how are the University of Utah’s research similar to Stemedix’s own results?

Why does it matter if Stemedix advertises using promising treatments that use other types of stem cells? Stem cells, especially different types of adult stem cells, do not all behave in the same way. 

Picture taken from http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/pages/basics4.aspx on October 26, 2015.

Picture taken from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC138633/ on October 26, 2015. This article describes the differentiation potential of adipose stem cells.

As the National Institute of Health points out, different stem cells gives rise to different types of tissues. Wouldn't it make more sense that a stem cell that gives rise to cells of neural tissue has the potential to cure a neurodegenerative diseases than a stem cell that gives rise to fat cells (adipocytes), bone cells (osteocytes), cartilage cells (chondrocytes), and muscle cells (myocytes)?  

And just for good measure, let’s look into one more misleading article Stemedix has shared.

Picture taken from https://www.facebook.com/stemedix/ on October 19, 2015.

When you read the article (which can be found at http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2012/08/patient-angst-when-you-just-have-to-say-no-to-the-doctor), the author is referring to stopping taking medication, not receiving a stem cell transplant. Stemedix both takes the author’s quote and her whole article out of context, but why? It is likely that a patient’s doctor would advise them against a non-FDA approved, not-proven effective stem cell therapy such as the adipose stem cell therapies offered by Stemedix, and this article encourages patients to ignore their doctor’s advice in favor of “different” approaches.

Twitter: Stemedix also has a presence on Twitter (https://twitter.com/Stemedix), which shares the same articles as their Facebook page.

Google+: Stemedix also has a presence on Google+ (https://plus.google.com/+Stemedix/about), which also shares the same articles as the Facebook and Twitter page.

Stemedix's Google+ profile has three different reviews than their Facebook page, but again, all three reviews give Stemedix a 5 star review.

Picture taken from https://plus.google.com/+Stemedix/about on October 26, 2015.

All three reviews spoke highly of Stemedix both in terms of the results of the treatment and the customer service of Stemedix, but the first review that I pictured does raise a few question. The review claims that Stemedix contacts the patient for updates on their well-being. Is there no official follow up consultation to determine if the treatments were safe and effective? Is the patient supposed to monitor the effects and safety of the treatment themselves, or with their own doctor? If neither the patient nor their regular doctor is familiar with stem cell treatments, how will they know what to look for in terms of side effects? If Stemedix claims to do research, how do they get their results if they do not provide regular follow-ups with their patients? 

The point is even a positive review can still raise concerns upon Stemedix's treatments, and as discussed before, a reader of reviews needs to maintain a certain degree of skepticism. There is no guarantee than an internet review is 100% honest. 

YouTube: Stemedix has a presence on YouTube in which they post videos of patient testimonials. Their YouTube channel can be found at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvtJJhZIYh61jDNB6UVO4LA/feed.

In the patient testimonials, patients describe their experience and results with Stemedix following treatment. All the evidence suggesting that the treatments were successful just comes from patients' word of mouth. Some of these patients are also doctors themselves. This strategy of including the testimonials of doctors increases credibility because they have apparently read the literature. However, as stated previously, Stemedix doesn't seem to have literature, and other current literature requires more research for confirmation.

Here’s where things get a little interesting.

Picture taken from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvtJJhZIYh61jDNB6UVO4LA/discussion on October 19, 2015.

Dr. Balshi has been identified as one of the founders of Stemedix in the federal court case Stemgeneix, Inc. v Balshi,, and Palmer as the president and director. Based on this review, it seems as though Stemedix charges patients to make their appointments with Dr. Balshi, and then there is an additional fee for the therapy with Dr. Balshi himself. This YouTube user suggests that it is possible to make an appointment with Dr. Balshi and receive the same therapy without going through Stemedix. Many of the positive reviews and comments on Facebook and Google+ refer to Stemedix's hospitality and accommodations, but this YouTube user has another interesting perspective on these services - they are just a way for Stemedix to charge you more for their service.

Picture taken from https://www.inspire.com/groups/rare-disease-and-genetic-conditions/discussion/paraneoplastic-cerebellar-degeneration-3/reply/5776948/ on October 26, 2015. 

This Inspire.com user tells a similar tale - patients can make an appointment with Dr. Balshi directly, and Stemedix charges patients for their service connecting them to the doctor. This also explains why Stemedix does not reveal their physicians on their website - if patients already had access to the doctors, they would not need Stemedix.

The YouTube user hook1up makes an interesting point too:  all Stemedix’s YouTube videos have comments disabled.

Picture taken from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGu305P7B2s on October 20, 2015.

So, why does Stemedix not want anyone to comment on their YouTube videos? After all, since they've received all highly positive comments and reviews on their Facebook and Google+ page, wouldn't Stemedix want to give their patients another medium to discuss their good experience with Stemedix and their hopeful thoughts about the therapies? 

Overall, Stemedix's YouTube account and the Inspire.com article raise questions about the level of control that Stemedix maintains on their reviews. Stemedix has outlawed a medium that allows patients, potential patients, and even just curious viewers to discuss Stemedix. Stemedix has also received all five-stars reviews and positive comments on their Facebook and Google+ profile, yet highly negative reviews are out there, if you look. Clearly, not everyone had a positive experience with Stemedix. Is it just due to chance that no negative reviews have would up on Facebook or Google+? Is it just due to chance the negative reviews are harder to find? Obviously, Inspire.com is not as popular as Facebook, and who regularly ventures into the Discussion section of a YouTube channel? 

Another strategy to note about their YouTube channel is using of doctors as patients in several Patient Experience videos. These doctors give credibility to the treatments that Stemedix provides because we tend to trust doctors when they talk about medical issues. For example, Dr. Robert K., MD explained in his interview how he found Stemedix and considered therapy because he reviewed the literature (https://youtu.be/b1aFTLG87i8?t=1m13s). Still, it is important to point out that doctors do not receive training in stem cells (more information about that can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-knoepfler/stem-cell-doctors_b_3040110.html ). There is no evidence to suggest that the doctor-patients whom Stemedix interviews are more knowledgeable on stem cells than other patients who have read the literature. 

Hiring Freelance Writers?

Portfolium is a website that allows users to create a digital portfolio to display to potential employers. On October 6, 2015, an informational article for Stemedix appeared at https://portfolium.com/entry/stem-cell-therapy-article-for-stemedix, on one man's personal portfolio to showcase his work.

Picture taken from https://portfolium.com/entry/stem-cell-therapy-article-for-stemedixon on October 20, 2015.

Not only does the author of the article claim that it was written for Stemedix, but he also tags it as “marketing.”

Picture taken from https://portfolium.com/entry/stem-cell-therapy-article-for-stemedix on October 20, 2015.

The Portfolium article has an attached word document with the article that the writer wrote for Stemedix. So, then how does Stemedix approach marketing?

The article is titled “What are the benefits of hyperbaric oxygen chamber therapy combined with Stemedix’s adipose-derived adult stem cell therapy?” The article begins by describing hyperbaric oxygen chamber therapy, and then the article gives a simplified description of a stem cell.

Picture taken from the attached Word document on https://portfolium.com/entry/stem-cell-therapy-article-for-stemedix on October 20, 2015.

Then, in typical Stemedix fashion, the article cites a research study not conducted by Stemedix that appears to support their claims at surface-level.

Picture taken from the attached Word document on https://portfolium.com/entry/stem-cell-therapy-article-for-stemedix on October 20, 2015.

Notice how the article does not cite this research, nor does the article indicate where the results of this research can be accessed. Still, by searching for Dr. Stephen Thom at University of Pennsylvania, I came across a list of his selected publications at http://www.med.upenn.edu/apps/faculty/index.php/g321/p16500. From there, I was able to determine that the likely article mentioned was “Stem cell mobilization by hyperbaric oxygen,” which was published in Experimental Biology in April, 2006. The link where this article can be accessed is found in the caption of the following picture.

Picture taken from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16299259 on October 20, 2015.

The important thing to take away from this is that the study specifies the the stem cells in question are derived from the bone marrow, not adipose tissue, like the stem cells that Stemedix uses. The stem cells derived from bone marrow are not the same as the stem cells derived from adipose tissue, and they differ in differentiation potential (their potential for giving rise to specialized cells) and immunomodulatory ability (ability to regulate the immune system). More information about this can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22468918. Also, stem cells derived from the bone marrow can also refer to hematopoietic stem cells, which form blood cells.

Picture taken from http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/pages/chapter5.aspx on  October 26, 2015. 

As the National Institute of Health describes, it is possible for cells, including stem cells, to leave the bone marrow to circulate in the blood. The referenced research article does not mention whether or not the stem cells circulating in the blood can later be harvested from adipose tissue, as the article claims. No evidence can be found supporting this claim, and as referenced by the National Institute of Health description above, oftentimes, these circulating stem cells are harvested directly from peripheral blood. Still, since Stemedix harvests stem cells from adipose tissue, they need to make some sort of connection between this research and their own therapies. 

The article then goes on to list several of the disorders for which Stemedix offers therapies, and the article ends with a very typical advertisement encouraging people to go to Stemedix to improve their quality of life. 

Picture taken from the attached Word document on https://portfolium.com/entry/stem-cell-therapy-article-for-stemedix on October 26, 2015.

One of the defining traits from this article is its apparent scientific tone. The article discusses research findings (even though the research was conducted by a third party) and scientific ideas. The article's apparent purpose is to describe the benefits of hyperbaric chamber oxygen therapy combined with stem cell therapy, and, typically, the medical benefits of a procedure are determined through scientific experiments. So, who does Stemedix hire to write such a science-based article?

Picture taken from https://portfolium.com/hjoachim on October 26, 2015.

They hire a freelance writer with a communications degree. This is the most important thing learned from this article. Stemedix markets their company by creating articles that appear scientific and discuss the possibilities and apparent efficacy of their therapies in order to create the illusion that their therapies efficacy are backed by science. In reality, these articles could be written by a group of people or a person with no real science background, only a marketing background. They're just a marketing ploy that disguise themselves as science. (Please note, this is not mean to question the integrity of the author of this article. He even tags it as "marketing" himself. We are merely questioning Stemedix's decision to have this article written.)

Press Releases

PR.com is a website where companies can promote their businesses in a way that blends public relations and advertisements. Stemedix has four press releases on PR.com, and a list of all four press releases can be found at http://www.pr.com/company-profile/press-releases/292503. Stemedix also has a presence on PRLOG, a free press release website. Their PRLOG profile contains the same four press releases as PR.com, and on PRLOG, they can be found at http://pressroom.prlog.org/stemedix/.

Picture taken from http://www.prlog.org/12287334-stem-cell-therapy-offers-groundbreaking-treatment-for-parkinsons-disease.html on October 26, 2015. 

While the actual author information cannot be found, all article reference the marketing director Lea Barlow. 

The most recent press releases is titled "Stem Cell Therapy Key for the Treatment of Diabetes," which can be found at http://www.pr.com/press-release/551787 . The press release was released in April, 2014. The press release opens by stating that diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death and introducing Stemedix. Then, once again in typical Stemedix fashion, the press release references research conducted by third parties. 

Picture taken from http://www.pr.com/press-release/551787 on October 27, 2015. 

There are two links at the bottom of the press release which contain more information about the referenced research. Also, in typical Stemedix fashion, the research was conducted using a type of adult stem cell other than adipose stem cells. Dr. Julio Voltarelli's research was done using stem cells derived from bone marrow (more information can be found at http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1891122,00.html). 

On an even more interesting note, the reference to the Canadian study does not reference stem cells in connection to the Canadian study. 

Picture taken from http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/pages/chapter7.aspx on October 27, 2015.  

The "Stem Cells and Diabetes" page on the National Institute of Health's website (which provided the above picture) links to the published paper for this research, which can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10911004). The Dr. James Shapiro is the same research that Stemedix's press release references. For one thing, it is the only reference to "Canada" on the whole page. Also, Stemedix's press release claims that in the treatment, all seven patients no longer needed to take insulin and their blood glucose concentrations were normal a year later, which are the same exact results of Dr. Shapiro's research.  Pancreatic Islet Transplantation is not even a form of stem cell transplantation, and more information about this can be found at http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/Diabetes/pancreatic-islet-transplantation/Pages/index.aspx. Typically, Stemedix articles and press releases do not lie to you, they just hide certain truths to mislead you. This represents a situation in which Stemedix lies in order to mislead you.

Picture taken from http://www.pr.com/press-release/551787 on October 27, 2015.

Stemedix ends the press release by advertising their services in the context of this article; Stemedix first describes the promises of their own therapy designed to treat diabetes, and then Stemedix gives a general overview of other therapies they offer.

The press release titled "Stem Cell Therapy Offers Groundbreaking Treatment for Parkinson's Disease" follows a similar format. The press release discusses the prevalence of Parkinson's Disease, introduces Stemedix, and then refers to someone else's research.

Picture taken from http://www.pr.com/press-release/544361 on October 27, 2015. 

Stemedix claims that the research was conducted using adipose stem cells, the same type of adult stem cell that Stemedix uses in their treatments. The press release then goes on the describe Stemedix's therapies, just like the diabetes press release.

Picture taken from http://www.pr.com/press-release/544361 on October 27, 2015 

At the end of the press release, Stemedix conveniently gives a source for the information they obtained about the research.

Picture taken from http://hrparkinsons.com/groundbreaking-paper-publishes-long-term-results-of-a-phase-i-clinical-trial-to-treat-parkinson%E2%80%99s-disease/ on October 27, 2015.

Yet the source claims that the research was conducted using neural stem cells. Once again, Stemedix did not just mislead people, but Stemedix directly lies about third party research that could be used to support their claims.

The third press release is titled "Potential Benefits of Adult Stem Cell Therapy for COPD." In general, it follows the same format as the other press releases.

Picture taken from http://www.pr.com/press-release/537107 on October 27, 2015. 

The only interesting thing worth noting is that this press release does not refer to to any specific research and results being conducted by other people. Instead, Stemedix just offers a general statement that research is being done and appears promising. Stemedix does include a source for this general information though, which can be found here. Stemedix also refers to the stem cells in a more general way - classifying them only as adult stem cells and not adipose stem cells.

Stemedix's oldest press release (which was released in December 2013) is titled "Adipose Stem Cell Therapy Offers New Hope for Multiple Sclerosis Sufferers."

Picture taken from http://www.pr.com/press-release/531648 on October 27, 2015.

This press release differs in that it does not refer to any research at all - even research being done by third parties. Stemedix provides no evidence at all that stem cell therapies in general can treat Multiple Sclerosis, and instead Stemedix just describes their therapy for MS.

The most recent press release was on April 27, 2014. Is Stemedix moving away from press releases? Still, I can't help but note the similarities in formatting and structure between the Portfolium article and these press releases. Is the article by the freelance writer going to be marketed as another press release? (The article did only come out earlier this month [October 2015]). Is Stemedix just focusing their marketing on social media and patient testimonials?