Stem Cell Therapy by Biologic Solutions has nothing to do with stem cells |

Stem Cell Therapy by Biologic Solutions has nothing to do with stem cells

That’s right. NOTHING. Zip, zero, nada. No relationship to stem cells whatsoever. But wait, you say, it says “Stem Cell” right there on the label. Hmmm. Yes it does.

This product fits a category of marketing deception that can best be described as brash, bold, deliberate, and arrogant.  Just say it, and they will believe.  They perhaps are thinking …those yokels don’t know what a stem cell is anyway, so we can benefit from the buzz of stem cell science without actually doing any real work.  Or perhaps … by the time they figure out the truth we will be billionaires.

So, a stem cell cream — but no stem cell scientists, or stem cells, or anything remotely related are used in the design and manufacture of this product.  So, why does it say “stem cell therapy” on the label?  The short answer is “because it can” (due to lack of any meaningful regulations about such things).

The active ingredients in this product are Mitostime and Phyko AI-PF, and Derm SRC/Seractin. The claim is that  these ingredients “support a healthy environment for stem cells”.  Now, they didn’t measure that, they simply assume it.  They don’t hint at what a healthy environment is for stem cells. They do no experiments with stem cells. They don’t bother to create a plausible (or even implausible) hypothesis. Why should they? Nobody told them they had to.  So you can insert any ingredient you think is healthy and it becomes “stem cell therapy”? That’s how far this stretches credulity.

So, my question to you is this. Do you think the purveyors of this “stem cell cream” are noble scientists, or cynical marketeers who probably sit around and laugh at how easy it is to pull the wool over your eyes ?  It’s hard not to conclude the latter. I wonder what the marketing philosophy is at Biologic Solutions? A fool and his money are easily parted? A sucker is born every minute?

Doesn’t this tick you off just a little bit?


Mitostime is a brown algae extract. It is cheap by cosmeceutical standards. Probably because its most popular use is as a fertilizer. So, its right up there with horse poo as a skin nutrient that “supports a healthy environment for stem cells”.

Phyko-AI-PF:   “phyko” is derived from the Greek phyco, meaning “seaweed.”  Really cheap, since its probably a throw away carbohydrate fraction from processing of the first ingredient. No known listing in legitimate scientific databases.

Derm SRC/Seractin:  This is one of those substances that are shrouded in mystery — there are no scientific publications mentioning it, and it is not in any chemical or industry databases.  Never trust these secret names — they are usually just a scam.


Cheap jar, you dip your fingers in this “stem cell cream” daily (introducing bacteria that might thrive in the brown algae residue).  Fresh air gets introduced into the jar with every use, slowly oxidizing the product so any antioxidant benefits would be diminished over time.

Estimated cost of product ingredients, jar, mixing add up to maybe 60 cents apiece.  Definitely not a luxury item. Sells for $40.


Test results show that with regular use, you will look years younger! There is no other anti-aging formula which can give you this precise formulation of clinically-tested, age-defying ingredients.  They work together to reverse the visible signs of aging as they:
• Increase production of new skin cells within 2 weeks*   • Increase the area of new skin growth within 30 days*   • Visibly decrease wrinkle appearance in 30 days**
• Increase natural collagen production within 15 days**  • Increase elastin synthesis**

New here is what the asterisks point to:

* Results from single sample in vitro testing on one active ingredient.   ** Results from 15 subject, single ingredient in vivo study.

That’s right folks — all this is claimed from a single skin biopsy in a single subject. There are so many ways that chance alone (or manipulation by the unscrupulous) can fudge these results.   Then the in vivo trial was for a single ingredient (they don’t say which one) in 15 subjects (way too small).   This is not a clinical trial. This is a way of doing just enough that you think you can CYA against FTC  (federal trade commission) charges of making claims without data. Just  generate some really minimal data in a sloppy way such that no real scientist would ever mistake it for actual evidence.

Perhaps of no surprise, the results are not published in any scientific journal.


If you google on “stem cell therapy cream”  you will find literally dozens of sites claiming  to be review sites (e.g. but are all really shill sites for the “stem cell cream” company. Biologic Solutions. These are all positive reviews, surprise! All saying the same party line things.  Finding a true, objective, unbiased review is actually a bit difficult. This is known as search engine carpet bombing. It is a way of manipulating search engines by dominating results through networks of interlinked sites. is near the top of the search engine rankings. This looks like a nice independent review site.  It starts with a nice picture of Dani, and these words … “Thank you for dropping by. My name is Dani and I decided to start this website after I got tired of looking the mirror and not liking what I was seeing….”

Now, If you look up the actual owner of the site you find … Private, Registration This is how sites are registered when you want to disguise the owner (you do it through a proxy company that specializes in this).  Now, I find it interesting that this woman, who tells us her name, shows us her picture, and gives all sorts of personal intimate details, feels a need to disguise herself in the site ownership document.  Could it be that someone else owns it, and she is just a paid shill?  Hey, does anyone else feel offended by deceptive marketing yet?  Oh, and try, and a host of others. It would take a CIA level operative to unravel the intricate network.  I am tempted to start believing in conspiracy theories.

Then there are the selling sites, accessed with paid and unpaid search. A quick count of the paid and organic (manipulated) sites to anything even moderately objective works out to a 20:1 ratio.  The deck is stacked against the consumer seeking an independent review. I doubt that this review will get seen by many people.  They probably have ways of making sure that negative reviews get buried in an avalanche of affiliated sites.

Independent reviews 

The few that can be found out there are overwhelmingly negative. Both about the product, and about the company’s sales tactics. A few examples …

“THE CREAM DOES NOT WORK AT ALL. BASICALLY IT’S A PUDDLE OF JUNK IN A JAR. THIS PRODUCT IS A SCAM AND THE COMPANY WHO MAKES IT HAS MISREPRESENTED ITSELF WITH ITS CLAIMS REGARDING THIS CREAM. Has anyone had luck with getting there money back or getting the company to stop charging your account for product not ordered?”

“I had family scammed by this product and was pretty irate about it. The auto-enrollment takes money from customers and it is hard to get out of their auto-payment program! I ended up writing an article about it – you can see some other complaints here: ”

99 reviews (as of Dec 31, 2011) … (you need to scroll down past the many ads to find the reviews).

It would be interesting to do a biographical search on the dermatologist who seems to be the instigator of all this unhappiness. Let’s put that into a part 2 of this post.

In Summary

I suppose it would be enough to simply say, “save your money”. Or, if you want something that works and has real science, look elsewhere.  But we think the debate doesn’t stop there. There is also the issue of truth in advertising.  The damage done by junk science. The fact that legitimate research gets squelched when real products could never be heard above the noise caused by the pretend ones.  Should the standards be raised? Would it help?

The tag line for this company is “where science meets nature”.  I think this is actually true. The nature it is meeting is the darker side of human nature. Greed, avarice, willingness to cheat, lie, and distort.

Readers might also be interested in these topics:

Stem Cells & Skin Series:     Plant Stem Cells & Skin       Human Stem Cells & Skin      Human Stem Cells & Skin … it’s the Cytokines


  1. mikela says:

    I just wanted to congratulate the authors of this site for their impressive work. In doing a search for information on this product I looked at close to 60 sites, and yours was the best by far. Informative, hard hitting, well written, and yet also with clear scientific credibility. I like how you detail the manufacture and marketing as well as the science. Well surpasses any other site I found. The rest of your posts seem to be of equal quality. This is a rare find – I will be a regular visitor. Please keep it going.

    • Drgeorge says:

      Mikela, thank you for your kind words. As physicians / scientists, we value the truth and feel consumers should be able to expect no less, especially when it comes to websites that purport to provide it. We are enthusiastic proponents of a free marketplace, but are commited to making sure products that claim to be cutting edge science are truly innovative and indeed are based on valid science. Using scientific buzz words to beguile, confuse, and mislead is reprehensible to us, and apparently to many others. I think we are on the correct side of this moral issue. Please visit often, offer your suggestion as to what areas you would like see discussed. amd invite like minded people to check out BFT. Welcome.

  2. Firefox7275 says:

    Hope you will consider reviewing this product. A thread was started on Makeuptalk forums and I have taken the liberty of linking to BFT. Ingredients are on the site, evidenc-base seems to be rather less easy to find.

    • drjohn says:

      Dear Firefox7275: POSTED! Thanks for the inspiration.

      • barbar cullen says:

        ghk increases stem cells and msc. is your product better and can we incorporate both. thanks

        • drjohn says:

          You can use them together, they work differently, and may complement one another. However, please be aware that the evidence for ghk on stem cells is incorrect. It comes from a lab in Korea, but they mistake basal cells for stem cells. But, basal cells are committed cells, not stem cells, as they are partially differentiated, they will only become keratinocytes. The rest of the experiment is also flawed, because they are working with basal cells, not stem cells. There may be stem cells in the area of the basement membrane, but they surely didn’t isolate them. And they surely didn’t make them any more “stemy” as they claim. Bad assumptions. But we already know about the effects of ghk on keratinocytes. So, the work is devoid of any value. Ignore it.

  3. Paula C says:

    I have tracked back my receding hairline almost actually to the time I started to use this product (Stem Cell Therapy by Biologic Solutions.) It’s receding in the form of male pattern baldness and it’s receding all the way back to my ears and not growing back. I am female and not male. The dermatologist has never seen anything like this before. I have quit using the cream in hopes that it will stop, but what is lost, is lost forever.

    Beware of this product!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Write a reply to my e-mail if you have a similar problem! Thanking you in advance for any light on this subject!!!! The stem Cell therapy doesn’t have any stem cells in it but only Algae and sea weed and some other ingredient that is not listed any where!

    • drgeorge says:

      As we say over and over, buyer beware!!! Learn your science before trying concoctions you don’t understand or that don’t make scientific sense.

  4. Jo Sylvia says:

    I have had one microneedling treatment and the dermatologist claims I must use ProCell products. What do you think.

  5. Roxy says:

    just picked three jars of Stem Cell Therapy up at a garage sale for free and I thought I am going to do a little reading before I put it on my face. I am so glad I did It will be going in the garbage right now. Thank you for enlightening us

    • drgeorge says:

      That’s a good place for a lot of so-called “stem cell” products. The marketers grabbed the name long before the populace really knew what stem cells were really about. I am glad you found BFT so you can learn the difference between science and gobbledygook intended to separate you from your $$$$.

  6. Phyllis F. Brody says:

    Thank you for your very concise article. I was very suspicious of the Stem Cell claim, because of my conversation with my doctor, who is taking stem cells from patients ultimately injecting those stem cells back to the patient to cure diseases and severe pain. Since I have not gotten all the answers I have been seeking, I am hesitant to try the procedure at this time.

    I wondered how this company could get hold of stem cells for face cream. There would have to be a donor or they would have to be fetuses they would have access to. I don’t think we would see this happen for many years. Also the amount mentioned for the procedure is $10,000. Who would part with that much money, if they hadn’t found the answers they were seeking. Too “iffy”!.

    • drgeorge says:

      You’re right, Phyllis. It is wise to be suspicious of Stem Cell claims. In fact, stem cell treatments are in the headlines today because the FDA is not only wary of their claimed benefits, they are worried about the manufacturing process, sterility, and quality control. Now, these issues pertain to growing widespread use of fat stem cells that are processed and injected into the spine or administered intravenously.

      Skincare companies, including ours, whose technology is stem cell based, are referring to the laboratory culture of stem cells to “harvest” the bio-signales (growth factors and cytokines) these cells secrete into the nutrient broth in which they are cultured. Before using these bio-signals in products, all cells and cell-parts are filtered out and discarded. The bio-signals are identical to those produced by our own stem cell in our tissues which is why they have well-proven benefits in improving the appearance of aging and photo-damaged skin.

      The use of so-called plant “stem cells” in skincare products is a marketing ruse and total nonsense in our opinion. When we last searched Google Scholar and PubMed, we could not find a single published article that supported benefits from plant stem cells in skin care.

  7. Sandra says:

    Thank you for your analysis. You have saved me money and embarrassment.
    Thanks again.

    • drgeorge says:

      You’re very welcome. Our motto – inform, educate, entertain – is in order to help our readers navigate the marketing-shark infested waters of the cosmetics world. There are real stem cell-based products out there. Just none from this outfit.

Leave a Comment