Expertise · Regenerative Medicine & Longevity

Regenerative & longevity medicine litigation.

Stem cell applications, NAD+ protocols and longevity interventions — a corner of medicine where the marketing consistently outruns the evidence, and where measuring the gap between the two is the expert's central task.

Regenerative and longevity cases turn on a question most experts are poorly placed to answer: what did the evidence actually support at the time the therapy was sold? These clinics operate in the space between promising early research and established practice — and their marketing borrows the language of the former while charging for the certainty of the latter.

As a clinician-investigator in longevity and regenerative endocrinology — and Director of the AI Academy at the Geneva College of Longevity Science — I can locate a given protocol precisely on that spectrum: what the trials show, what the regulators have said, what a careful physician would have disclosed, and where a defendant's claims crossed from optimism into misrepresentation.

Case Patterns

Where these matters arise

01

Stem cell & exosome clinics

Unproven cellular products marketed for orthopedic, neurologic and cosmetic indications; infections and adverse events from unregulated processing; and consent documents that promise regeneration the literature has never demonstrated.

02

NAD+ & IV "longevity" protocols

High-dose NAD+ infusions, vitamin drips and chelation programs administered without medical indication, screening or supervision — and the cardiovascular, renal and metabolic complications that follow when contraindications are never checked.

03

Longevity & anti-aging programs

Subscription "optimization" medicine: panels of off-label prescriptions — hormones, peptides, metformin, rapamycin — bundled into protocols with no individualized assessment, sold on marketing claims that consistently outrun the evidence.

04

Med-spa & telehealth delivery

Physician oversight in name only: standing orders signed for patients never examined, non-physician injectors operating beyond scope, and supervision arrangements that dissolve under discovery.

Marketing vs. Evidence

The questions I answer

  • What did the peer-reviewed literature actually support for this therapy, at this indication, on the date of treatment?
  • Did the consent process disclose the experimental status of the intervention, or obscure it?
  • Was there a genuine medical assessment before treatment — or a sales funnel with a signature at the end?
  • Was the physician of record actually supervising, and to what standard should that supervision be held?
  • Do the promotional claims in the clinic's own materials survive comparison with the evidence they cite?

Retain the practice.

For expert review, opinion or testimony in a stem cell, regenerative or longevity medicine matter.

Enquire about a matter