Dr. Neil Riordan on health: what the evidence says · JRE #1066

“like for spinal cord injury, we did a cohort analysis, and basically if they're within one year of injury, 100% of the patients had restoration of some neurologic function. If it was between one and two years, it was 82%.”

What the evidence says

Riordan, founder of the for-profit Stem Cell Institute in Panama, cited an internal "cohort analysis" claiming 100% of spinal cord injury patients treated within one year of injury regained some neurologic function, versus 82% treated one to two years post-injury. No peer-reviewed publication reporting these specific figures could be located; the claim appears to originate from unpublished clinic data rather than an independently reviewed study. The largest independent meta-analysis of stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury (62 trials, 2,439 patients) found that stem cells improved ASIA impairment scale grade by at least one level in only about 49% of patients, well below the 82-100% Riordan reports, and concluded current evidence is not strong enough to support clinical translation of stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury. Independent natural-history data also show that a meaningful fraction of incomplete spinal cord injuries recover some neurologic function spontaneously in the first year without any stem cell intervention, which complicates attributing improvement solely to treatment in an uncontrolled cohort. Because Riordan's figures come from his own clinic, are not published in a form that can be independently verified, and lack a control group, the claim is unsupported by the current independent evidence base.

1. Clinical translation of stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury still premature: results from a single-arm meta-analysis based on 62 clinical trials · government
2. Natural history of neurological improvement following complete (AIS A) thoracic spinal cord injury across three registries to guide acute clinical trial design and interpretation · government