Frankly, I’m a bit over it. In fact, I’m somewhat embarrassed that the veterinary profession is associated with the term. What is usually sold as a treatment full of promise is, in fact, something of a boondoggle, and one that’s been applied with little attention to how such therapies should be used, at least from an ethical point of view.
What got my blood boiling was a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, talking about the problems with these so-called “regenerative” therapies (you know, stem cells, PRP, and the like). You can see the article if you CLICK HERE.
The name “regenerative” really draws you in. It’s a big deal. It’s also a bit of linguistic sleight of hand. The word “regenerative” is actually pretty easy to define. To “regenerate” means to regrow new tissue and/or to replace lost or injured tissue. When it comes to treating injured tissue, such a “regenerative” therapeutic thing would be truly revolutionary, akin to finding the Holy Grail of tissue repair. Imagine if with one or two shots of a “regenerative” therapy, an injured structure could be returned to new – or almost new – and the horse could go on as before. That’s these therapies are sometimes sold, anyway. Regenerative therapies are said to be bigger, better, and faster than anything that ever came before.
I think it’s wrong.
Not that the idea of something that regenerates living tissue is unappealing. The idea of some treatment that would restore things to as good as new has been around for centuries. So, for example, back in 1513, Juan Poncé de Leon (better known as Poncé de Leon) led the first expedition to La Florida. Accounts after his death suggest that he may have been looking for a “Fountain of Youth,” that is, waters that would help reverse the aging process (actually vitality-restoring waters are something of a constant in history, and long before Poncé de Leon). Needless to say, Poncé de Leon’s not still here (he died of battle wounds in 1521). People are still apparently still looking for that medical fountain. Sadly, some folks out there will tell you they’ve found it.

Juan Ponce de Leon, at his optimistic best
What’s got me so annoyed about “regenerative” therapies is that, from an ethical standpoint, a therapy should have more than “promise,” or, at least, if it only offers “promise,” you should know that before agreeing to use it on your horse. If a therapy offers only promise and the effects haven’t been proven, the correct word for the treatment is “experimental.” There’s nothing wrong with an experimental treatment, of course. There are many therapies needed to treat many conditions. But it’s one thing to have a person agree to participate in an experiment with their horse; it’s quite another to sell that person on the “promise” of an attractively-named therapy and not bother to keep track of the results.
Regenerative medicine products can come from a horse’s own bone marrow or fat, from tissue obtained at birth (like placenta of umbilical cord blood), from blood, or even from other horses. They can be produced in commercial labs or in machines sold to veterinarians. And no matter what you’ve heard:
- The products have not been shown to be effective
- They are not inherently safe, whether they come from the same horse or another horse.
In human medicine, the use of these products appears to be widespread. An increasing number of adverse events is being reported. We really don’t know about adverse effects in horses because nobody seems to be keeping track.
In human medicine, things got so bad in the “regenerative” space that, in 2019, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning to consumers about stem cell therapies. The FDA action put a little bit of a damper on stem cells in the veterinary world, but they’re still out there, promising away.

He’s counting on you
Regenerative therapies appeal to vulnerable horse owners, who want the “best” for their horses. They also appear to veterinarians, many of whom don’t want to get left out of a therapy that could help increase a horse’s health and well-being. The potential advantages of new treatments are usually clear, but in the rush to be “cutting edge,” concerns about ethics, safety, and financial loss to the horse owner often get left behind. “Promise” is important, but so is good science, good record keeping, and transparent engagement with the horse-owning public.
So, if it’s proposed that your horse get some sort of “regenerative” therapy, before you say, “Yes,” here’s what you should do.
- Ask if your horse is taking part in a clinical trial. If he is, you shouldn’t have to pay for the therapy. If he isn’t part of a clinical trial, think twice about paying for it.
- Ask for documentation of results from other horses who have been treated, comparing how treated horses did in comparison to non-treated horses.
- Ask for an informed consent statement, read it, and only sign it if you think it’s a good idea.
- Ask where you should report adverse reactions.
- If you have an adverse reaction, report it.
It is long past the time that unproven and unapproved regenerative medicine products be called what they usually are: uncontrolled experimental procedure that horse owners are being asked to pay for. I think that veterinary medicine should do a lot better when it comes to suggesting such therapies. Demand it.