FDA Issues Warning about Young-Blood Transfusions

Plasma from young people offers “no proven clinical benefit” as a treatment against aging or Alzheimer’s disease, the agency says

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The quest to rejuvenate aging people with the blood of young donors has generated paying customers, captured the popular imagination, and, now, prompted a warning from the Food and Drug Administration.

The agency on Tuesday said in a statement that plasma infusions from young people provide “no proven clinical benefit” against normal aging, Alzheimer’s disease, or a host of other diseases—despite a surge in their promotion for those purposes. And, like any other plasma product, young-blood transfusions can pose risks, according to the FDA’s statement, which was attributed to Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and Peter Marks, the director of the agency’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

The FDA’s warning marked the sharpest rebuke to date of an industry that’s gained steam in the past few years even as mainstream scientists have urged caution.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A startup called Ambrosia claims that it is now offering young-blood transfusions—at a cost of $8,000 for 1 liter of young blood, or $12,000 for 2 liters—in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Tampa, Fla., and Omaha, Neb., Business Insider reported last month. The entrepreneur behind that company, Jesse Karmazin, has yet to report the results of a clinical trial he ran testing the procedure, which involves an off-label use of an approved product. On Tuesday, however, following the release of the FDA statement, a notice on Ambrosia’s site said it would no longer offer the transfusions.

And last year, STAT reported on a gala event in West Palm Beach, Fla., meant to convince aging baby boomers to pay to enroll in a clinical trial testing another approach to young-blood transfusions.

The FDA’s warning did leave the door open to exploring young-blood transfusions within mainstream clinical trials, saying that that is the only context in which consumers should consider pursuing the therapy. For example, a biotech company called Alkahest is currently testing a plasma-derived product in Alzheimer’s patients; a previous study from the company yielded mixed results.

Young-blood transfusions typically involve plasma, the fluid part of blood packed with signaling proteins and other molecules but no red or white cells. Plasma from young donors is processed and sometimes filtered, and then infused intravenously into aging recipients, typically over multiple infusions.

The most research thus far into young-blood transfusions has been conducted in mice.

But while some of these mouse studies have been encouraging, other studies have been less so. And even when the data in mice look good, “nobody has actually shown over the long term how long these quote un-quote improvements persist, and we don’t know whether it’s broadly improving aspects of aging or it’s specific to certain tissues,” Matt Kaeberlein, a University of Washington biologist who studies aging in dogs and other animal models, told STAT last year.

Republished with permission from STAT. This article originally appeared on February 19, 2019

STAT delivers fast, deep, and tough-minded journalism. We take you inside science labs and hospitals, biotech boardrooms, and political backrooms. We dissect crucial discoveries. We examine controversies and puncture hype. We hold individuals and institutions accountable. We introduce you to the power brokers and personalities who are driving a revolution in human health. These are the stories that matter to us all.

More by STAT

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe