$48,000 BY PHONE: UNDERCOVER RECORDING RAISES CONCERNS OVER REMOTE SALES OF STEM-CELL TREATMENTS
An undercover recording has raised serious questions about how a high-priced regenerative treatment was marketed to a prospective patient — entirely by phone, without a medical consultation, and by a salesperson who is not a doctor.
The recording, obtained during an independent investigation, captures a telephone conversation between an undercover operative based in the United States and Andrew Chancellor, a representative of Wellbeing International Foundation Ltd. Over the course of the call, Chancellor promotes a proposed treatment costing $48,000, outlines how it would be delivered, and makes a series of medical claims — despite not holding medical qualifications.
No physical examination takes place. No medical records are reviewed. At no point is the patient advised to consult their own doctor.
Instead, the discussion moves rapidly from symptoms to solution — and then to payment.
No consultation, no treating doctor
According to the recording, the entire interaction takes place remotely. The undercover operative describes chronic knee pain following surgery, and Chancellor responds by diagnosing ongoing inflammation and recommending the company’s treatment.
At no stage does he advise a clinical consultation with a physician.
Nor does he suggest involving the patient’s existing doctor. In fact, he appears to dismiss that possibility altogether.
“Well not your doctor,” Chancellor says during the call. “We can find a doctor for you, [who] puts it into you intravenously.”
Medical experts who later reviewed the transcript said the remark was significant, as it appeared to acknowledge that a patient’s own doctor might be unwilling to administer the proposed procedure.
Medical claims from a non-doctor
During the conversation, Chancellor provides a detailed explanation of the treatment using highly technical language. He describes a process in which stem cells are extracted from the patient’s blood, grown in a laboratory, and deliberately stressed to produce substances known as extracellular vesicles.
According to Chancellor, billions of these vesicles would then be infused intravenously, where they would “seek out damage,” destroy dead cells, repair scar tissue, reduce inflammation, and improve pain.
He tells the caller they could expect noticeable improvement within “three to six weeks.”
These claims are made despite Chancellor confirming that no physical examination, diagnostic testing, or formal medical assessment has taken place.
Treatment logistics arranged remotely
The recording also reveals how the treatment would be delivered.
Chancellor explains that approximately 140–150 millilitres of blood would be taken from the patient, shipped to a laboratory for processing, and later returned for intravenous infusion. He says the process could be arranged “pretty much anywhere,” including the United States.
In a later email reviewed as part of the investigation, Chancellor states that blood collection could even be arranged at the patient’s home address.
Experts consulted by the investigation said that organising blood collection, international transport, laboratory processing, and intravenous infusion in this way — without documented medical oversight — raises serious safety and regulatory concerns.
Cost and payment discussed upfront
Before any medical review or discussion of risks, the conversation turns to price.
“The total cost to get all of this done and to have two treatments is $48,000,” Chancellor tells the undercover operative.
When asked how payment should be made, he advises a direct bank transfer to a US bank account.
At no point during the call does Chancellor discuss potential risks, side effects, alternative treatments, contraindications, or the need for informed consent.
‘Deeply concerning’
Independent experts who reviewed the transcript identified multiple red flags.
They pointed to the absence of a clinical consultation, the exclusion of the patient’s own doctor, the presentation of complex biological claims by a non-medical salesperson, and the early focus on payment for a costly intervention.
One expert described the interaction as “deeply concerning,” particularly given that it targeted someone experiencing chronic pain and limited mobility.
Conclusion
This article is based on a verbatim transcript of an undercover telephone call reviewed as part of an ongoing investigation into the marketing of unproven regenerative treatments.
It is published in the public interest to inform patients, families, and regulators about practices that independent experts say warrant close scrutiny — especially where medical claims are made without clinical consultation or oversight.
The individuals and organisations referenced were given an opportunity to respond prior to publication.
Comments
Post a Comment