Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on clinics promoting stem cell therapy for autism in children, identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by the ASA. See also related rulings published on 23 September 2026.
Ad description
A paid-for Meta ad for Rumi Pulse Medical Tourism Agency, a medical clinic in Turkey, was seen on 11 May 2026. It included the caption “You see the signs …but what should you do next? At Rumi Pulse, we provide advanced therapy in Turkey focused on helping children improve communication and daily life skills. Apply now and get your free consultation Our treatments and therapies are performed in contracted hospitals and clinics with medical tourism authorization [sic] certificate”.
The ad included an image with text that stated “STEM CELL THERAPY FOR AUTISM IN TURKEY: THERAPY FOR CHILDREN IN TURKEY: YOUR TRANSFORMATIVE PATH EXPLORE ADVANCED THERAPY OPTIONS FOR TRANSFORMATION WITH OUR LEADING SPECIALISTS”. It included a checklist under the title “CHALLENGES” with text that stated “1. Limited social interaction 2. Hyperactivity 3. Difficulty with communication 4. Frequent attention span 5. Reduced attention span 6. Repetitive behaviours 7. Difficulties following instructions 8. Aggressive behaviours”. An arrow with the label “THERAPY” pointed to a second checklist with the title “TRANSFORMATION”, and text that stated “1. Improved social interaction 2. Reduced hyperactivity 3. Enhanced communication 4. Decreased outbursts 5. Improved focus and attention 6. Reduction of repetitive behaviours 7. Enhanced cognitive skills 8. Healthy behaviours”.
Text at the bottom of the ad stated “Stem Cell Therapy for Autism in Turkey” and then started to repeat the same text as the caption, alongside a button labelled “Get Quote”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the claims that stem cell therapy could treat or alleviate traits of autism were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Rumi Pulse t/a Rumi Pulse Medical Tourism Agency stated that the ad had not been intended to suggest that stem cell therapy could guarantee treatment outcomes or was a proven cure for autism. Their aim had been to inform families about a regenerative medicine approach that was being investigated in scientific studies and offered under medical regulations in Turkey.
They said there was an emerging body of peer-reviewed research which suggested that stem cell therapy could lead to improvements in some clinical outcomes for selected patients, including communication, adaptive behaviour and autism severity scores. However, they acknowledged that further high-quality research was still required and said they did not present the treatment as guaranteed or effective for all patients.
They provided a spreadsheet which detailed clinical evidence and scientific publications relating to stem cell therapy for autism, and linked the evidence to the claims they had used in the ad.
They said they had amended the ad so that its wording could not be understood as guaranteeing clinical outcomes. They also said that future marketing communications would reflect the current status of the scientific evidence and comply with the CAP Code.
Assessment
Upheld
The ad stated “we provide advanced therapy in Turkey focused on helping children improve communication and daily life skills” and “STEM CELL THERAPY FOR AUTISM IN TURKEY THERAPY FOR CHILDREN […] YOUR TRANSFORMATIVE PATH”. The ad included a visual with a list of “CHALLENGES” on one side and a list of “TRANSFORMATION” on the other side, with an arrow labelled “THERAPY” connecting the two. The “CHALLENGES” list included “Limited social interaction”, “Hyperactivity”, “Difficulty with communication”, “Frequent” and “Reduced attention span”, “Repetitive behaviours”, “Difficulties following instructions” and “Aggressive behaviours”. The “TRANSFORMATION" list included “Improved social interaction”, “Reduced hyperactivity”, “Enhanced communication”, “Decreased outbursts”, “Improved focus and attention”, “Reduction of repetitive behaviours”, “Enhanced cognitive skills” and “Healthy behaviours”. The ASA considered that consumers would understand those claims to mean that Rumi Pulses’s stem cell therapy could effectively treat or alleviate a range of traits associated with autism in children and lead to meaningful improvements in their communication, social interaction, attention, cognitive abilities and behaviour.
We therefore expected to see evidence to demonstrate that stem cell treatments had substantially improved the traits associated with autism in children.
We understood from NHS and NICE Guidance that there was no cure for autism, and that stem cell transplants were not a recognised treatment in the UK for autism, including in children.
We assessed the evidence provided, which consisted of a spreadsheet summarising details of a review, an observational study, three clinical trials and three systematic reviews. We were not provided with full copies of the studies, and therefore considered they were insufficient to support the claims. Notwithstanding that, we noted from the spreadsheet that the types of stem cells used, the methods of administration, treatment protocols, dosing regimens and frequency of treatment varied, and it was unclear how the interventions evaluated corresponded to the treatment offered by Rumi Pulse. We considered that those differences limited the extent to which the findings could be applied to the advertised treatment. Nevertheless, we assessed each study individually, based on the information available in the spreadsheet.
The review looked at existing preclinical and clinical research stem cell therapies for autism. We considered that because the study was exploring previous research, and was not an intervention study looking at the clinical outcomes of stem cell therapy on improving autism traits in children, it was not sufficient to substantiate the ad.
The observational study retrospectively looked at 128 children with autism who had undergone stem cell treatment. We considered that because there was no control group, nor were participants or investigators blinded to the intervention, the study was not sufficiently robust to substantiate the ad.
The three clinical trials all involved relatively small numbers of participants, and none demonstrated that they had recruited a sufficient sample size to reliably detect a clinically meaningful treatment effect. We noted that two of the studies included only children within narrow age ranges (three to seven years and three to twelve years), which limited the extent to which the findings could be generalised. Furthermore, one trial did not include a control group. While the other two studies included control groups, and one randomly allocated participants to the treatment and control groups, none of the studies concealed the treatment allocation. Consequently, both participants and investigators would have been aware of which participants had received stem cell treatment, increasing the risk of bias. We therefore considered that the studies were not sufficiently robust to substantiate the ad.
The three systematic reviews were largely based on a limited body of heterogeneous studies; many of which involved small sample sizes, lacked appropriate control groups, and evaluated different stem cell types, methods of administration and treatment protocols. We considered that those reviews did not address the methodological limitations we had identified in the underlying evidence, nor did they demonstrate that the findings were applicable to the treatment advertised by Rumi Pulse. We therefore considered that they did not provide sufficiently robust evidence to substantiate the ad.
Overall, we considered that the evidence provided was not sufficiently robust to demonstrate that stem cell therapy substantially improved the traits associated with autism in children, or that the treatment offered by Rumi Pulse was effective in doing so. We therefore concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and that the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form investigated. We told Rumi Pulse t/a Rumi Pulse Medical Tourism Agency not to state or imply that their stem cell treatment could treat or alleviate the traits of autism unless they held robust evidence to substantiate the claim.
