3 ms·
Why do you think they'd have less access? They have greater access because they will 100% find a donor - themselves. It guarantees access to a sample regardless
by pkukp9 5y ago
Why do you think they'd have less access? They have greater access because they will 100% find a donor - themselves. It guarantees access to a sample regardless of genetic background
- in_cahoots 5y agoAs I understand it many of the common potential use cases only work if you have a donor who isn’t yourself. Because if you have a genetic disease that disease will be present in your stem cells. The most common example I’ve heard is of storing stem cells to help a potential future sibling, not the baby directly. Or am I mistaken?
- pkukp9 5y agoIt has been used for the baby themselves & siblings :) Some cases where babies use them themselves: https://www.nature.com/articles/bmt2012146 https://www.nature.com/articles/bmt2012146 https://pediatrics.duke.edu/news/umbilical-cord-blood-improves-motor-skills-some-children-cerebral-palsy https://pediatrics.duke.edu/news/umbilical-cord-blood-improv...
- in_cahoots 5y agoI understand that it happens, my question is the prevalence. When I looked into banking cord blood I found a lot of ‘possible’ and one-off cases, but no actual statistics about how likely it was to be useful. That made it unpalatable, especially compared to the known benefits of delayed clamping.