Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Store Umbilical Cord Blood — and If So, Where?

gambit3 writes "My wife and I are expecting our first child in 3 months, and one of the decisions we still have to make is whether to store our baby's cord blood. Even if we decide the upfront cost is worth it, there is still the question of using a public bank or a private one (and which one to trust), and whether to also store umbilical cord tissue for stem cells. Does you have any experience or suggestions?"

223 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. CBR is the one I used by Zondar · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think their website is www.cordblood.com

    You pay an up-front fee for the collection and first year storage, and a smaller fee each year for storage.

    1. Re:CBR is the one I used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      We used CBR as well. They used to have a program where you could pay for 18 years up front (pricey, but paid off for a while). I did a very small amount of research, and CBR seemed "big enough" to trust to be in business years from now.

      As someone mentioned earlier - donation is cheaper (or free). I was thinking that route, but we have a medical issues in the family so it might come in handy in the future (never know what they might use it for in the future).

    2. Re:CBR is the one I used by DragonTHC · · Score: 3, Informative

      we used CBR for both our children. It's $1800 for collection and the first year.

      each year is $125 or you could pay off all 18 years up front.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    3. Re:CBR is the one I used by Defenestrar · · Score: 5, Informative
      Note that: "Our state-of-the-art technology is backed by a $50,000 quality service guarantee that your baby's stem cells will engraft if they are ever needed for transplant."

      However the number of likely candidates for cord blood treatment is extremely small (pretty much all experimental and not FDA approved these days). Crop the number of bank withdraws they're likely to receive (very few) by the price they charge per deposit (roughly $2k), and that's not much of a guarantee by the measure of mouth-where-the-money-is. Now if that's a measure of their confidence for a life saving treatment... you might want to double think.

      Secondly, there isn't a single word in their FAQ about the repository technology they are using. Are they storing the cells in -80 freezers or in LN2? What are the stats on half-life and other successful viability studies? Where are the links to successful case studies of cord blood stem cell treatment? They have research links, but most are either still animal studies or non-cord stem cell therapies.

      The point is, they might have a great thing here, but at the moment they're selling vaporware. Sure, it may eventually come out just like Duke Nukem Forever, but it may not be released in time for your child. There's plenty of evidence that most of the stem-cell treatments out there are possible with donor registries (e.g. like bone marrow) or even adult tissue (not even stem cells - I was just at a conference last week where I saw a video of a modified inkjet print out a heart seeded with a patients own heart tissue). The fliers these type of businesses get the hospital and OB/GYN to hand out has a core message of: "it'll be your fault if your baby gets sick and dies if you don't give us a lot of money right now." It's surrounded by fluffy baby graphic design, but their business model should raise a few ethical eyebrows.

      Of course who knows - they might be right. Maybe someone will someday invent a way to use cord blood with today's harvesting techniques (note that the FAQ doesn't say anything about sample freezing until it's already been through the mail) and your baby will die without it... no pressure, right?

      Now on the flip side, I do know people in the repository business and they think this sort of thing has potential to work, but there's already plenty of argument to that effect around here today - so I thought I'd point out the other questions which should be asked.

    4. Re:CBR is the one I used by bryguy5 · · Score: 1

      CBR is doing some limited free banking if you have a possible use for the imbilical blood.

      I got our first childs cord blood stored for free because my wife's brother already has a type of cancer that might be treatable with it in the future if there is a match.

      And if you don't have a use for it they will happliy take your money just in case it is useful in the future.

      Not sure if your better off putting your money into cord blood banking or health insurance or life insurance or "tangible assets of real and imaginary value guarded by a vociferous canine"

    5. Re:CBR is the one I used by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Putting it into a college fund would have been far more helpful to your children.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:CBR is the one I used by Lucractius · · Score: 1

      Unless they contract a medical condition this could benefit. In which case the storage of this tissue could be priceless.
      Its just a case of can you afford the prevention or do you consider it important enough to sacrifice to have it.
      I wouldn't pay for this if i didn't think i could support the cost of the child's education as well.

      Its the same reasoning I'm applying to the idea of having some of my bone marrow stored... if i ever need it (and the list of things its useful for medically just seems to get bigger all the time) ... the cost will have been worth it.

      --
      XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
    7. Re:CBR is the one I used by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      imbilical

      You're an umbecile.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:CBR is the one I used by wallsg · · Score: 1

      Same here for my two. When we did it the storage fee was $100 per year each. I'm think it's higher now but we continue to pay the same fee, I believe. We didn't choose the pay for 18 years storage up front option.

    9. Re:CBR is the one I used by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      My wife and I aren't even remotely wealthy. We're actually right on the poverty line.

      We just feel that life is too precious to chance it.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
  2. Information too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Methods are known that can prevent the reproductive process in humans.

  3. Oh really? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, this "wife" of yours supposedly had "sex" with you? Whatever! What next mods? Are we going to get stories about Slashdot posters getting tired of their supermodel girlfriends interrupting their Battlefield 3 matches?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait, your supermodel girlfriend doesn't play Battlefield 3? You gotta dump that bitch.

    2. Re:Oh really? by CSMoran · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about making a comment that just because you live in your parents' basement doesn't mean other people can't have a normal life, but that would just be playing to the same stupid meme...

      Good you didn't make that comment.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    3. Re:Oh really? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      I have an outstanding deal with my supermodel girlfriend. We bother consider knife kills to be the ultimate ownage. Any time one of us gets a knife kill on the other we have to give oral.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    4. Re:Oh really? by formfeed · · Score: 1

      Are we going to get stories about Slashdot posters getting tired of their supermodel girlfriends interrupting their Battlefield 3 matches?

      She doesn't.
      Because she lives in Canada. Want to see a picture?

    5. Re:Oh really? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Wait, your supermodel girlfriend doesn't play Battlefield 3?

      Nope, she won't touch it because of all the DRM. ~

    6. Re:Oh really? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You're a hoot. Next time I'm having a party, I'll be sure to invite you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:Oh really? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I have an outstanding deal with my supermodel girlfriend. We bother consider knife kills to be the ultimate ownage. Any time one of us gets a knife kill on the other we have to give oral.

      Who wants to give oral to a dead person?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The chance that someone else is going to need your cord blood is way, way higher than the chance that you'll need it for your own family. Give it to the public bank.

    Plus, the private banks are damned expensive.

    1. Re:Public by xyzzy42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly. This is why my wife and I decided to donate our children's cord blood. Keep in mind that your OB might charge to collect the cord blood (ours did). Many OB's will waive their cord blood fee for donations, but not for private banking.

    2. Re:Public by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      0.25% lifetime probability that your kid will ever need it in their entire lifetime. The math just doesn't work out to make it worth it (IMO) to collect it for their own use, especially given that there are many circumstances where peripheral blood stem cells or bone marrow could be used just as easily and harvested when needed (cutting down that 0.25% even further).

    3. Re:Public by Reapy · · Score: 5, Informative

      If we knew we could have donated at no cost and someone could have used it, my wife and I most likely would have done so. To me the whole thing seemed sort of like a big rip off, or something I'd do if I had excess money laying around. They like to gouge you for a lot of stuff involving your kids, its easy to whip people up into a panic about doing EVERYTHING YOU POSSIBLY CAN TO PREVENT EVERYTHING.

      Either way it feels a shame that it could have been used to help someone instead of it ending up as a puddle on the floor. I guess part of the reason I didn't save it is that there wasn't an urge to collect it if we weren't going to ourselves. If it was that precious hospitals would most likely not let it go to waste.

    4. Re:Public by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Indeed. With $1800 in initial costs and $125 per year after that, you pay $3925 for the first 18 years.
      You'll have much better odds by going to a casino and placing that money on a single roulette number. Then you'd get $141300, which likely would do a lot more good for the kid.

    5. Re:Public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They like to gouge you for a lot of stuff involving your kids, its easy to whip people up into a panic about doing EVERYTHING YOU POSSIBLY CAN TO PREVENT EVERYTHING.

      I really hope that doesn't mean you decided to forgo vaccinations.

    6. Re:Public by jeffmeden · · Score: 2

      If we knew we could have donated at no cost and someone could have used it, my wife and I most likely would have done so. To me the whole thing seemed sort of like a big rip off, or something I'd do if I had excess money laying around. They like to gouge you for a lot of stuff involving your kids, its easy to whip people up into a panic about doing EVERYTHING YOU POSSIBLY CAN TO PREVENT EVERYTHING.

      Either way it feels a shame that it could have been used to help someone instead of it ending up as a puddle on the floor. I guess part of the reason I didn't save it is that there wasn't an urge to collect it if we weren't going to ourselves. If it was that precious hospitals would most likely not let it go to waste.

      Lord why did my modpoints expire yesterday... This a thousand times! Unless you have a family history of diseases that could *possibly* have a cord-blood style treatment then you are better off just putting all that money into getting more life insurance, odds are better that you and/or your wife will die before your kid hits 18 and I bet they would much rather have a safety cushion to get through college than some frozen blob of bloody tissue that is both unlikely to be needed and if needed unlikely to work.

    7. Re:Public by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2

      I assume that as they figure out new uses they will also figure out methods that dont require cord blood and can work with adult stem cells or improved cloning.

      There is also the issue that many of the things which stem cells could assist with are genetic issues and therefore your own stem cells arent much of a solution.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    8. Re:Public by softwareGuy1024 · · Score: 2

      That's also the AMA's recommendation.

    9. Re:Public by MrDiablerie · · Score: 1

      Hopefully things have changed but when my wife and I tried to donate our son's cord blood back in 2007 they wanted $250 for collection and transportation costs. If I'm donating these valuable stem cells shouldn't they waive these fees?

    10. Re:Public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the GP was referring to not raising the child in a Class 1 Clean Room or something like that.

      Vaccinations are probably the least one can do.

    11. Re:Public by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Taking another posters .25% odds a kid will need stem cells in their first 18 years. You just imputed a value for your kids life of less then 1.5 million dollars.

      Smoking gun right here. Ford motor company has nothing on arth1!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Public by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, here's a great scam idea:

      1. take $4000 from each customer
      2. toss the tissue in a cheap walk in frreezer
      3. when a customer actually needs it, apologize that there was an equipment malfunction, and give them their money back (hell, give them a 10x their money back guarantee - preferably in a contract that waives other legal recourse)
      4. disgruntled customer gives service a bad review. That still means 99.75% (probably way *less* than 0.25% would ever use it, but let's be generous) of your customers are "happy", which is pretty damn good customer satisfaction!

      Except for possibly #2, this sounds surprisingly close to the business plans of the nominally legitimate companies doing this. And even if they are reputable, who's to say a private company will last for 18 years in what seems like a bit of a scam in the first place. I agree with other posters - donate it to a reputable non-profit service and keep the money for something useful.

    13. Re:Public by lot3k · · Score: 1

      From a parent with a child with CP who donated their cord blood (didn't know she had CP at the time) I would recommend you pay the cost up front to bank it, and if it's not needed by the time they are 2 or 3 then I would seek donation options. In the US all the places we have found that will treat with stem cells requires them to be from the patient as the donor. In other words it seems public donations go to research, not treatment. Hold it for a few years, hopefully you won't need it, then you can donate it.

    14. Re:Public by rogo78 · · Score: 1

      A friend of ours with leukemia made a plea to donate cord blood to help others in her situation. We looked into it and found that there were no donation companies in our state. However, one company would ship us a collection kit to FedEx back to them. Because it would be shipped, if we delivered certain times of the week then they wouldn't be able to accept the sample.

      The doctor was great about collecting the cord blood, especially at 4:30 in the morning. The thing we didn't know was that the hospital staff wouldn't take responsibility for putting the blood together for the kit--they didn't want to accept the liability. That responsibility fell to me... after 18 hours of labor, even though I wasn't the one delivering it was still difficult.

      We did get a thank-you form letter from the company. Hope it helped someone out.

    15. Re:Public by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      Mod this up!! OP can't get any better advice than from the American Medical Association...

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    16. Re:Public by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Why not burn it and say you tossed it in a cheap walk in freezer?

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    17. Re:Public by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Actually I almost wrote "dumpster" but then I figured if you spent a few bucks to label a Ziploc and toss it in the Frigidaire you could at least "pull it out of storage", clean it up, and show it to the customer in the off chance someone tried to check up on you. Plus this way it's probably THE EXACT BUSINESS PLAN of some of these companies...

      Can't add that much overhead, I have things in the back of my freezer I haven't been able to identify for years.

    18. Re:Public by toddestan · · Score: 1

      It works the other way too. It's possible that advances would eliminate the need for those stem cells at all, reducing the 0.25% chance down to zero.

    19. Re:Public by wwphx · · Score: 1

      I would do it if my wife and I had kids, but I have an immunological problem and there are some early-developing problems that can definitely benefit from stem blood. If both parents and their parents are healthy and don't have any weird problems, I wouldn't bank blood. But genetic problems have the annoying habit of sometimes skipping generations.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  5. I'm also interested on this answer by martiniturbide · · Score: 4, Informative

    I used Cryo-cell, since they provide this service in Ecuador. As a company it seems very serious and active, but I had never used the stored cells. I really don't know how well the company will respond once you need it.

    1. Re:I'm also interested on this answer by uslurper · · Score: 1

      Another vote for cryo-cell. We collected the cord blood from our first child and it has been in storage for 10 years.
      Cost is minimal compared to the possible benefits. Only $50 year for storage.

      --
      oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
  6. Well, this IS slashdot... by Reasonable+Facsimile · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...store it in the cloud.

    1. Re:Well, this IS slashdot... by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Awesome. :D

    2. Re:Well, this IS slashdot... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      ...store it in the cloud.

      No, this is SLASHDOT. You need to find a storage bank that uses only GPL-licensed software and accepts payment in BitCoins.

      They might store your cord blood in open buckets at room temperature - but you need to get your priorities straight!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Well, this IS slashdot... by ickleberry · · Score: 1

      I don't like all this cloud malarky, as well as running my own email server and every other kind of server I keep umbilical cord blood in the freezer - bottom drawer.

      It also means I get more value out of my comprehensive backup power-generating system (several UPS and a few generators, solar panels). Don't be fooled by cheap outsourced blood storage, they make their money by virtualising an instance of your child based on their DNA so they can predict well ahead of time which products they'll be interested in.

    4. Re:Well, this IS slashdot... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I mean we all have liquid nitrogen cooled Core I7's running at 5 Ghz. Just add a branch off of that to keep the kids blood cold. Rig up a an adrino temperture monitoring rig that reports over nagios and call it a day.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    5. Re:Well, this IS slashdot... by Krau+Ming · · Score: 1

      man is it raining blood again??? this weather sucks.

    6. Re:Well, this IS slashdot... by antdude · · Score: 1

      But we hate cloud. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    7. Re:Well, this IS slashdot... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Actually, speaking of clouds and data centers, may be you should just cut the umbilical chord in two, keep an off-site backup buried in the frozen ground in Alaska/Greenland/wherever it's cold, and keep the second half in your own freezer for quick emergency access, just next to the Hagen Daz.

  7. CryoCell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My wife and I used CryoCell (http://www.cryo-cell.com/). They are slightly cheaper, but CBR is much larger and does research as well.

  8. It's a personal decision, but consider donation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://marrow.org/Get_Involved/Donate_Cord_Blood/Donate_Cord_Blood.aspx

  9. Donate by Elyas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The scientific benefits are still uncertain, and the statistics as to whether your child would need it are pretty low. Better to donate, save your money, and increase the odds that someone will be helped

  10. Alternative: donate it by __aawmso8327 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's what we did with our first child, and will do with our second. In addition to the costs associated, banking it is a what-if scenario, and adult stem cells are already starting to show promise. We expect no problems justifying it to ourselves or our kids IF they develop some sort of problem AND first-party cord-blood treatment is the best or only solution for it: we're choosing to help people now, as opposed to potentially helping person later. If the efficacy situation were more apparent to us now, it would be a closer decision.

    1. Re:Alternative: donate it by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You would be better off buying lottery tickets for your kids with the money that you're spending. At least there is a chance it could be used for something.

      If you really feel the need to do this, use a public registry that uses the cord blood for real research, not a private company that's just hoping you will pay them every month.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Alternative: donate it by CatsupBoy · · Score: 1

      You would be better off buying lottery tickets for your kids with the money that you're spending. At least there is a chance it could be used for something.

      Consider that the cost of harvesting cord blood is about $1,500 and storing it per year is about $100. For 18 years you spend $3,300 or 1,100 powerball tickets.

      Odds of winning the powerball are 1,100 to 195,249,054 (0.0000056%)
      Odds of being afflicted with type 1 diabetes and being a part of a case study: 8 in 100,000 (0.00008%)

      So actually, you have better odds of actually needing and using your cord blood. Although, as many have suggested, donating is a noble option too.

    3. Re:Alternative: donate it by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You would be better off buying lottery tickets for your kids with the money that you're spending. At least there is a chance it could be used for something.

      Consider that the cost of harvesting cord blood is about $1,500 and storing it per year is about $100. For 18 years you spend $3,300 or 1,100 powerball tickets.

      Odds of winning the powerball are 1,100 to 195,249,054 (0.0000056%)

      Odds of being afflicted with type 1 diabetes and being a part of a case study: 8 in 100,000 (0.00008%)

      So actually, you have better odds of actually needing and using your cord blood. Although, as many have suggested, donating is a noble option too.

      You forgot to roll in there the odds of successful cord blood treatment of your type 1 diabetes...

    4. Re:Alternative: donate it by crumley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the GP post didn't saying anything about winning the jackpot. With 1100 Powerball tickets, you also have a 1100 in 648,975.96 of winning $10,000, and 1100 in in 5,153,632.65 chance of winning one million dollars. Plus higher chances of winning less money (but not winning back you "investment"). Those odds are worth considering.

      --
      Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
    5. Re:Alternative: donate it by ViperOrel · · Score: 1

      Basically, the chances your child will need it are really low and it's only useful until they're about 8 or so years old. The chances that you could do something great for someone else's child are great and in doing so you are also supporting the expansion of a culture where more people will donate so that if your child were to end up needing it, it would be available from a public bank. Doing the "right thing" also costs you $0. This is the choice we made with our child.

    6. Re:Alternative: donate it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Just to point out, your odds a based on buying 1100 different numbers in the same draw.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Alternative: donate it by crumley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was lazy. The odds of getting the same set of numbers twice in only 1100 tickets is pretty low.

      --
      Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
  11. ViaCord by jcaldwel · · Score: 5, Informative

    My son was born a little over a year ago, and I selected ViaCord as a cord blood bank. We evaluated a few, and they seemed to be more competent than other options. It's important to get the "collection kit" up front, and have it with you in the hospital... at least in my case, the hospital does not provide any of the supplies. Also, your wife will need to make sure that the OB/GYN is aware ahead of time about your decision to store the blood.

    1. Re:ViaCord by waives · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your child has a bad genetic disorder, chance are that someone else's (healthy) cord blood would be more useful to them. But if no one is going to donate, where will it come from?

  12. People do this? by Nukenbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As someone without children, WTF are you all talking about and why do people do this?

    1. Re:People do this? by who_stole_my_kidneys · · Score: 3, Informative

      I actually just saw a special about this, it has something to do with stem cells and if there is a issue later in life, the blood can be used as treatment, much better than donor blood and 100% compatible (because it their own blood)

    2. Re:People do this? by jandrese · · Score: 4, Informative

      Basically, if some stem cell research pans out then you might need some of your own stem cells later in life to actually use it. While there is currently no use for cord blood, the thinking is that in 60 years it might be really useful, and that's when your kid may need it. It's impossible to say what new medical procedures will be available in 60 years, so the whole thing is a gamble. Heck, even if the medical procedures pan out, they may not have a good way of reversing the freezing damage on the cells.

      It's something for optimists with some extra disposable income. There are some pretty sketchy looking cord blood companies out there however, so do your research. Since nobody is making withdrawals from these banks yet, it's hard to tell which ones are real and which ones are scams/incompetent.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:People do this? by Derkec · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe Cord stem cells are rather "pure" stem cells that are very undifferentiated. Making them ideal for a handful of medical procedures and unspecified future medical procedures that may be created. Generally, this nifty resource is lost right after birth (it's thrown away). So some companies have been created to store them, and provide them to you (or others if donated) in the case one of those rare procedures is required.

      If I recall correctly, you're looking at $500-$1000 to get things going, and a 50-100 annual fee to maintain. This falls under the broader cateogory of stuff sold under the banner of, "You love your baby right? You'd do anything to protect it? Right? You're not a callous evil person."

    4. Re:People do this? by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, in fact, your cord blood will be irretrievably damaged after a couple years in the freezer.

      There is not a minute chance that putting your cord blood in a private bank will serve any purpose except make the bastards rich. There is none. There is never enough blood that a single cord suffices. The private banks are a scam of epic proportion.

      If you want to do good, you should just donate the cord blood to science. It is a valuable resource for people studying stem cells. And these are the people from whom you will eventually benefit: their research will come back to you in the form of better treatments, or perhaps simply better understanding of biology, which will lead to better treatments.

      A lot of people prefer that the cord bloods end up in the trash can rather than being used in science. Because they are afraid that researchers will put the cells into mice or something. Which of course is exactly what they do, because it is necessary to understand how stem cells behave in living organisms. And the benefits are enormous for everyone.

      TL;DR : public bank if you really want to. Research is a much better use for it at this point.

    5. Re:People do this? by jandrese · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, I personally group those companies down with the "freeze your body and in 100 years they'll have the cures for old age and for freezing and you'll be revived in the future!" places. The advantage is that since you're paying them year after year they will have the operating budget to actually keep running long enough to be useful, unlike those body places that typically run out of money and then just dump the bodies out back. You have to be outrageously optimistic to think that it will pan out though.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    6. Re:People do this? by dissy · · Score: 1

      You know how when you build out a storage server with a crap load of hard drives, you generally get one or two extra drives of the same capacity to sit on a shelf as spares? That way when a drive dies you can pop in the spare and let the RAID do its thing without losing data while waiting on a part to be shipped.

      Pretty much the same thing. Only this is backup spare components for the human body!

      Just like we dread the feeling of placing a hard drive order for your degraded array, only to discover they are permanently out of stock and you need to find a suitable replacement, it would be equally unnerving to find your child has a medical condition that could be fixed if only they had compatible stem cells to use.

      Similarly, there has been huge strides in printing organs using a mixture of stem cells, cells from the damaged organ, and other solutions that encourage it all to hold together. A 3D printer of sorts then creates a biological organ pattern with that mixture, and the stem cells end up recreating the original organ. 100% biologically compatible so no chance of rejection, and no need to stress over the news about how long you would be on the organ transplant waiting list.
      This type of planning ahead would give your child that much more of a head start on the process if they develop problems later in life after this technology matures further.

      It's the gift to your child that keeps on giving!

    7. Re:People do this? by gox · · Score: 1

      I did it for my first kid but not the second one. Paid around 2000 EUR for 20 years of preservation. They split the harvested stem cells and sent them to vaults in different countries to be frozen. However, they kept it in a shelf for three days after birth and then sent it through DHL, so I'm not quite sure how successful they were in harvesting them.

      They usually advertise it as a potential cure for early leukemia (stem cells harvested this way are too few to be helpful if the patient is not a baby), but my rationale was that since their genetic material is almost perfect, they would be better suited to develop in vitro organs and such, than older cells. So, I regret that I didn't do it for my daughter as well.

    8. Re:People do this? by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, in fact, your cord blood will be irretrievably damaged after a couple years in the freezer.

      Depends on how you define "a couple years". According to Canadian Blood Services (who run the Canadian public cord blood bank), cord blood stem cell transplants after 13 years of storage showed no deterioration in efficacy, though longer term data isn't available yet.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    9. Re:People do this? by Pigeon451 · · Score: 1

      Do yo have a reference? Cells can be stored for several years at liquid nitrogen temperatures and still be viable upon thawing. In fact, I just thawed some from 2008 and they were fine.

    10. Re:People do this? by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      No, I don't have a reference for this. Except that as you know, you will lose some of your cells. Also, that is the cord blood was stored, thawed and that you wanted to purify it after 5 years for stem cells, you would get significantly less that if it had been fresh.

      But people hope that their cord blood will save them in the case of a leukaemia they will have in their sixties. That will just never work. Also a single cord will never get you enough cells.

    11. Re:People do this? by c · · Score: 1

      It's a parent thing... on the off-chance that their child turns into the next Hitler, they can use the stored blood to create a powerful targeted retrovirus to...

      Okay, beats me. I don't have kids either.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    12. Re:People do this? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      As someone without children, WTF are you all talking about and why do people do this?

      And why should anyone be able to make money out of parents' fears? If it is beneficial, it should be done automatically for free, and a national bank created.

      Not very libertarian, I know, soz.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:People do this? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It's something for optimists with some extra disposable income.

      AKA "rich gullible fools", or "marks".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:People do this? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I did it for my first kid but not the second one.

      You can look forward to that being used as ammunition when the second kid's a teenager. "It's so unfair! You always preferred him to me! You never loved me!"

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  13. Not worth it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Big discussion about it here: http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1121431/

    1. Re:Not Worth It by captbob2002 · · Score: 1

      Agree with the above. But the cord blood outfits work very hard to make you feel as if you don't love your child enough if you don't do this. Enjoy. two years, was a blast, three was a blast...six now and I've recently been told that I am annoying and evil by my progeny...so she is learning. be sure to teach them to swim!

    2. Re:Not Worth It by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      be sure to teach them to swim!

      YES! how do people not do this?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Not Worth It by dissy · · Score: 1

      I have a 2.5 (mine) and a 1.5 year old (foster child) and to me if you would need this I think they would probably have an indication of it before the kid is born

      The state of the art in organ printing requires both stem cells and cells from a damaged organ to re-grow. This is insanely useful (or will be soon anyway) for accidental injury later in life as well.

      Imagine getting replacement lungs, a new heart, and another kidney or two, all after age 40.
      Especially so if those replacements are required due to say a horrible car accident or something. Those are still a little bit hard to detect with an ultrasound before birth ;}

      Imagine where this technology will be 20 years time from now! Common place and more affordable. Much safer than a transplant as far as potential compatibility/rejection, plus not having to deal with the waiting list.

      Not to mention the possibilities afforded to you after 80, 90, or 100 years of age, and after an equal number of years of medical advancements.

      "I'm sorry sir, your lungs were damaged when you were blind sided by that car. They are filled with inflammatory tissue which is unreversible. We have put you on an organ transplant list, but the wait time is currently 2 years. Would you mind holding your breath for a little bit?"

      Compared to

      "While your lungs were damaged after you were hit by that car, we do have good news! Using your own stem cells put in storage after your birth, we can grow a new set of lungs for transplant, with zero percent chance of rejection, and we have already started the printing process, with only 2 hours remaining."

      This type of thing is already well past the theoretical stages and being used in the lab successfully. That is right now. Adding additional organ types is a matter of details, and improving the speed, accuracy, and cost is just an engineering problem.

      With luck similar results will be obtainable from adult stem cells extracted from your body when the time arises, and if so this type of storage may be rendered unneeded. But the technology is just in its infancy right now so it isn't unwise to plan ahead to side-step certain advances being needed, just in case they turn out problematic or out right impossible.

    4. Re:Not Worth It by kd5zex · · Score: 1

      How long did it take for the cord to detach?

    5. Re:Not Worth It by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      "While your lungs were damaged after you were hit by that car, we do have good news! Using your own stem cells put in storage after your birth, we can grow a new set of lungs for transplant, with zero percent chance of rejection, and we have already started the printing process, with only 2 hours remaining."

      How long was your umbilical cord? You'd be hard pressed to get enough stem cells out of a few vials of blood to build new lungs. The chances are that by the time they can get these stem cells to replicate, they'll understand enough about cell manipulation to grow completely viable stem cells from adult tissue....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    6. Re:Not Worth It by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      be sure to teach them to swim!

      YES! how do people not do this?

      Probably because they didn't learn to swim properly themselves, and look back on childhood encounters with water with fear.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Not Worth It by dissy · · Score: 1

      How long was your umbilical cord? You'd be hard pressed to get enough stem cells out of a few vials of blood to build new lungs. The chances are that by the time they can get these stem cells to replicate, they'll understand enough about cell manipulation to grow completely viable stem cells from adult tissue....

      Having an equal number of stem cells as there are cells in a lung or two would indeed be difficult. However even in that case, the process used to tell the stem cells to convert into whatever cells has it's own set of problems.

      Current state-of-the-art in organ printing only involves a tiny amount of initial stem cells. They use a special solution that becomes the organs scaffolding, to which the stem cells can attach and multiply, giving exponential growth.

      Here is an interesting article on the topic that seems to have been posted just today.
      http://www.tech-faq.com/organ-growing.html

      A quick google search for "3d organ printing stem cells" turns up a bunch of medical and scientific papers on how far this field is advancing in the past year alone.

      Despite the successful organ growth and organ printing that has already been done, it's just not yet ready for mass production.

  14. Not Worth It by weszz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd say not worth it...

    I have a 2.5 (mine) and a 1.5 year old (foster child) and to me if you would need this I think they would probably have an indication of it before the kid is born. Things are so far along these days with the 4d ultrasounds and such...

    Enjoy fatherhood. every 6 months they get more fun with the first 6 month being more of a family pet than a real person. Now at 2.5 years we are running around the backyard having squirt gun fights and she is coming up with all kinds of crazy views on the world. It goes quickly...

    But yea, if you and the wife are healthy and she took care of herself the past number of months, the chances of ever needing it are very low.

  15. by the time your kid will need it by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the tech will exist to derive stem cells from an adult

    so you don't need it

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:by the time your kid will need it by gox · · Score: 1

      I have this idea that these stem cells would still have better genetic material.

    2. Re:by the time your kid will need it by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Correct answer.

      Also, I bought the kit for our first kid, but she came early, and there was no time to do the cordblood collection. So, maybe it's still in a closet somewhere - $200 or so for a paper box and some tubes.

      At the time there was also an issue of using a medical courier ($$$) - not sure if that's changed or not.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  16. We used ViaCord by Doofus · · Score: 3, Informative

    We used ViaCord for our first, and will be using them for our second. Similar to other services, you pay a collection fee (blood approx $1500, blood+tissue approx $2700) and then a small annual fee for storage.

    It remains unclear to me that cord-tissue preservation will be worth the gamble; the option wasn't available several years ago for our first, but is now. We are debating about whether the extra cost is worthwhile, considering no studies have demonstrated effective therapies using cryo-preserved cord tissue.

    Your mileage may vary.

    Enjoy the adventure with the new one.

    --
    If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; ... it invites anarchy. - Brandeis
    1. Re:We used ViaCord by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry, but you have been scammed. You will never have the opportunity to use the cord: the freezer will make it unusable in a couple years. Also, in the rare cases where it would serve, the reality is that a single cord is rarely enough in any case. It is far better to give the cord to a public bank or simply donate it to science.

      Researchers need your cord blood: it is an extremely valuable resource to them, and can essentially do no good for you.

    2. Re:We used ViaCord by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    3. Re:We used ViaCord by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      In research, you typically need 3-4 ( human ) cord blood to reconstitute a mouse hematopoeitic system. Do you think 1 is enough for a human?

    4. Re:We used ViaCord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand quite what [citation needed] actually means.

  17. Unless you're rich, don't bother by sweatyboatman · · Score: 5, Informative

    The cord blood banking industry is right on the border between speculative medicine and outright scam. It's insanely profitable, which is why every doctor's office is littered with pamphlets for competing cord blood banks.

    There's a vanishingly small likelihood that your child will have some otherwise untreatable disease that the cord blood will help with. Most of the things they say cord blood can help with (like genetic defects) actually wont help your child, since the cord blood has the same faulty genetics. The banks also tout the potential for cord blood use in future therapies. However, it's likely that any treatment that uses cord blood would be just as effective using stem cells.

    So what are you banking, in this case? I have no idea. The cord blood might be helpful for your next child, I guess.

    Another thing to keep in mind is in order to harvest the cord blood, you have to cut the cord before it stops pulsating (that is, before all the blood in the cord has reached the baby). There's a growing body of evidence that your baby benefits from this blood, and the cord should be left intact. So banking your baby's cord blood may actually harm your child. Of course, whatever the effect it's unlikely life threatening, but it does seem unnecessary.

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    1. Re:Unless you're rich, don't bother by na1led · · Score: 2

      The industry will try and find any way they can to suck money out of people. Even if you do buy into this, and some day you need it, they'll tell you there was a problem with the blood, or it will cost a fortune to use it. I'd be interested to know how many people actually benefited from this.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    2. Re:Unless you're rich, don't bother by Mathieu+Lu · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Private cord banks are pure scam, abusing of vulnerable parents who do not want to take any risks ("a small price to pay for peace of mind").

      Public cord banks, on the other hand, save lives. Stem cells can be taken from a donor, not just from umbelical cords. Hema Quebec is a good example of an efficient public bank, imho.

      Not to mention that it is unlikely that a single umbelical cord would be enough to save a life. A person under 50kg may require up to the equivalent of 3 or 4 umbelical cords. (ref, in french)

    3. Re:Unless you're rich, don't bother by brainzach · · Score: 1

      Storing cord blood is a good idea if the kid is a mixed race since it is most harder to find a stem cell match.

      The use of cord blood still only good enough to be used when a kid is below 80 lbs for stem cell transplants and even that isn't ideal. For treating cancer, an autologous transplant has a higher chance of relapse compared getting it donated from someone else.

    4. Re:Unless you're rich, don't bother by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      This. A thousand times this. People need to know this.

      As an alternative to public cord banks, you can donate your cord blood to stem cell researchers who need it.

    5. Re:Unless you're rich, don't bother by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Hema Quebec is a good example of an efficient public bank, imho.

      Canadian Blood Services does the same for the rest of Canada.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  18. WTF? by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously WTF!?!?!?

    I've gone through the birth of all five of my children and I've never contemplated anything close to this. Once I pay the hospital bill the birth process is over.. Next!

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      [...]of all five of my children[...]

      Once I pay the hospital bill the birth process is over.. Next!

      Next ? You might wanna slow down after 5 you know

    2. Re:WTF? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Fact: Populations that chose to not reproduce will be replaced by populations that do chose to reproduce.

      Perhaps you should rethink your opinion that reproduction is a bad thing.

    3. Re:WTF? by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      To each their own. DINKs aren't /bad/ for the economy really -- just lazier and less productive than the rest of us.

    4. Re:WTF? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Fact: The human race is going to be replaced by another species any time soon, if ever.

      7 billion people. DO you think 'only' have 2 kids would threaten the species? I mean, if all people who have kids only had 2 kids, in about 200 years we might be down to 6 billion people. Right on the brink of being replaced~

      5 kids IS selfish.

      Here is the question: Is he prepared to send them to college?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:WTF? by QuasiEvil · · Score: 1

      Selfish in what way? Does the world not have enough individuals breeding like rabbits?

      As a former DINK and now one of a pair of SINKs (divorced a couple years back, still friends), I have to agree that I don't see what the big deal is with kids, or why people think we should all have them. WTF do I care if my genetic lineage carries on? I'm dead eventually regardless. Makes absolutely no difference to me. I share with the future generations in other ways - I create, I share, I teach, I mentor. I just don't do it on my own biological spawn. I have no great and noble family line to carry on and I'm just a pretty average guy (and one with a congenital genetic defect that doesn't matter until after the usual kid-producing cycle, and then kills you slowly and painfully - not looking forward to my 60s). It's in fact better that I proceed with being a rich capitalist yuppie pigdog and let my particular mutation die with me.

      The core of it really was that we both wanted to do things with our lives that didn't involve taking an 18 year break to raise kids, so we did.

    6. Re:WTF? by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      > People that don't want children seem somewhat selfish to me.

      I've heard this before and don't understand it even a little. Not having children is like not collecting stamps for me. It doesn't interest me in the slightest. Quite the contrary, I find it irrational and self-centered when people claim their having children will improve the "way of life, genes, and moral values" of the population by adding a drop of water to a pool of over 6.5 x 10^9 humans, a number that is growing by over 250 every single minute of every day.

      You can have a mich more direct effect on humanity, if that is your life's goal, by participating directly. The famous people who changed the course of history, from Aristotle to Shakespeare to Edison, did so via their work, not by making babies.

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    7. Re:WTF? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but all those people also had parents. Had their parents not chosen to reproduce, then they would not have existed. In that since, the ancestors of those great people changed the world by having children.

      Either way, it's a personal choice and we should not condemn people for having or not having kids. Some people should not be parents, plain and simple. Other people derive great satisfaction from it. I find it interesting how quickly this community judges people based on their reproductive choices, but if someone tried to condemn other lifestyle choices they would immediately get jumped as a bigot.

    8. Re:WTF? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Because sadly this selfish attitude shows that you are SMART and we are currently being wiped out by the STUPID breeding at numbers more than 8-1 last i checked. Did you know we have lowered the definition of retarded not once, but twice in the last 60 years? too many were falling under the definition.

      Sadly what we are seeing is idiocracy was actually a prediction ala 1984 and its one that is becoming more true every day. Smart people have one kid if they have any while stupid have half a dozen or more. Hell my family is just as guilty, both my parents had over 140 IQ and they had 2 kids, my late sister had 2, I had none. meanwhile one only has to walk down the street in the average city to see we are ass deep in tarded.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  19. What the... by Jethro · · Score: 1

    Is this a thing now?...

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
  20. Re:Drink it by Gripp · · Score: 2, Informative

    do NOT click that link.. some things you can't un-see. ... :( you've been warned.

  21. First World Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  22. We thought about it.... and elected to 'donate' it by gus+goose · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... for both our kids. We decided to 'donate' the cord blood (was free, and then you get 'preferential' access later if you happen to need some from the 'bank' later).

    Turns out our kids were both born on Sunday evenings, and they do not collect blood on Sundays.....

    Now I read all sorts of things about keeping the umbilical cord 'whole' for longer helps with anaemia... i.e. letting the cord 'drain' for longer is better for the baby. There's debate about how long the draining should take, but, it precludes the donation of the core blood.

    If I were to be doing it again (and I'm not planning to...), I would talk with the O/B and delay the cutting of the cord for a few more minutes, and then forgo the donation of the blood entirely.

    The prospects of tangible short-term benefits far outweighs the unlikely need for obscure treatments at some uncertain point in the future from some company that may or may not be around when you need them, and they may or may not have destroyed your tissues anyway, for a condition that may (at that time) be curable without cord blood anyway.

    gus

    --
    .. if only.
  23. Public over private by juz · · Score: 3, Informative

    We looked into this for our first kid. My wife is an anesthesiologist so has some idea about this. What we found (at least for Australia in 2006) was: - a public bank service is better than storing an individual's blood. Stem cells are exciting medically because they don't have the same sorts of matching requirements that blood and organs do - there were trust issues withe private operators

  24. College by denbesten · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Take the money you would have spent on this and putit into a college fund. Odds of seeing a return on your investment are much greater.

  25. Who "owns" who by Dareth · · Score: 2, Funny

    So if your hypothetical supermodel girlfriend does play Battlefield 3 with you, who "OWNS" who?

    My non-hypothetical non-supermodel wife is a descent player of Ultimate Mortal Kombat. Though I do think Sonya's leg grab is ultra cheesy!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Who "owns" who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Marrying an XBox is still illegal in 49 states.Still legal in Alabama, if she converts to Christianity first.

    2. Re:Who "owns" who by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I heard of a guy in Canada who married a tree.

    3. Re:Who "owns" who by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

      who "OWNS" whom?

      FTFY ... yeah I'm single for a reason :(

  26. We use CorCell by JBL2 · · Score: 1

    $269/yr, though that may have gone up for newer subscribers. (http://www.corcell.com/)

    1. Re:We use CorCell by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      You have been scammed. There is no way that the blood will be usable if you need it, and one cord is almost never enough.

  27. Donate it to your child! by Whorhay · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, donate it to your own child at their birth. Read up on the benefits of delayed cord clamping. The only situation that I've heard of where it's not worth it is where an emergency arises during the birth that requires the child and mother be seperated ASAP to safe a life. The umbilical cord and placenta contain a significant amount of blood which is the childs. Clamping and severing the cord immediately can basically make the child anemic right off the bat. It only takes a few minutes for the cord to finish transfering that blood to the child, so give it some time. It may also be possible to still harvest the cord for storage or donation but I'm not sure.

    Anyways google "delayed umbilical cord clamping"

    1. Re:Donate it to your child! by LanMan04 · · Score: 2

      Google "Jaundice", which can be a result of dumping too much blood into the kid. Unless you think the baby will be anemic, I'd recommend against it.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    2. Re:Donate it to your child! by dilinger · · Score: 1

      This. Something like 1/3rd of the baby's blood is in the cord. Unless there' a medical reason to cut the cord immediately, just leave it alone for 15 mins.

      I'm rather shocked at the lack of comments supporting (or not even mentioning) this option....

  28. Let the baby keep it, he/she needs it by beberly37 · · Score: 5, Informative

    When a baby is born, blood continues to flow through the cord for a while giving the baby much needed nutrients. It is common practice for midwifes. Baby comes out, goes straight to mama's bare chest for skin-to-skin heat transfer and up-close pheromones (leaving the naturally protective goo). In a minute or so the chord goes from bright full-of-blood colored to dull gray and empty and it no longer pulses. Clamp and cut the chord then. We did this with our now 7 month old, she was back up to birth weight at the three day check up.

    1. Re:Let the baby keep it, he/she needs it by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Exactly! This is how you keep them healthy. Think about it, breastfed baby's don't get Iron so they need every drop they can get.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    2. Re:Let the baby keep it, he/she needs it by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      Breastfed babies do indeed get iron. The iron in breastmilk, in fact, is the best absorbed source of iron for babies (they can't absorb the iron in formula as well). Breastmilk provides all the nutrients a baby needs.

      But it is indeed a good idea to let the baby get the nutrients from the cord blood, as they won't be getting nutrients from breastmilk immediately after birth.

    3. Re:Let the baby keep it, he/she needs it by MobyDisk · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Let the baby keep it, he/she needs it by renoX · · Score: 1

      > When a baby is born, blood continues to flow through the cord for a while giving the baby much needed nutrients.

      The same he got just before being born?

  29. Donate it by dmeeking · · Score: 1

    Donate it to a public bank which should be free for you and offers the best chance for the cord blood to help someone. When we asked a doctor what to do when having our first child, she explained that donating to a public bank is the best option. The thing that most people don't realize about saving cord blood in a private bank for your own use is that if your child does happen to come down with the type of disease (e.g. leukemia) that requires stem cell treatment, it is highly unlikely that doctors would ever use the child's own cord blood because the child's stem cells already led to a case of leukemia and so there's no way they want to inject those (potentially) flawed stem cells again.

  30. How about ask your Wife's doctor by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    My wife and I got a bunch of that crap when we had our kids. We didn't know what to make of it so we asked her OBGYN and basically got that they were all scams as there aren't treatments that have been developed that use it and the chances that your child might benefit from any treatment developed using it are slim to none (another poster mentioned that you would be better off buying lottery tickets with that money and giving them to the child). Also as another poster mentioned it is amazing how many pamphlets are in a doctors office, I figure that the companies pay to put them there as a form advertising. If you still feel the need to have it collected donate it to research as there it stands a better chance of doing some good.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  31. Re:Drink it by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    You know you just made me and everyone else want to click that link even more, right? Even thought I know I will regret it.
    OK well that was not nearly that bad, probably fake.... But you never know.
    OK looked it up and it is done by some artist, sounds like to protest abortions and does not use real human flesh.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  32. This needs some research by netdigger · · Score: 1

    This is kinda intriguing to me. I wonder where the technology is going to be in the next 5 years.

    Also there are a lot of claims being made on this tread that are in favor, against, and for alternatives. I really think that we need to be posting links not only to educate ourselves and others but also to help our future parents make the proper choice for their child and their family.

    1. Re:This needs some research by geekoid · · Score: 1

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

      there you go, search. Be sure the study has good controls, blinded and has significant results, and has been repeated.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  33. Re:Your Freezer by Dahamma · · Score: 2

    Bizarrely, this isn't necessarily a troll... In China human placenta has long been used in traditional medicine and is becoming a trendy, if somewhat black market, delicacy.

    Personally I think it's a horrible idea - not because of the gross-out factor, but because eating human tissue is an great way to contract human diseases. Do you really want to eat something that comes with test results certifying it is HIV-free? (to quote Dave Barry - I am not making this up).

  34. Re:We thought about it.... and elected to 'donate' by gus+goose · · Score: 1

    Here's a reference:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22089242
    search for "umbilical anaemia"

    --
    .. if only.
  35. Re:Drink it by Gripp · · Score: 1

    yeah, i was aware that it may entice some more... but i figured better people were warned, rather than blindly clicking like i did. good to know it is fake. still disgusting.

  36. Let the baby keep it by bracktra · · Score: 1

    A view from the other side of the fence: http://midwifethinking.com/2011/02/10/cord-blood-collection-confessions-of-a-vampire-midwife/ Basically, the opposing argument is that newborns need their blood. Wait a few minutes to let them get it all. Many companies market many things to new parents... cord blood saving may be little more than that.

  37. Re:We thought about it.... and elected to 'donate' by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

    The current wisdom is to wait until the cord stops pulsing (that is, is no longer connected to the baby's or the mother's blood supply) before clamping and cutting. It seems to make sense - the pulsing indicates that it's "in use".

    Frankly, the whole cord blood seems like a scam to me. It doesn't do any good at the moment, and any suggestions that it eventually will are hand-wavey at best. Add in the large ongoing costs (and substantially larger initial costs), and the implied emotional argument of "you're bad parents if you don't do this" and it seems like Homer's "happy dude" scam. Pay a truckload of money, get essentially nothing in return, and be assured by some company that gladly took that money that it makes you better.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  38. Re:Drink it by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    I didn't check the link myself. But there is actually a practice that some women do where they consume the placenta. Usually it's dried out and then ground up into a powder and mixed into a beverage or something. The idea being that it's got a lot of nutrients such as vitamins in it and usually a mother who gave birth recently is in short supply of those vitamins.

  39. Pretty much useless by TheSync · · Score: 1

    There is zero solid evidence that stored cord blood is useful for anything now. It is a waste of money to store.

    Could it be of use in the future? Doubtful - any kind of real stem cell treatments are 10-20 years away, and they will likely have solved most of the IPS issues by then so your skin cells might be as useful as cord blood stem cells.

  40. Re:Drink it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I didn't check the link myself. But there is actually a practice that some women do where they consume the placenta. Usually it's dried out and then ground up into a powder and mixed into a beverage or something. The idea being that it's got a lot of nutrients such as vitamins in it and usually a mother who gave birth recently is in short supply of those vitamins.

    I feel this is proof of Intelligent Design. Childbirth is a very strenuous affair; the mother is completely exhausted at the end. God knows this and provided the mother with a uterine vag-steak vending machine for an immediate, revitalizing treat!

  41. Re:This is a scam , there is only enough for 1.5Kg by brainzach · · Score: 1

    It is not easy for everyone to find a match.

    You are more likely to match someone who has the same ethnicity as you and some groups are underrepresented on the bone marrow registry. Those who are mixed race have the hardest time finding a match.

    I received a stem cell transplant and even though I had 3 siblings, none of them matched. Luckily there were many matches on the national registry for me, but there are still many people who have a hard time finding a match. They either can't get the treatment they need or rely on a partial match with much more complications.

  42. Re:Drink it by ski9826 · · Score: 1

    What the hell happened to taking a multivitamin? Seems much better than a placenta smoothie.

  43. Seconded by LanMan04 · · Score: 2

    We donated the cord blood from both our kids.

    When your kid has a 1 in 400 chance of needing it themselves even ONCE in their entire lifetime...well, I'd rather help someone in need.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  44. I'll be frank here. by xerxesVII · · Score: 1

    I does not have any experience or suggestions on this topic.

    --
    "We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
  45. Babies need the blood now more than later by AngelWind · · Score: 1

    My wife and I went to a birthing center for our last two boys and received information on letting the cord finish pulsating before the cord is cut. Basically the logic is if you're cutting the cord early your depriving your baby of the blood they need to live and breathe when they are first born. I'd rather they get all their blood now so they can be healthy later, not have their body fight for a bit while they regain the blood they lost from the transfer.

    http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/cordNFM.html

  46. Don't bother by arkham6 · · Score: 1

    My wife and I asked our Ob/Gyn and pediatrician about this before the birth of our second child, and both of them said that doing so was a waste of time and money. The cord blood is only good for specific genetic conditions that occur in one out of a hundred thousand live births, while most medical conditions that may occur would be treated without the need for cord blood.

    Finally the doctors said that banks play on your emotions as new parents. They said that donating the cord blood would be nice, but a lot of hospitals dont want to deal with the bother and administrative hassle of collecting and shipping.

    Ultimately I'd ask your doctors about it and see if they recommend it, but most likely you are just going to be wasting money.

  47. Re:We thought about it.... and elected to 'donate' by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

    You still should donate. The cord blood is a very precious resource for researchers. And it is very unlikely that delaying the cutting of the cord will make any measurable difference.

  48. Re:Drink it by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

    mother cats eat it raw (no thumbs to work a blender).

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  49. Re:Drink it by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    How is it better? It is or course technically better to just eat the vitamin rich placenta since it is free and would just be wasted if you threw it away.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  50. Donate to the Public Bank by dudeman2 · · Score: 1

    We did this for all 3 of our kids. Here in New York it is free to donate and store, if you or someone else needs them, the cells are available. I have no desire to enrich the private banks.

  51. Re:Drink it by wisnoskij · · Score: 1
    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  52. Re:Yes by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

    Why not take the money that you would use for the cord and put it in a RESP (Registered Education Savings PLan) for the child? The odds of the child using the cord is much much much lower than using the money for education.

    Is there even any use for stem cells right now? A quick google showed that there are some experimental applications, so it might have a use in the future. But, that same future will likely have stem cells derived from skin tissue or bone marrow, or whatever, so the cord blood would not necessarily be needed.

    IMO, save the money for their education.

    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
  53. Extraordinary! by virgnarus · · Score: 1

    What an unusual keepsake! I think for my first child I might bribe the doctor into having me keep the uncleaned vag-tongs!

  54. Jaundice risk by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    you have to cut the cord before it stops pulsating (that is, before all the blood in the cord has reached the baby). There's a growing body of evidence that your baby benefits from this blood, and the cord should be left intact.

    Dumping all that blood into the kid also increases the risk of jaundice. Untreated jaundice = brain damage.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  55. Re:We thought about it.... and elected to 'donate' by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    Now I read all sorts of things about keeping the umbilical cord 'whole' for longer helps with anaemia... i.e. letting the cord 'drain' for longer is better for the baby

    Unless you suspect the baby will be anemic, I'd recommend against draining all that blood into baby. Increases the risk of jaundice! Jaundice, if not detected/treated, = brain damage.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  56. Re:Drink it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I figured "uterine vag-steak vendine machine" gives it away as an intentionally silly post.

  57. Re:Drink it by Jmc23 · · Score: 2

    Except that multi-vitamins can be over-dosed on and the amount of said vitamins actually being used by your system is questionable. Always better to get your vitamins and nutrients from natural sources.... though I'd hesitate to try placenta anything, though all other animals seem to eat it.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  58. Let the baby keep it as well... by NotNormallyNormal · · Score: 1

    Having looked into it several times (2 kids) we have decided that it is simply to expensive to store our own. Donating works well though. Often times the donation centres keep your name on a list so that you have priority for the future as well.

    Also, be aware that while storing the cord blood is useful, actually allowing the blood to completely go to the baby is even better. All the blood in the cord / placenta is the baby's blood. By depriving it of that blood, that can put them down a lot of iron. Often letting the blood pump for 10 minutes after birth before clamping is sufficient (our doctor in Canada says the standard here is 1.5 - 2 minutes now but the parents can ask for more). Many mid-wives will actually let the placenta "birth" before clamping to be sure the baby gets all of its own blood.

  59. Re:Drink it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And my dog eats its own shit, that doesn't make it a good idea.

  60. Re:Drink it by profplump · · Score: 2

    It's good to know that "natural" sources can't result in an overdose.

  61. Cellar with limestone by Prien715 · · Score: 1

    Put the cord in a nice pit with some lye and bury it for a while, then slow steam cook. It's delicious.

    Others prefer their cords tartare but not for me! Storing works best!

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  62. Doomed Kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think that the kid of a parent who goes to Slashdot for this kind of information is doomed.

    1. Re:Doomed Kid by RichardJenkins · · Score: 2

      Pah! Ask around, solicit conversation, stimulate though. Everyone's the richer.

    2. Re:Doomed Kid by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. If the thought have there origins in nonsense, then no one is better off.

      It's like listening to idiots discuss which kind of acupuncture is real.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Doomed Kid by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      If you wanted to get an idea about why accupunture is so popular, you'd do well to join in on their conversation. Maybe you'd plant some seeds of the value of evidence based medicine, and you could hope to get an insight into how their minds work.

      http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003281.html

    4. Re:Doomed Kid by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      It's like listening to idiots discuss which kind of acupuncture is real.

      I know this is off-topic, but I never thought any kind of acupuncture was real until a few years ago, when I had it done (by way of a freebie extra offered by my physiotherapist) for a shoulder injury.

      Regardless of my total non-belief in the effectiveness of the procedure, the effects were immediate, long-lasting and undeniable. I don't have any rigorous explanation as to why poking holes in someone should make them feel better, but whatever works...

  63. donate by cthlptlk · · Score: 1

    As a new parent, you are going to be barraged with a constant stream of "you're doing it wrong" messages. Advertising leverages your anxiety to sell you things, and new parents are a goldmine of anxiety. "Wouldn't you do everything possible for your baby?" is a hard sales pitch to decline...nobody wants to be the materialistic asshole who values money over a safety net, even for a very extreme edge case. But it's still a sales pitch for something not worth the price. If you donate, maybe you will still be able use it, or maybe the person who did use it will pull your kid out from in front of a truck some day. You can't make yourself responsible for every future contingency.

    Unless you have unlimited funds, there are better things to spend your money on. And if you do have unlimited funds, hire someone to figure it out for you.

    The best thing you can do right now is get used to the ideas of gray areas and imperfect decisions. You have several thousand more to make in the next year or two.

  64. Specific question to ask private banks by Dr.+Gamera · · Score: 1

    Here is the specific question to ask private banks.

    Is there any instance in which a person, as a newborn, had cord blood stored, and then used their own cord blood later in life?

    When our kids were newborns, the answer was "no"; I would assume it is still "no". I believe there do exist cases in which kid #1 needed their parents to conceive and give birth to kid #2 so that kid #2's cord blood could be used for kid #1, but that's an entirely different matter.

    I know that you may be thinking "I can afford the hundreds of dollars, and it's worth it for the infinitesimal chance that it could help our child"... but the logic breaks down when you consider other things you can use that money for that are much more likely to help your child.

    1. Re:Specific question to ask private banks by Dr.+Gamera · · Score: 1

      Is there any instance in which a person, as a newborn, had cord blood stored, and then used their own cord blood later in life?

      I see that it has since actually been done once. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/1/e296

  65. Ask the Hospital and your OB by businessnerd · · Score: 1

    As someone who is having his first child in just over one month, I have very recently been looking at these options and have chosen a public bank. For the question of Public vs. Private vs. nothing, I think other slashdotters have covered it. Private is expensive and it's unlikely you'll need it. Public can do help for someone right now. Doing nothing is just throwing a promising resource in the trash. That's just my two cents about that. So let's say you have chosen the Public option. Well, here is where Slashdot is not well suited. You should be talking to both the hospital you plan to deliver at and your OB. I'm sure your OB has already given you all of the pamphlets, so you have an idea of what companies do what. If not, ask for them. Then talk to your hospital about which banks they work with. Depending on where the hospital is, what health system it's part of, etc. will determine which banks are available to you. This should narrow your list considerably. Then cross-reference the hospital's list with your OB's. Some OB's will charge for the collection, even for donations. Again, ask your OB if there is any charge for donations. I would be surprised if after talking to the hospital and your OB if you would even have a choice of which bank to use, so don't waste your time agonising over which bank is best.

    --
    "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    1. Re:Ask the Hospital and your OB by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      The O/B only knows what the packets say. This is a promising area of research but unless they are a research doc, or someone very well read, they don't have any more knowledge than you do. I remember an OB staffer telling us all the wonderful things they can do with stem cells. They were very surprised and conflicted when I brought in some printouts saying otherwise. The pamphlets read like "You would do the best for your child's future, right?" so guilt you into doing it. It makes the docs feel good. Apply caution and skepticism as needed (including here at Slashdot!)

  66. Re:Drink it by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    Hint: There were no multivitamins thousands of years ago, when this practice originated.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  67. But will it last? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Freezing cells can cause the water inside to expand and rupture the cell walls destroying the cell completely. Isn't there a reason donated blood is only kept for 3 months before it is thrown away?

  68. Since You Are Covering All The Options Here.... by JohnnyMindcrime · · Score: 1

    FOR SALE

    Anti-Meteorite Lead Roof Lining

    Just in case Haley's Comet decides to fall on your house and threaten one of your little darlings.

    Only £2,000,000.

    --
    Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
  69. Second that: Donate it to your child! by formfeed · · Score: 1

    Google "Jaundice", which can be a result of dumping too much blood into the kid.

    That's the carp you hear from doctors who are unwilling to change the way they have always done things..
    It's just that there is no study showing that. On the contrary. While there is no significant increase of jaundice, delayed clamping might lead to healthier babies a few months later and might give the baby a boost right after birth.

    The effect of timing of cord clamping on neonatal venous hematocrit values and clinical outcome at term: a randomized, controlled trial.

    Delayed Cord Clamping in Very Preterm Infants Reduces the Incidence of Intraventricular Hemorrhage and Late-Onset Sepsis: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

    Late vs Early Clamping of the Umbilical Cord in Full-term Neonates

    My suggestion:
    read up on delayed cord clamping (decent sources, like parent-to-be-books from your local library written by MDs and maybe medical journals) and include it in your birth plan. With the money saved from cord blood banking buy something like this binary Infant Bodysuit

  70. What's more important: Don't cut cord too early by Aviation+Pete · · Score: 1
    The chord blood freezing business is mostly a money making scare tactic. As many other posters pointed out, the chance of it being needed is negligible.

    What's proven by many studies, however, is the beneficial effect on the immune system of keeping the umbilical connected and free of clamps for several minutes after birth.

    To all those "citation needed" nazis: You must be new here. The effect had been the topic of at least one news item here before.

    --
    You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
    1. Re:What's more important: Don't cut cord too early by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No it hasn't. late clamping increase jaundice risk. A risk worth taking if you are in an iron poor community. Otherwise don't do it. Jaundice can cause brain damage, among other things. Even in the iron poor community, the statistical difference is much about noise. Meaning, more study is needed.

      When did asking for someone to show there data make them Nazis? Are we suppose to just let people like you continue to spread lies? I, for one, will not do that. SO you can keep making your ad hom attack, but I will not stop trying to get people to see accurate information and be able to find good data.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18591323

      A few minutes, sheesh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:What's more important: Don't cut cord too early by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      You're spreading lies by saying that Aviation Pete is spreading lies. Breastfeed and take your baby in the sun, and it will be fine.

  71. We stored the cord blood for our twins by PerlHun · · Score: 1

    My wife did the research and our twins cord blood is stored in some desert facility (the country's largest cord blood registry) until the twins hit age 18. All I know is I wrote the check for $8,000 USD at the time of birth. Peace of mind is how my wife sold it to me as. Also, the idea that by the time our kids reach age 18, they may have some pretty neat things figured out in the science world on how to use cord blood. Cyborg jet packs???

    1. Re:We stored the cord blood for our twins by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I have some crystal that help word off evil spirits. I guarantee no haunting, bigfoot attacks, or alien abductions. Only 250,000 dollars.

      I mean, you can't put a price on piece of mind, right? and you don't want to be a materialistic bastard that puts things over you loving children.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:We stored the cord blood for our twins by PerlHun · · Score: 1

      I am intrigued by your offer, are these crystals organic and vegan friendly per se or just your run of the mill 99% crystal?

  72. Yeah, it's a cost-benefit thing by sean.peters · · Score: 2

    It turns out that banking cord blood is really expensive, and you'll almost certainly never need it. We decided it wasn't worth it and donated the blood.

  73. lottery winners only get money... by schlachter · · Score: 1

    If money's not a scare resource...as it isn't for many of us in the engineering/IT world...I can't see why I wouldn't pay a few hundred or a few thousand dollars to do something that has a small chance of being a life saver.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:lottery winners only get money... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      If money's not a scare resource...as it isn't for many of us in the engineering/IT world...I can't see why I wouldn't pay a few hundred or a few thousand dollars to do something that has a small chance of being a life saver.

      But how many things are there that have a small chance of being a lifesaver that you aren't currently doing? Having your car serviced monthly instead of every couple of years has a small chance of saving your life. Being innoculated against diseases that aren't normally fatal (but occassionally are) or that aren't prevalent in your area (but might be introduced in the future) has a small chance of saving your life. Keeping a marine-band VHF radio and flare gun in the boot(EN_US: trunk) of your car has a small chance of saving your life...

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  74. Re:Drink it by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 1

    Exactly.
    And this is why GP should eat some more dog liver and kidneys.

  75. Re:Drink it by geekoid · · Score: 2

    Hint: there was no SCIENCE thousands of years ago.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  76. Re:Drink it by kd5zex · · Score: 1

    My wife preforms placenta encapsulation as a service. Her business has steadily increased over the past year and she is doing 3-6 per month now.

  77. cord blood by Independent_forever · · Score: 1

    We did that for the first few years but then had them destroy it as the use is very limited and only good for certain things. Still, small price to pay to have another protection for your child even if the use is limited. Never know what the future brings. It's really just like anything else...insurance that you hope you never need. Cheers.

  78. Placenta Helper by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    To make a special occasion, a real special occasion. Stretch it to feed the whole family.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  79. Stop by PHCOSci · · Score: 1

    The cord blood racket is a joke. The current stem cell research already allows scientists to either revert your differentiated cells into stem cells - or to harvest and propagate native stem cells. People are spending abhorrent amount of money on an unproven storage technology that is unlikely to be useful.

  80. Re:We thought about it.... and elected to 'donate' by geekoid · · Score: 1

    That study show they there really isn't a difference.

    I mean,. then numbers are far to low to rule out 'noise'.
    They do warrant further study on a larger population. Say 10 groups of 500, each in a different population.

    Although I am pleased to see people looking at actual studies.

    Just to be clear: Just because a study is on PubMed doesn't make it a good one.
    Likelihood is high, but hardly perfect.

    My opinion, and it's just that an opinion, is that with further study we will see a slight difference depending on diet and iron the the population being studied.

    The only dog I have in this show is the desire for good solid data, and people making decision have access to good data.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  81. Not always good. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    That's not a theory. It's a wild ass guess based on the naturalistic fallacy.

    The current data shows this:
    Late clamping (>60 seconds) increase iron but also increase jaundice risk.

    SO, if you are iron poor, then late clamping may be worth the jaundice risk.
    If you are not iron poor, then late clamping has no gain and still carries the jaundice risk.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18591323

    That is a cochrane review. Since it is a review of the literature, it is a good place to start. Reviews aren't always the best place to make policy from. Depending on method a size of available data to review.

    oh, and while people relate jaundice to 'just yellow skin' it can actual cause liver and brain problems.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  82. Donate it, do not store it by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

    Do not pay to store your own cord blood:
    1) You cannot use your own stem cells any current stem cell therapies. If you have a genetic condition that can be solved with stem cells, you must use cells that do not have the condition. But someone else could use them. It is more likely that you will use someone else's stem cells. The only reason to use your own is in the theoretical future where you can regrow an organ.
    2) It is more likely that someone else will need those stem cells. Paying to have it held for you denies someone else a potentially lifesaving therapy. Imagine paying a company to store your own blood in case you needed it after an accident/surgery. Better to bank it for anyone to use.
    3) Donating the cord blood for anyone to use is free.
    4) Many of the companies that offer umbilical cord blood banking prey on people's fears and operate in unethical ways. Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics have called-out specific companies for questionable behavior.

    Many hospitals and birthing centers promote cord blood banking because they are convinced by salespeople that it is a smart thing to do. But they often don't know much about it. Do some reading on this before making a decision. Often times doctors give advice about medical treatments that they are not trained on. (Ex: Don't ask an OB/GYN about stem cell procedures any more than you would ask a licensed electrician about a plumbing problem, or a criminal lawyer about copyright law.)

    Start with the Wikipedia article:

  83. I keep mine by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

    in the fridge in an old catchup bottle. But I make sure to cross out catchup with a sharpie and write cord blood on there, every since my husband's incident after our first baby...

  84. Re:Drink it by Nimey · · Score: 1

    Sure there was, it just wasn't formalized. It was more Thag trying different things and discarding the ideas that failed, or people learning not to eat toadstools the hard way.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  85. Lotus birth by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

    Wow, did you really have to post that several times? What's in it for you? Instead of scaremongering, what's the risk? Our son stayed attached to the placenta until it became detached naturally. Look up "Lotus Birth". As for jaundice: sun light. I really don't understand the turning birth into a medical circus. My wife is still breast feeding our son (will turn 2 years old, soon). Something that's not considered weird in Mexico (were we live). Our daughter was breast fed until recently (she'll turn 5 soon). Again, this would make us "freaks" in quite some so called "civilized countries". Children sleep with us in one bed (look up family bed). Much easier to nurse the children and they sleep much, much better. Or as I read once on a site (paraphrased, can't recall the exact words): why carry a child inside you for months only to put it away from your body after birth (in its own bed, in its own room). The latter is even something that's recent. Not that long ago the "family bed" was considered normal (here in Mexico it still is).

    1. Re:Lotus birth by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Woah, woah, hold your horses there pal.

      What's "in it for me" is that my first child, born in 2007, had severe jaundice (luckily he was OK after a ton of light therapy) and I was told that it was due to the OB who delivered him (a) taking way too long to disconnect the umbilical cord, and (b) holding my son too low for too long, so that a ton of blood (or maybe just thicker blood/RBCs?) flowed into him "downhill".

      Neither I nor my wife were jaundiced at birth, so it's not like we have a family history of it. I took the explanation I was given by experts.

      On to your other points:

      a) Nothing wrong with breastfeeding for a long time. I frankly think Americans are stop breastfeeding way too early.

      b) Co-sleeping is dangerous, full stop, especially for neonates/infants. If you manage to avoid smothering your infant by accident, then that's awesome, because I'm sure it is better for bonding. But the risks are way too great. Maybe if the baby is 9 months+, but even then....no way. Maybe a bed extender or something so you can be close without risk of smothering, but the risk or suffocating the child is way too great if you can just roll over on them.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    2. Re:Lotus birth by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      I am sorry to hear, but one personal experience doesn't make it a rule.

      CONCLUSIONS. Delayed cord clamping at birth increases neonatal mean venous hematocrit within a physiologic range. Neither significant differences nor harmful effects were observed among groups. Furthermore, this intervention seems to reduce the rate of neonatal anemia. This practice has been shown to be safe and should be implemented to increase neonatal iron storage at birth.

      source:http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/4/e779

      I agree with a) Moreover, you can add c) to that: too many unnecessary Caesarians

      As for b) please read this carefully: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/16/sudden-infant-death-syndrome-children?INTCMP=SRCH From the same study you can conclude that putting a baby in a cot is dangerous, full stop.

      Co-sleeping is as far as I know practised by the majority of human population, and has been practised for ten thousands and ten thousands of years. Think of it, from an evolutionary point of view, especially based on the very limited capabilities a baby has: what's to be expected: a baby in a crib some distance from the mother, or the baby sleeping against the mother's breast?

      Or in short: co-sleeping is dangerous on the sofa or if you're severely drugged, or severely drunk.

      Stop spreading misinformation, especially making them into facts while they are just misinterpretations of facts and hear say by doctors who probably want to move on to the next patient ASAP since time = money.

    3. Re:Lotus birth by tzanger · · Score: 1

      b) Co-sleeping is dangerous, full stop, especially for neonates/infants. If you manage to avoid smothering your infant by accident, then that's awesome, because I'm sure it is better for bonding. But the risks are way too great. Maybe if the baby is 9 months+, but even then....no way. Maybe a bed extender or something so you can be close without risk of smothering, but the risk or suffocating the child is way too great if you can just roll over on them.

      That is total and utter bullshit. The fact of the matter is that you have to be pretty much drunk off your ass or otherwise seriously inebriated to smother an infant in your bed. And no, parents who are sleep deprived aren't usually seriously inebriated. I know that the plural of anecdote isn't data, but at the same time the only smothering deaths I've ever read about were due to extenuating circumstances. I've raised five children and I can tell you, sleep deprived or not, if there's something making me uncomfortable in bed I'm gonna move, and I'm a very sound sleeper. We usually kept the infant in a crib next to the bed for easier breastfeeding, but all the infants slept in the bed with us on multiple occasions.

      As far as data goes... the Canadian Paediatric Society states that "Bedsharing with an adult who is extremely fatigued or impaired by alcohol or drugs (legal or illegal) that impair arousal can be hazardous to the infant." which is pretty much what I said above. The Public Health Agency of Canada recommends room-sharing and states that there is an increased risk of SIDS due to the baby suffocating due to several factors (soft mattress/pillows, becoming trapped in the sheets, and also due to rollover of an adult). It does, however go on to say that the risk is higher if the adult is drunk/stoned. It specifically mentions not using co-sleeping products (not sure what those are). Wikipedia states that "Bed-sharing is known to be dangerous for any child when a parent smokes, or has a history of skin infections, but there are other risk factors as well." It goes on to list the same risks that the other two sources give.

      So no, Co-sleeping is not dangerous, full stop, whatever. It's perhaps not the safest thing, but it's also not considerably more dangerous either.

    4. Re:Lotus birth by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      b) Co-sleeping is dangerous, full stop, especially for neonates/infants.

      Nonsense. All our children slept in the bed with us while breastfeeding and in our room for a few years after that. It's not just about bonding, it reduces fatigue for the mother (who doesn't need to get up to feed) and the baby (who doesn't need sustained crying to get their food) and regulates the babies body temperature well. In addition, none of our children have had nightmares, ever.

      I took the explanation I was given by experts.

      You might want to reconsider your unquestioning trust in experts. With our first child we were told by hospital staff my wife was not producing enough milk and we would need to supplement with formula. They were quite insistent that breastfeeding should be no more frequent than 4 hour feeds. Having some experience in dairy production, I suggested to my wife that she demand feed the baby on the basis that milk production reaches an equilibrium with use. Her breasts were full and the baby hungry well before the four hours. Demand feeding immediately increased her production to provide the required weight gain for our son.

      To be fair, we didn't really ignore expert advice, it's just that I apparently knew more about milk production than the midwives and nurses at the hospital, but I don't have any formal qualification to say so. Anybody with dairy experience would have known what to do because it is this very thing that allows a cow to produce enough milk for both the calf and farmer.

      Another example was with a child we had that was a few weeks premature (maybe less, dates can be unsure). A doctor informed us with no uncertainty that our daughter could not breastfeed. When I pointed out to him that she was in fact breastfeeding at that very moment about one meter away from where he was standing, he had no answer. His expert knowledge had led him to ignore the easily observable reality right in front of him. I didn't have more knowledge in this case, he was just plainly and demonstrably wrong.

      Now I am an expert in my own field and I don't denigrate expert knowledge at all, I'm just saying that you should never give up your responsibility to think for yourself, even in the face of expert opinion.

  86. Home storage option. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Back, bottom of the fridge, away from the vodka.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  87. Formaldehyde by OneAhead · · Score: 1

    What? He said "store"...

  88. Re:Drink it by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

    Well, they're more easily processed and disposed of and you'd have to have a very large stomach and eat all day long.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  89. Donate to a public blood bank by vu2lid · · Score: 1

    The probability that one will need stem cells from cord blood is very low. Most of the treatment methods are highly experimental and applicable only to a handful of groups. Most of these conditions are identifiable during genetic tests and screening during pregnancy.

    At least some of the public blood banks which collect cord blood promise that if you donate cord blood and in future a need arises they will try to locate cord blood which will match the donor (or try to give the donated blood if it is still available). Try to locate a public blood bank which operates like that.

  90. Donate it to a public blood bank by Nuitari+The+Wiz · · Score: 1

    Recently a consumer interest show in Quebec did a report on private cord banks.
    One of the big sticking point is that the window of actual usefulness is relatively short as there is only a small quantity of stem cells available, and usually once someone is over 50kg there is not enough stem cells for treatment.

    Here is the link in french
    http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/la_facture/2011-2012/Reportage.asp?idDoc=208988

  91. Cryosite is who we used by marcushnk · · Score: 1

    We only did it for our first child as I didn't see enough benefits (and we couldn't offset the cost) when we had our second child.
    But we used http://www.cryosite.com/ (yeah its Australian)
    The (now Danish??) Princess used them for her children as well... if that means anything to you.

    One thing to remember, a Public storage means you have ZERO guarantee of getting YOUR bloody back when you request it...

    --
    "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
  92. Probably wasted money. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    IMO, you'd probably be wasting your money.

    First, the chance that you'll ever need a genetic therapy is small.

    Second, the science of making stem cells out of adult somatic cells is advancing, so most likely, if sombody who's a baby now ever needs gene therapy, they will probably be able to do it with stem cells from the adult patient.

  93. Lotus Birth by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

    CONCLUSIONS. Delayed cord clamping at birth increases neonatal mean venous hematocrit within a physiologic range. Neither significant differences nor harmful effects were observed among groups. Furthermore, this intervention seems to reduce the rate of neonatal anemia. This practice has been shown to be safe and should be implemented to increase neonatal iron storage at birth.

    source: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/4/e779

    For our son we picked "Lotus Birth": don't cut the cord at all but keep the child + placenta together for the time it takes. As for jaundice: it's common (as far as I know) for children to be a little "yellow" after birth. Exposure to a little sun light helps to break this down. Don't let your personal experience cloud your judgement, nor don't Google selectively.

    Also, co-sleeping is not as deadly as you tried to make out in your other reply: SIDS happens as often in a cot, and I don't see you panic about a cot. Also, don't mistake co-sleeping for falling drunk or drugged in bed on top of your child, or sleeping on the sofa. See also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/16/sudden-infant-death-syndrome-children?INTCMP=SRCH

  94. Re:Our experience by aiht · · Score: 1

    Our first child was born with Down syndrome and leukemia, unbeknownst to us until he was born. We store his cord blood with Cryo-cell - paid the upfront costs, OB collection fee and yearly storage fees. As a result of that experience, our second child's cord blood is being stored for us, in the event that our son should need it, with ViaCord - they took care of all fees. I like both companies. They were both professional and easy to deal with. Our good friends also use Cryo-cell. It's like buying insurance - you buy it and hope you never need it. I wish you the best of luck.

    Sorry, but are you saying that the stored blood for your first child actually helped with the leukemia and Down's syndrome? Because without that information, your anecdote isn't actually making a point.

  95. FUD by Dr.+Hok · · Score: 2

    We went through all the pros and cons of storing cord blood when our kids were born. Finally we decided against it. It looked too much like a rip-off. We felt that the companies that offered services make a big business out of people's fears. IIRC, it's highly unlikely that your kid will be in a condition to benefit from its stem cells. There was no public service at that time in Germany or I would have considered donating it.

    --
    Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
  96. Re:Drink it by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    You remind me of this one.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  97. Re:Drink it by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    So what's the easy way to eat toadstools?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  98. let the baby have it? by dotar · · Score: 1

    What do you think monkeys in the wild do? When humans d it, we call it "lotus birthing". Look it up. At birth, the placenta contains roughly a third of the baby's total blood, and for some reason (no medical reason other than tradition) we cut it off. The placenta falls off by itself reasonably quickly, after it has finished transferring its blood to the baby.

  99. Re:Drink it by Nimey · · Score: 1

    Don't!

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  100. three kids - not one valid donation by fonske · · Score: 1

    In Belgium we have a system of donating umbilical cord blood.
    This has the advantage of the simple fact that it is massively donated, screened and used.
    1) first baby not nearly enough blood was taken for valid donation
    2) next baby umbilical cord around neck so cord was cut with scissors in split second - blood splattering up the ceiling among splattering on other errr... things
    3) third baby again not enough blood for valid donation
    Just mentioning this to tune your expectations.

  101. do not store in private bank by urkam · · Score: 1

    Hi, Interestingly, there was an investigation about those banks in canada recently and here are the results : 1 - The blood quantity that are saved in private banks would save a child up to 10 kilograms (about 20-25 pounds), so, a child of about 18months. So it's totally useless to pre-pay for years. 2 - Public banks have HIGH conservation standards, lot higher than private banks.The problem with private banks is that you never know if it's a good one or a bad one. public banks have all the same quality standards. plus, most hospitals NEVER take blood from private banks because of random quality standards. if you can understand french, here is the investigation : http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/la_facture/2011-2012/Reportage.asp?idDoc=208988

  102. "Delayed" cord clamping by acslewis · · Score: 1

    It is probably more helpful to the baby if you let him or her have all of its blood after it's born. Some hopefully helpful info for you and your wife (and congratulations): http://midwifethinking.com/2011/02/10/cord-blood-collection-confessions-of-a-vampire-midwife/ http://thenonconformistmom.blogspot.com/2011/07/delayed-cord-clamping-whats-that.html

  103. Donate it, but it could remain available to you by jr0dy · · Score: 1

    I have heard it said that there are registries out there who will accept your donation and, if down the road your child may need it, will provide it back to you if it has not already been used (probably for a fee at that point would be my guess). Might be worth investigating donation policies.

    --
    I heart anarcho-capitalism.
  104. Don't worry about it. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Live your life. Let your kids live their life. It may turn out to be a curse. If they have it, they may be able to make you live *Forever*. You wouldn't want that, would you? Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

  105. Re:You have a child every 3 months? by orkysoft · · Score: 1

    Unless he has 3 wives.

    --

    I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  106. Papal indulgences.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I am always amazed that people technologically minded, and for this reason one would imagine, prone to use reason to reach important decisions, can fall so completely for something that is a scam the size of Vegas.

    This reminds me of the furore about vaccination and autism "based" on what clearly was spurious evidence, and even giving some credence to the evidence, minuscule odds against.

    People don't understand odds, probabilities and statistics, add to this a lack of understanding of basic epidemiological research, add mumbi jumbo that adds to precious little and you have a recipe for disaster.

    Don't pay for this please. There is no science backing such choice, at the moment it is all wishful thinking,

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.