[_gmnw]

We're expecting our second here in a few months, and from my research it's really expensive and most folks would be better off donating. I feel like banks feed too much off of peoples fears instead of the better good. What are the odds of someone needing their own cord blood vs. it being a publicly accessible thing? It feels like donating blood to a bank to store it for myself in case I ever need it.

Again, it's an exciting field with a lot of really good outcomes, but it kind of plays into the whole, "what if something happens to your kid fear" to sell it to people, instead of thinking about all the other kids that you could be saving.

[pkukp9]

Congrats!! Donating can definitely be positive, but I think in a perfect world everyone has access to their own stem cells. Chances of survival are higher if you use a genetically related donor for a stem cell treatment. Beyond that, I'm a firm believer in the fact that if someone has access to these stem cells, they will use it at some point in life. Even if someone spends their whole life being healthy, they could be used for dementia/whatever old age brings. In the US, this is not quite as popular, but in other countries, people use stem cells in the same way they use botox - for anti-aging purposes. It could potentially be used for that down the line too.

Plus, standards for donations are very high. Some donations are rejected, so if you try to donate and it's rejected, then nobody wins :(

As for the fear mongering-related marketing, we do our very best to stay away from that, but truthfully it's a necessary thought when it comes to positioning a preventative care product.

[pkukp9]

Standards for donations meaning volume, certain history of disease, etc.