[pkukp9]

Why would it be quackery? This is a pain point that my family faced. My brothers cerebral palsy was an unforeseen circumstance due to a near drowning accident. The odds of that happening are unpredictable, but it did happen and my family wished as a result that we had cord blood stem cells.

Annualized rate of 370 goes for 8 years but covers 20 years of storage. Others with 125/year - at the end of 20 years - amounts to more

[laserlight]

What are the odds that stem cell treatment proves successful for people like your brother? And in case it is successful, do patients return to full health?

This service seems like an insurance to me. In case of an unfortunate event, you are covered. People are right to question the efficacy of stem cell treatments. Unless treatments are effective, it’s not worth paying for.

I’m also interested to learn the answer to this question GP asked:

> What percent of people who have banked cord blood who are not explicitly susceptible to specific genetic disorders known to utilize them for treatments have ever ended up using it?

[pkukp9]

In the case of my brother there was quite a bit of evidence surrounding cord blood improving motor and social skills. I linked a Duke article on it in another comment

The percent of people who have banked cord blood who are not explicitly susceptible to specific genetic disorders is unknown. It would be a compounded probability of freak accidents occurring, sports injuries, other diseases ie certain cancers, environmental issues, etc

[laserlight]

I understand that patients don't return to full health. Here's the study [0] that the article [1] reports.

> The percent of people who have banked cord blood who are not explicitly susceptible to specific genetic disorders is unknown.

Makes sense. I wonder what percent of people suffer from conditions that could be treated by the service offered by Anja Health.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29080265/

[1] https://pediatrics.duke.edu/news/umbilical-cord-blood-improv...

[koolba]

> Why would it be quackery? This is a pain point that my family faced. My brothers cerebral palsy was an unforeseen circumstance due to a near drowning accident. The odds of that happening are unpredictable, but it did happen and my family wished as a result that we had cord blood stem cells.

Do you have any evidence that the treatment would have cured your brother? Wishing for a miracle treatment is something anyone with a child or sibling would do. That doesn't mean it would have done anything.

Do you have stats on the number of such incidents that occur annually and how many of them may be solved with such a treatment? Wouldn't that be part of your market analysis?

Do you have stats on the number of people who would not be able to get the same treatment from a public bank? The ones that offer this service for free and add it to a general pool for anybody that it could benefit. The bi-racial angle is interesting and maybe that changes the statistics, but without real numbers it's more hand waving quackery.

Do you currently or plan to ever provide kickbacks, either directly or indirectly, to doctors to promote or advertise your services? That's a massive conflict of interest and the coord blood industry is particularly dirty: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cord-blood-banking-...

I have a very dim view of medical services that are directly advertised to consumers. This type of "product" simply preys on the fears of parents-to-be by pitching it as either a cure for some statistically insignificant risk, or even worse, a "theoretical" cure for unknown diseases that might be developed from it in the future.

And any industry that compensates medical providers to promote its services is inherently corrupt as it's violating the sanctity of the relationship between a doctor and patient.

> Annualized rate of 370 goes for 8 years but covers 20 years of storage. Others with 125/year - at the end of 20 years - amounts to more

Based on what math are you cheaper? Your offering is clearly more expensive.

At an interest rate of 0%, the total expenditure is 8 x $370 = $2960 v.s. 20 x $125 = $2500.

At an interest rate of 4%, the net present value (NPV) is $2491 v.s. $1698.

At an interest rate of 7%, the net present value (NPV) is $2209 v.s. $1324.

At an interest rate of 10%, the net present value (NPV) is $1973 v.s. $1064.

In every situation the competitor is less expensive. The higher the interest rate, the larger the discrepancy.

Plus your prices being front loaded means that customers lose the option of canceling after the 8th year. All the money has already paid. It's worse in every way.

[Didimommy]

Furthermore, ask a CP child who was crawling before the cord blood transplant to walking after the transplant even if he was not 100% cured of CP if it was worth it. Ask a child who could not raise the spoon to feed herself before the transplant to able to do so after if it was worth it. Ask a parent of a CP child who could not jump before the transplant to be able to participate in birthday party jumpers if it was worth it. These was written before by Dr. Joann Kurtzberg at Duke University that did the trials. I would not want to be the one who’s words could potentially damage the chance of a family’s possibility. I applaud Anja for making this possible for all income types.

[Didimommy]

Like I said, you forgot to mention that the bigger player charge upfront fee of around $1000, some at $1500, not just the annual fee. Second, ask thousand of families who benefitted from cord blood, to them, it is 100% chance of using.

[pkukp9]

Evidence that it would’ve helped my brother: https://pediatrics.duke.edu/news/umbilical-cord-blood-improv... Evidence that people of color have a harder time finding a match: https://www.cancer.net/blog/2021-03/why-bone-marrow-registry... Using interest rates and comparing old prices isn’t the comparison I was using to illustrate that we’re cheaper. I was using current cord blood banks’ prices. Cord blood banks in the US.

[pksebben]

This is a whole lot of noise over a medical thing that costs less than $3k. I can hardly remember a medical bill under $3k.

and where are you getting ten percent on anything?

[Grustaf]

That's the silliest argument I've ever heard. If this is not helpful, then clearly it's a bad idea for low income families to spend 3k on it. They could spend it on something that actually helps. If it's quackery, the false hope it provides is evil in itself. And if they are paying kickbacks to doctors, then clearly it harms the patients' trust in doctors, as mentioned.

As to 10%, the average returns from S&P 500, since 1957 when it was formed, is 10.5%, so 10% is pretty much what you'd expect if you put the money in stocks. Especially over a longer term like 20 years.