Talk:Cord blood

message: The current list is wildly inaccurate.  It lists diseases that might someday be treated with embryonic stem cells, not diseases that are treated cord blood cells.  Needs pruning. flux.books 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted the general discussion of potential pluripotent stem cell treatments.  It is off topic here, and extremely speculative.  It belongs elsewhere, if at all, and only with a suitable discussion of the state of investigation.  The implication of including it here is that pluripotent cells can be obtained from cord blood in therapeutic quantities (wholly speculative) and that pluripotent cells can be used to treat all of the listed diseases.
(Edit: changed 'cold blood' to 'cord blood', Jo JoBrodie (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Diseases treated

message: Doesn't this relate to autologous (planned) use only, and not to allogeneic?io_editor (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: most footnotes lead to sources that are bodies with interest in strengthening cord blood donations and banks. this is a major credibility problem in this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil.shabtai (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem with footnotes  

message: I came to this page after having a prospective fathers' lecture at a maternity hospital in Japan, where we were informed that cord blood banking is now routine in most Japanese hospitals. So I went to wiki to find out, out of interest. The first sentence that jumped out was "cord blood banking is controversial". This naturally scared me - and I discovered on further reading that it's not true. I've changed the offending sentence, but in general this article seems biased (a) towards the American debate and (b) a particular controversy. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private cord banking problems skewing the article 

message: I removed the following passage from the article Navel since it is not about the navel at all. It looks highly relevant to this article, however. I'll leave it to those more familiar with this article and its history to decide if and how to incorporate it.
:Recent research in 2009 suggests that cells extracted from a human baby's umbilical cord may dispense with the need for matching bone marrow transplants and rejection concerns. Umbilical cells do not trigger immune rejection, making it possible for these cells to be used in any patient. Researchers have been exploring ways of increasing the umbilical cell numbers - normal division by growth produces a large percentage of simple blood cells, which lack the ability to produce new cells. This problem has been overcome by using a "signalling pathway" in the stem cells to trigger an increase in numbers without losing their stem cell status. 
--Icarus (Hi!) 06:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info moved from Navel 

message: As far as I can see this intervention is looking at slowing the progression to full-blown Type 1 diabetes in someone who's been newly diagnosed with Type 1 and could still have a small reserve of beta cells (the cells in the pancreas that secrete insulin). I don't believe there's any evidence showing that this intervention is effective, or would be, in someone who's had Type 1 diabetes for some time though, so have added 'newly diagnosed' and also added the trial registration. The trial page links to a more recent 2009 paper which concludes "Autologous umbilical cord blood transfusion in children with type 1 diabetes is safe but has yet to demonstrate efficacy in preserving C-peptide. Larger randomized studies as well as 2-year postinfusion follow-up of this cohort are needed to determine whether autologous cord blood-based approaches can be used to slow the decline of endogenous insulin production in children with type 1 diabetes." JoBrodie (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type 1 diabetes 

message: 68.188.203.251 (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction of what is delayed clamping as opposed to natural cessation 

message: the following is unsourced - moved here per WP:PRESERVE:
Cord blood is stored by both public and private cord blood banks. Public cord blood banks store cord blood for the benefit of the general public, and most U.S. banks coordinate matching cord blood to patients through the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP). Private cord blood banks are usually for-profit organizations that store cord blood for the exclusive use of the donor or donor's relatives. Public cord blood banking is supported by the medical community. However, private cord blood banking is generally not recommended unless there is a family history of specific genetic diseases. New parents have the option of storing their newborn's cord blood at a private cord blood bank or donating it to a public cord blood bank. The cost of private cord blood banking is approximately $2000 for collection and approximately $125 per year for storage, as of 2007. Donation to a public cord blood bank is not possible everywhere, but availability is increasing. Several local cord blood banks across the United States are now accepting donations from within their own states. The cord blood bank will not charge the donor for the donation; the OB/GYN may still charge a collection fee, although many OB/GYNs choose to donate their time.
-- Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced