Child Safety Tips: As mercury goes up, so do safety risks for kids!

By picpoke.com

Yes, it is really getting hot out there this week!!!  Coming from Florida to DC last year, I thought “OK, so it will not get nearly as hot up here, or at least not as early in the summer.”  Yes, I was wrong.  This thought brought me to thinking about some of the fun things to do in the summer, but also the dangers for our little ones during this time if we are not extra careful.  Lo and behold, I found this article today, courtesy of the Dallas Morning News and reprinted by the Kansas City Star:

Emergency-room professionals have their own name for the long, lovely, lazy days that kids look forward to in summer: trauma season. Because that’s when hospitals see a spike in drownings and heat-related accidents.

The article discusses several myths and related facts associated with those myths.  Here are a few samples from the article:

MYTH: Pool parties are safe as long as adults are around.

FACT: Many drownings happen when adults are close by. The problem is too much commotion. The key is to have a designated adult watching the water because that is where the danger is. The pool should be free of excess toys that can block the view of the water.

MYTH: Floaties keep little ones safe in the water.

FACT: Floaties are designed for fun, not safety. They give a false sense of security, can deflate and can slip off.

MYTH: The kids will be fine in the pool for the short time it takes to answer the phone or get a cold drink.

FACT: In a minute, a child can go under water. In two or three minutes, the child can lose consciousness. In four or five, the child could suffer irreversible brain damage or die. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drowning is the second-leading cause of unintentional, injury-related death for children 1 to 14 years old, second only to car and transportation-related accidents.

The article states several other myths and facts, which include the hazards of leaving children unattended in cars and car seats, as well as sun exposure and dehydration.  We encourage you to read the article in its entirety.  Let’s all have a safe summer out there, please!!

A Social Networking Lesson for Parents: Think twice before you hit ‘send’!

It’s amazing how people continue to find new ways to get into trouble with social networking.

Photo by Davin Lesnick

Just a few years ago, a parent might get into trouble with his or her teenager by reading the teenager’s diary. Such domestic misdeeds seem almost quaint by comparison to what some parents are now doing on the Internet.

As reported by the ABA Journal and others, a mother in Arkansas has been convicted of harassing her own teenage son via the popular social networking site Facebook. While the mother and her teenage son had an admittedly difficult relationship before this (the teenager had lived with his grandmother for years), the teen never suspected that his mother would go to such lengths in her ongoing battle with him.

Denise New logged onto her son’s personal Facebook account after the teenager apparently left his account open on his computer. Perhaps many parents can appreciate the temptation of peering into their children’s online activities given such an opportunity. This mother, however, was not motivated by concern over her son’s well-being or even simple curiosity. Instead, Ms. New intended to post phony messages on his site purporting to come from him. For example, after the two got into a physical altercation and the police got involved, the mother posted a message on her son’s Facebook account (again pretending she was her son) essentially bragging that he had intentionally started the fight and called the police on his mother. Cell phone messages played in court corroborated that the mother was posting such phony messages. In other messages left on his site, the mother expressed regret at ever having a child and repeatedly used foul language. Putting all of this together, the court found that this conduct constituted harassment of the teenager. The mother was sentenced to 30 days in jail (suspended) along with probation and parenting classes.

As a reminder to all of us in this new world of social networking, the trial judge offered some sage advice:

“We live in a world now where what used to be said between two people or in a parking lot, now you hit a button and hundreds, maybe millions, of people can hear what you do,” he said. “It makes it maybe even more important for a person to think before they act because the amplification can be tremendous.” (Source: Arkansas Online)

Like it or not, we all now have the ability to broadcast information — even highly personal information — to the world.  Apparently, some of us are still struggling with deciding what information should be broadcast and what should be kept to ourselves.

Actor Dennis Quaid sues drug maker

Last month, we reported in a blog through our website, how actor Dennis Quaid is involved as a patient advocate, after his newborn twins nearly lost their lives back in 2007, from a medical error that could have very easily been prevented.  Put simply, the precious twins were given two doses of Heparin instead of Hep-lock (an anti-coagulant medication widely used for children).  Why is this significant?  Heparin is a drug one thousand times stronger than what the twins were supposed to have received.

Earlier this week, it was reported in the Contra Costa Times, that Mr. Quaid has filed a lawsuit on behalf of his children.  As far as the extent of his children’s injuries, the article states “The children suffered internal injuries and shock, but the extent of what happened to them will probably not be known for years, according to the suit.”  The lawsuit alleges that vials of the 10,000 unit Heparin should have been recalled previous to what happened to his children, because other infants had already died from similar medication errors.  The suit also claims that the company responsible for making the drug, Baxter Healthcare, “was obligated to warn healthcare providers of the previous medication mistakes.”

We wish the best for the Quaid family, and hope that the discovery in this case shines a light on not only finding out exactly what happened in this case, but also makes information available that may be able to save the lives of other children from future similar medical errors.  We will continue to monitor the course of this case.

Child Health: Labels Urged for Food That Can Choke

Earlier this year, we posted a blog on our website in regard to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy statement in regard to the prevention of choking among children.  Earlier this week, the New York Times featured an in-depth story on an issue that is very much a part of this policy statement:  food choking hazards among small children.  The article discusses the advocacy efforts to place warning labels on foods, which pose a choking hazard to small children, as well as the proposition that small children should not be allowed to eat certain foods at all.  The article starts with an all too familiar setting that ended in tragedy:

On a July afternoon in 2006, Patrick Hale microwaved a bag of popcorn for his two young children and sat down with them to watch television. When he got up to change the channel, he heard a strange noise behind him, and turned to see his 23-month-old daughter, Allison, turning purple and unable to breathe.

As a Marine, he was certified in CPR, but he could not dislodge the popcorn with blows to her back and finger swipes down her throat. He called 911, but it was too late: by the time Allison arrived at the hospital, her heart had stopped beating. An autopsy found that she had inhaled pieces of popcorn into her vocal cords, her bronchial tubes and a lung.

Does this story make you think twice before giving your little ones popcorn?  On a personal note, I called my wife immediately after reading this story, and we discussed the fact that we should no longer allow our son, who is now two and a half, to have any popcorn. Ironically, she was on her way to take him to a movie that was going to be serving….you guessed it, popcorn.

Now, some of you may say “Well, little kids can choke on anything.”  Well, that is true.  However, there are some foods that pose an increased risk of choking.  Consider the dynamics of how a small child eats, as well as the size of their airway:

Children under 4 are at the highest risk, not only because their airways are small (the back of a toddler’s throat narrows to the diameter of a straw) but also because of the way their eating abilities develop. Front teeth usually come in at 6 or 7 months — so babies can bite off a piece of food — but the first molars, which grind food down, do not arrive until about 15 months, and second molars around 26 months.

“Between the ages of 3 and 4, they’re developing their ability to chew adequately and prepare for swallowing,” said Dr. Nisha Kapadia, a pediatric resident at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center.

When young children chew foods like peanuts, raw carrots and popcorn, some is ground down and some is not, and they tend to swallow unchewed bits of food that can block the airway or be inhaled into the bronchial tubes and lungs.

This concern and the tragic deaths associated with this concern have prompted several organizations to propose various options to attempt to prevent these injuries and deaths.  One such organization is the Center for Science in the Public Interest:

Some advocates say the government should put hazardous foods off limits to young children.

“The F.D.A. needs to set a uniform standard for cautionary information on food that should not be consumed by children under 5,” said Bruce Silverglade, legal director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group that lobbied unsuccessfully in 2003 for a bill to require the Food and Drug Administration to develop food labeling regulations.

Where this debate will end up, we don’t know.  However, to think that in 2001 there were 17,500 children 14 years old and younger treated in emergency rooms for choking, with 60% of those events caused by food, there must be a way to create a safer environment for our children when they are eating.  Any suggestions?

UPDATE: AAP Compromise Statement on Female Genital Cutting – RETRACTED!

Please see UPDATE at end of article!

On April 26,2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a new policy statement seen by many as essentially advocating the practice in this country of female genital mutilation (FGM)[sometimes  this ‘tradition’ is referred to as female genital cutting (FGC) as well].  In pertinent part, the policy advocates for “federal and state laws [to] enable pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ‘ritual nick’,” such as pricking or minor incisions of girls’ clitorises.

Yes, I said this was issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics. How, in the world, you ask, could such an august body promote such a misogynistic practice?

For those who may not be familiar with this barbaric (you fill-in the other adjectives – the list is simply too long) ‘ritual,’ a recent online article by PRNewswire sets the chilling background of this controversy.

FGM is a harmful traditional practice that involves the partial or total removal of the female genitalia and is carried out across Africa, some countries in Asia and the Middle East, and by immigrants of practicing communities living around the world, including in Europe and the U.S.  It is estimated that up to 140 million women and girls around the world are affected by FGM.

Putting aside my personal opinions regarding the overall chauvinistic cultures of – to name a few – Africa, Asia and the Middle East, what would motivate any culture to engage in such a ritualistic practice?

In an NPR interview of Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University, Dena Davis, on May 14, 2010, Professor Davis,  a consultant to the AAP and the lead author of the policy statement, the ‘rationale of this ‘tradition’ is explained.

RAEBURN: Do you have a sense I’m just I can’t help but interrupt. Do you have a sense of why in these cultures, there may be different reasons, but why this is done or what is supposed to be the benefit of it?

Ms. DAVIS: Right, it’s a wide array of things. On a positive side, it’s seen as a growing-up ritual, as a celebration of ethnic or national identity. It became politically important as a response to colonization, for example, but it’s also done to remove sexual pleasure from women so that they can be controlled, to guarantee women’s virginity so that they are marriageable and to protect the family’s honor.

So just how did this ‘celebration of ethnic or national identity’ work its way to our shores? How did it conceivably become a part of a policy statement by the AAP?

Professor Davis offers the following explanation:

Ms. DAVIS: Well, I want to start by reiterating what you already said. The statement ends with four recommendations, and none of those mention this compromise. The recommendations are that the American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all forms of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, encourages its members to educate themselves about the practice, recommends that members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC and recommends compassionate education of the parents of patients.

Having said that, the controversial part, as you made mention, is a discussion toward the end of the possibility of pediatricians offering what would literally be a nick. And in the statement, we analogize it to ear piercing.

And the idea here was that we knew that some pediatricians in Seattle a number of years ago who had a good relationship with the Somali immigrant community around their hospital had been asked by mothers of girls for this kind of compromise. And they had gone down the road of – they’d had meetings with mothers and so on, and they were about to do that…

RAEBURN: So this was mothers from some of these cultures where this is practiced had suggested that…

Ms. DAVIS: Right, were Somali immigrant mothers.

RAEBURN: Okay, so it was their idea?

Ms. DAVIS: Well, I’m not sure whose idea it was, but they embraced it to the extent that they held off on doing something worse until the doctors could get set up to start offering this. But before that could happen, Congresswoman Pat Schroeder wrote to tell the hospital that it would be criminal under her new law that had recently passed in Congress.

The concern is that we know that in many cases, when pediatricians turn down parents, girls are taken back to Africa for the worst possible procedures done, you know, with no painkilling and no, you know, no infection control and extremely severe forms of these procedures where girls’ labia are scraped away, for example.

And there’s really that’s very difficult to stop…

The uproar from this AAP statement advocating a ‘compromise’ – ostensibly premised on the concept of the ‘lesser of two evils’ – comes from virtually every group in this nation.  One I quite frankly didn’t anticipate was posted by Jihad Watch: “[T]here are those four words of the Hippocratic oath that the American Academy of Pediatrics seems to have forgotten: First do no harm. And if it is supposed to be harmless, let the AAP doctors line up forthwith for their own “ritualized nick.” The comments to this posting by Jihad Watch, which refers to this practice as being “primarily enforced in Muslim countries, ” are also quite revealing. One person identified as ‘Ccoopen’ had this to say:

I’m not sure why this is listed under dhimmitude, considering that FGM is not Islamic. Sure, it is practiced by Muslims, but it is not a Muslim practice. It is a cultural practice which predates Islam by hundreds, if not thousands of years. In fact, the majority of practitioners in Africa are of the African Tribal religions, not Muslim. While it is a horrific practice, it doesn’t need to be tied to Islam since it has nothing to do with Islam, but with culture.

For those who have dedicated their life’s work to obtaining equality among the sexes, the AAP’s attempt at a ‘neutral’ statement of compromise has been vehemently rebuked:

“Encouraging pediatricians to perform FGM under the notion of ‘cultural sensitivity’ shows a shocking lack of understanding of a girl’s fundamental right to bodily integrity and equality,” says Taina Bien-Aime, executive director of the human rights organization Equality Now. “If foot-binding were still being carried out, would the AAP encourage pediatricians to execute a milder version of this practice?”(See “An End to Female Genital Cutting?”) See our source – Time online article.

In its online posting, Time, a partner of CNN, reports (as do many others) reports a legislative twist to the timing of the AAP’s policy statement:

On the same day the AAP published its new recommendation, the Girls Protection Act, which would make it illegal to take a minor outside the U.S. to seek female circumcision, was introduced in Congress. “I am sure the academy had only good intentions, but what their recommendation has done is only create confusion about whether FGM is acceptable in any form, and it is the wrong step forward on how best to protect young women and girls,” said one of the bill’s sponsors, New York Representative Joseph Crowley, speaking to the New York Times. Davis counters that such a law would be extremely difficult to enforce.

So where do you stand on the issue? Has the AAP done more harm than good? Is the ‘compromise simply dangerous folly or adoption of ‘the lesser evil’ for the safety and well-being of these children? You be the judge. Share with us and our community of readers your reaction.

_____________________________________________

UPDATE: in response to my posting this blog on Twitter, one person using the Twitter name kvetchingguru brought to my attention a posting which is a ‘call to action.’ It is entitled “Urgent Alert: Call on the American Academy of Pediatrics to retract their endorsement of Type IV FGM.” A form letter is made available and the names of the Executive Director/CEO of AAP, the Chair of AAP and the President and CEO of the American Board of Medical Specialties are provided.

As I wrote earlier today, this ‘endorsement’ in any fashion – call it ritual snip or piercing – has created a groundswell of reaction.

____________________________________________________

UPDATE: May 27, 2010

It appears that the uproar reported in this article has taken its toll.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has retracted its policy statement on female genital cutting after sparking controversy by apparently endorsing the illegal practice of “ritual nicks” to forestall more extensive mutilation.

“The AAP does not endorse the practice of offering a ‘clitoral nick,'” according to a new statement by the organization’s board of directors. “This minimal pinprick is forbidden under federal law, and the AAP does not recommend it to its members.”

The following from the AAP president about says it all:

In a new statement, AAP president Judith Palfrey, MD, of Harvard Medical School, clarified the academy’s position. “Our intention is not to endorse any form of female genital cutting or mutilation,” she said. “We retracted the policy because it is important that the world health community understands the AAP is totally opposed to all forms of female genital cutting, both here in the U.S. and anywhere in the world.”

The source for these quotes: medpagetoday

Product Safety Alert: Children’s Giraffe Blanket Recalled Due to Choking Hazard

Approximately 44,000 giraffe blankets have been recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), due to the balls on the top of the horns detaching, and posing a choking hazard to small children.  The giraffe blankets are sold exclusively at Target Stores.  The full details on the recall can be found by clicking here.  

The recall states that, thankfully, no injuries have been reported, as of this publication.  The product is imported by Rashti and Rashti out of New York, and details on the recall can be found on their website, as well.  As the CPSC recall notice states “Consumers should immediately take the recalled blankets away from children and contact Rashti & Rashti for a full refund.”

Even though no injuries have been reported, let’s keep it that way! Follow the recommendations even if your child may cry for a bit when you take away their ‘security blanket.’ A sad but safe child sure beats the alternative.

Infant Safety – drop-down crib hazard; CPSC issues recall

In February of this year, we reported on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) commitment to crack-down on the defective crib issues that have resulted in multiple deaths of infants on our blog site.  A report just released by the CPSC, which involves a comprehensive review of crib-related fatalities since January 2000 revealed the tragic statistics:  32 deaths since January 2000 and hundreds of related instances related to drop-side detachments in cribs:

In addition to the 32 deaths the CPSC staff associated with the drop-side detachments, CPSC has received an additional 14 reports of infant fatalities due to entrapment in cribs that could be related to a drop side. The information obtained was insufficient for staff to conclusively determine whether or not the drop side was involved. Of the 32 deaths that were analyzed, some occurred in cribs where the drop side detached without caregivers noticing the detachment, while some other deaths occurred after a consumer tried to repair the detached drop side, but the repair ultimately failed.

As a result, the CSPC is issuing a voluntary recall of ALL drop-side cribs, effective June 1, 2010. There will be new improved mandatory standards for cribs as well.  The CPSC announcement also provides cautions regarding older cribs and reminds parents to not use cribs with broken, missing of loose parts.

Let’s hope these new standards save infants from injuries and death!

McNeil Consumer Healthcare Announces Voluntary Recall of Certain OTC Infants’ and Children’s Products

Last week, the FDA and McNeil Consumer Healthcare launched a massive voluntary recall of certain medications for infants and children.  There is a dedicated McNeil website that addresses the recalls.  In addition, the FDA has published a press release that has some of the important information regarding the recall

The following is some basic information concerning the recall, as published by McNeil under the Product Recall Information:

McNeil Consumer Healthcare is initiating this voluntary recall because some of these products may not meet required quality standards. This recall is not being undertaken on the basis of adverse medical events. However, as a precautionary measure, parents and caregivers should not administer these products to their children. Some of the products included in the recall may contain a higher concentration of active ingredient than is specified; others may contain inactive ingredients that may not meet internal testing requirements; and others may contain tiny particles. While the potential for serious medical events is remote, the company advises consumers who have purchased these recalled products to discontinue use.

The investigation into these products, which include, but are not limited to, Infants’ and Children’s Tylenol and Motrin (Please click here for a complete listing) is ongoing.  The Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, states:  “While the potential for serious health problems is remote, Americans deserve medications that are safe, effective and of the highest quality. We are investigating the products and facilities associated with this recall and will provide updates as we learn more.”

We will continue to monitor this massive recall.  Please immediately check your homes for the recalled products. We strongly recommend that you read and follow the FDA’s instructions.

Facts You May Not Know, but Should!- Hidden Dangers of Trampolines

Well, it looks like it will be 80 plus degrees and sunny outside for the first weekend of May here in the Nation’s Capital.  This means lots of outdoor activities; pool parties, lawn games, playing in the park…some will even have trampolines on their property, with the neighborhood kids coming over to use them.  CBS News reports on some of the hidden dangers of trampolines, as posted in an article today:        

Last year alone, an estimated 98,000 people were treated in emergency rooms for trampoline related injuries. 82 percent of them were children under the age of 15.

Trampoline safety expert Marc Rabinoff, of Metropolitan State College of Denver, Colo., calls trampolines “quad machines” because they can turn you into a quadriplegic in four seconds.”

Warnings on trampolines say no flips, no jumpers younger than 6 and only one jumper at a time, but those warnings are often ignored. Koeppen pointed out videos from YouTube that show children jumping and falling from trampolines.

Rabinoff says people don’t realize trampolines are a danger in their backyard. Rabinoff demonstrated to Koeppen how jumping with more than one person can throw you off.

The article goes on to state that ‘safety nets’ placed around the trampoline can reduce accidents by up to 50%.  However, they are not required by law.  In addition, and take note – insurance companies may not necessarily cover trampoline accidents on their policies.  Coming from Florida last year, where I practiced plaintiff personal injury law, I can tell you that I was contacted on more than one occasion by families who had a loved one injured as a result of a trampoline accident.  Each time I would check the homeowner’s policy of the responsible homeowner, (if they even had homeowner’s insurance; some didn’t) there was the EXCLUSION for such accidents!  No coverage!

The article also suggests that trampoline owners should erect fences around their property, to prevent others from wandering on the property and injuring themselves on or around the trampoline.  I, for one, will not be allowing my first-born son on any trampoline anytime soon.  In this line of work, you really do get to see the worst of what can happen, when a chain of events causes something to go terribly wrong.  Why ask for trouble?

Cerebral Palsy: Cord Blood Stem Cell Research and Treatment in Clinical Trials – Update

For those of  you who follow our blogs, you know well that this is a topic of interest for us.  It bears repeating – our job as lawyers is to properly investigate potential claims of malpractice in areas such as cerebral palsy and seek redress for our clients when the evidence demonstrates a connection between birth injuries and medical care, but the much more important topic for our clients and victims of cerebral palsy is in the field of medical research. It is through research efforts – including clinical trials – that this dreaded condition will be ameliorated and hopefully eradicated. Trust me, after practicing law for over 35 years, I’m not worried about job security – the frailties of the human condition will more than suffice to fill our file cabinets with people to help due to the negligence of others.

We have reported previously on various topics involving cord blood and stem cell research as they relate to a number of conditions, including cerebral palsy.  It seems that months have passed since there has been any significant news about two programs underway: one at the Medical College of Georgia and the other at Duke.  Earlier this month, an update came across the social media network via a post by Singularity Hub – Cord Blood Stem Cell Treatment for Cerebral Palsy in Clinical Trial | Singularity Hub.

Here’s our encapsulated version regarding the studies and Singularity Hub’s report.

Photo provided by MSNBC

Duke University

According to the website ClincalTrials.gov, Duke began a clinical therapeutic trial – identifier: NCT00593242 – in January 2008 (estimated completion date of January 2011) whose primary purpose is listed as treatment of newborns with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) – inadequate oxygenation in the perinatal period for purposes of this study – through the controlled “collection, preparation and infusion of a baby’s own (autologous) umbilical cord blood in the first 14 days after birth if the baby is born with signs of brain injury.” For information concerning the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participation in this clinical trial, see the online posting. Essentially, the babies are then to be “followed for neurodevelopmental outcome at 4 – 6 and 9 – 12 months at Duke’s Special Infant Care Clinic. MRI’s will be obtained between postnatal weeks 1 and 4, and, for study purposes at 4 – 6 postnatal months.”

While other aspects of processing and administration are no doubt part of the key components of this project, it is readily apparent that the end-point goal is discovery of an effective treatment of cerebral palsy for the identified neonates in the study and then development of a second stage clinical trial to take such treatment modality to a greater number of potential beneficiaries.

Medical College of Georgia

For detailed information on this study, which began in February of this year, similar information is available through ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT01072370.  This clinical trial investigation has a patient population consisting of children from ages of 2 to 12, “whose parents have saved their infant’s cord blood, who have non-progressive motor disability, and whose parents intend to have a cord blood infusion.”  Again – for full details regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria, see the full online posting.

For those parents who may be interested in determining if their child would qualify to participate, the study is still recruiting participants.  The contact information is also available at this link: Contact: James E Carroll, M.D.     706-721-3371     jcarroll@mcg.edu

Today’s report from Singularity Hub provides some encouraging – albeit anecdotal – news of potential progress.

The anecdotal evidence in support of treating cerebral palsy with cord blood stem cells is astounding. Much of it has actually been been performed at Duke University by one of the investigators in the pilot study: Joanne Kurtzberg. Among those that have been successfully treated at Duke include Ryan Schneider, Maia Friedlander, Chloe Levine, and Dallas Hextell. All had CP or CP-like symptoms and all made remarkable recoveries after cord blood stem cell treatments. Dallas Hextell, who showed improvements just 5 days after his therapy was featured on the Today show (the original report contains video compliments of MSNBC).

In addition to the early good news coming out of these projects, one other lesson is learned – for the time being, the storage of cord blood is an important component for those hoping to participate in such studies – particularly that being conducted at the Medical College of Georgia.  We have earlier reported on this topic as well.  You may want to refer to our early posting for some basic information if you are interested.

Obviously, the implications – if these projects prove to be successful – are far-reaching. The enthusiasm of the participants in these research projects is not limited to them alone. The words of the author, Aaron Saenz, from Singularity Hub somewhat tells it all:

So we have some exciting news for cerebral palsy, and some exciting news for those thinking about cord blood. What about the rest of us? Well the MCG and Duke work has some far reaching implications. Neurological damage, whether it’s caused by oxygen deprivation or some other injury, is one of the most difficult things to heal in the body. Work in animals (like that done by Carroll on rats) show that stem cells can not only help damaged brain cells recover, but they can also replace cells that have died. We may find that stem cells therapies have a wide range of applications for many different forms of brain damage. Kurtzberg is researching many different ways cord blood could be used (autologous or through donors) to treat a variety of conditions. In other words, today stem cells conquer cerebral palsy…tomorrow, the world.

Let’s all hope that Mr. Saenz is a prophet.