You may have heard about the Cells4Life ASA ruling on some claims we make in our marketing materials. Specifically, the claim that our TotiCyte processing method preserves 3 times more stem cells than our competitor’s systems. This claim is based on extensive comparative testing of TotiCyte’s performance against the machines our competitors use.
The ASA have upheld a complaint by our competitors on a technicality. Simply, as we do not have access to our competitors’ exact laboratory procedures, the ASA contends that we cannot be completely assured that our data is representative of the results our competitors may achieve.
Whilst we have accepted the Cells4Life ASA ruling, and updated our marketing materials accordingly, we continue to fundamentally disagree with their rationale and stand by our data. We purchased all of the processing machines used by our competitors and they were installed and serviced by the manufacturers. From a biological viewpoint, we believe it is highly improbable that our competitors could have altered fully automated and semi-automated cord blood processing systems in such a way as to achieve significantly better results than those we presented.
It is worth noting that our competitors did not provide their own data to support their Cells4Life ASA complaint and rested solely on this technicality when making their case.
The ASA has indicated that they would be inclined to accept our data once it has been subject to peer review. This process has been set into motion and we anticipate being able to revert to our previous claims regarding the relative performance of TotiCyte very shortly.
Why won’t our competitors publish their data?
If our competitors truly believe that the results they achieve are better than those that we presented, why do they not publish their data?
Surely, this would be the simplest, most expedient and transparent way to resolve this dispute. If it is true that TotiCyte does not perform 3 times better than their systems, we can see no downside for them in doing so. Further, it would be in the best interest of potential clients, who are looking to take an informed decision as to which company will enable them to make the most of their child’s cord blood.
To date, we are the only company that gives you full disclosure on the kind of result you can expect to achieve when you choose one of our services after a sample has been processed, frozen and then thawed ready for therapy.
BBC Inside Out on delayed cord clamping
The BBC Inside Out piece is completely unrelated to the marketing of TotiCyte. The BBC found an old blog on a third-party website that used an outdated definition of delayed cord clamping as at least 30 seconds from delivery of the baby. Cells4Life agreed that the third-party website was incorrect and immediately requested that the third-party update the definition. It was a very small error that was fixed as soon as it was found.
Our record on delayed cord clamping speaks for itself, we have always been a huge advocate of parents’ right to choose and have invested both in marketing and financial terms to help midwives raise awareness about the benefits of delayed cord clamping and its compatibility with cord blood banking.
During this investigation, the BBC did find that one of our competitors may be misleading expectant parents, by encouraging them to clamp the cord early to collect as much blood as possible.
