Cord blood stem cell therapy without immune suppression?

The first scientific review of the rationale for the practical use of umbilical cord stem cells without the use of immune suppression was published in the Journal of Translational Medicine and it is freely available: “the authors propose that expanding the use of cord blood to non-preconditioned adult recipients for regenerative purposes would be a great step for the practical advancement of stem cell therapeutics. By overcoming allogeneic barriers in regenerative medicine, the fundamental limitations of autologous cell therapy may result in effective standardized “off-the-shelf” cellular products for regenerative therapeutics.” Source

The philosophical problems of life extension in post partitions

With this paragraph on blogging Merlin Mann of 43 Folders hit the nail on my head: “Remember that your blog is only incidentally a publishing system or a public website. At its heart, your blog represents the evolving expression of your most passionately held ideas. It’s a conversation you’re holding up with the world and with yourself — a place where you can watch your own thoughts take different shapes and occasionally surprise you with where they end up…”
Well, I started Pimm at May, 2006, mainly with excerpts from my philosophy MA thesis, called The philosophical problems of human biotechnology and regenerative medicine. This is in no way a system (I don’t believe in the utility of any philosophical system), or intended to be, but a series of problem centered arguments via thought experiments. Additionally, I don’t think and seriously doubt, that there is a One & Only philosophical viewpoint, position or ideology, which best fits the problems & prospects of indefinite life extension.
In the meantime as I got more and more immersed into stem cell research through my PhD years (what a Bildungsroman blog!), the profile of Pimm has changed in consonance with the applied strategy, which suggests the following: in order to make the idea of radical life extension acceptable, the scientific-technological basis of it must be disclosed, which is regenerative medicine in my opinion. It’s good to change the approaches here, one is a top-down, from philosophy (why?) to science (how?) and the other is the bottom-up from science to philosophy and ethics. And there is the constant problem and reality level of life extension in the middle with paths to the middle, bottom and top, i.e. the realities of the uprising biotechnology industry (when?). Here I collected the philosophical posts in one place:
What is (and is not) partial immortalization?
Why is partial immortalization theoretically and technologically possible?
The parameters of a partially immortalized individual
Why do we have the right to partially immortalize ourselves, if it is possible?
3 hypothetic cost stages of continuous regeneration treatment
Why it is not a Grenzsituation to participate in a continuous regeneration treatment?
Why is the moral problem of extending human lifespan is inevitable?
Are you immortalized? Never mind, you are still a moral person!
Moral, instrumental, human rights: framework for pimm philosophy
How to protect the right for pimm when the costs are extremely high?
Can partial immortalization be permissible to those who can buy it?