The man with the golden blood
mosaicscience.com
The man with the golden blood
1–10 of 105 posts
Re: The man with the golden blood
#2What an interesting read! Thanks for sharing!
Re: The man with the golden blood
#3My brain is shutting down and I can't parse this phrase.
[1] "If you lack an antigen that 99 per cent of people in the world are positive for, then your blood is considered rare."
[2] "If you lack one that 99.99 per cent of people are positive for, then you have very rare blood."
Surely the author is saying the same thing here?
Re: The man with the golden blood
#4My brain is shutting down and I can't parse this phrase. [1] "If you lack an antigen that 99 per cent of people in the world are positive for, then your blood is considered rare." [2] "If you lack one that 99.99 per cent of people are positive for, then you have very rare blood." Surely the author is saying the same thing here?
They are just quantifying the terms rare and very rare.
Rare is 1 in 100, very rare is 1 in 10000.
Re: The man with the golden blood
#5My brain is shutting down and I can't parse this phrase. [1] "If you lack an antigen that 99 per cent of people in the world are positive for, then your blood is considered rare." [2] "If you lack one that 99.99 per cent of people are positive for, then you have very rare blood." Surely the author is saying the same thing here?
Defining different degrees:
[1] 1 in 100 --> rare
[2] 1 in 10,000 --> very rare
Re: The man with the golden blood
#6My brain is shutting down and I can't parse this phrase. [1] "If you lack an antigen that 99 per cent of people in the world are positive for, then your blood is considered rare." [2] "If you lack one that 99.99 per cent of people are positive for, then you have very rare blood." Surely the author is saying the same thing here?
number 2 has an extra .99 percent, so I guess in point 2, only 0.01 percent of people will have it (whatever IT is), vs 1 percent of people having the thing in point 1.
Re: The man with the golden blood
#7Really interesting situation, and very frustrating that none of the rare blood donors costs can be paid for by hospitals. Seems like there should be some loop hole to get them compensated.
Re: The man with the golden blood
#8My brain is shutting down and I can't parse this phrase. [1] "If you lack an antigen that 99 per cent of people in the world are positive for, then your blood is considered rare." [2] "If you lack one that 99.99 per cent of people are positive for, then you have very rare blood." Surely the author is saying the same thing here?
They're two different official categorizations.
"Rare" = 99 in 100 people have this antigen, while you do not.
"Very Rare" = 9999 in 10000 people have this antigen, while you do not.
That's all it says.
If you lack an antigen, but at least 1 in 100 other people also lack this antigen, then your blood is only of the "Rare" category. If you lack an antigen and you'd have to go through 10 000 other people to find someone else lacking this antigen, your blood qualifies for the illustrious title of "Very Rare".
Re: The man with the golden blood
#9i was half-expecting this to be about Dr. Kent Brantly (ebola survivor whose blood continues to be used for transfusions)
Re: The man with the golden blood
#10Fascinating article. I was only aware of the 4 major blood types plus Rh±, it's also inspiring the efforts people will make to help others.