Talk:Blood type

Argentinian blood stats

The reference for this data is a page written in Spanish, which unfortunately I can't read, but does anyone think that there's something wrong with the statistics on blood types in Argentina? I'm not an expert, but ABO genes and Rhesus genes are independently assorted, so you'd expect that to be reflected in the percentages of each type. So for example, Denmark's population has 35% O+ and 6% O- blood compared to 37% A+ and 7% A- blood, so the per-centages of O and A types that are Rhesus negative are 14.6 and 18.9 respectively, and the difference may well be exaggerated by rounding. In Argentina's case we have 85.4 & 8.4 and 34.26 & 0.44%, ie 8.95% are negative if they're O types compared to 1.27% of A types.Umbl (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at the reference again and jammed it through an online translator, it looks like a careless misuse of data. The numbers given for O-, A-, B- and AB- are in fact all the per-centages of Rhesus D negative for a sample of Argentians, but the 4 are noting how it combines with Rhesus C/c and E/e antigens - nothing to do with the ABO groups at all. These number have then, logically, been subtracted off the overall values for the ABO groups to give the O+, A+, B+ and AB+ figures. So all the Argentinian figures are wrong. Since the reference does give the overall % for O, A, B and AB, and the overall % for Rhesus D negative (9.1%), I think I'll correct the table with figures assuming idealised independent assortment, as this will be much closer to the truth than is on there now. A better reference will need to be found.Umbl (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

O (oh) vs 0 (zero)

It appears that there is some national variation in the usage of O (oh) vs 0 (zero). According to ABO blood group system#Nomenclature in Europe and former USSR, "parts of Europe the "O" in ABO blood type is substituted with "0" (zero), signifying the lack of A or B antigen." However, looking at the references, it appears that O (oh) is the dominant term in English text. If there is a question, the WP:ENGVAR policy states a preference for "retaining the existing variety". This article started using the O (oh) and appears to have used that term for most of its history. I'm therefor reversing [recent edits] and restoring the prior nomenclature. (Other editors have undone some of these changes already.) -- Tcncv (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The 0 (zero) variation is also acknowledged in the ABO blood group system section of this article. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph states: "People who are blood type A will have Anti-B antibodies, blood type B will have Anti-A antibodies, blood type O will have both Anti-A and Anti-B antibodies, and blood type AB will have neither. ". This contradicts the diagram at the top of the page for the types O and AB. juglugs (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't contradict it...it corresponds exactly to the diagram. Perhaps you've misread it, or mixed up antigens with antibodies? - Nunh-huh 10:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The first diagram asserts that people with type A red blood cells have anti-B antibodies. If a type A person has never been exposed to type B blood, why would they have any anti-B antibodies ?Eregli bob (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is explained in the article in the section titled "ABO and Rh blood grouping". After birth an infant's gut becomes colonized with normal flora that express A-like and B-like antigens, causing the immune system to make antibodies to the antigens that the infant's red blood cells do not express- Nunh-huh 21:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

African stats

How about adding some stats about African countries to the chart (130.111.251.42 (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

If you can find links to some reliable stats, go for it. Umbl (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe there are not good stats on African countries--there are hospitals, there are doctors and researchers, there are patients, there is bloodJenglish20 (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

sometimes its more a manner of "is there enough money to do the study, and then, to report it in a way that others can access" :-) Fuzbaby (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Added South-Africa to the blood type's Shaiesto (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The

The second paragraph states: It is well know throughout the world that A positive group members are the best, followed by th A negatives then B and AB groups which leaves the O groups which is obviously the shittest, quote a really smart scientist guy.

Am I wrong that this kind of 'information' does not belong to wikipedia? Can anyone with more experience in wikipedia articles editing look into it and possibly remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.231.83 (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Blood type/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

1. The "Serology", "ABO and Rh blood grouping", "Rhesus blood group system", most of the "Blood transfusion", "Blood products", and "Plasma compatibility" sections are unsourced.
2. The "Cultural beliefs" section needs some cleanup. The brief sentences should be merged together or expanded to improve the flow. The inline citations should go directly after the punctuation to match the rest of the article. The citation needed tag also needs to be addressed.
3. There is some excessive bolding throughout the article. Only the name of the article in the lead needs to be bolded. If there's a style guideline that conflicts with this, let me know.
4. There are several dead links. They may be able to be resurrected by the Internet Archive.
5. The inline citations need to be cleaned up to include more details than just the title. Also include author, date, publisher, access date, etc. Consider using the citation templates at WP:CITET.

This article covers the topic well and has an excellent source of free images. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Delisted

The article has been on hold for a week and only a few of the minor issues were addressed. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. Once they are addressed, please renominate the article at WP:GAN. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Section 8 is biased

The last sentence of the section "Cultural beliefs and pseudoscience" is very biased, with insufficient citations to back up its strong opinion. "exploited for profit the lay public's knowledge about serotypes" is a biased statement, derived from one writer's opinion (according to the citation). I suggest more information on the possible correlation between serotype and diet be added to this article, as well as a non-biased rewrite of the aforementioned sentence. --Kangabell (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no more "information on the possible correlation between serotype and diet" to be added, because there is no such correlation. I suppose there are more items that could be added, but they probably belong in an article on irrational beliefs about blood types rather than this one. Here are some pertinent references, if anyone cares to find a place for them.

The Nazis made use of blood types to further their racist agenda, insisting that types A and O were superior, and B was inferior. In 1927 the Japanese government, seeking to breed better soldiers, adopted the theory of the superiority of certain blood types. In 1937 it was urged that Japan should appoint only men with "superior" blood type O to the diplomatic corps. This scientifically baseless course of action did not result in Japanese victory in World War II, and the blood type craze faded. It was revived in the 1970s by broadcaster Masahiko Nomi, becoming immensely popular. Japanese are routinely discriminated against on the basis of blood type, to such an extent that a word was coined specifically for such "blood-type harassment": bura-hara - Nunh-huh 03:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is no information on the correlation between serotype and diet, then why is it even mentioned? Perhaps this: "Western self-help books authors have exploited for profit the lay public's knowledge about serotypes to make unsubstantiated pseudoscientific claims that people of different blood types would benefit from different diets.[66] It is not known whether a blood type affects personality" should be removed altogether. --Kangabell (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned so we can educate our readers that it is known whether blood type affects personality: it doesn't, despite disreputable claims to the contrary. - Nunh-huh 12:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nunh-huh on this. The fascinating references below demonstrate both the prevalence and the potential nastiness of this particular superstition. At least in the US it hasnt affected people beyond a silly diet fad. alteripse (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"...[I]t doesn't, despite disreputable claims to the contrary." Is there evidence for this? I'm not eager to agree with Nazis or Japanese imperialists, but the mere fact that they said something doesn't automatically make it wrong. Nor does the fact that a belief could inspire injustice make it automatically untrue. If we're going to educate readers that "it doesn't," shouldn't there at least be a scientific study to that effect? The absence of scientific evidence either way doesn't prove that a correlation can't exist.0nullbinary0 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I found at least a couple of studies that looked and found no psychological correlations when I looked at the links and references for this very article. You could do the same and add them in. alteripse (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is "no evidence" of any dietary link to blood type because no one in the medical or nutritional academic establishment has EVER studied the question in a scientific fashion, probably because it would be politically incorrect and professionally self-defeating to do so. The key point is that no scientific research has either proven or dis-proven these theories. The theory of loose dietary correlation relates to a much larger but also scientifically undocumented (so far) theory linking genetic makeup and dietary differences. The reference at the end of this section is a weblink to one M.D.'s self-published opinion piece that reads more like a book review and is mostly meant to promote universal vegetarianism (god bless, I am a vegetarian). This is hardly evidence of a groundswell of skepticism although I expect that many "professionals" like him with some type of vested interest will naturally express skepticism. Agree with writers above that this section fails the neutrality test, and inserted small changes trying to strike a more neutral tone. Jrgilb (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's up to those who make scientific claims to do so on the basis of empirical evidence; that blood type diet advocates don't have evidence but make the claims anyway makes them pseudoscientific claims. Extraordinary claims aren't "true until disproven": it's up to those making the claims to support them with the appropriate studies. - Nunh-huh 06:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nunh-huh, the word "pseudoscience" is NOT a synonym for "scientifically unproven." Rather, the label of "pseudoscience" is inherently pejorative and connotes the absence of testability as required by the scientific method. The THEORY of dietary linkage to blood type has certainly not been proven, but it very likely IS testable if a credible nutritional scientist could ever muster the courage and take the career risk to conduct such tests. The fact that no one has tried before now does not make the theory untestable, and it does not make this particular theory "pseudoscience." This topic is another example of a comparatively "new" theory being shouted down by others who have a vested interest in preserving the conventional wisdom on which they have based their life's work. Worse yet, for this very reason, the early advocates of such theories (like Mr. D'Adamo) tend to exaggerate and oversell them, so the sympathetic publications do come off sounding faddish and unscientific. None of which negates the theory in question. It would be quite unfortunate if Wiki cannot serve as a neutral reference source on such "emerging" disciplines simply because certain skeptics would summarily delete an entire article because they do not agree with it, or because the advocates of such theories would use Wiki as a platform for naked boosterism. In this section, the word "pseudoscience" is anything but neutral, and the word "many" is also unsupported. : )) Jrgilb (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Article with similar topic

The article refers to Human blood group systems to list the currently acknowledged blood group systems by ISBT. However, this linked article Human blood group systems has many errors and does not contribute much else to the topic that has not been explained much better here in Blood type. Therefore, I would like to ask the question whether it was not better to include this table of currently 30 blood group systems here and link 'Human blood group systems' to this article here. What do you think? --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rh blood group system

As mentioned above, this article here looks very good. With the target to bring this article back to the GA with some updates and corrections, I started reading through more closely. I realized that RhD has been used thru the article to refer to the D antigen of the Rh blood group system (see ISBT table). Although this is used colloquially very often, it does not reflect the standardized terminology of the blood group systems (see ISBT tables). One may use Rh D (with space) or only D antigen to refer to the D antigen of the Rh blood group system. Furthermore, there is no Rhesus blood group system although very often the Rh system is called this way. This is another misnomer that may be mentioned in the article but should not be used generally (see again official terminology). --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In the table showing distribution of ABO blood types and Rh factors, in some cases adding the corresponding Rh+ and Rh- percentages for each ABO blood type rounds to a whole percent. This indicates the Rh+ and Rh- distributions were calculated rather than measured in the original sample. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtaniwaki (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Plasma compatibility

My question concerns the table in the section Plasma compatibility. Isn't the right version the one shown in this revision of the article? Both the text and the diagram seem to indicate that the compatibilities are exactly opposite to those of the red blood cells. But frankly I don't know a lot about this topic, so if someone could confirm (or not) and make the appropriate changes. Thanks. AurélieM ^Hi! 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Thank you for the comment. The pictures are correct, the plasma compatibility table was wrong in the recent version. I corrected this table for the new version. The reason for this opposite correlation is that the blood group is defined by the cells (also for the plasma for consistency). Therefore, O plasma has antibodies against A and B, called anti-A and anti-B while AB plasma has no antibodies against A or B. Therefore, AB plasma can be given to all ABO types while O plasma can be given only to people with blood group O. This is in contrast to the red cells. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would add that we have what appears to be a contradiction: "individuals of blood group O can receive plasma from any blood group; and type O plasma can be used only by type O recipients." Yet in Blood cell compatibility we have: "Therefore, a group O individual can receive blood only from a group O individual, but can donate blood to individuals of any ABO blood group" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.52.96.11 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The charts are wrong. Type O is the universal donor, AB the universal recipient. See lots of charts here: http://www.google.nl/search?q=blood+donor+recipient+chart&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=jAxZT-ihLpL98QO0tqTkDg&biw=768&bih=928&sei=jwxZT-XCF8Gz8QOUmIjvDg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eur (talk • contribs) 19:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Blood type "Z"

I was reading on Y! Answers and I read something about a Z type blood. Does it even exist? Anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.199.177 (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the official terminology list, there is currently no blood group system and no blood group antigen known as "Z". However, there is a phenotype in Rh system, which is called R_Z and another way to refer to the combination of Rh (D), C and E antigens (CDE haplotype). But who knows what comes in the future. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

BLAH BLAH BLAH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.147.96 (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 :-) just seen this comment now. It would probably ask for more brain cells to contribute in a more verbose and distinguished way, wouldn't it? --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Blood Type Evolution

I have zero knowledge on this subject but have heard some wild claims to the effect that certain blood types are the result of alien engineering, etc. Despite the fabulousness of such claims, I think a Darwinian perspective on the evolution of blood types would not be uninteresting to the lay reader, as well as some insights into their biological significance, if any. I understand research is most likely ongoing. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why Isn't China In the Totals List

China has about 3 billion people. Why isn't this nation in the results of blood type totals?

Prevalence of B+ in Russia?

It seems hard to believe that the percentage of people in Russia with blood type B+ accounts for 80% of the population, is this an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.84.27 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly wrong, as the B allele isn't even that common. I don't read Russian; I wonder if someone has confused the number of ethnically Russian Russians (which is about 80%) with a blood type. In any case, I'll comment it out in the article and perhaps someone can chase down a correct figure. - Nunh-huh 09:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Can one sell their blood?

I have donated my blood and was wonder about a few things.. first of all one of my clients had to have a kidney surgery, she was billed twenty thousand dollars for three pints of blood... It is the same type that I have. That was just for the blood, storage and carrying process. My friends daughter has the same type and sells her platelets. She lives in Wyoming. Is their a market that could help me acquire some money. Times are a struggle for me and I just want to know is there somewhere I can find out if it would be a service that I could offer and I sure could use some financial help at this time... I have heard that their is a market for my blood type... It is in the RHnegative arena. L M Horstman

Hmmm, well in my country all medical expenses are covered by the government, so all blood is effectively free. Therefore, the sale/purchase of blood really wouldn't work here. I think it's sad that your country makes you pay 20 grand for 3 pints of blood.Davez621 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been in blood banking (donor) for the past fifteen years. Federal law prohibits monetary payment of any kind for blood or blood components which are intended for use as a transfusable (in other words to be given to a human). There are however plasma donation centers where "industrial plasma" is collected and the donors are "compensated for there time". This plasma is used for a myriad of things such as the production of testing solutions and reagents for testing equipment, cosmetics and shampoo (if you have ever used "high protein shampoo" that's where the protein comes from. The primary reason you won't get paid for your blood at a true donor center is that you will be asked a series of questions in a screening process and some are rather personal and considered to be high risk inquiries. If a donor is being paid they have an incentive to not be completely honest with their answers. This has been policy since the discovery of HIV and the various types of viruses that cause Hepatitis.

Blood groups and disease

doi:10.1182/blood-2010-01-261859 is a general review looking at the association between blood groups and particular diseases. I'm confident that it can be useful here. JFW | T@lk 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong Stats

The current Hong Kong SAR statistics only add up to 70% or so - must be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.8.105 (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

positive and negative

what exactly does + / - mean after the standard A,B,O,AB signify and does it affect matching? Bloodkith (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The + or - indicates status with regard to the Rh_blood_group_system; see that article for its importance in transfusions. - Nunh-huh 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible trollism?

This sentence is more than strange. "Despite the claims of people such as Dani Volk and the chart below, O+ is the universal blood donor type." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.82.107 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

News

I posted this link so technical writers can use it in this article. I'm not an expert in this area, so it's better if some one else use the link. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blood Mystery Solved: Two New Blood Types Identified, Science Daily, February 23, 2012.

The actual letters are behind a paywall:

• Null alleles of ABCG2 encoding the breast cancer resistance protein define the new blood group system Junior
• ABCB6 is dispensable for erythropoiesis and specifies the new blood group system Langereis

- Nunh-huh 02:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)