The human body's ability to adapt is amazing...

[Stoid]

I heard this story from a very good friend a very long time ago.

She had a neighbor, an elderly man, who had made it habit for decades to donate blood on a regular basis. I think it was every 6 weeks. He made the donation without fail, it was just part of his life's routine.

Well, there came a time when the blood bank told him they didn't think he should continue to donate any more because of his age, and after all...decades? He'd done more than his part!

A little more than six weeks after his last donation, he began to feel ill. I don't remember the details of his illness, what the symptoms were, only that he was definitely uncomfortable.

And I also don't remember how long it took to figure out what was wrong, but I remember very well what it was: he had too much blood! His body had so thoroughly adapted to his regular donation that it "assumed" he would be losing a pint of blood at the regular time and produced an extra pint to replace it!

Amazing.

And of course, he went back to his routine!

[Ferret Herder]

I'm wondering, is there a chance that what he actually had was hemochromatosis (http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/hemochromatosis/), or excess iron in the blood? The best way to treat it is to take blood out. If this isn't done, you develop symptoms like joint pain and fatigue. A friend of mine developed it, and was feeling like complete hell until it was diagnosed.

[Eats_Crayons]

I'm wondering, is there a chance that what he actually had was hemochromatosis (http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/hemochromatosis/), or excess iron in the blood?IIRC, at least here in Canada, I don't believe they use donations from people with hemochromatosis. The blood collected for bloodletting is discarded. Routine testing that they would have done to his blood post-donation, one would think, would have raised a red flag if the guy had been donating for decades.

Edit: It seem that the NIH has actually concluded such blood is safe for donating. So perhaps the ban has been lifted after all.

[needscoffee]

This comes across as one of the dopiest stories I've ever heard.

[Philster]

When I read the OP, I think that the problem was that the human body was not adapting.

You can't give it credit for taking decades to adapt without criticizing its inability to adapt more quickly.

.

[lorene]

IIRC, at least here in Canada, I don't believe they use donations from people with hemochromatosis. The blood collected for bloodletting is discarded. Routine testing that they would have done to his blood post-donation, one would think, would have raised a red flag if the guy had been donating for decades.

Edit: It seem that the NIH has actually concluded such blood is safe for donating. So perhaps the ban has been lifted after all.

Not where I am (Massachusetts). My husband has hemochromatosis and goes for routine phlebotomy. They have told him that they cannot use his blood.

[Mahaloth]

We need Cecil to answer if this is possible.

[Stoid]

When I read the OP, I think that the problem was that the human body was not adapting.

You can't give it credit for taking decades to adapt without criticizing its inability to adapt more quickly.

.


I'm just amazed that it adapted to regularly losing blood at all, and if he had no problem stopping his donations, it would indicate that his body had made no adaptation of any kind.

[Telemark]

I'm just amazed that it adapted to regularly losing blood at all, and if he had no problem stopping his donations, it would indicate that his body had made no adaptation of any kind.
I'm pretty suspicious of the story to begin with. Is there any evidence that the story is true, or even possible?

[Ferret Herder]

Because of the probable age of the story, I'm suspecting a misstatement of hemochromatosis. It's possible that batch-testing of donated blood didn't turn up that one had a tad too much iron accumulated, and that after he didn't donate for a while and felt like crap, he was tested and diagnosed. The chain of retellings in the story (diagnosing doctor telling an elderly man, who at some point tells a neighbor, who an unknown period later tells Stoid, who a long time later tells us) could easily transmute it from "your blood cells accumulate too much iron, and we only found out after you stopped donating and thus reducing the buildup" to "he built up too much blood because his body was used to donating."

[Stoid]

Except that "you have too much iron in your blood" isn't a very interesting story to tell anyone in the first place.

[Stoid]

Yes, it's certainly possible - there's a disorder called Polycythemia, and it would seem that this man's regular donations triggered his own version of it.

In this variant, there is uncontrolled production of mature red cells leading to an increase in the red cell mass, resulting in abnormally high hematocrit (Hct) and hemoglobin (Hg). This causes an increase in blood volume and viscosity which can lead to complications involving thrombosis, eg heart attack, strokes, or other clotting or bleeding episodes, if not controlled.

[Freudian Slit]

Except that "you have too much iron in your blood" isn't a very interesting story to tell anyone in the first place.


Maybe the guy just misunderstood what the doctor told him. Or he told someone else who misunderstood and thought it was a more interesting story than it was.

[Ferret Herder]

The only reason I know that my friend has hemochromatosis is - tada, he told me. He found it interesting to learn why he was exhausted and what a novel and simple treatment it had.

I know I'd find it interesting if I was donating blood for years and only later learned that my generosity had unknowingly been making me feel normal for god knows how long.

[Telemark]

Yes, it's certainly possible - there's a disorder called Polycythemia, and it would seem that this man's regular donations triggered his own version of it.
Is there any evidence that this particular path to Polycythemia has ever been recorded before? Yes, there is a disorder caused by too many red blood cells, and it's theoretically possible that this gentleman had it, but so far we only have a FOAF story and no medical evidence that blood donation can cause the disorder.

You've provided some good evidence, but I remain unconvinced that you established a connection. I would rephrase your statement to "We now must try to establish a connection between the blood donation and the Polycythemia, if that is in fact what the gentleman had."

[Freudian Slit]

Yeah, I don't really see how we can know that his donations triggered it. Couldn't it just have been a coincidence (that is, even assuming he had that disorder)?

[mikews99]

This story (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dwyre-20101124,0,3813454.column) may be the person the OP is referring to. Please note that the person the article profiles had his hemochromatosis diagnosed 35 years ago, which fits with "a very long time ago" as the OP states.

[Telemark]

This story (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dwyre-20101124,0,3813454.column) may be the person the OP is referring to. Please note that the person the article profiles had his hemochromatosis diagnosed 35 years ago, which fits with "a very long time ago" as the OP states.

Great find. If this is the origin of the story you'll note that the person's body didn't adapt in any way; it was just a coincidence that he was doing the treatment for his disease all along.

[Stoid]

Is there any evidence that this particular path to Polycythemia has ever been recorded before? Yes, there is a disorder caused by too many red blood cells, and it's theoretically possible that this gentleman had it, but so far we only have a FOAF story and no medical evidence that blood donation can cause the disorder.

You've provided some good evidence, but I remain unconvinced that you established a connection. I would rephrase your statement to "We now must try to establish a connection between the blood donation and the Polycythemia, if that is in fact what the gentleman had."

All I did was point out that the body is known to be capable of producing excess blood in the presence of the correct amount of blood because someone else said "is it even POSSIBLE?" - hence answering that question in the affirmative.

I did not claim that the man my friend knew had that disease, I was merely pointing out that the disease and what happened to the man resulted in the same thing: excess blood.

I also told a story told to me by a woman I was very close to who was not in the habit of making things up or getting her facts wrong, and she was told the story by the person who experienced it personally (Here in Los Angeles, by the way, not Milwaukee - the Hollywood Hills, specifically, and it happened prior to 1983, which is when my friend died.) It was an interesting story and there is no reason not to believe it is a true one.

Good lord.

[Shmendrik]

A little more than six weeks after his last donation, he began to feel ill. I don't remember the details of his illness, what the symptoms were, only that he was definitely uncomfortable.

And I also don't remember how long it took to figure out what was wrong, but I remember very well what it was: he had too much blood! His body had so thoroughly adapted to his regular donation that it "assumed" he would be losing a pint of blood at the regular time and produced an extra pint to replace it!


I think this is why people are finding the story hard to accept at face value. Homeostatic mechanisms generally can't work by anticipating a change which hasn't happened yet.

[Telemark]

It was an interesting story and there is no reason not to believe it is a true one.
Actually, there are many reasons to believe it is not a true story, namely that human bodies in general do not adapt like that. It may be true, but by default I would lean towards a mistake by your friend or a misunderstanding of what happened. It's hard to accept the story at face value because it's contrary to our knowledge of the human body.

[Stoid]

Actually, there are many reasons to believe it is not a true story, namely that human bodies in general do not adapt like that.... It's hard to accept the story at face value because it's contrary to our knowledge of the human body.

Adapt like what? What knowledge do we have that precludes this from happening? Specifically? Because I didn't run across any studies or other information indicating that this had ever been tested or studied, so on what basis would you say that? Don't people adapt to all kinds of conditions? It's not like I said he sprouted wings and flew.

[Freudian Slit]

Adapt like what? What knowledge do we have that precludes this from happening? Specifically? Because I didn't run across any studies or other information indicating that this had ever been tested or studied, so on what basis would you say that? Don't people adapt to all kinds of conditions? It's not like I said he sprouted wings and flew.

Not to be presumptuous, but well...are you a doctor, or in the medical field? If so, I apologize, but if not, are you really going to expect to come across every related case or study?

[Stoid]

Not to be presumptuous, but well...are you a doctor, or in the medical field? If so, I apologize, but if not, are you really going to expect to come across every related case or study?

Huh?


I'm not the one saying that 'we know" XYZ, I think that should be directed at the people who are.

[Freudian Slit]

I'm saying that just because you haven't run across other studies saying that this disorder/condition has ever been studied doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Crawlspace]

I heard this story from a very good friend a very long time ago.

She had a neighbor, an elderly man, who had made it habit for decades to donate blood on a regular basis. I think it was every 6 weeks. He made the donation without fail, it was just part of his life's routine.

Well, there came a time when the blood bank told him they didn't think he should continue to donate any more because of his age, and after all...decades? He'd done more than his part!

A little more than six weeks after his last donation, he began to feel ill. I don't remember the details of his illness, what the symptoms were, only that he was definitely uncomfortable.

And I also don't remember how long it took to figure out what was wrong, but I remember very well what it was: he had too much blood! His body had so thoroughly adapted to his regular donation that it "assumed" he would be losing a pint of blood at the regular time and produced an extra pint to replace it!

Amazing.

And of course, he went back to his routine!I'm curious as to why this very old story that you can't remember any of the details to has you suddenly amazed at the body's ability to adapt.

And for the record, it's complete bull. The body doesn't decide to pump out an extra pint of blood (or anything for that matter) in anticipation of a rush like a candy corn factory at Halloween.

It's a cute story, but it has no basis in medical fact.

[Peeta Mellark]

I cannot for the life of me find reference to it, but I swear this is an urban legend I've heard before. The moral of "it's amazing what a body can adapt to!" and "it happened to a friend of a friend" just fits so perfectly. I haven't been able to find it on Snopes yet, though.

[Stoid]

I'm curious as to why this very old story that you can't remember any of the details to has you suddenly amazed at the body's ability to adapt.
.

I never forgot the story, I just felt like sharing it the other day.

And you have no idea what is complete bull or not, unless you have knowledge of someone conducting research on it - I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't.

I get the impression that a lot of people hang out with a lot of other people who habitually lie. Or"invent" or "embellish" or whatever you like.

How unfortunate for you. I don't hang out with such people and I am not such a person myself. I remember the key aspects of the story and have for all these years because it was a fascinating story. (Key aspects: voluntary donation on a regular, predictable basis for decades. Stopped due to age, became ill due to excess blood production, returned to donating)

If it had been a story about a man with a disease, it would not have been a story at all.

[mittu]

I was told a story by a science teacher when I was at high school about a scientist (I seem to recall it was someone famous, though I don't remember who it was) who took to wearing prism glasses that would invert light before it entered his eye, thus making the image in his retina the right way up. He coped with day to day life for some period of time (a few weeks I think) and then he woke up one morning to find that his vision was normal, his brain had adapted to his upside down world and inverted the image. He took the prism glasses off and hey presto, everything was upside down again.

I'm not sure if the story is true but it would be another example of the human body adapting to unusual circumstances.

[Freudian Slit]

It's not so much that people lie as they're gullible and ignorant. I've heard people tell the "guard dog choking on a robber's finger" story or the Jamie Lee Curtis is intersex story in all truthfulness. They just don't know better.

[Peeta Mellark]

I was told a story by a science teacher when I was at high school about a scientist (I seem to recall it was someone famous, though I don't remember who it was) who took to wearing prism glasses that would invert light before it entered his eye, thus making the image in his retina the right way up. He coped with day to day life for some period of time (a few weeks I think) and then he woke up one morning to find that his vision was normal, his brain had adapted to his upside down world and inverted the image. He took the prism glasses off and hey presto, everything was upside down again.

There was an experiment by Dr. George Stratton along those lines. His results don't match what you describe, though. His vision remained upside down the entire time he wore the lenses. As soon as he took the glasses off his vision was normal. PDF here: http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~nava/courses/psych_and_brain/pdfs/Stratton_1896.pdf

[Crawlspace]

And you have no idea what is complete bull or not, unless you have knowledge of someone conducting research on it - I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't.I've just conducted research on the matter. My conclusion is that loss of blood on a regular basis does not create a hyper-hematopoietic state upon sudden secession of blood loss, a state which can only be cured by blood letting. My sample size is every woman who has ever lived.

[guizot]

It's not so much that people lie as they're gullible and ignorant. I've heard people tell the "guard dog choking on a robber's finger" story or the Jamie Lee Curtis is intersex story in all truthfulness. They just don't know better.In any case, this story here carries the faint but distinct odor of glurge. You can't blame people around here for being skeptical.

[needscoffee]

The numerous exclamation points didn't help anything.

[Stoid]

I've just conducted research on the matter. My conclusion is that loss of blood on a regular basis does not create a hyper-hematopoietic state upon sudden secession of blood loss, a state which can only be cured by blood letting. My sample size is every woman who has ever lived.

Oh dear... you mean we've been losing a pint of blood directly from our circulatory system's supply all at once inside a couple of hours on a monthly basis?

Holy moly!

They told me we were just taking 2-4 days to shed the two tablespoons of bloody tissue that our bodies built up inside our uterus' the month before!

Dammit! I hate when that happens!

[Freudian Slit]

In any case, this story here carries the faint but distinct odor of glurge. You can't blame people around here for being skeptical.

Oh, definitely. I was just responding to Stoid's claim that her friends wouldn't lie. It does have a very glurgy aftertaste.

[E-Sabbath]

This comes across as one of the dopiest stories I've ever heard.

I see what you did there.

[Stoid]

Oh, definitely. I was just responding to Stoid's claim that her friends wouldn't lie. It does have a very glurgy aftertaste.

Are your friends are a bunch of liars who make things up to talk about? Ew.

[Freudian Slit]

Are your friends are a bunch of liars who make things up to talk about? Ew.

:confused: No. I didn't even say your friends were lying. They could be mistaken. Look at all the people who spout off the crap they hear on snopes or who forward on stupid e-mail chain letters. They're not maliciously spreading information to be jerks (mostly)--they just hear something and without questioning it, spread it on.

Dude, the motto of this board is fighting ignorance. Are you really surprised that you posted something and people are responding with skepticism? What are we supposed to say? Your friends are nice, awesome people and thus, whatever you hear from them must be true?

[Stoid]

Dude, the motto of this board is fighting ignorance. Are you really surprised that you posted something and people are responding with skepticism? What are we supposed to say? Your friends are nice, awesome people and thus, whatever you hear from them must be true?


My friend was a 50 year old college-educated woman who told me this about her neighbor in 1983.

That's not the same as people sending stupid emails around.

[Miller]

I've gotten tons of glurgey, easily debunked emails from college educated, middle-aged men and women. (Although not, to the best of my recollection, in 1983.) I don't think education, much less age, is any guarantee against misinformation or misunderstanding.

[Elendil's Heir]

Especially if the story lends itself to exclamation points!!!!!

ISTR that the Red Cross standard is at least 56 days between blood donations. I used to go and give every two months, regular as clockwork, until I finally - much to my surprise - was borderline anemic, and had to take iron supplements for a couple of weeks. My doctor suggested I give every three months, instead.

[guizot]

Especially if the story lends itself to exclamation points!!!!!

ISTR that the Red Cross standard is at least 56 days between blood donations. I used to go and give every two months, regular as clockwork, until I finally - much to my surprise - was borderline anemic, and had to take iron supplements for a couple of weeks...Well then what's wrong with your body? It was supposed to adapt.

[Stoid]

I've gotten tons of glurgey, easily debunked emails from college educated, middle-aged men and women. (Although not, to the best of my recollection, in 1983.) I don't think education, much less age, is any guarantee against misinformation or misunderstanding.

I've gotten those emails too. And they aren't personally related stories about people personally known, whether now or then. They are stupid emails.

[Telemark]

My friend was a 50 year old college-educated woman who told me this about her neighbor in 1983.

That's not the same as people sending stupid emails around.

Actually, it pretty much is, just without the email. No one is doubting that your friends are nice people and weren't intentionally deceiving you. But as anyone who has read up on urban legends knows, this is how they start and propagate.

It's just pretty unlikely that they got the details right. Not impossible, but you need more than a story to make any kind of conclusion about human adaptability.

[Freudian Slit]

I've gotten those emails too. And they aren't personally related stories about people personally known, whether now or then. They are stupid emails.

And I'm sure the people who first started those emails thought that their friends were totally trustworthy, too. You've been here long enough to know that "A friend of a friend" isn't going to cut it. If a college educated friend told you that Jamie Lee Curtis had ambiguous genitalia or that a disgruntled Munchkin can be seen hanging himself in the Wizard of Oz, you wouldn't believe that either. This isn't any different.

[Stoid]

And I'm sure the people who first started those emails thought that their friends were totally trustworthy, too. You've been here long enough to know that "A friend of a friend" isn't going to cut it. If a college educated friend told you that Jamie Lee Curtis had ambiguous genitalia or that a disgruntled Munchkin can be seen hanging himself in the Wizard of Oz, you wouldn't believe that either. This isn't any different.


Yes it is. My friend doesn't know Jamie Lee Curtis. She personally knew the man she told me about.

And until someone can demonstrate an actual basis for the skepticism, something medical that shows that this isn't possible, I think it's bizarre and rude to continue to argue with me about my friend's veracity. She wasn't the sort of person who talked about random shit she "heard somewhere", not even close. She was 50 years old, born and raised in Ireland, wealthy, extremely well-educated, intelligent and articulate, and very old fashioned in many ways. Believe me, if you knew her, you wouldn't for a second question either her understanding of what she had been told, or the truth and accuracy of what she was telling you, ok?

If in fact it's not possible (again, good luck finding THAT study) then the explanation isn't that she heard it wrong or told it wrong, it would most likely be that her neighbor left out the part where he's got that disease in the same way as the person in the story. But we'll never know until someone does such a study, since both he and my friend are long dead.

Jesus.

[Miller]

I've gotten those emails too. And they aren't personally related stories about people personally known, whether now or then. They are stupid emails.

You are aware that the phenomenon of urban legends long predates the existence of the personal computer, let alone e-mail? People have been passing on dubious second hand stories since time immemorial, and their date of birth, wealth, education, nation of origin, ability to talk purty, or the relative age of their fashion, have never been shown to be a barrier to transmission. Fuck, I doubt that there's a single person in this thread who hasn't told a story that was, in its particulars, incorrect, either because they garbled it themselves, or it was garbled before they heard it. This is not an imputation of dishonesty, it is simply an inescapable facet of the human condition: we are not perfect recorders of information. We forget, conflate, and re-invent "facts" on an almost constant basis, not out of intent, but as a by-product of the way our minds work.

I once knew a guy who was a clean-cut, upstanding, painfully decent fellow with a PhD in Chemistry. He told me, straight-out, that he'd once seen a copy of the unabridged version of A Princess Bride, by S. Morgenstern, at his college library. Problem is, I know for a fact that there is no such book - the book A Princess Bride was written and conceived entirely by William Goldman, including the conceit that he was simply editing an older version of a book he'd read as a child. There was never an S. Morgenstern, or any older version of Goldman's book before Goldman himself wrote it. My friend wasn't lying to me, nor was he stupid or (generally) ignorant. He was simply mistaken about something he'd thought he'd seen.

It's also worth noting that the person you're describing as being so impeachable isn't the actual source of the story. Even if we grant to her the ability to perfectly recall a story she heard several years earlier with perfect fidelity (an ability, incidentally, that would be literally super-human) the story still could be incorrect due to any number of other factors: the person she heard it from might have misunderstood what his doctors told him. The doctors themselves might have misdiagnosed him - even if we assume competence, this happened decades ago, and medical science has advanced significantly since then. And, of course, we're not hearing it directly from your unimpeachable friend - we're hearing it from you, several years after you first heard it, and you may be misremembering the details yourself. Or, for that matter, you may not be as good a judge of character as you like to think. Which I say not with the intent to slam you, but simply to point out that you are as human as the rest of us, and are as vulnerable to making these sorts of mistakes as anyone else. And as such, it is important to be mindful of these sorts of mistakes when hearing an anecdotal story that makes some unlikely claims.

Which, lastly, leads us to the idea that, if one cannot scientifically debunk a particular story, they are obligated to accept it as true. I do not think this is a wise way to plot your course through life. The idea that this person's body had acclimated itself to regular blood loss by producing a heightened amount of blood seems very unlikely. I'm not aware of any mechanism in the body which would allow this story to be true - but I am, admittedly, not a doctor. At the very least, it seems to fly in the face of stories I've heard from other people who have donated blood regularly, and had the opposite reaction: they became anemic, and were forced to step down the frequency of their donations. None of which is proof positive that this story could not have happened as you relate, of course, but it is enough to warrant skepticism over the anecdote absent any sort of evidence that such a reaction is possible.

Which, I think, is entirely appropriate for a board that claims "fighting ignorance" as it's primary function.

[Freudian Slit]

Yes it is. My friend doesn't know Jamie Lee Curtis. She personally knew the man she told me about.

My university educated English teacher who repeated to my class the, "Dog choking on a burglar's fingers" story claimed to have known someone it actually happened to (despite snopes.com showing no record of it ever actually occurring). And others have given many explanations--the man misunderstood what his doctor told him, or the woman misunderstood what he told her. Or maybe you misunderstood. Like a game of Telephone where the message gets a bit more garbled on each subsequent retelling. It doesn't mean someone was maliciously lying.

And until someone can demonstrate an actual basis for the skepticism, something medical that shows that this isn't possible, I think it's bizarre and rude to continue to argue with me about my friend's veracity. She wasn't the sort of person who talked about random shit she "heard somewhere", not even close. She was 50 years old, born and raised in Ireland, wealthy, extremely well-educated, intelligent and articulate, and very old fashioned in many ways. Believe me, if you knew her, you wouldn't for a second question either her understanding of what she had been told, or the truth and accuracy of what she was telling you, ok?

But you've been on this board for a while. This isn't the kind of place where we just say, hey, that's awesome unless we hear otherwise. I'll say it again--it has NOTHING to do with how honest your friend is. It's just not the way things work on this board. We tend to question just about everything under the sun. And besides that, we don't know your friend. How honest she is has no bearing on the conversation. Citing facts or examples of such a disorder would help.

Anyway, if a medical doctor does decide to comment on this thread (paging Qadgop, please!), that would be great. But it just seems strange that you accept that we take this--or anything--at face value until someone proves it wrong.

[Stoid]

Anyway, if a medical doctor does decide to comment on this thread (paging Qadgop, please!), that would be great. But it just seems strange that you accept that we take this--or anything--at face value until someone proves it wrong.

In MPSIMS, I do expect that you at least keep your skepticism polite and restrained, as opposed to making it a point to aggressively disregard it as goo, yes.

[Miller]

My university educated English teacher who repeated to my class the, "Dog choking on a burglar's fingers" story claimed to have known someone it actually happened to (despite snopes.com showing no record of it ever actually occurring).

In college, I had an astronomy teacher repeat the "water goes clockwise down the drain in the Northern hemisphere" canard, too.

In MPSIMS, I do expect that you at least keep your skepticism polite and restrained, as opposed to making it a point to aggressively disregard it as goo, yes.

I don't think this accurately reflects any of the posts made to this thread.

[Stoid]

The examples being given of how this story could be bullshit are all of rumors and old wives tales that lots of people have heard. This doesn't qualify as that. I've never heard it anywhere else ever, and neither has anyone in this thread. That makes it fundamentally different from email myths and urban legends.

And since no one has backed the skepticism with anything factual that undermines the possibility of the story being accurate, and I have in fact provided a bit of information showing that the body can produce excess blood, if not for the reason given in this story, I think the story is ahead of the skepticism.

[Telemark]

And since no one has backed the skepticism with anything factual that undermines the possibility of the story being accurate, and I have in fact provided a bit of information showing that the body can produce excess blood, if not for the reason given in this story, I think the story is ahead of the skepticism.
You are welcome to believe that, but I think you are putting way too much emphasis on your personal relationship with the person who told you the story. It fits the pattern of all urban legends so far, and IMO the fact that there is a condition where the human body can produce too much blood isn't much of a support for this story.

[needscoffee]

The examples being given of how this story could be bullshit are all of rumors and old wives tales that lots of people have heard. This doesn't qualify as that. I've never heard it anywhere else ever, and neither has anyone in this thread. That makes it fundamentally different from email myths and urban legends.That's just silly.

[Stoid]

You are welcome to believe that, but I think you are putting way too much emphasis on your personal relationship with the person who told you the story. It fits the pattern of all urban legends so far, and IMO the fact that there is a condition where the human body can produce too much blood isn't much of a support for this story.


What pattern is that? It certainly doesn't fit the pattern of being any kind of urban legend, seeing as how this is the only time anyone in this thread ever heard of it, which kinda makes any notion of calling it an "urban legend" a stretch.

So please identify the "pattern" that it "fits".


As for support, there's more for the story (person who told it, fact that condition can occur) than against it (crickets...)

(And my emphasis is on the person, the time, and the circumstances, not our relationship. )

[Crawlspace]

And since no one has backed the skepticism with anything factual that undermines the possibility of the story being accurate, and I have in fact provided a bit of information showing that the body can produce excess blood, if not for the reason given in this story, I think the story is ahead of the skepticism.

. . . . .

As for support, there's more for the story (person who told it, fact that condition can occur) than against it (crickets...)You've presented an incomplete story that is impossible to falsify. You have provided no data: none of this man's symptoms, signs, lab test results, or even a cogent explanation of the etiology of his diagnosis to indicate that, even if true, this excess blood was due to a pathological adaptation of hematopoiesis caused by routine blood donation and not a astounding coincidence of good Samaritan and a potentially lethal blood disorder.

The sole supporting factors for this story are that the storyteller was reliable and that such a condition can exist. As to the former, I have no reason to believe your friend was deliberately trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. However, even intelligent and honest of people have been know to get their facts confused when relating stories involving medicine. My relatives do all the time. This, unfortunately, can be even more true when the facts are coming from the sick and/or elderly.

As to the later, yes, a condition called polycythemia vera does it exists. It results from mutation in a JAK kinase, that causes erythroid precursors to become hypersensitive to erythropoietin, the hormone that regulates RBC production. However, this is a constitutively active mutation that results in constant over production of RBCs, not sporadic flurries of activity occurring at 6 week intervals. It's also a pathology. I'll state that again. It's pathological. It is not a fantastic way for the body to adapt to anything. It is a disease that has a high degree of morbidity and mortality. It's also on the Red Cross's deferred list.

This brings us to the facts going against the story. First of all, there is absolutely no known mechanism whereby this type physiological adaptation can occur. I don't know how to phrase that any more simply. There is simply no evidence that our homeostatic mechanisms are able to adapt to such temporally separated stimuli. If such evidence were to come about, as in if this story were true, it would sure to be written up and published in some medical journal, studied further, and the results of that study used to alter donation guidelines so that it doesn't happen any more beause, once again, such a state is pathological not adaptive.

Second of all, the symptomatic phase of polycythemia, if it manifests any symptoms at all, is at a RBC count that is almost twice normal, not a mere 500mLs worth of blood.

Finally, if the story were true the ending would have been much different. He would not simply have resumed his donation routine and lived happily ever after. As stated above, he likely would have been deferred from donating at all. More to the point, the end would have more realistically read: "His doctor realized that due to the patients age and elevated hematocrit, this man was in grave jeopardy of having a stroke, transient ischemic attack, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction etc. and immediately admitted him to the hospital, pumped him full of anticoagulants, and worked to bring his RBCs down to normal levels.

You're free to believe what ever you like, but just like I don't need to search the deepest darkest reaches of the Amazon to know that unicorns don't exist, I don't need to read about or run a decades long study with adequate sample size to know that this story is at best a gross misunderstanding of what actually happened.

And while IANAD, I am well on my way to becoming one.

[Stoid]

Very well done, Crawlspace.

Too bad you didn't start with this instead of completely undermining your credibility by offering up menstruation as the proof that this doesn't happen.

[Miller]

Very well done, Crawlspace.

Too bad you didn't start with this instead of completely undermining your credibility by offering up menstruation as the proof that this doesn't happen.

I don't think you really understand how this "credibility" thing works.

[Stoid]

I don't think you really understand how this "credibility" thing works.

Right back atcha.

[Telemark]

Right back atcha.
Just checking, based on the post above, do you still think that the story you related is likely to be true? If not, what changed your mind?

[Jackmannii]

The story related in the OP rings false to me too.

For one thing (as another poster noted) in the U.S. you can only donate blood every 56 days (http://www.givelife2.org/donor/faq.asp), not six weeks as in the alleged case of the elderly man.

I have never heard of and can find no cases reported of symptomatic increased red blood cell mass (i.e. reactive polycythemia) as a result of regular blood donation that is halted. Long-term effects of blood donation have been studied without confirmation of any significant negative (or positive) health effects; the one cited in the OP hasn't even come up on the radar screen.

What seems possible is that the elderly man had undiagnosed hemochromatosis which only came to light once he stopped regularly donating blood (a treatment for the condition). Not as dramatic as "Omigod, his regular blood donations turned him into a Blood-Donating Zombie For Life!!!"

I have two problems with the FOAF-style tale related in the OP. Passing along an undocumented story like this might tend to discourage people from regularly donating blood, if they think it could force them to do it for life.

Secondly, it once again illustrates a mindset that keeps popping up here on the Dope despite repeated attempts to drive a stake through its heart. A poster brings up a dubious story or proposition. Others express skepticism and cite their reasons. The original poster glosses over or ignores the objections and triumphantly says "You haven't proved me wrong!".

With tales like this, it's the obligation of the claimant to show that they are correct, and once again that has not happened here.

Jackmannii M.D. (whose training included blood banking and hematology).

[guizot]

Even without the input of the doctor, we have two stories here to consider: We have the OP, and we have Elendir's Heir (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13287077&postcount=42), which present two very different scenarios. Moreover, the OP's story is second-hand. Nevertheless, it is implying that the condition of the elderly gentleman neighbor of the OP's oh-so-very-honest-never-would-ever-enhance-a-tail friend represents some kind of general nature of the human body. After all, that's the title of the thread. So even if the elderly gentleman's case were an undiagnosed disease, the apparent claim of the OP is askew. I'd go with the first hand information case of Elendir's Heir as a the body's natural tendency.

[rekkah]

And until someone can demonstrate an actual basis for the skepticism, something medical that shows that this isn't possible, I think it's bizarre and rude to continue to argue with me about my friend's veracity. She wasn't the sort of person who talked about random shit she "heard somewhere", not even close. She was 50 years old, born and raised in Ireland, wealthy, extremely well-educated, intelligent and articulate, and very old fashioned in many ways. Believe me, if you knew her, you wouldn't for a second question either her understanding of what she had been told, or the truth and accuracy of what she was telling you, ok?

I'm not a doctor, but I do work in a medical field. I cannot count the number of educated, inelligent, trustworthy people who have recounted very confused tales of medical matters to me. Unless you have some background in medicine, it is very easy to get the wrong end of the stick, especially as doctors and nurses often have limited time to convey very complicated information and sometimes fail to realise how little their patients are understanding.

Crawlspace mentioned homeostasis upthread. That's the process by which human biology regulates a huge number of of processes, including haemoglobin levels. What happens is that the body has a setpoint and tries to keep the haemoglobin at that level. If the level goes too low (say after a blood donation), more of a hormone called erythropoetin is produced, and that in turn causes more red blood cells to be made. If the level gets a bit too high, erythropoetin production gets turned down and fewer red blood cells get made.

If homeostasis was working correctly for your FOAF, it doesn't matter how regularly he'd donated blood, or for how long, if his haemoglobin levels got too high, his body should have slowed up producing red blood cells until it got back to the normal level.

It seems very plausible to me that he had undiagnosed haemochromatosis. Iron levels build up slowly and it's usually gets diagnosed when people are in their forties. If he had regularly donated blood from well before then, his levels of iron wouldn't have built up and his lab results would have been normal or near to normal. Genetic testing could have shown it, but there would have been no reason for anyone to suspect it, so no reason to do the genetic test.

It also seems possible he had developed polycythaemia, but I think it's less likely than him co-incidentally developing the disease, but having it masked by his regular blood donations. However if he did develop it because of the donations, frankly I'd still see it as a failure of homeostasis and therefore an example of a human body actually being worse than usual at adapting to a situation.