Nonetheless, you said you would vote against making the observation even “if it happens to be true”. So even if it is a scientifically established observation, we should pretend.
I think it’s kind of silly myself, if for no other reason that we cannot really address a problem if we won’t admit it exists. Plus what I said earlier - no one will take your opinion on what will or won’t improve a school seriously if you are that deep into denial.
It is rarely a productive approach to a problem to start pretending things about it.
Alas, MrDibble failed to understand the correlation I referenced.
There are multiple minor blood types in addition to the familiar ABO blood groupings.
Most patients do just fine with a transfusion from a donor of a suitable major blood type. But some patients, including those with sickle cell, may do better if some of these minor blood groupings are also matched. Those minor blood groupings are closely correlated with certain ethnic groups.
Blacks are more likely to have sickle cell disease than whites, even accounting for populations with Mediterranean ancestry such as Turks and Italians. (India has some distinct sub-populations with high sickle cell prevalence, though they are a small proportion of the population of India as a whole.)
So if I take a random sickle cell patient, he/she is most probably black. Particularly so if you limit this to the United States.
And that sickle cell patient has a better chance of not having a reaction to a blood transfusion if the minor blood groups are matched, which is most likely with a donation from another black person.
I would hope any doctor would conduct the necessary laboratory tests to confirm matches. But in the absence of the ability to test, knowing the race of the donor and recipient is useful in improving patient outcome.
Some people collect tea cups. My hobby is collecting instances of Der Trihs’s vitriol which actually turn out to be fairly accurate. Broken clocks and all that.
Der accused of the Republicans of intransigence and I substantiated it here. He was modded for it, so it’s ruled as an example of vitriol on a technicality.
Separately, Iggy seems to have dodged Dibble’s point about skin color not being a particularly reliable indicator of sickle cell anemia in South Africa, though it’s consistent with one of his links.
And I’m going to need a cite saying that it’s a good idea to match blood types by American defined races rather than doing a routine blood test. Hey, I’m not a physician.
MrDibble brought South Africans into it. I did not. You are better off using specific ethnic group information, if available, than simply using racial groups. But in the absence of information about ethnic extraction, racial group identity may prove useful.
I strongly prefer actually testing the individual to determine blood type, major or minor. But if you are a black sickle cell patient looking for a donor that matches your minor blood types then you are most likely to find that donor in a similar ethnic group.
If all I know is that my patient is black and I know nothing else about his specific heritage, then narrowing my donor search to other blacks improves the odds of finding a match versus pulling any random person in off the street to test him. That does not mean that some random white guy off the street could not be a match. It just means that such a match is less likely than some random black guy matching.
If I know my patient is black and of Igbo heritage, then narrowing a donor search to a pool of persons of that particular ethnic extraction further improves my odds of finding a match.
But occasionally genetics holds some surprises. If your patient is of Fulani heritage, you may have luck searching among other Fulani or even among the Dravidian of India.
My initial point, that a black sickle cell patient is more likely to benefit from a blood donation from another black person can be improved upon without negating the truthfulness of that point. A <insert ethnic group> person is more likely to match genetic markers of another <insert same ethnic group> would be better, as ethnic group is much more specific than SIRE.
Not the way I, Rushton and his scientific racist acolytes have been using it.
Are you sure you stuffed enough qualifiers in there? I’m sure you have room for some more…
Discussing populations isn’t racist. Discussing races (in a scientific context) is, as scientists generally agree the concept has no merit.
Cultural contexts are another matter, with a wholly different set of concerns. But that wasn’t what I was objecting to - I’m particularly concerned with the scientific racists on the Board and their enablers. And they use Black not just as a cultural descriptor, but a scientific population grouping. So if you want to continue arguing for using cultural “Black”, knock yourself out. But be aware that the people on your side in a debate may not be using it that way.
Have you ever donated blood? Because the process is nothing like that. You give blood, they type it, and off it goes. It’s not like they wander around the streets searching for type A-.
I have seen efforts to drum up volunteers for bone marrow and blood donations in minority communities. It’s a matter of numbers. But the idea that race would be a consideration when the actual match is made makes no sense. I suppose they could run tests for Fy(a-b-) on blood donated in African American communities, as that rare blood type is apparently more common there.
FTR: Transfusion reactions are still possible from minor blood group incompatibility, but the risk is low and the intensity of the reaction usually mild. However, the more blood transfusions that are given to an individual, the more important these minor blood group matches become. http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/Military_OBGYN/Lab/BloodType.htm
So while this isn’t a non-issue, it doesn’t appear to be a large one either.
Again - this depends on how narrowly you define you ethnic group.
Americans and the UK are afforded this luxury to some extent because American and West Indian “Black” maps fairly closely to “West African” But this isn’t a universal and so doesn’t correspond to the actual race concept used by the scientific racists.
Again, you have this luxury because of your geographic filters. It’s not a universal. So it’s an uncientific rule of thumb. And yes, it works in practice. That’s fine. I’m not arguing it doesn’t work for some situations. That does not make it science.
Actually, the highest possible incidence seems to be Saudi. And the African examples are heavily West-Central African skewed. No Southern or North Eastern African countries listed at all. So a completely SS-heavy weighted “Africa” list, but the Europe examples, for instance, are from all over the map. You think that’s a properly scientific sampling?
And these incidents supposedly “show up in the news regularly.” I read the news every day and have never seen a headline stating “Local Police Officer Kills Random Black Guy. Honored at Reception”
Looks to me like other members, especially the mods, are giving the twerp good advice. Said advice, of course, said twerp will (a) ignore, then (b) lie about. That’s the way it’s going to go if DT holds true (sorry about that horrible pun) to his usual methodology.
Funny you say “especially the mods”, because I thought they were being unusually unhelpful in that last thread. I can’t even work out what exactly he’s supposed to have done wrong, since there doesn’t appear to be much agreement and everything is a web of links.
They’re telling him what he needs to do if he wants to continue posting on this MB. They may not be doing so as kindly as they could be, but that’s probably because he’s been warned in the past, not for that kind of behavior so much, but for that exact post (almost word-for-word).
There’s a simple solution for him: More time in the Pit, less time in GD. He can rant and rave as much as he likes in the former. Not sure why he doesn’t understand that no one is allowed to do that in the latter.
