• >They tracked whether the recipients had received blood from male donors, female donors who had never been pregnant, or female donors who had been pregnant.

    Does this mean women who donated blood while pregnant or women who have been pregnant at some point in their life, but not at the time when donating blood?

  • In case you were wondering and did not read the article:

    >Women who received blood transfusions did not see a higher risk of death regardless of whether the blood came from a man or a woman.

  • This is both fascinating, and a little scary.

    Apart from trying to replicate the study, would it not make sense to begin coding blood, and blood products, and attempt, whenever possible, to give the post-pregnant blood to women, and male or never pregnant blood to males?

    You would be running a really big experiment, essentially, but one that could, theoretically still be tracked.

  • But do we have a causal relationship anywhere here?

  • 6% of the donors were ever pregnant… And a .03 p value… (1 sig fig really?) Gonna need way more evidence to convince me this isn’t p hacking…

  • Does it say how much more likely they were to die?

  • I’m still confused. What does Prego blood do to men?

    How do these men just die off?

  • It sounds like an antibody thing.

  • Looks like all the stories about the blood of virgins being the most valuable have some credibility to it.

  • We know women kills men. What’s new?

  • Hum… The article doesn’t state what those men died of. They could have died in a car accident, making any statistical result irrelevant.

  • It says pregnant women donors. So they are letting pregnant women donate. Yeah I thought that was weird, cause why would a pregnant women donate. Can’t be a good idea for the women or the baby and apparently men who need blood transfers. Obviously way too many hormones in the mix.

Leave Your Comment