O- type blood is considered to be a universal donor.I went to the hospital for some tests a few months ago. I was told that my body can only accept a certain type of blood ("tiger blood").
One of my co-workers contracted blood cancer a few years ago and he could accept bone marrow from only a very specific population.
The gene pool of “blacks“ born in Africa in general has close to zero Caucasian or European influence whereas the gene pool of many American or Caribbean “blacks “ has a significant amount of Caucasian or European content.Of course, anything that involves race is super sensitive and super controversial.
Here is an example of one disease.
"Black people are more likely to have a rare blood type that people with sickle cell anemia need. That rare blood type is needed to treat sickle cell anemia, a condition predominantly found in people of African descent. Black people are about 10 times more likely to have Ro blood type than White people."
Blacks Blood Donor Racist Sickle Cell Controversy Grows In The UK (newsone.com)
Here is another example.
"Does a donor’s ethnic background make a difference? Yes, it does. There’s a link between race and matching bone marrow. Certain genes manage immunity. Those genes may be different based on race or ethnicity. Fewer people of color donate bone marrow, limiting the number of people who can receive donated bone marrow."
Bone Marrow Donation: Who Can Donate and How It Works (clevelandclinic.org)
Exactly, and if those risk factors were pertaining to non-white people, that would not be preferential treatment either.This is risk factors, not preferential treatment. It is not preferential treatment to order tests when there is a higher probability of someone suffering from something.
I'm not sure you understood the CMAJ guidance. They emphasize using genetics over race, being concerned about how characteristics like race are assessed. (self-assessed? assigned by the government?)Poking fun at "Race is solely a social construct" idea...
I hear you. That is why I quoted the published article(s), or simply just reproduced the article(s) as is. If there is a flaw then the problem lies with the published article(s).So? Your original article stated something along the lines of 'before the white man came. That's quite the assertion. Your quote here also implicitly states that if it was rare until the 1950s...oh my, it must have been rare before that. Evidence....
First Nations COULD be uniquely susceptible to diabetes (thrifty gene as mentioned), much like alcohol, but throwing in 'colonialism' and 'before the white man' is identity politics, not race/genetic-based arguments.
If you're going to use identity politics, then open the door to charges of racism merely for stating true data. They are one and the same.






