What does /sci/ think of this?
>The researchers found that recipients of female donor red blood cells were associated with an eight percent increased risk of death (from any cause) per unit transfused compared with recipients of male donor red blood cells. For example, for a recipient that received six units of red blood cells, this would translate into an associated risk of death of 36 percent for recipients of all-female donor blood compared to 27 percent for recipients of all-male donor blood one year later.
>The researchers also found similar associations with red blood cells from younger donors. Recipients of blood from donors aged 17- 20 were associated with an eight percent increased risk of death per unit transfused compared with recipients of red blood cells from donors aged 40-50
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-07-association-donor-age-female-sex.html
>>8197361
Reminder that blood you donated could be in someone's boner right now.
>>8197361
>Researchers find vampires luv young girl blood and whip up disinformation to save it for themselves
I've always wondered if the blood I gave (I've donated 18 times now) ended up being useful at all, but these numbers sound frighteningly high
There's really more than 1/3 chance that getting blood from a female will kill you?
>>8197416
>There's really more than 1/3 chance that getting blood from a female will kill you?
And there is a 3/3 chance that not getting any blood will kill you. Besides, it's just one study. It's not definite proof.
>>8197424
I understand its just an observational study. I think I just misread it as '1/3 chance the transfusion will kill you' as opposed to '1/3 chance of death within a year'
>>8197361
Were recipients mainly male?
>>8197515
I can totally see this happening. They got too emotional due to fem blood and decided to an hero.
>>8197361
>The average age of the recipients was 66.2 years
So old people need old blood, new fangled blood just doesn't work for them?
>>8197361
This kind of shit needs to be legally required to only be shared or reported on with a giant flashing disclaimer of "correlation does not imply causation"
>>8197568
>correlation doesn't equal causation
Do you know about random assignment and such? In many cases it is very strongly suggestive.
>>8197568
>>8197602
If it's correlated than the only thing you could suggest is that blood from the average donor of a specific group is more likely to be used successfully to the average person that needs blood.
What could happen is that since older males need blood the most, that blood from older males should be used. Likewise blood from older females should be used for older females, younger males for younger males, and younger females for younger females.
If this is true, this should save millions of lives if we add in those variables onto the bloodbags.
It'll definitely have to lead into more research to further explain the behavior.
>>8197361
What about tranny blood?
