In the U.S., you are legally permitted to sell your blood plasma for money, but it's called "donation".
In recent years, the numbers of places set up for donations has skyrocketed, and the amount they're compensating donors has followed suit.
Let's dig in.
Most of the visitors to these donation centers are highly local (A)
People are also more likely to visit donation centers in census block groups (CBGs) that are marked by poverty (B)
Why?
In surveys, donating plasma is predicted by being poor, Black, male, married, having kids, being a student, etc.
In short, people who could really use an extra $150 twice a week for a minimal inconvenience are more likely to donate.
We know this is true because we also have survey data indicating people's stated reasons for donating. Few people are donating altruistically. The top categories by far are about money!
Take a look:
Now, before getting to the juicy result, I want to show one more thing: the impact of COVID stimulus checks on plasma donations.
When the checks went out, the number of visits to plasma donation centers cratered. Donations plummeted because people had the cash they needed.
Now here's the kicker: When plasma donation centers open up, local inquiries into predatory payday and installment loans falls off.
People are seeking credit and donating blood might be how they get it.
If we stratify these trends by age, we see that those with ages less than or equal to 35 - the less well-established - are the ones deciding to use blood plasma donations to offset the need for quick, dangerously high-interest cash, not those greater than 35 years old.
When you look at payday transactions rather than inquiries alone, you get the same picture, albeit with more noise.
Young people really do seem to be defraying the need for credit by selling (sorry, donating!) their blood plasma.
The reasons people sell their are also, evidently, not just to cover essentials.
One of the clearest-cut impacts is that entertainment establishments see an increase in visits after blood plasma donation centers open up.
That last part clarifies something: people would prefer not to get risky, high-interest loans, and they really want a little bit of extra cash. So while they will seek out those loans if push comes to shove, they're more likely to frivolously pursue blood donation.
And that's good! We need blood plasma donations, so if paying people a bit of money makes that possible, so be it.
If we take away that possibility, we can also see that it would make people's lives worse.
How far can we take this? Maybe we can learn from Iran.
In the U.S., about 0.5-1% of the federal budget goes to dialysis:
In Iran, there is a legal, regulated market in selling kidneys and it's such a good deal that the government even pays for the operations. It beats paying for dialysis!
People are more than willing to sell their bodies in different ways that help their fellow citizens, from selling their blood plasma to pawning off a kidney.
Given so many people want to do that, and so many people would benefit from it, the question is, why not?
Frankly, I think we should just do it. The blood plasma donation model has been such a success and it's more than evident that organ payments could be too.
This analysis has several advantages compared to earlier ones.
The most obvious is the whole-genome data combined with a large sample size. All earlier whole-genome heritability estimates have been made using smaller samples, and thus had far greater uncertainty.
The next big thing is that the SNP and pedigree heritability estimates came from the same sample.
This can matter a lot.
If one sample has a heritability of 0.5 for a trait and another has a heritability of 0.4, it'd be a mistake to chalk the difference up to the method.
The original source for the Medline p-values explicitly compared the distributions in the abstracts and full-texts.
They found that there was a kink such that positive results had excess lower-bounds above 1 and negative results had excess upper-bounds below 1.
They then explicitly compared the distributional kinkiness from Medline to the distributions from an earlier paper that was similar to a specification curve analysis.
That meant comparing Medline to a result that was definitely not subject to p-hacking or publication bias.
I got blocked for this meager bit of pushback on an obviously wrong idea lol.
Seriously:
Anyone claiming that von Neumann was tutored into being a genius is high on crack. He could recite the lines from any page of any book he ever read. That's not education!
'So, what's your theory on how von Neumann could tell you the exact weights and dimensions of objects without measuring tape or a scale?'
'Ah, it was the education that was provided to him, much like the education provided to his brothers and cousins.'
'How could his teachers have set him up to connect totally disparate fields in unique ways, especially given that every teacher who ever talked about him noted that he was much smarter than them and they found it hard to teach him?'
This study also provides more to differentiate viral myocarditis from vaccine """myocarditis""", which again, is mild, resolves quickly, etc., unlike real myocarditis.
To see what it is, first look at this plot, showing COVID infection risks by time since diagnosis:
Now look at risks since injection.
See the difference?
The risks related to infection hold up for a year or more. The risks related to injection, by contrast, are short-term.