Crémieux Profile picture
Aug 21, 2024 14 tweets 5 min read Read on X
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. Image
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? Image
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. Image
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: Image
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. Image
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. Image
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. Image
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.Image
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. Image
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!
Image
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.

Worried about corruption? Then regulate it well!

Sources:



academic.oup.com/rfs/article-ab…
pbs.org/newshour/show/…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Crémieux

Crémieux Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @cremieuxrecueil

May 29
This is just not true and it's sad that people believe it.

It's also indicting, when it's so obviously false if you just look out into the world. What you see should match what the statistics clearly show:

Estimated marriage effects for men and women are almost always similar🧵 Image
In that chart, I used the GSS and found something many people replicate:

1. Cross-sectionally, there's a relationship between being married and life satisfaction. It's similar for men and women.

2. Within persons—causally!—marriage boosts life satisfaction, but more for women.
Leveraging the same within-person design, we can use the Add Health dataset to look at stress and depression.

For both sexes, the effects are indistinguishable.

But they're also mostly not real: it's just that people who get married tend to be less stressed and depressed! Image
Read 10 tweets
May 26
As a recap on my appearance, Eli Lilly is pursuing:

- A one-dose drug for preventing most heart disease
- A vaccine for chlamydia
- A vaccine for gonorrhea
- A vaccine for Epstein-Barr
- A drug that lets you stay awake longer and feel more rested

It's a golden age of pharma! Image
And remember, Eli Lilly's big break historically was the University of Toronto licensing them to produce insulin.

They started off by giving it out for free, saving the world's diabetics at a time when there was no treatment available.

They've always been a force for good. Image
I think

- The heart disease drug will succeed
-- Will it commercialize? It can, easily. But I'm 50/50 due to the competition
- Chlamydia and gonorrhea vax will succeed, but I don't see much commercial potential with Lilly
- EBV vaccine will fail with Lilly, succeed eventually
Read 5 tweets
May 25
Eli Lilly has done it.

They've gone and made what seems to be a powerful, permanent gene therapy for LDL cholesterol.

That means they'll be able to effectively prevent most heart disease with a single infusion! Image
Almost all of the side effects were just things you see with any infusion. Some people react poorly to needles and having to sit for a while🤷‍♀️

And that's what we expect, because the people with good PCSK9 genes naturally are totally fine. This therapy catches the rest of us up!
This is amazing stuff, beating drug administration because it's permanent, and it only gets better from here.

We are going to get so healthy, so fast. Our grandkids are going to hear about heart attacks and have never actually seen one.

Source: nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
Read 5 tweets
May 24
Are White women the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action?

That's a real claim that's commonly advanced by journalists, and the claim has gone so far that it's even made its way into academic publications and policy.

But the claim is completely false🧵 Image
This claim doesn't make a lot of sense. After all, shouldn't the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action be the people who the policies primarily target?

In America, that's African Americans and, among them, women get an added benefit. How could it be Whites? Image
To figure out where the claim comes from, I started reading supposed sources.

Often enough, journalists will just take the claim for granted without providing *any* source.

It's just tacit knowledge now, and that's not good!

Then, when you hit a source, it's not supportive: Image
Read 13 tweets
May 7
World War I devastated Britain and likely slowed down its technological progress🧵

The reason being, the youth are the engine of innovation.

Areas that saw more deaths saw larger declines in patenting in the years following the war. Image
To figure out the innovation effects of losing a large portion of a generation's young men who were just coming into the primes of their lives, the authors needed four pieces of data.

The first were the numbers and pre-war locations of soldiers who died. Image
The next components were the numbers and locations of patent filings.

If you look at both graphs, you see obvious total population effects. So, areas must be normalized. Image
Read 12 tweets
May 5
New Pangram validation!

You know how most books on Amazon are AI slop now? If you didn't, look at the publication numbers.

Compare those to the proportion Pangram flags as AI-generated. It's fully aligned with the implied numbers based on the rise over 2022 publication levels! Image
Similarly, the rise of pro se litigants has come with a rise in case filings detected as being AI-generated, and with virtually zero false-positives before AI was around.

You can also see the rise of AI-generated text and yet more evidence for Pangram's validity from looking at different journalists.

Large portions of the journalistic profession are lazy, so they cheat when they can.

For example, the Guardian's Bryan Graham = slop Image
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(