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

Oct 18
This should be considered *far* more alarming than the polls about political violence.

Two-thirds positive views towards an evil ideology that has killed tens of millions and cannot work is *very* bad. Image
It doesn't really matter if, at the end of the day, they're actually tepid towards socialism. This is like 66% of people saying Hitler was OK.

Source: news.gallup.com/poll/694835/im…

And an article qualifying how we understand support for political violence: cremieux.xyz/p/lets-not-ove…
I get too many dumb comments.

The dumb comment for this post is going to be something along the lines of 'But they're thinking about [successful place] not [bad place]!'

Ten points if you realize why that is not a meaningful reply.
Read 9 tweets
Oct 17
This is not true and there has never been a reason to believe it.

When we do have raw data for anywhere, we see that there's consistent scoring over time, not massive intelligence gains.

If we do not take measurement invariance seriously, we will be seriously misled. Image
I actually think it is exactly Noah's sort of post that helps to keep the culture of scientific fraud in academia and elsewhere alive.

Noah is smart enough and has been told enough to know better, and he still wrote something that he can't support.

But it's a popular message.
The message is just empirically wrong.

Will we ever move beyond the Cargo Cult version of the Flynn Effect that people like Noah, knowingly or otherwise, are wont to promote?

I don't think we will!

To learn more, see:
Read 5 tweets
Oct 14
Where did that human capital go?

After the Counter-Reformation began, Protestant Germany started producing more elites than Catholic Germany.

Protestant cities also attracted more of these elite individuals, but primarily to the places with the most progressive governments🧵Image
Q: What am I talking about?

A: Kirchenordnung, or Church Orders, otherwise known as Protestant Church Ordinances, a sort of governmental compact that started cropping up after the Reformation, in Protestant cities. Image
Q: Why these things?

A: Protestants wanted to establish political institutions in their domains that replaced those previously provided by the Catholics, or which otherwise departed from how things were done. Image
Read 12 tweets
Oct 7
What predicts a successful educational intervention?

Unfortunately, the answer is not 'methodological propriety'; in fact, it's the opposite🧵

First up: home-made measures, a lack of randomization, and a study being published instead of unpublished predict larger effects. Image
It is *far* easier to cook the books with an in-house measure, and it's far harder for other researchers to evaluate what's going on because they definitionally cannot be familiar with it.

Additionally, smaller studies tend to have larger effects—a hallmark of publication bias! Image
Education, like many fields, clearly has a bias towards significant results.

Notice the extreme excess of results with p-values that are 'just significant'.

The pattern we see above should make you suspect if you realize this is happening. Image
Read 10 tweets
Oct 6
Across five different large samples, the same pattern emerged:

Trans people tended to have multiple times higher rates of autism. Image
In addition to higher autism rates, when looking at non-autistic trans versus non-trans people, the trans people were consistently shifted towards showing more autistic traits. Image
In two of the available datasets, the autism result replicated across other psychiatric traits.

That is, trans people were also at an elevated risk of ADHD, bipolar disorder, depression, OCD, and schizophrenia, before and after making various adjustments. Image
Read 6 tweets
Oct 6
Across 68,000 meta-analyses including over 700,000 effect size estimates, correcting for publication bias tended to:

- Markedly reduce effect sizes
- Markedly reduce the probability that there is an effect at all

Economics hardest hit: Image
Even this is perhaps too generous.

Recall that correcting for publication bias often produces effects that are still larger than the effects attained in subsequent large-scale replication studies.Image
A great example of this comes from priming studies.

Remember money priming, where simply seeing or handling money made people more selfish and better at business?

Those studies were stricken by publication bias, but preregistered studies totally failed to find a thing. Image
Read 6 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!

:(