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

Dec 7
Why do identical twins have such similar personalities?

Is it because they're reared together? Is it because people treat them alike due to their visual similarity?

Nope! Neither theory holds water. Image
Despite looking as similar as identical twins and being reared apart, look-alikes are not similar like identical twins are. In fact, they're no more similar than unrelated people.

This makes sense: they're only minimally more genetically similar than regular unrelated people.
The other thing is that twins reared apart and together have similarly similar personalities.

In fact, there might be a negative environmental effect going on, where twins reared together try to distinguish their personalities more!
Read 7 tweets
Dec 2
Society is cognitively stratified:

Smart people tend to earn higher educations and higher incomes, and to work in more prestigious occupations.

This holds for people from excellent family backgrounds (Utopian Sample) and comparing siblings from the same families! Image
This is true, meaningful, and the causal relationship runs strongly from IQ to SES, with little independent influence of SES. Just look at how similar the overall result and the within-family results are!

But also look at fertility in this table: quite the reverse! Image
Source: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

And to learn more about this general phenomenon, see: cremieux.xyz/p/intelligence… (I've added this citation to this article!)
Read 5 tweets
Nov 25
After this article came out, several people responded, alleging that a cultural model made more sense.

Clark has a point-by-point response🧵

Let's start with the first thing: parent-child and sibling correlations in status measures are identical—hard to explain culturally! Image
The reason this is hard to explain has to do with the fact that kids objectively have more similar environments to one another than to their parents.

In fact, for a cultural theory to recapitulate regression to the mean across generations, these things would need to differ! Image
Another fact that speaks against a cultural explanation is that the length of contact between fathers and sons doesn't matter for how correlated they are in status.

We can see this by leveraging the ages parents die at relative to said sons. Image
Read 10 tweets
Nov 24
The idea:

The internet gives everyone access to unlimited information, learning tools, and the new digital economy, so One Laptop Per Child should have major benefits.

The reality:

Another study just failed to find effects on academic performance. Image
This is one of those findings that's so much more damning than it at first appears.

The reason being, laptop access genuinely provides people with more information than was available to any kid at any previous generation in history.

If access was the issue, this resolves it. Image
And yet, nothing happens

This implementation of the program was more limited than other ones that we've already seen evaluations for though. The laptops were not Windows-based and didn't have internet, so no games, but non-infinite info too

Still huge access improvement though
Read 4 tweets
Nov 22
What is the effect of having a parent get locked away on a kids' own risk of eventually committing crime?

As it turns out, basically nil.

Having a mother or a father locked away doesn't significantly increase risk, and indeed, may reduce it if it happens at an early age. Image
This is relative to no incarceration, so the result should be interpreted as... pretty shocking!

Similarly, we can look at the effects of longer versus shorter parental sentences.

There's seemingly little effect of the length of time parents are incarcerated for. Image
Compare those within-family estimates from above with these between-family results from the same study, period, cohort, etc.

Notice: the apparent 'effects' between families are significant stratified in the same way.

That's an important distinction! Image
Read 5 tweets
Nov 20
Why?

I doubt the answer is weight loss. Consider 2 other drugs for diabetes: DPP-4 and SGLT-2 inhibitors

GLP-1RAs are associated with less Alzheimer's vs. DPP-4is:

But not SGLT-2is:

Neither generates much weight loss, but SGLT-2is match GLP-1RAs on glycemic benefitsImage
Image
So, at least in this propensity score- or age-matched data, there's no reason to chalk the benefit up to the weight loss effects.

This is a hint though, not definitive. Another hint is that benefits were observed in short trials, meaning likely before significant weight loss.
We can be doubly certain about that last hint because diabetics tend to lose less weight than non-diabetics, and all of the observed benefit has so far been observed in diabetic cohorts, not non-diabetic ones (though those directionally show benefits).

Anyway, trials needed!
Read 4 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!

:(