#REDIRECT Blood type
: Blood types are the ways in which substances on red blood cells are used for classification. I gave the above intro sentence a rewrite for clarity, but this is not my subject so needs review. -- User:Tarquin 20:16 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC) ---- Does incompatability among the other blood groups also cause transfusion reaction? --rmhermen :Not usually, and not for most of those listed, which is why ABO/Rh are so well-studied. -- User:Someone else 22:12 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC) == Blood group Heredity == Is it possible for a B+ father and an A+ mother to produce an O- child? Yes, absolutely,it is possible for SOME B+ and A+ parents to do so: and if they do so it tells you information about the parents' genotype. The father's alleles must be B, O, Rh+, Rh- -> B+ The mother's alleles must be A, O, Rh+, Rh- -> A+ The child's alleles must be O, O, Rh-, Rh- -> O- - User:Someone else 09:10, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC) : Which Allele would an AB person have? ::A ''and'' B. You see, every person has two copies of each gene, termed ''alleles''. ''AB'' leads to the AB blood type. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 14:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) == re Heredity == Thanks. What are the chances of a blue eyed B+ father and a blue eyed A+ mother producing a brown eyed O- child? :Questions about paternity really need to be settled by paternity testing, not by comparing physical characteristics. -- User:Someone else 03:45, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC) :Just going by the blood group, it's possible for a B+ father and a A+ mother to produce a O- child. AFAIK, brown eyes are dominant over blue eyes, so that part seems unlikely from my experience. For an objective result, a DNA paternity test is still indicated. --User:Alex.tan 04:50, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC) ==Blood type 0== The "0" in "AB0" is really the digit "0" (null, zero), not the capital letter O. The correct pronunciation is "blood type null". Landsteiner named this blood type 0 (null) because its red blood cells carry neither the A nor the B antigens—the amount of A and B is zero. Unfortunately, it is a very common error to see the letter "O" being used instead of the digit "0" (null). See also http://www.nobel.se/medicine/educational/landsteiner/readmore.html
—User:Herbee 03:52, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC) *Actually, it's the letter 'O', not the digit '0' (and it would be by common usage even if Landsteiner had named it '0', which he didn't). Landsteiner called it "C" when he published in 1901. Group ‘C’ was first labelled ‘O’ in 1910 by von Dungern and Hirschfeld. Whether it stands for "Ohne", meaning "without", which has been claimed, or is a symbol meaning "null", it's now ABO not AB0. The page you point to is one of 57 pages that Google finds on the web that give AB0 and blood type, as compared with 13,500 that use ABO and blood type. -- User:Nunh-huh 04:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Thanks for the information; you are evidently quite a "bloody" character. ;-)
::You are right in saying that Landsteiner didn't call it "0" (null). Apparently the issue is controversial, so for the time being I retract my claim that the letter "O" is an error. I don't accept your claim without further evidence, however.
::I reject the way you use Google statistics; since when are scientific or historic issues decided by majority vote? Instead of throwing 13,500 hits at me it would be more useful to come up with one reference as authoritative as the Nobel Prize.
::User:Herbee 06:32, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC) :::I certainly wouldn't advise using Google to solve a science fact or a historic fact, but it's fine as a quick-and-dirty way to document current usage, especially when the count is overwhelmingly lopsided. I frankly can't think of a reference that would say "use 'O' not '0'" (or vice versa): the most likely would be a style guide such as the ''American Medical Association Manual of Style'', but I'm not even sure it would be addressed there, and I don't have it at hand. Taking the two most likely from those at hand, it's "ABO" in Harrison's ''Principles of Internal Medicine'' and William's ''Hematology'', and in pretty much any textbook where you can tell the "O" and "0" apart. And consider this: When someone tells you his blood type, he says "blood type oh", not "blood type null" or "blood type zero". Which would be one reason why even ''if'' it did start as "0" it certainly has wound up as "O". -- Your sanguinary friend, User:Nunh-huh 21:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::::When somebody tells you his blood type in german, he actually says "null", not "O". User:Bernhard Bauer 18:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::OK, I'm going to drop the issue as undecidable. I'll leave the article as it was, i.e., using letter O.Being an A+ I feel superior anyway. And besides, it hurts the inner mathematician to say things like "zero positive" and "zero negative".
::User:Herbee 23:49, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC) :Outside view from Germany: Over here, this is definitely blood type 0 (zero, "Null" in German). I have often observed that speakers of English, especially Americans, say "Oh" (the letter O) even when they clearly actually mean "zero" (in phone numbers, for example), presumably because it is shorter (one syllable, as opposed to two for "zero"). (Similarly, they call the last letter of the Latin alphabet (Z) a "see" instead of a "sed", even if "see" already is the third letter of the Latin Alphabet (C).) So my guess would be that, even if the blood type was at first spelled as a 0 (zero), it was pronounced as "oh" anyway, which lead to it being written as "O" also. --User:Rosenzweig 15:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) == "group" and "type" used as synonyms == The page seems to use "blood group" and "blood type" interchangeably. Is this intentional? If so, it should be explained before "blood group" is used for the first time. User:Fpahl 09:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) I just checked on the Web -- [http://www.mckinley.uiuc.edu/health-info/hlthpro/bloodtyp.html] makes a clear distinction between types and groups -- I don't think this is being followed here; if it is, it needs to be explained. User:Fpahl 09:24, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) == Inheritance AB --> 0 == "When a type AB parent has a type O child, or when one type A and one type O parent produce a type AB child, it is sometimes mistakenly assumed that the child MUST be illegitimate." Why would that be mistaken? Doesn't it follow from the article that this inheritances must be impossible? Are there other mechanisms that would change the inheritance rule? - User:Marcika 14:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) :If someone doesn't elaborate the "h" protein (which is modified to become "A" or "B") they will test as type O by routine testing, even though they may have inherited an "A" or "B" gene from their parents. See Bombay phenotype. Very popular phenomenon in soap operas, not so much so in real life. - User:Nunh-huh 21:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Curious which blood type do japanese prefer? == In Japan, a popular belief is that personality is related to blood type. From the preponderance of some blood type in a population, "experts" claim to be able to deduce the character of that population. The "experts" also believe that they can calculate how well the blood types of different people match. A Japanese employer could therefore aim to get a proper mix of blood types among their personnel. Am i correct to assume Japanese prefer blood type B? I just assumed that because blood tpye B is more common in Asia == Learning one's blood type == What is the process used to learn the blood type? I came to this topic for such a discussion and didn't. Only the intro gave a clue with "substances (carbohydrates and proteins) on the cell membrane" -- User:Sysy / User_Talk:Sysy 21:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Most often you would use a latex agglutination test. It detects antigen in a sample using antibody bound to a bead or other visible material. A positive reaction causes the beads to clump together. The bead clumps can be seen with the naked eye. A negative reaction leaves the latex beads in solution and looks milky. If beads coated with anti-"A" antibody cause clumping, you have the "A" gene; if beads coated with anti-"B" antibody cause clumping, you have the "B" gene. A "type and crossmatch" used before transfusion is a more detailed and comprehensive test. - 21:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) == U-negative == Under "Social significance" the article states: :''In the United States, few African Americans donate blood, resulting in a shortage of U-negative and Duffy-negative blood for African American patients.'' However, the U-negative type is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and Duffy-negative only briefly mentioned (and its significance to African-Americans remains unexplained). User:Neckro 01:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Evolution== What is the evolutionary purpose of blood types? Why did they evolve and what purpose do they serve for us? --User:203.26.206.129 12:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) :That's anyone's guess. Some blood types give a slightly decreased risk of thrombosis (type O), which may explain why this essentially "truncated" form is so prevalent. If you come accross any useful information, could you insert it in the article? User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 23:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Blood Compatibility matrix == Some indication should be amde as to wheher the "X" means compatible, or non-compatible. == Japanese video games == Is this why Japanese video games like Street Fighter will often list blood type in character stats? User:Kent Wang 20:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Anyone's guess, but quite likely. If you can offer a source, it may be worthy of inclusion in the article. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 23:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) == How O is given to A, B == There are antibodies of both A and B, in O type. Then, why the antigens of A and B do not react with the antibodies in O, when O type blood is given to a person of A or B. Why O can be given to all, but cannot get from A, B or AB? I wonder why this antigens and antibodies work one way? :A transfusion reaction occurs when antibodies react to the antigens present in blood. O type blood does not contain any A or B antigens, so it does not cause transfusion reactions. A, B, and AB contains A or B antigens, and will cause a transfusion reaction when given to someone who has antibodies that will react with them. O type blood can be given to all, because it contains no antigens that would evoke a transfusion reaction; O type patients cannot receive blood from A, B, or AB donors because they would react against the antigens in the donated blood. :You seem to be suggesting that antibodies should themselves serve as antigens; while this is a reasonable thought, it's just not the case in this instance. - User:Nunh-huh 05:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Diego == Actually, Di(b) was found in several Irishmen and in several Spaniards. In fact, it was discovered in a criollo. == The reason for blood types == I'm curious: why do we have blood types to begin with? In other words, why have we evolved towards having blood types? Why is it useful? Is it so that we don't just give blood to anyone and be cautious in regards to transfusions? How different would our species be if everyone had compatible blood? Or do we not know any reason why having blood types is useful and we just know how it works? User:Eje211 14:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I suspect the answer is that differences in our genetic makeup make us different and there may be some selective advantages to certain blood types in certain conditions. Variety is good. Say, for instance, one rare blood type somehow protects you (and a small bunch of people with the same blood type) against a new, incurable deadly infectious disease that's rapidly spreading across the globe, well, if a significant proportion of the world's population gets killed off, suddenly your blood type is not so rare anymore. That's how evolution works. User:Alex.tan 17:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) In the book Eat Right for Your Type, Dr D'Adamo states that in ancient populations, Type O was predominant, and other types were rarer mutations. As different conditions were imposed on a population for different reasons (such as migration to different regions), other types proved to be more suited for survival in those circumstances. Off the top of my head, I remember him offering the Black Plague in Europe as an example where Type A came to dominance because of better survivability characteristics than Type O. He also states that some foods contain lectins that agglutinate all ABO types (a bean, maybe castor or lima, I forget which) which is problematic, while some foods only agglutinate certain types. Furthermore some foods prove to be beneficial for certain ABO types, which explains his book's title. Many early diets and cooking styles native to populations reflect these predispositions (if only as a matter of natural selcetion at work), he proposes, and it would be good for us to assume similar diets to improve our health. Frankly, I am suprised to see no mention of D'Adamo's work in Wikipedia, perhaps I will hunt down his books and offer more. User:Castlan 19:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Please be careful. Pseudoscience comes to mind. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 22:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ::While I am somewhat dissapointed by D'Adamo's lack of footnotes, and frustrated by his avoidance of indexes, I haven't yet found a credible direct dispute to any significant claims of his. I am aware of a text that might indicate behavior of lectins on stomach tissuus would need to be directly studied, but I wasn't willing to spend in excess of $200 US (iirc) to find out what exactly it found, depite it being a "real" scientificly strict (apparently, as I didn't actually get to read the) study. ::While not as rigourously strict with the science as it should be (at least what is presented in his books) ER4YT doesn't seem to be significantly paranormal or disprovable. So while it has a stigma of pseudoscience, that stigma hasn't really been justified. Some supposed refutation I have come across turned out to be of even poorer quality, either reflecting it's own pseudoscience, or a lack of familiarity with the nominal subject. I would really like to see some explicit, maybe even rigorous debunking of D'Adamo's (occasionaly controversial? I can't see why) offerings. As of yet, I consider this closer to protoscience than unfalsifiable pseudoscience. ::In any case, I don't think that anything I previously posted on this matter is all that fantastic. Is the mere mention of Doctor D'Adamo, or Eat Right For Your Type (ER4YT) enough to invalidate the respose I offered? Other than that vague stigma, is my above answer to the utility of divergent blood types unhelpful or incorrect? I do believe that I was careful enough to avoid anything that wasn't NPOV. Maybe, I shouldn't have tread so lightly, so as to provoke more of a direct response. Because while I like how it advocates my [Type O] consumption of most animal proteins, I find it's avoid lists including wheat and dairy to be cumbersome. My strongest objection to what D'Adamo presents is that it isn't comprehensive (cumbersome) enough. User:Castlan 07:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Blood_type:
Blood_Type
Blood_type
Blood_type
Blood_Types
Blood_types
Blood Type
#REDIRECT Blood type
Blood type
Blood type
: Blood types are the ways in which substances on red blood cells are used for classification. I gave the above intro sentence a rewrite for clarity, but this is not my subject so needs review. -- User:Tarquin 20:16 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC) ---- Does incompatability among the other blood groups also cause transfusion reaction? --rmhermen :Not usually, and not for most of those listed, which is why ABO/Rh are so well-studied. -- User:Someone else 22:12 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC) == Blood group Heredity == Is it possible for a B+ father and an A+ mother to produce an O- child? Yes, absolutely,it is possible for SOME B+ and A+ parents to do so: and if they do so it tells you information about the parents' genotype. The father's alleles must be B, O, Rh+, Rh- -> B+ The mother's alleles must be A, O, Rh+, Rh- -> A+ The child's alleles must be O, O, Rh-, Rh- -> O- - User:Someone else 09:10, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC) : Which Allele would an AB person have? ::A ''and'' B. You see, every person has two copies of each gene, termed ''alleles''. ''AB'' leads to the AB blood type. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 14:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) == re Heredity == Thanks. What are the chances of a blue eyed B+ father and a blue eyed A+ mother producing a brown eyed O- child? :Questions about paternity really need to be settled by paternity testing, not by comparing physical characteristics. -- User:Someone else 03:45, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC) :Just going by the blood group, it's possible for a B+ father and a A+ mother to produce a O- child. AFAIK, brown eyes are dominant over blue eyes, so that part seems unlikely from my experience. For an objective result, a DNA paternity test is still indicated. --User:Alex.tan 04:50, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC) ==Blood type 0== The "0" in "AB0" is really the digit "0" (null, zero), not the capital letter O. The correct pronunciation is "blood type null". Landsteiner named this blood type 0 (null) because its red blood cells carry neither the A nor the B antigens—the amount of A and B is zero. Unfortunately, it is a very common error to see the letter "O" being used instead of the digit "0" (null). See also http://www.nobel.se/medicine/educational/landsteiner/readmore.html
—User:Herbee 03:52, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC) *Actually, it's the letter 'O', not the digit '0' (and it would be by common usage even if Landsteiner had named it '0', which he didn't). Landsteiner called it "C" when he published in 1901. Group ‘C’ was first labelled ‘O’ in 1910 by von Dungern and Hirschfeld. Whether it stands for "Ohne", meaning "without", which has been claimed, or is a symbol meaning "null", it's now ABO not AB0. The page you point to is one of 57 pages that Google finds on the web that give AB0 and blood type, as compared with 13,500 that use ABO and blood type. -- User:Nunh-huh 04:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Thanks for the information; you are evidently quite a "bloody" character. ;-)
::You are right in saying that Landsteiner didn't call it "0" (null). Apparently the issue is controversial, so for the time being I retract my claim that the letter "O" is an error. I don't accept your claim without further evidence, however.
::I reject the way you use Google statistics; since when are scientific or historic issues decided by majority vote? Instead of throwing 13,500 hits at me it would be more useful to come up with one reference as authoritative as the Nobel Prize.
::User:Herbee 06:32, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC) :::I certainly wouldn't advise using Google to solve a science fact or a historic fact, but it's fine as a quick-and-dirty way to document current usage, especially when the count is overwhelmingly lopsided. I frankly can't think of a reference that would say "use 'O' not '0'" (or vice versa): the most likely would be a style guide such as the ''American Medical Association Manual of Style'', but I'm not even sure it would be addressed there, and I don't have it at hand. Taking the two most likely from those at hand, it's "ABO" in Harrison's ''Principles of Internal Medicine'' and William's ''Hematology'', and in pretty much any textbook where you can tell the "O" and "0" apart. And consider this: When someone tells you his blood type, he says "blood type oh", not "blood type null" or "blood type zero". Which would be one reason why even ''if'' it did start as "0" it certainly has wound up as "O". -- Your sanguinary friend, User:Nunh-huh 21:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::::When somebody tells you his blood type in german, he actually says "null", not "O". User:Bernhard Bauer 18:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::OK, I'm going to drop the issue as undecidable. I'll leave the article as it was, i.e., using letter O.
::User:Herbee 23:49, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC) :Outside view from Germany: Over here, this is definitely blood type 0 (zero, "Null" in German). I have often observed that speakers of English, especially Americans, say "Oh" (the letter O) even when they clearly actually mean "zero" (in phone numbers, for example), presumably because it is shorter (one syllable, as opposed to two for "zero"). (Similarly, they call the last letter of the Latin alphabet (Z) a "see" instead of a "sed", even if "see" already is the third letter of the Latin Alphabet (C).) So my guess would be that, even if the blood type was at first spelled as a 0 (zero), it was pronounced as "oh" anyway, which lead to it being written as "O" also. --User:Rosenzweig 15:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) == "group" and "type" used as synonyms == The page seems to use "blood group" and "blood type" interchangeably. Is this intentional? If so, it should be explained before "blood group" is used for the first time. User:Fpahl 09:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) I just checked on the Web -- [http://www.mckinley.uiuc.edu/health-info/hlthpro/bloodtyp.html] makes a clear distinction between types and groups -- I don't think this is being followed here; if it is, it needs to be explained. User:Fpahl 09:24, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) == Inheritance AB --> 0 == "When a type AB parent has a type O child, or when one type A and one type O parent produce a type AB child, it is sometimes mistakenly assumed that the child MUST be illegitimate." Why would that be mistaken? Doesn't it follow from the article that this inheritances must be impossible? Are there other mechanisms that would change the inheritance rule? - User:Marcika 14:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) :If someone doesn't elaborate the "h" protein (which is modified to become "A" or "B") they will test as type O by routine testing, even though they may have inherited an "A" or "B" gene from their parents. See Bombay phenotype. Very popular phenomenon in soap operas, not so much so in real life. - User:Nunh-huh 21:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Curious which blood type do japanese prefer? == In Japan, a popular belief is that personality is related to blood type. From the preponderance of some blood type in a population, "experts" claim to be able to deduce the character of that population. The "experts" also believe that they can calculate how well the blood types of different people match. A Japanese employer could therefore aim to get a proper mix of blood types among their personnel. Am i correct to assume Japanese prefer blood type B? I just assumed that because blood tpye B is more common in Asia == Learning one's blood type == What is the process used to learn the blood type? I came to this topic for such a discussion and didn't. Only the intro gave a clue with "substances (carbohydrates and proteins) on the cell membrane" -- User:Sysy / User_Talk:Sysy 21:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Most often you would use a latex agglutination test. It detects antigen in a sample using antibody bound to a bead or other visible material. A positive reaction causes the beads to clump together. The bead clumps can be seen with the naked eye. A negative reaction leaves the latex beads in solution and looks milky. If beads coated with anti-"A" antibody cause clumping, you have the "A" gene; if beads coated with anti-"B" antibody cause clumping, you have the "B" gene. A "type and crossmatch" used before transfusion is a more detailed and comprehensive test. - 21:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) == U-negative == Under "Social significance" the article states: :''In the United States, few African Americans donate blood, resulting in a shortage of U-negative and Duffy-negative blood for African American patients.'' However, the U-negative type is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and Duffy-negative only briefly mentioned (and its significance to African-Americans remains unexplained). User:Neckro 01:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Evolution== What is the evolutionary purpose of blood types? Why did they evolve and what purpose do they serve for us? --User:203.26.206.129 12:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) :That's anyone's guess. Some blood types give a slightly decreased risk of thrombosis (type O), which may explain why this essentially "truncated" form is so prevalent. If you come accross any useful information, could you insert it in the article? User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 23:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Blood Compatibility matrix == Some indication should be amde as to wheher the "X" means compatible, or non-compatible. == Japanese video games == Is this why Japanese video games like Street Fighter will often list blood type in character stats? User:Kent Wang 20:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Anyone's guess, but quite likely. If you can offer a source, it may be worthy of inclusion in the article. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 23:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) == How O is given to A, B == There are antibodies of both A and B, in O type. Then, why the antigens of A and B do not react with the antibodies in O, when O type blood is given to a person of A or B. Why O can be given to all, but cannot get from A, B or AB? I wonder why this antigens and antibodies work one way? :A transfusion reaction occurs when antibodies react to the antigens present in blood. O type blood does not contain any A or B antigens, so it does not cause transfusion reactions. A, B, and AB contains A or B antigens, and will cause a transfusion reaction when given to someone who has antibodies that will react with them. O type blood can be given to all, because it contains no antigens that would evoke a transfusion reaction; O type patients cannot receive blood from A, B, or AB donors because they would react against the antigens in the donated blood. :You seem to be suggesting that antibodies should themselves serve as antigens; while this is a reasonable thought, it's just not the case in this instance. - User:Nunh-huh 05:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Diego == Actually, Di(b) was found in several Irishmen and in several Spaniards. In fact, it was discovered in a criollo. == The reason for blood types == I'm curious: why do we have blood types to begin with? In other words, why have we evolved towards having blood types? Why is it useful? Is it so that we don't just give blood to anyone and be cautious in regards to transfusions? How different would our species be if everyone had compatible blood? Or do we not know any reason why having blood types is useful and we just know how it works? User:Eje211 14:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I suspect the answer is that differences in our genetic makeup make us different and there may be some selective advantages to certain blood types in certain conditions. Variety is good. Say, for instance, one rare blood type somehow protects you (and a small bunch of people with the same blood type) against a new, incurable deadly infectious disease that's rapidly spreading across the globe, well, if a significant proportion of the world's population gets killed off, suddenly your blood type is not so rare anymore. That's how evolution works. User:Alex.tan 17:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) In the book Eat Right for Your Type, Dr D'Adamo states that in ancient populations, Type O was predominant, and other types were rarer mutations. As different conditions were imposed on a population for different reasons (such as migration to different regions), other types proved to be more suited for survival in those circumstances. Off the top of my head, I remember him offering the Black Plague in Europe as an example where Type A came to dominance because of better survivability characteristics than Type O. He also states that some foods contain lectins that agglutinate all ABO types (a bean, maybe castor or lima, I forget which) which is problematic, while some foods only agglutinate certain types. Furthermore some foods prove to be beneficial for certain ABO types, which explains his book's title. Many early diets and cooking styles native to populations reflect these predispositions (if only as a matter of natural selcetion at work), he proposes, and it would be good for us to assume similar diets to improve our health. Frankly, I am suprised to see no mention of D'Adamo's work in Wikipedia, perhaps I will hunt down his books and offer more. User:Castlan 19:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Please be careful. Pseudoscience comes to mind. User:Jfdwolff | User_talk:Jfdwolff 22:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ::While I am somewhat dissapointed by D'Adamo's lack of footnotes, and frustrated by his avoidance of indexes, I haven't yet found a credible direct dispute to any significant claims of his. I am aware of a text that might indicate behavior of lectins on stomach tissuus would need to be directly studied, but I wasn't willing to spend in excess of $200 US (iirc) to find out what exactly it found, depite it being a "real" scientificly strict (apparently, as I didn't actually get to read the) study. ::While not as rigourously strict with the science as it should be (at least what is presented in his books) ER4YT doesn't seem to be significantly paranormal or disprovable. So while it has a stigma of pseudoscience, that stigma hasn't really been justified. Some supposed refutation I have come across turned out to be of even poorer quality, either reflecting it's own pseudoscience, or a lack of familiarity with the nominal subject. I would really like to see some explicit, maybe even rigorous debunking of D'Adamo's (occasionaly controversial? I can't see why) offerings. As of yet, I consider this closer to protoscience than unfalsifiable pseudoscience. ::In any case, I don't think that anything I previously posted on this matter is all that fantastic. Is the mere mention of Doctor D'Adamo, or Eat Right For Your Type (ER4YT) enough to invalidate the respose I offered? Other than that vague stigma, is my above answer to the utility of divergent blood types unhelpful or incorrect? I do believe that I was careful enough to avoid anything that wasn't NPOV. Maybe, I shouldn't have tread so lightly, so as to provoke more of a direct response. Because while I like how it advocates my [Type O] consumption of most animal proteins, I find it's avoid lists including wheat and dairy to be cumbersome. My strongest objection to what D'Adamo presents is that it isn't comprehensive (cumbersome) enough. User:Castlan 07:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
B
BA | BC | BD | BE | BF | BG | BH | BI | BJ | BK | BL | BM | BN | BO | BP | BR | BS | BT | BU | BW | BX | BY | BZ |Words begining with Blood_type:
Blood_Type
Blood_type
Blood_type
Blood_Types
Blood_types
Sponsored links: praca.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
