I have an extremely rare blood type — I'm the only person in the world with it
An unidentified woman from Guadeloupe has the rarest blood type on Earth, to the extent that she's only compatible with herself.
The 68-year-old is thus far the only known member of the blood group 'Gwada negative,' according to news reports.
The moniker comes from the colloquial name for the French Caribbean island the woman calls home.
3 Research revealed the woman has a mutation in the gene PIGZ, which affects how proteins anchor to the surface of blood cells.
sebgross – stock.adobe.com
Scientists with the French Blood Establishment (EFS), who discovered Gwada negative, announced their findings this month in a presentation at the International Society of Blood Transfusion's Congress in Milan.
The research team was introduced to the woman in 2001 when she was living in Paris and undergoing routine blood tests in preparation for surgery. Doctors were unable to identify her blood type or any matches for it.
DNA analysis wasn't advanced enough at the time to explore the case further, but in 2019, researchers utilized next-generation technology to sequence the patient's entire genome.
Research revealed a mutation in the gene PIGZ, which affects how proteins anchor to the surface of blood cells. The team determined that the woman inherited her unique blood profile from her parents, as both carried the mutated gene.
'This woman is undoubtedly the only known case in the world,' Thierry Peyrard , a biologist at EFS, told AFP. 'She is the only person in the world who is compatible with herself.'
3 Blood group systems are essential for blood transfusions, as our bodies reject blood group antigens that they perceive as foreign.
thomsond – stock.adobe.com
Human blood group classifications are based on antigens, the proteins and sugars found on the surface of red blood cells.
The ABO blood typing system details whether people have one, both or neither of the antigens 'A' and 'B.' The rhesus classification determines whether cells are 'positive' or 'negative' for the Rh factor antigen.
Blood group systems are essential for blood transfusions, as our bodies reject blood group antigens that they perceive as foreign.
Folks with AB blood have A and B antigens, meaning they can receive blood from any donor. Meanwhile, type O blood has no antigens, meaning patients with this type can only receive blood from fellow type O donors.
In tandem, the ABO and Rh systems provide us with the eight primary blood groups. However, scientists explain that there are several lesser-known blood groups, 45 of which are recognized by the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT).
3 Type O blood has no antigens, meaning patients with this type can only receive blood from fellow type O donors.
picture alliance via Getty Images
Gwada negative is now recognized as No. 48 by ISBT.
Researchers plan to investigate whether other people have this unique blood type.
The team notes that blood types are commonly shared by groups of similar ancestral descent; thus, they aim to start their search among blood donors in Guadeloupe.
'Discovering new blood types means offering patients with rare blood a better level of care,' an EFS statement read.
In certain cases, patients with rare blood can provide incredible care to others.
James Harrison, nicknamed the 'man with the golden arm,' had blood that contained a rare antibody known as Anti-D, which can be used to make medication to treat pregnant women with Rhesus disease.
Rhesus disease isn't harmful to the mother, but it causes her antibodies to destroy her baby's blood cells, which can be fatal.
Since Anti-D was discovered in the 1960s, it has saved the lives of millions, and expectant mothers have relied on the kindness of the small group of people who could provide the antibody.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
4 hours ago
- Axios
HHS workers accuse RFK Jr. of stoking violence against them
More than 750 current and former federal health workers on Wednesday accused HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of contributing to harassment and violence against government employees they said manifested itself in the Aug. 8 attack on CDC's Atlanta headquarters. Why it matters: The workers, in a letter to Kennedy and members of Congress, called on Kennedy to publicly disavow and stop spreading inaccurate and misleading claims about vaccines, disease transmission and public health institutions. They're also asking him to affirm CDC's non-partisan and scientific integrity. HHS should improve emergency procedures and alerts, and take "vigorous action" to remove material online that targets federal workers, including "DEI watchlists," the letter states. The letter asks for a response from Kennedy by Sept. 2. What they're saying: The letter charges Kennedy as being " complicit in dismantling America's public health infrastructure and endangering the nation's health by repeatedly spreading inaccurate health information." Actions like ousting members of a CDC vaccine advisory board, questioning the safety of measles vaccine and terminating critical CDC workers "have contributed to the harassment and violence experienced by CDC staff," the workers wrote. "The deliberate destruction of trust in America's public health workforce puts lives at risk. We urge you to act in the best interest of the American people—your friends, your families, and yourselves," the letter states.
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
Trump's First Term Degraded Military Health. His Second Must Rebuild It
Recently, Senators McConnell (R-KY) and Coons (D-DE) cosponsored a bill to invest more than $850 billion to strengthen our nation's defense industrial base, upgrade its shipbuilding capabilities, replenish munitions, and support key allies. Although these are worthy goals, Congress and the White House must not overlook the system that safeguards the health of American warfighters - our military's most important asset. Last March, the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), made pointed remarks at the outset of a hearing on stabilizing the military health system: America's Military Health System Is Unique Unlike the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) or private healthcare systems, military health must always be ready to deploy uniformed healthcare professionals anywhere in the world in support 0f U.S. combat operations and other missions, including peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. To enable this work, the MHS maintains a network of stateside military hospitals and clinics, supplemented by healthcare purchased from private doctors and healthcare systems to treat active-duty service members, their family members, and military retirees. This second mission reinforces the first. The clinical duties that military doctors, nurses, and other health professionals perform in stateside military hospitals helps keep their skills sharp between deployments. It also allows them to teach and inspire the next generation of military healthcare professionals. In times of conflict, military hospitals receive and treat complex casualties. Finally, the high-quality care to wounded, ill and injured servicemembers as well as their families and military retirees helps the DoD recruit and retain its 'all-volunteer' force. Healthy Forces Are Vital For Battlefield Success Military health has played a key role in American history since the founding of our republic. In the Winter of 1777, General George Washington ordered the inoculation of the Continental Army against smallpox. It was the first time in history that an Army was immunized by command order. Washington also instituted policies on camp cleanliness and took other actions to preserve his army's fighting strength. The principles he established still guide military medicine to this day. Health protection is so important to preserving fighting strength that the U.S. military monitors every unit's 'disease and non-battle injury (DNBI)' rates to evaluate the quality of its leadership and medical support. This discipline paid off in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite logistical challenges and austere conditions, military medicine drove rates of DNBIs and deaths from severe battlefield wounds to the lowest levels in the history of warfare. It's one of the most remarkable achievements in the history of American medicine. Many of the innovations they pioneered have been adopted by civilian healthcare. Post-War Decisions Eroded Hard-Won Gains Instead of recognizing the value of military health, budget officials in the Pentagon viewed the MHS as little more than an HMO for beneficiaries. As the wars wound down, they began siphoning military health funding and positions for other DoD priorities. As a result, spending on military healthcare flattened, and is now far behind healthcare spending in the VA and our nation overall. During Trump's first term, the Pentagon compounded this error by directing military families and retirees to go elsewhere for treatment. Then, as visits and hospital admissions fell, they downsized or closed many military clinics and hospitals. Even top hospitals, such as Walter Reed and Naval Medical Center San Diego, were left underfunded, understaffed, and underutilized. This weakened the link between stateside care and battlefield care. By the time the Joint Chiefs of Staff realized that privatization had gone too far, the damage was done. In 2023, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks issued a directive to reverse course and begin restoring the MHS. What About Now? Today, different leaders are in charge. In the past, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has advocated diverting military and veteran healthcare benefits to enhance the Pentagon's "war-fighting capability." Military and veterans' healthcare IS a warfighting capability. It's a major reason why American servicemembers fight so hard, accept such risks and reenlist to do it again. Until recently, they knew that every time they were deployed, their families would be cared for by doctors and nurses who understood the stresses of military life. They were also confident that if anyone in their unit became ill or was wounded in battle, they'd receive the best healthcare in the world, expert rehabilitation, and if needed, long-term care. If the Pentagon resumes its push to privatize the military health system, it will harm the health of our armed forces and diminish their battlefield performance. Two former Hegseth aides said as much in a recent New York Times op-ed: Why You and Trump Should Care About Military Health Although most Americans give little thought to military health, servicemembers, veterans and military retirees know better. If any member of your family, a friend, or a neighbor currently serves in uniform, you should care. If one or more of your children or grandchildren are considering military service, you should care. If you value any of the numerous advances military health has contributed to American medicine throughout our nation's history, you should care. As Commander-in-Chief of our nation's armed forces, President Trump should care, and direct Defense Secretary Hegseth and his senior staff to rebuild our nation's military health system.
The Hill
9 hours ago
- The Hill
CDC funding changes inject ‘chaos' into local health programs
The Trump administration has delayed or blocked millions of dollars in federal grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), leaving state and local health departments in the dark, uncertain when or even if they will get money that's already been appropriated by Congress for key public health initiatives. With little communication from the White House, CDC staff are trying to expedite getting grants out the door, and public health officials are scrambling to spend the money they have before it expires Sept. 30. The CDC typically doles out the money it receives from Congress to state and local health departments, which in turn fund local contracts. But with the start of the new administration, the White House began to apportion money to CDC on a month-by-month basis, citing the need for external reviews. That practice stopped when the agency received a two-month apportionment through the end of the fiscal year, according to CDC employees, but some grants were delivered late while others are still being blocked. 'Everything is weeks, if not months behind schedule,' a CDC employee with knowledge of the funding situation said. Another employee noted the extra layers involved in getting funding out the door, including new external reviews being conducted by the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'With every single award requiring DOGE review, there is fear the award may not be made before the end of the fiscal year and lapse of funds,' the employee said. Raynard Washington, director of the Mecklenburg County Public Health Department in North Carolina, said his agency laid off six workers — including half its disease investigators — after grants for HIV prevention and surveillance programs expired at the end of May with no information about future funding. The grants were eventually restored about a month later, but to date the department has only been able to bring back half of the people it laid off. 'So now we're behind, and cases are still being reported every day that have to be investigated,' Washington said. 'The more time that people may have been exposed to HIV and don't know it, or syphilis and don't know it and are getting tested and treated, those delays actually translate to potential illness.' Meanwhile, the Trump administration is preventing CDC from funding tens of millions of dollars in other awards, including for public health emergency preparedness, chronic disease prevention and education, academic prevention research centers, gun violence, and tobacco use. That means activities like training hospital staff and other health workers alongside first responders to prepare for a natural disaster are on hold. Washington said North Carolina had to lay off its team working on tobacco prevention efforts because the funding had dried up. 'These are not delays that we expect, given that Congress has appropriated funding for these initiatives,' Washington said. 'And these are things that — despite the political swings in Washington — have largely received bipartisan support, and so you don't expect that there was going to be gaps.' Philip Huang, director of Dallas County Health and Human Services in Texas, said he was waiting for nearly 30 percent of the promised award for public health emergency preparedness. The state doesn't know if that money is ever coming, Huang said. 'So, it makes it very difficult for us to plan. And many health departments don't have much buffer. If you plan and keep everything fully operational with all your staff now, and then you don't get the [remaining funding], then you're not going to be able to last through the year,' Huang said. CDC centers are currently not allowed to move funding into the blocked programs, according to employees. If that money is not apportioned by Sept. 30, it could be returned to the Treasury, a maneuver known as a 'pocket rescission' that has drawn criticism from lawmakers in both parties. Congress in July approved the White House's official rescissions proposal to claw back $9 billion of funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. The White House would have to send another official rescission message to Congress, which Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought claims would effectively freeze the funding and cause it lapse. 'Effectively, what they're doing is keeping that money in house. We can't pull it down,' said Scott Harris, chief of the Alabama Department of Public Health and president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. 'We have grants that we thought we had access to, we suddenly have different rules about how we're allowed to spend.' Asked about the status of CDC grants, the Department of Health and Human Services referred The Hill to OMB, which did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Harris said the uncertainty is 'chaos' for health departments and makes it almost impossible to predict or plan for the future. 'We never really know month to month if a program's still going to be here anymore,' Harris said. 'We have serious concerns about whether all of the money that has been awarded will be spent before the end of the fiscal year. New instructions on which types of expenditures are allowable will prevent us from supporting much of the programmatic work that the grants are designed to fund.'
