Want to come back to this point - despite all of the wins we’ve had lately it’s not entirely accurate to ignore the similar (perhaps not as excessive in China) issues in China. This is an example of a kid in Shanxi who “donated” plasma 16x in 8 months (basically the WHO maximum).
I mean the fact it made the news is likely a reflection of the rarity (but one cannot rule of the possibility of local censorship since these companies are huge tax payers to local governments).
Reading this story, it appears that the underlying problem here was aplastic anemia, which is a deficit in the
production of blood cells in the bone marrow. From my admittedly superficial reading, it seems unlikely that donating blood plasma could have caused this, with auto-immune disorders being the most common cause of aplastic anemia. In theory, at least, plasma donation should have little to no impact on either the production of red or white blood cells in the bone marrow, or the levels of such cells circulating in the blood, which is why plasma can be donated far more often than whole blood. However, what does seem odd is that the patient's anemia should at least have been
identified by the plasma collection agency and communicated to him.
In Australia, all donations of both whole blood and plasma are unpaid. On each occasion, prior to collecting plasma, haemoglobin levels are assessed on-site via pinprick test and two vials of whole blood are also taken for testing purposes. Having donated plasma on a regular basis for around fifteen years now, I recently received a letter from the blood service informing me that my ferritin levels are low (just outside the reference range for males), information that was obviously gleaned from that testing process. My haemoglobin levels are fine, so it is iron deficiency without anemia, for which my GP has since prescribed oral iron supplements. In any case, my point is that this sort of testing by the blood service should have identified the patient's pancytopenia even if he was only donating plasma. Most testing of blood products is directed to ensure that they are safe for the recipient, e.g. no bacterial or viral contamination, but most of that information has two-way implications. If donated blood tests positive for e.g. Hepatitis B, that information is obviously just as useful for the donor as it is for the collection agency, and withholding that information from the donor is negligent and immoral.