Reciepients of blood transfusion can inherit some of the donors characteristics ....?

Question

that puts a whole new meaning to so called primitive tribes who ate their enemies hearts in order to gain their strength and bravery.were they way ahead of us? any other examples ?

Answer 1

A transfusion is one thing. If you can describe some unique characteristics in organs or blood that will survive a hydrochloric acid bath in someone's stomach and then get absorbed by the intestines and still remain intact enough to actually pass something on, I'll be interested.

Answer 2

There is some truth to this.

Yes, we have our unique DNA but outer elements do affect us.

Dr Alan Logan cites "a recent study reported in the British Journal of Psychiatry that found inmates given fish oil and a multivitamin were 30 per cent less violent, compared to those given placebos."

As for transplants it has been proven that people can take on some traits of the donor.

There were several articles about this in JAMA and The Lancet.

Also if you want to read it from someone who's been through it: A Change of Heart: A Memoir

Obviously, a body part contains DNA and taking someone Else's will affect you, maybe not so significantly.

I know of a L*****n who got married to a male approximately one year after her transplant. Her donor as a hetero female.

As for the primitive people eating hearts, that's just sick.

It was mainly done just for revenge but very rarely for: endocannibalism, which means you hope for the dead to be reborn in you.

It is fact that eating someone Else's body part will not make you like them whatsoever. Nutrients will be gained not DNA or traits. That is if you don't get poisoned first.

Answer 3

The notion is completely false, but it is not without precedence.

Before the discovery of genes by Gregor Mendel, heredity was believed to be through Pangenesis.

Basically the genetic information of the parents are transfered via the bloodstream from the organs to the gametes via gemmules.

The combining of the gametes was therefore known as "blood-mixing" since it was believed that gemmules were carried by the blood.

There are still some modern terms that stem from this archaic belief:

- The term "blue-blood" is described as someone of a noble lineage.

- In animal husbandry, add "new-blood" to a breed is perform an outcrossing into a breeding line.

As for eating the hearts of enemies and other acts of cannibalism, they are more symbolic than anything else.

A leader performing such an act strikes fear into his followers and other enemies, as such it is almost always done publicly. Of course, protein deficiency is another explanation for such behavior.

In summary, blood does NOT transfer any genetic information. The belief is based on a disproved theory of heredity.

Answer 4

Where did you read this?

Answer 5

The only thing I can think of that might make this true would be introduction of diseases and antibodies that the consuming culture would not have had contact with. A weakend dose of the disease could be absorbed by the warrior and although he might become sick-- I can entertain the idea that it could act as a primitive immunization.

( this is free from scientific rigor, but it makes sense)

Answer 6

That is BS