The origin of Blood Brothers is said to be Middle English during 1350-1400. Depending on where in the World this oath was and is taken to this day, depends on how the ritual is preformed. It is the intertwining of one another’s blood as to make a connection, spiritually. I am wondering if blood type reactions were noted if the “oath” was null. For instance, rh incompatibly…would this “oath” sensitize a rhesus negative individual? Would there be an immune response? Would there be visual agglutination of the blood? Was the “Blood Brother” ritual meant to find a common connection related to blood type?
When we say someone has blood group A, it means the person has antigen of type A and antibody of type B in their blood. People with AB have both antigen A and B in their blood and no antibodies.
People with O blood group have only antibodies A and B and no antigens.
It is not generally known that all these groups have an H antigen in the blood as well. There are very few people who do not have this antigen H also in their blood. These people are known to have BOMBAY BLOOD.
Why does Bombay Blood Group generally type as O?
Most places where blood type tests are done, the presence & absence of AB and Rh alone is tested in the blood. Bombay Blood Group does not have A or B antigens, it types as O blood. It is only when a specific test for H antigen is done that it can be differentiated between O and Bombay Blood group.
Bombay Blood is the ONLY true Universal Donor…they also can only receive blood from their own type.