PLVentura wrote:

>From what I understood, the antiquated way to determine of someone had
>type O blood (for transfusion purposes in war time, etc.) was to make a
>runny paste of wheat flour and water, put a drop or two of the paste on
>a piece of paper, and a drop or two of whole blood in it, and if the
>blood "clumped up" (ie. agglutinated--visible with the naked eye), it
>was determined to be type O.  A and B blood would not clump up in wheat
>water.

Yes, I remember being taught something like this when I was in Boy
Scouts, believe it or not.  The question is whether there is a standard
way to test lectins -- a standard concentration, etc.  I just don't
know the answers.

Incidentally, D'Adamo's critics complain that it is simplistic to
single out the ABO blood types for analysis, since there are other
blood antigen classifications.  D'Adamo's response is that unlike the
other blood classifications, the ABO types are also present in
non-blood cells, notably in the cells of the intestinal lining.  I
don't know if this is true, but the logic of his position is clear
enough.  If lectins begin their assault by causing changes to the
intestinal lining then it makes sense that the ABO types would be
uniquely relevant.  But there are a lot of ifs in this.

My personal opinion is that the lectin theory is potentially more
relevant than his opinions about meat, stomach acid, and intestinal
alkaline phosphatase.