It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RH Negative blood type

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


The Rhogam is given after the child is delivered, not before. Until then the placental barrier generally does an effective job. The fetus is not typed until after delivery unless there is a really good reason for going in there. That's definitely the best policy too.

However, all my three children were pos and I am neg. I had some astoundingly bad morning sickness, which lasted the entirety of the first two trimesters each time. Was my morning sickness a result of the Rh factor? They speculate about the causes of morning sickness but no one really seems to know. Could it be down to hematological incompatibilities?

My parents were AB- and B-. My sisters and I are all A-. My mother had no morning sickness at all. My sister's daughter is pos, as my children are, and she too had several unpleasant months.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Here's a thing that confuses me a little between the UK and USA.
With my first child I had no problems in pregnancy and only had the shot immediately after her birth to ensure subsequent babies weren't attacked and that first births usually present no worry to that baby and only later children could possibly affected by my now piqued over zealous immune system. This Anti D shot was given immediately after every birth.

Am I to assume that women in the USA are given this shot whilst pregnant? Some people have suggested elsewhere they got more than one shot during their pregnancies too.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by kalisdad
 


The Rhogam is given after the child is delivered, not before. Until then the placental barrier generally does an effective job. The fetus is not typed until after delivery unless there is a really good reason for going in there. That's definitely the best policy too.


my wife, and the official Rhogam website would disagree.
she just told me she got it at 4 months and after delivery.


An Rh-negative mother is most likely to be exposed to her baby’s blood during the last three months of pregnancy and at delivery. Therefore, your doctor will likely prescribe at least one dose of RhoGAM® Ultra-Filtered PLUS at around 28 weeks of pregnancy, and a second dose will be given for added protection within 72 hours after delivery if the baby is found to be Rh-positive. You should also receive RhoGAM® Brand after abdominal trauma or immediately after an invasive procedure is performed (such as amniocentesis) and then every 12 weeks thereafter.

www.rhogam.com...

the whole point of Rhogam is to prevent the RH- pregnant womans body from detecting the Rh+ fetus and thinking it is an infection.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
i am 0- and i have 5 kids never never a misscarrage and if i look at a girl for too long it seems like she gets pregnant so i know from experience 0- blood type has nothing to do with anything like that



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by kalisdad
 


The Rhogam is given after the child is delivered, not before. Until then the placental barrier generally does an effective job. The fetus is not typed until after delivery unless there is a really good reason for going in there. That's definitely the best policy too.


my wife, and the official Rhogam website would disagree.
she just told me she got it at 4 months and after delivery.


An Rh-negative mother is most likely to be exposed to her baby’s blood during the last three months of pregnancy and at delivery. Therefore, your doctor will likely prescribe at least one dose of RhoGAM® Ultra-Filtered PLUS at around 28 weeks of pregnancy, and a second dose will be given for added protection within 72 hours after delivery if the baby is found to be Rh-positive. You should also receive RhoGAM® Brand after abdominal trauma or immediately after an invasive procedure is performed (such as amniocentesis) and then every 12 weeks thereafter.

www.rhogam.com...

the whole point of Rhogam is to prevent the RH- pregnant womans body from detecting the Rh+ fetus and thinking it is an infection.



Look up to my post buddy... It's not the same everywhere. Some of us only had one shot after delivery. In many cases it is given like a vaccine to protect the next child, and again after another delivery and so on and so forth. Perhaps we in the UK are simply given another brand of Anti D, I don't know.
edit on 6-7-2012 by Suspiria because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
i am 0- and i have 5 kids never never a misscarrage and if i look at a girl for too long it seems like she gets pregnant so i know from experience 0- blood type has nothing to do with anything like that


Men don't get pregnant sweetheart.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Suspiria
Look up to my post buddy... It's not the same everywhere. Some of us only had one shot after delivery.


1) with your attitude, I do not consider myself your buddy...
2) obviously things are done differently in other countries.
3) The official Rhogam website says that doctors will likely administer Rhogam at 28 weeks and then again after delivery...

based on my wife's own experience and the official website, I would say that my post is equally if not moreso valid than the posts saying that it is ONLY given after birth...


Therefore, your doctor will likely prescribe at least one dose of RhoGAM® Ultra-Filtered PLUS at around 28 weeks of pregnancy, and a second dose will be given for added protection within 72 hours after delivery if the baby is found to be Rh-positive.


www.rhogam.com...

considering the source is that actual manufacturer of this drug, I will take their word on dosages over yours...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Suspiria
 


i said i have 5 kids didnt say i gave birth to them darlin



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
hmmmm. always an interesting topic and i still think the O- folks are the direct descendants of Atlantis.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
hmmmm. always an interesting topic and i still think the O- folks are the direct descendants of Atlantis.


why specifically tyoe O-?

I could see your point if you made claim that all negative blood types were decendants, but type O- is the most common Rh- blood type there is...

I find it strange that the number of US/UK citizens with negative blood type are soo much higher than the citizens of SE Asia... notably the people of Hong Kong/Tiawan and the people of India.

Compared to the US and UK with total negative blood type being approximately 16%, the total number of Rh- people from HK/Tiawan/India is just 1.672%. The numbers for the Japanese people and Rh- blood type is less than 0.01% from the data I have seen... very rare indeed for them



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 
other than personal intuition, ethereal visuals and a nagging notion to connect the dots, no real scientific reason in particular.

given that Atlantis isn't accepted as an actual place, people or lifestyle, identifying a direct link has always intrigued me to say the least.

on the hypothetical side of your question ... consider the following:

a. atlanteans were supposedly water breathers, what if, prior to the mixing of species, the missing antigen was integral to this breathing ability which has never been explored or explained ?

b. living in a aqua zone, i've come to notice (no official study ever done to my knowledge) that a majority of deep water enthusiasts (free divers, salvage ppl, sea welders, underwater cave explorers and the like) are often
Rh- ppl. (not necessarily O but Rh-) makes me wonder if it is "in the blood"?

c. If those who survived Atlantis were "of another species" and the above mention theory holds true, why does it have to be neanderthals that mixed with the bloodline ?

d. since O- is the universal blood type, wouldn't it make sense that at some point, it was the predominant bloodtype?

e. if the Atlanteans were as advanced as is reported, what better way to divert or diffuse their evolution than to mix their blood (inherited genetics) ??

f. and lastly, because a correlation has never been entertained or explored, hence, i find it more likely than not.

ETA: ever since the media hype about Lucy, Ardi and the like minus any scientific result (lots of opinion) or reference to blood-types really peaked my curiosity to the possibilities. i would think blood typing would be one of the standard results from their testing, if so, why no release of the information?


edit on 6-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


That's pretty...well, what can we really say? They love to shove their little lab creations into people. Pretty mortifying. I don't think I would have allowed it. Fortunately it was never suggested.

All of my births were more than 15 year ago so maybe things have changed but I don't recall it being done back then. Fear drives a lot of stupidity in the world.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
what if, prior to the mixing of species, the missing antigen was integral to this breathing ability which has never been explored or explained ?


RH- blood (nor o- blood) does not bind oxygen any more efficiently than any other blood type.


b. living in a aqua zone, i've come to notice (no official study ever done to my knowledge) that a majority of deep water enthusiasts (free divers, salvage ppl, sea welders, underwater cave explorers and the like) are often
Rh- ppl. (not necessarily O but Rh-) makes me wonder if it is "in the blood"?


How do you "come to notice" people's blood types? It's not tattood on their forehead or anything. I'm raising the BS flag on this one, unless you walk up to random strangers and ask them their blood type.


c. If those who survived Atlantis were "of another species" and the above mention theory holds true, why does it have to be neanderthals that mixed with the bloodline ?


Because neanderthals were real and "Atlanteans" are fiction.


d. since O- is the universal blood type, wouldn't it make sense that at some point, it was the predominant bloodtype?


O- is not the "universal blood type", it is the unversal donor]/b]. They don't have the A, B or Rh proteins, so their blood does not contain antibodies against these proteins. Thus, they they can donate blood to any blood type. Aimilarly, AB+ individuals are universal receivers because they have antibodies against all three proteins, and thus can accept all three (they won't mount an immune response against the proteins, because their body is "used to it" and sees them as self-tissue).


ETA: ever since the media hype about Lucy, Ardi and the like minus any scientific result (lots of opinion) or reference to blood-types really peaked my curiosity to the possibilities. i would think blood typing would be one of the standard results from their testing, if so, why no release of the information?


How exactly would you suggest we blood type a pile of fossilized bone?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


RH- blood (nor o- blood) does not bind oxygen any more efficiently than any other blood type.
link please ??
what does binding oxygen have to do with an ability to breath underwater anyway ?
since the theory has not been tested, explored or observed, what proof are you offering?


unless you walk up to random strangers and ask them their blood type.
that's a little dramatic but yes, basically.
ever have a random conversation with a "stranger" over a beer ?? it happens.
as a Rh- person, i tend to observe/notice common denominators such as this one.


Because neanderthals were real and "Atlanteans" are fiction.
so you say but that is argumentative and irrelevant ... Atlantis is recorded in historical texts but i suppose you'd consider them "fiction" too, right?
besides, neanderthals were supposedly gone/extinct by the time the Atlanteans lived.

O- is a universal blood type as it is the only type that cannot/will not accept any other blood type, while at the same time being the SOLE outside donor to every other.
this makes it universal -- there are no barriers to its usage amongst the population.
which leads me to postulate that it may have been (at one point in history) the most prevalent as well.

this hypothetical has no boundaries as established by today's sciences, but thanks for trying to negate possibilities never explored.


How exactly would you suggest we blood type a pile of fossilized bone
you would have to ask that of a scientist, however, DNA seems to reveal everything else, why not blood type ??
didn't the marrow in those bone fragments PRODUCE the blood ??
then surely there are identifying markers remaining or we couldn't test the DNA either.

ETA: ps, if DNA profiles are so complete as to identify hair & eye color, why not blood type ???







edit on 6-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
link please ??


Here: Hemoglobin. Every bloodtype has the exact same hemoglobin protein (unless you have a hematologic disorder like sickle cell).


what does binding oxygen have to do with an ability to breath underwater anyway ?


Well, I would imagine that since you NEED OXYGEN TO SURVIVE you would have to have some way of getting it out of water, yeah?


that's a little dramatic but yes, basically.
ever have a random conversation with a "stranger" over a beer ?? it happens.
as a Rh- person, i tend to observe/notice common denominators such as this one.


Yes, I've had conversations with strangers. I (and most people) would immediately stop the conversation if a stranger asked me my bloodtype, as that is a bit bizarre.


Atlantis is recorded in historical texts


Which ones? Can you cite them?


O- is a universal blood type as it is the only type that cannot/will not accept any other blood type, while at the same time being the SOLE outside donor to every other.
this makes it universal -- there are no barriers to its usage amongst the population.
which leads me to postulate that it may have been (at one point in history) the most prevalent as well.


I suppose this is semantics here. A "universal blood type" would mean that is can receive and donate to and from anyone. That is, it's "universal" in all purposes. O- is a universal DONOR. It is not a universal RECEIPIENT, so it isn't truly "universal" in all senses, as you're implying.


you would have to ask that of a scientist, however, DNA seems to reveal everything else, why not blood type ??
didn't the marrow in those bone fragments PRODUCE the blood ??
then surely there are identifying markers remaining or we couldn't test the DNA either.

ETA: ps, if DNA profiles are so complete as to identify hair & eye color, why not blood type ???


Mitochondrial DNA does not contain blood type information. Nuclear DNA does, but is much more fragile and is VERY rarely found in any fossilized tissue, and never in a hominid fossil to my knowledge.

How can you demand things you say be accepted as true if you haven't even done the tiniest bit of research one it?

edit on 7/6/2012 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 
i asked for a link regarding the "binding" you claim to be necessary.
i am quite familiar with hemoglobin, thanks anyway.


Well, I would imagine that since you NEED OXYGEN TO SURVIVE you would have to have some way of getting it out of water, yeah?
not necessarily. considering we (embryos) develop gills in utero, such an ability may already be "built in".
dolphin don't require leaving the water, why would we ??
on the other hand, gators and crocs do just fine in both environments.


I (and most people) would immediately stop the conversation if a stranger asked me my bloodtype, as that is a bit bizarre.
then i guess it's a good thing that i don't share company with you and most others, eh ??
ppl who work in the medical industry find ways to communicate such things without seeming invasive. (for the record, i knew my mate's BT before i knew if he was "available")

yes i can but that isn't what this topic references.
feel free to start a new one focusing on such answers.

you can define "universal" as it suits you.
to me, the ONLY universal BT is O- ... there is no other than can serve all of the population, period.
and, it can be received as well as given to ALL members of society.


It is not a universal RECEIPIENT
sure is for the universal donor blood, why would you think it wasn't ??

perhaps you mean an O- person cannot receive any other BT (that is true)
however, ALL people can receive O- and O- can be donated to All people.
^^^^ that makes it universal, and the only one that can claim such is O-


How can you demand things you say be accepted as true if you haven't even done the tiniest bit of research one it?
excuse me but what part of a "hypothetical" statement is a demand upon anyone or anything?
the words "i believe" or "i think" is not even claiming a truth, so where did you get that?

and for the record, NO ONE has done research on this proposition, no one.
how can i do research or reference research that hasn't been developed yet ?

you already admit that it's possible through nuclear DNA so i'd guess i'm not too far off base.
and everyone is well aware that scientific discoveries are often kept from public view or scrutiny.
so, who's to say it hasn't already been done and kept secret ??

ETA: if you wish to discuss the possibilities, i'm all ears, however, if your goal is to dismiss the concept as anything other than possible, please save it, i've heard it all before.
still doesn't change my opinion




edit on 6-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I may be beating a dead horse here, but what the "hay".

Rhogam is administered to Rh- pregnant women at 28 weeks in the United States. It is also administered within 48 hours after birth if the baby is Rh+. It is not customary for Rhogam to be administered during pregnancy outside of the US.

In my opinion, Rhogam is administered during pregnancy as more of a money making tool than for the health of future babies. The makers realized that by Rh- women waiting until after birth, and after the baby's cord blood had been tested for the rhesus protein, they were missing out on potential profits. By offering this injection to Rh- pregnant women who may be pregnant with a Rh+ baby, they could for sure count on $$$. If that pregnant woman elects to receive the Rhogam shot at 28 weeks (you can decline, but that is generally frowned upon and not offered as an option up front) then gives birth to a Rh- baby, what do they care? Kaching.

I elected not to receive the 28 week injection during my pregnancy. I gave birth to a Rh- baby. Exposing myself to a human blood product, and potentially exposing my baby to harmful antibodies during pregnancy, simply was not an option. Had sensitization occurred, I would not have had future children. Of course not all women are that responsible, but I believe the chances of blood mixing while baby is in utero are extremely small. Rh- pregnant women can wait until after birth, have the baby's cord blood tested, and choose to have the Rhogam injection if the baby is Rh+.

As for the mysteries that surround Rh negative blood, there's certainly something extraordinary about me.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
not necessarily. considering we (embryos) develop gills in utero, such an ability may already be "built in".


We do not "develop gills in utero". The umbilical veins delivery oxygenated blood from the mother to the placenta/fetus. Since the fetus has a source of oxygen, it has no need to breathe. This is also why a fetal heart bypasses pulmonary (lung) circulation until birth.


dolphin don't require leaving the water, why would we ??


Dolphins absolutely have to leave water to breathe.

Are you being serious in these posts, or just teasing me? You can't honestly think dolphins breathe underwater, right?




ppl who work in the medical industry find ways to communicate such things without seeming invasive. (for the record, i knew my mate's BT before i knew if he was "available")


I am a medical professional, and I only ask blood types if it is something I need to know for a patient's care. You don't think it's just a BIT different being asked your bloodtype before a transfusion, versus a stranger asking you in a bar?


to me, the ONLY universal BT is O- ...


Well, under the first amendment, you have every right to say as many incorrect things as you choose =).

edit on 7/6/2012 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 
ok, i'm not playing this silly game.
i have done as much research as i can on this subject, albeit it doesn't add up to much, it is what it is.
if you are going to waste my time like this, find another playmate.

yes, they do ...

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...
All mammals seemingly have gill slits in their very early embryo development. We call this ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny..where the development of the individual goes through some of the characteristics of the animals lower in the evolutionary development.

When we look at early fetal development of various animals we see all having gill slits, and tails. Your questions involves very complex answers, but I will address some aspects of what you ask.
and following in your wiki style, this one's for you ... en.wikipedia.org...

dolphin do not leave the water, they BREACH the waterline.
no, i do not believe such but they do not leave the water as you imply.
gators and crocs, however, do just that.

ok, medical professional, if you are amongst a group of deep sea salvagers, are you telling me that you couldn't compose a "stealthy" question involving a bleeding injury that could garner the information freely ??
[perhaps i've just had more practice but it's not that hard]

who said i was in a bar ?? i said "over a beer", never mentioned where.

now, as i'm moving away from your style of semantics, i'm not a scientist or do i pretend to be.
if you want scientific answers, look them up, i already have.
i did not formulate this hypothesis from thin air or last night.

so, med professionals reference wiki now too ?? when did that happen?




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

 
ok, i'm not playing this silly game.
i have done as much research as i can on this subject, albeit it doesn't add up to much, it is what it is.
if you are going to waste my time like this, find another playmate.

yes, they do ...

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...
All mammals seemingly have gill slits in their very early embryo development. We call this ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny..where the development of the individual goes through some of the characteristics of the animals lower in the evolutionary development.

When we look at early fetal development of various animals we see all having gill slits, and tails. Your questions involves very complex answers, but I will address some aspects of what you ask.
and following in your wiki style, this one's for you ... en.wikipedia.org...


Please read your own sources before posting them. From your first link:


If the gill-like slits did remain, the fetus would probably be naturally aborted at a very young embryonic stage



dolphin do not leave the water, they BREACH the waterline.
no, i do not believe such but they do not leave the water as you imply.
gators and crocs, however, do just that.


Dolphins must leave the water (their dorsum is no longer in the water, and their blowhole is exposed to air) ro respire.

Here is a video of it. See the dolphin leave the water for a second or two, blow air out of their blowhole, and bring some fresh air in? That's breathing.


ok, medical professional, if you are amongst a group of deep sea salvagers, are you telling me that you couldn't compose a "stealthy" question involving a bleeding injury that could garner the information freely ??
[perhaps i've just had more practice but it's not that hard]


I'm sure I could just ask them...but why? Why would you ever just ask a stranger their bloodtype? It's bizarre. Of course, you're probably the type that opens up with, "So, you know Atlantis is real, right? It's in historical texts that I can't remember the title or author of!"


if you want scientific answers, look them up, i already have.


Then why don't you supply some of these answers, rather than ignoring almost all of my questions?


so, med professionals reference wiki now too ?? when did that happen?


Yep, we use it all the time for basic science information. In fact, Harvard and Cornell did studies looking at the accuracy of Wikipedia and found that, due to constant revision and fact-checking, it is very accurate in the sciences.

But, again, you would only know that if you did a few minutes of research, which you seem opposed to for some reason.
edit on 7/6/2012 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join