posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Gixxer
I have found no reliable, scientific evidence anywhere that being Rh negative protects anyone from developing AIDS. None. There is no credible science
to back up this claim.
So for anyone out there who is Rh negative, please take all of the usual precautions. You get no protection from having this blood type. Which isn't
surprising when you think about it.
From a scientific point of view, it would be really weird if having Rh negative blood did give protection. After all, Rh negative has to do with red
blood cells and AIDS has to do with white blood cells. It is very hard (although not impossible) to come up with ways for something in red blood cells
to affect AIDS.
i have to question this entire thread when you claim you have done research, it takes all of 2 minutes online to prove that all blood types are at
risk for hiv.
i smell a troll.
Perhaps the whole RH- issue is due to a vague misunderstanding of immunology.
The RH or Rhesus factor of blood typing is due to an intolerance to the blood of other non-human primates, specifically Rhesus Monkeys. For instance a
Rhesus with O type blood could not give blood to someone who is O type, but RH-.
HIV is believed to have evolved from similar strains of virii that infect apes. This (assumed) precursor family of virii are generally classed as SIV
(or Simian Immunodeficiency Virus).
The confusion could have been that the OP believed the negative RH factor shows a different genetic predisposition than RH+ because they are
apparently 'less related to an ape'.
While there is no-doubt a correlation between genetics and RH factor tolerance, it is going too far to assume that a negative Rhesus factor gives any
protection from HIV. If such were the case, it would have been pursued more fully in a search for the cure.
edit on 8/7/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)