The RH factor . Misinformation, Conspiracy or What?

Thirty years ago when I was in college taking microbiology we learned that 0 blood was the universal donor not specifying negative or positive. . Now the consensus of opinion is that the universal donor is O negative because it doesnt have any antigens. Neither does 0positive, I might add. And 75% of the people are RHpositive. It is a fact that RH negative blood will attack RHpositive blood(and this has nothing to do with the O,A,B,and AB blood type).If an RHnegative mother`s blood mixes with an RHpositive fetus the mothers blood will attempt to destroy,attack and kill the invading" disease" Thus forming antibodies to the disease (RHpositive). Yet I am being informed that Onegative blood is the universal donor when 75% of the population is RH positive. Whether or not antibodies have been formed does not nullify the fact that RHnegative blood kills RHpositiveblood and classifying it as the universal donor is like giving pneumonia a shot of pennicillin. I f an Onegative mother is carrying an RHpositive child her blood will attempt to eradicate it. Or Is medicine now saying its OK and negative blood will not kill positive? I am referring to whole blood not plasma. This does not compute. Did I learn this wrong or did you? I must say I hope its me because the majority of the human race would be knocked off otherwise.I am hoping this can be explained and Ill just feel stupid.



Tell me that an O negative mother can carry an RHpositive baby safely WITHOUT forming antibodies if the bloods mix and How this is fact and I will stop making a nuisance of myself. . Incidentally, I am A negative and had an A RHpositive baby.

Dude, when we start talking about blood type, things and possibly people start disappearing before our eyes. So yes, misinformation is rampant/

I'm O-. I have successfully carried 1 Rh + child.

I think you are confusing a few concepts but I do believe you understand the bigger picture. Rh - blood does not attack Rh+ blood. Rather, the immune system of an Rh- mother recognizes an Rh+ fetus as a foreign object and attempt to eliminate it. This reaction is much the same as when you ingest a substance that your immune system does not appreciate. Your body will develop antibodies to help fight off that substance with the intentions of keeping you alive and healthy.

The problem comes in when the Rh- mother is pregnant with a 2nd Rh+ child. Sometime the mother won't have any problems when other times the mother will have problems, it just really depends. The Rh- mother should receive rhogam injections to help with fetal rejections. I believe many issues come into play here, not just +/- Rh factors. I suspect that the types of blood involved is important, too. But that's JMO.

Another thing I believe you may have heard wrong is the percentage of Rh+ people in the world. Depending on who you believe, the percentage is 85% in the US and ~93% worldwide.

Thankyou for your response.Whether it is an immune response which I understand or not the facts are it tries to attack the RHpositive as though a disease. How can it be used to help replicate something it considers a disease? Its MO is forming antibodies not nurture.Im sorry about the statistics but the message is the same.

reply to post by chardonnay


Any answer to your questions would just be speculation on my part. My personal opinion is we may come from different ancestors. However, that does not explain how the Rh- blood is carried on through generations. For example, both of my parents are Rh+ (weak Rh+, both obviously had an Rh- gene). I know that it was a chance with genetics that I am Rh- but what interests me the most is HOW and WHY I am Rh-.

The reason that 0- mothers can now carry + children is this. (www.pregnancy.org...), its called Rhogam and I needed it for my pregnancies. You have to take it within the first term of pregnancy, and at least 3 days after delivery.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by cry93


I used to think one of your parents had to be RH-negative and the other carry a recessive. I am told now they can both be positive and simultaniously carry a recessive its just the odds are small of that happening. But people are missing my point The fact that RHnegative mothers are receiving rhogam proves my point. RH negative blood is not compatible with RH positive and in my opinion should not be used as a donor to RHpositive blood types.This is Before and after Rhogam which prevents the formation of antibodies. Are you saying that male RHnegatives are not part of the blood donations/? They have not been given Rhogam and I doubt they are segregating the blood. Thankyou for your input all of you

O neg, 3 pos blood grouped children.
It's not the blood that kills the babies, it's the mother immune system that attacks it. First child is fine, but our bodies see any future pos blood grouped children as foreign bodies. It's why we have the shots.
My children can have my blood if they desperately need it...It wont kill them off.

Originally posted by chardonnay
reply to post by cry93

 

I used to think one of your parents had to be RH-negative and the other carry a recessive. I am told now they can both be positive and simultaniously carry a recessive its just the odds are small of that happening. But people are missing my point The fact that RHnegative mothers are receiving rhogam proves my point. RH negative blood is not compatible with RH positive and in my opinion should not be used as a donor to RHpositive blood types.This is Before and after Rhogam which prevents the formation of antibodies. Are you saying that male RHnegatives are not part of the blood donations/? They have not been given Rhogam and I doubt they are segregating the blood. Thankyou for your input all of you

Okay, this is what I am hearing you say. Since Rh- mothers conflict with Rh+ fetuses, somehow you think that it translates to blood as in blood donations?

GTHOH with that. It's an immune response within the Rh- woman's body that is designed to help her survive. It has nothing to do with blood and blood donation.

Btw, Rh- males are used to create and manufacture rhogam. Whatever idea you have concerning Rh- males is not what I was attempting to relay. I don't even know where that came from in your mind.

It sounds to me that you had an idea in mind as to what you wanted from this thread. I can't respect it. So why don't you just say what you really want to say and then we can talk. What exactly is on your mind?

I hope this help's you all understand the misconception of O+ AND O -, the error is there is no O type blood.Only 0 (zero) type blood.
0 (zero), meaning zero RH.It has nothing to do with + or - at all. O and 0 appear alike and as all other blood types appear in alphabetical form and not numerical it has been mistranslated.Easy mistake that has never been corrected,bit late now.The mistake is to establised now.0 was the meaning intended by the founder of blood typing.
So I hope the make simplistic sense,
O + and O - = X error
0 (zero) = no RH factor in either + or -

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
I hope this help's you all understand the misconception of O+ AND O -, the error is there is no O type blood.Only 0 (zero) type blood.
0 (zero), meaning zero RH.It has nothing to do with + or - at all. O and 0 appear alike and as all other blood types appear in alphabetical form and not numerical it has been mistranslated.Easy mistake that has never been corrected,bit late now.The mistake is to establised now.0 was the meaning intended by the founder of blood typing.
So I hope the make simplistic sense,
O + and O - = X error
0 (zero) = no RH factor in either + or -

I will respectfully disagree with you. I have a child and siblings who are O+. The O means they lack A/B antigens and have A/B antibodies. The positive means they have are positive for Rh factor.

An O- person cannot receive blood from an O+ person.

reply to post by cry93


But an O- can give blood to an Opositive/? As I said it doesnt make sense and Im not going anywhere with this other than trying to clarify the universal donor part. Immune response is just another way of saying the attacking response of the host to a foreign entity. And this happens to take place in the blood . The fetus is the ";disease" to an RH negative mother. As to your question about the origin of the RHneg. factor ,there are a lot of theories con cerning this but no concrete fact. I think the different species one is closest to the truth . For some reason I think we are drawn to one another .Negatives have more copper in their blood while positives have more iron. I think possibly the copper could explain the electricity phenomena associated with negatives since it is a conducter.The part that is scary is the abductees. A big question there is why?

reply to post by chardonnay


The blood doesn't actually mix during the pregnancy. There's a barrier system that prevents this. And if said barrier is broken, you likely have bigger problems than antibodies.


here's when it DOES happen. During the after birth, this barrier is finally broken, The mother recives a small portion of the blood, and begins to form antibodies against the rhesus factor.

So yes, a woman could safely carry the child all the way through birth. However if she does not receive rogam shots (or whatever else is available) then it could bring complications in another pregnancy.

reply to post by chardonnay


i am in to the blood type and genetic dwals too
check this out... en.wikipedia.org...(D)_Immune_Globulin
i was asking my mother, a medical professional, about the very thing you were talking about, and how it effects birth. she says this how people get over that, but as far as i know will end up +

the creepy thing is who made it, where their family is now, and ALL the groups the person/family are involved in...

CHECK IT OUT!!!

reply to post by Heartisblack


Your observation unsettled me to say the least But never fear RH negative here and if we dont question what we dont understand we can never learn and/or progress.Has anyone noticed how education has changed? People are being taught differently. I was taught to "Think" and to "Question" what I didnt understand and was not derided for a differing opinion. So everyone is being told that such and such is fact and blindly believing it to be true is not conducive to having a mind of your own but more the common herd type viewpoint. I have not been given any facts to help me understand this issue just people trying to detour the train of thought( except for a couple of nice individuals) Thanks again for your input all of you

I know this is really old but I see a few errors in not just this post but in nearly all public information regarding blood types.

First, O negative blood is only the "universal donor" because they alter it. At least they claim to alter it. What I mean by this is when someone donates O- blood they then proceed to remove the antibodies that are found in said blood because remember, O blood has no A or B antigens but has both A and B antibodies. If you were to put O blood in anyone who is not O then it could very well kill you because it is designed to do so (antibodies).

As for positive or negative, negative blood are the universal donors because they do not have the rhesus factor and because the cell is "blank" on thr outside it can be entered into a positive cell containing the rhesus factor. Its "covert", if you will.

Don't believe the hype regarding O negative being the original blood and the universal donor. Both are not true.

Anyone can recieve O- blood without fear of a reaction. Even someone with O+ blood type.

Harte