Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: svrn on May 19, 2014, 02:55:11 am
-
does anybody here know anything about the dangers of and rh negative woman carrying and rh positive child? Is this stuff true or is it just an excuse to get people to take vaccines during pregnancy?
If its true would proper diet be able to prevent problems associated with such a pregnancy? Any other natural solutions besides vaccination?
-
im just wondering how our ancestors survived for so long if this thing is true. How can there be so many rh negative people around anymore if this were true. It just doesnt make sense and there is very little info about it.
there is no fetus its hypothetical. Interesting how nobody but mainstream medicine has any info on this. Perhaps they just made it up as an excuse for vaccines.
-
I'm actually going through this right now. My wife is Rh negative, and I am Rh positive. She took the shot a couple of weeks ago, but it made me wonder if this might not actually be mainly a problem of diet instead of genetics. I haven't studied the Rh issue nearly enough to understand its biochemistry enough to make a good argument on it, though.
-
The rh negative/positive factor is a real issue, not fake in the slightest. The rh negative trait is recessive and only about 7% of the world population expresses this trait. The rh negative factor does not have enough potency in the general population to cause an issue with population numbers. Plus, it is only an issue when the woman is rh negative and the man is rh positive, and only when the child acquires the father's rh factor. Our ancestors had very little trouble having children since over 90% of the world population is rh positive.
-
the problem i hear though is that for example, if i lost a lot of blood in the hospital and i was ab+ and i was given A+ blood, my body would reject it just as if I was a- and given b- blood i could die from that as well. The problem with rh- women supposedly having rh+ fetus is supposedly due to fact that the body rejects all incompatible blood and if babies blood mixed with mommies there would be problem. But why do they claim there would only be a problem if mom is - and baby is plus? why not if the mom is a- and baby is b-? The body would reject the blood if it was a transfusion and the problem with transfusion of incompatible blood is supposedly the same problem as pregnancy with incompatible pregnancy so why is there only problems with the combo of - mom and + baby and no other combo?
Is there any information concerning rh- mother rh+ father couples having many children which ended up coming out damaged? Where is the real proof that this situation is an actual problem?
-
very important question which some may be able to answer better than other questions on this thread.
It is said that a problem between mother and babys blood only occurs in the case of some of the babys blood mixing with the mothers blood. This can occur during an abortion, if a bruise occurs that releases babies blood, or during cutting of the umbilical cord.
My question is, during an ideal pregnancy in which there is no bruising and the umbilical cord is never cut, is there any point in which the babies blood is supposed to get into the mothers blood? In an ideal birthing scenario, does the babies blood ever come in contact with the mothers blood or does such an event occur only during unnatural circumstances?
-
http://www.whale.to/a/rhogam.html (http://www.whale.to/a/rhogam.html)
-
Strange Facts About Rh Negative People
Strange Facts About Rh Negative People (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xjdik6zFjM#)
interesting.
http://rhnegativebloodsecrets.blogspot.com (http://rhnegativebloodsecrets.blogspot.com)
The answer to the original question is here.
http://rhnegativebloodsecrets.blogspot.com/2013/03/risks-during-pregnancy-regarding-rh.html (http://rhnegativebloodsecrets.blogspot.com/2013/03/risks-during-pregnancy-regarding-rh.html)