or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Negative Blood Type - Page 2

post #21 of 47

Except that you're taking a risk with your current child if you get the prenatal shot, to decrease the chance of having problems with your next child by 1%.

post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devaskyla View Post

Even if the father is positive, the 28 week Rhogam shot has a lot of negatives and no real positives. The safest option is to wait to find out the baby's type after birth and get the shot within 72 hours if the baby is positive. The only reason to get it during pregnancy is if you have something happen that increases your risk of sensitization eg. amnio, severe abdominal injury,  etc. There is such a thing a silent sensitization, which means there's no obvious trauma to cause it, but it's rare and you would still have to have the shot within 72 hours of whatever that event was and really, what are the odds it's going to have happened within 72 hours of 28 weeks?

 

This is a great thread about Rhogam http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/455838/rhogam



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Devaskyla View Post

Except that you're taking a risk with your current child if you get the prenatal shot, to decrease the chance of having problems with your next child by 1%.




Can you please cite a peer reviewed journal article to support the claims that you're making?

post #23 of 47

I prefer a hands off approach to prenatal care, but as someone who is rh negative, with the father being positive blood type-its a no brainer for me. If you dont get the shot, and become sensitized,  you might never be able to conceive again because your body will kill off any +blood embryo. If the embryo makes it, then it could be a stillborn, or born deaf. My cousin is deaf because his mother, like me, is rh negative. What if you have some spotting in your pregnancy? What if you have a miscarriage? Why not play it safe if you know the father is  rh positive. On the other hand, if he is negative, then definitely decline the shot (unless you have reason to believe he is not the father, like you dont know right?)  I dont know, personally, i wouldnt take the risk.

post #24 of 47

 

Quote:
The only reason to get it during pregnancy is if you have something happen that increases your risk of sensitization eg. amnio, severe abdominal injury,  etc. There is such a thing a silent sensitization, which means there's no obvious trauma to cause it, but it's rare and you would still have to have the shot within 72 hours of whatever that event was and really, what are the odds it's going to have happened within 72 hours of 28 weeks?

Rhogam lasts 12 weeks so the idea is that if you get it at 28 weeks, it should last until 40 weeks, offering protection for anything that might happen during that time.  What I don't get is why is the risk for sensitization greater after 28 weeks and not prior to it?  If there is a medical reason to get it during pregnancy besides events that increase risk wouldn't that reason be in effect earlier than 28 weeks?  Am I missing something?

post #25 of 47

I am A+, but my mother is A-, and she had the shot. Personally, I would get the shot as well if I were Rh- because the risk of what could happen is just too scary.

post #26 of 47

ddcc---i am due in august. rhogam has been a very sensitive subject for maaaaany, but ultimately, the 28 week shot has been routinely given in the states at an arbitrary time when some bleed "might" occur. it is a way to make more money, it is industry. i personally am 0-, and have had 3 children bourne to me with positive blood types. it has been my choice to decline the rhogam, though not without lots of research and soul searching. yes, it is a blood product. while there is all sorts of donor testing, there have also been instances where contaminated blood got into the system and tooooons of preggo women ended up with hepititas (i'm pretty sure that it was hep, and encourage others to look. it is quite hard to find the info, and i remember this particular fact from research a few years ago. it happened either in  the 70s or 80s, but there are all sorts of blood bourne pathogens that could be put out there- things drs. and such are not even fully aware of at this point).

 

    if your dh/bio papa is negative, i would absolutely decline. even as protocol, you have the right to decline. i personally felt like i would opt to get the shot should i encounter any trauma, but i used a lot of blood purifying and uterine toning herbs throughout pregnancies, plus foods that are specifically good for the blood to help as preventatives. i have been tested for the antibodies, and am freee and clear. this is in my fifth pregnancy free of any rhogam. i feel a lot of this can be attributed to my gentle births.... never having traction on the placenta, episiotomies, etc. the whole management of labor can be a major contributor to why blood even mixes.

 

    there is a lot to look into (but look deeply, as a lot of the info is hard to find), and i encourage women to do so on their own, versus just taking the words of others on this site. clearly there are folks on many places the "necessary" spectrum.

 

   one thing that is a big red flag is that other developed countries with better fetal and maternal outcomes than the states (doesn't take too much, really) do not use the rhogam at 28 weeks. it is considered arbitrary, though they do indicate it's use in the event of a major trauma (car accident, etc)

 

   luck to you in searching.

post #27 of 47

I know someone who was sensitized in her first pregnancy, and now the end of every pregnancy is full of worry, ultrasounds to check for anemia, drawing antibody titers, and inducing whenever it becomes more dangerous for the baby to stay in than to come out - usually before 38 weeks.  she was a "silent" sensitization (happened before 28 weeks, she was already sensitized by then) and she would definitely have gotten the shot if it could have prevented what she goes through.

post #28 of 47
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all of the thoughtful insight everybody!

post #29 of 47

 

Quote:
ddcc---i am due in august. rhogam has been a very sensitive subject for maaaaany, but ultimately, the 28 week shot has been routinely given in the states at an arbitrary time when some bleed "might" occur. it is a way to make more money, it is industry. i personally am 0-, and have had 3 children bourne to me with positive blood types. it has been my choice to decline the rhogam, though not without lots of research and soul searching. yes, it is a blood product. while there is all sorts of donor testing, there have also been instances where contaminated blood got into the system and tooooons of preggo women ended up with hepititas (i'm pretty sure that it was hep, and encourage others to look. it is quite hard to find the info, and i remember this particular fact from research a few years ago. it happened either in  the 70s or 80s, but there are all sorts of blood bourne pathogens that could be put out there- things drs. and such are not even fully aware of at this point).

There was a Hep C outbreak in Ireland in the 70s caused by an infected donor in the Rhogam donor pool.  Since then, changes have been made to donor screening and to the process of purifying the blood used to make Rhogam to prevent a recurrence.  Because the donor pool for Rhogam is intensely screened, the risks of contracting a blood-borne disease from Rhogam are lower than the risk of blood transfusion.  

 

Historically, there have been many, many cases of stillbirth, late losses, and seriously injured babies due to hemolytic disease of the newborn.  Treating HDN involves a lot of blood transfusions and is not always effective.

post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by softlysinging View Post

I know someone who was sensitized in her first pregnancy... she was a "silent" sensitization (happened before 28 weeks, she was already sensitized by then)

So why 28 weeks?  If it's an industry as several have indicated, why isn't it offered at 16 and 28 weeks?    
 

 

post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by contactmaya View Post

I prefer a hands off approach to prenatal care, but as someone who is rh negative, with the father being positive blood type-its a no brainer for me. If you dont get the shot, and become sensitized,  you might never be able to conceive again because your body will kill off any +blood embryo. If the embryo makes it, then it could be a stillborn, or born deaf. My cousin is deaf because his mother, like me, is rh negative. What if you have some spotting in your pregnancy? What if you have a miscarriage? Why not play it safe if you know the father is  rh positive. On the other hand, if he is negative, then definitely decline the shot (unless you have reason to believe he is not the father, like you dont know right?)  I dont know, personally, i wouldnt take the risk.


I agree.  I know there are a lot of really unnecessary and ridiculous interventions women need to make decisions about, but the consequences of rh sensitization are very very serious. I can't make the decision for you or tell you what to do but personally, I would never hesitate one second to get the rhogam shot if I was rh negative and my dh was positive. The risks of rh sensitization for both your current baby and for any future babies is just not worth it, IMO.

post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaimee View Post



So why 28 weeks?  If it's an industry as several have indicated, why isn't it offered at 16 and 28 weeks?    
 

 



because statistically speaking you are  most likely to have exposure of the maternal and fetal blood after 28 weeks. It's not a perfect system but it's better than just doing nothing.

 

Sorry for the serial posting.

post #33 of 47

From the thread I linked post: http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/455838/rhogam#post_5179981

 

 

Quote:
The makers of rhogam have funded some lame studies to show that getting the injection DURING pregnancy is more effective. I have found that most doctors are not intelligent enough to see the paradox becasue they blindly accept FDA and CDC recommendations. But there is a wonderful study that compared the efficacy of the post-natal vs. the ante-natal shot. The study examined the corporate studies and explained how they are flawed. It turns out there is absolutely no evidence to show that ante-natal is more effective than post-natal. So mothers should only get the shot post-natal IF the baby is rh+ (and the mother is rh-).


Here is a link to that study http://www.upstate.edu/fmed/cebp/Pre...ompilation.pdf You have to go to page 226

Page 234 summary on Th issues states
Quote:
6. We found no direct evidence of benefit of antnatal anti-D prophylaxis in terms of maternal or neonatal morbidity or mortality
Pg 236 makes the point that
Quote:
One Cochrane review of randomised trials of antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for Rh-negative women (Crowther 2000) See table 1. The reviewers searched for RCT's of the effect of antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for Rh-negative women after 27 weeks... only two trials were found. Both were of marginal quality (one with poor randomization scheme and the other with high dropout rates) ....The articles were appraised with the level of evidence shceme and described narratively and the results as qualitative comparison of the individual studies results....the overallquality of this evidence is fair to poor due to the lack of good quality RCTs and relinace on open label studies often with historical controls. There is no direct evidence that antenatal propphylaxis reduces maternal or neonatal morbidity or mortality or improves patient satisfaction....
the studies were weakly positive, but so weakly as to be meaningless in my opinion. Manufacturers are usually very good at constructing studies to prove their point, and if in those two studeis, they haven't been able to show conclusive benefit, then I'd wager there is none at all....

Fact. Rhogam antibodies cross the placenta and attack the baby's red blood cells (if the baby is rh+)? Well again it's just obvious but take a look at the package insert. Here's a quote from rhogam: ""Some babies born of women given Rho(D) immune globulin (human) antepartum have weakly positive direct antiglobulin (Coombs) tests at birth."" There's your admission by the company. Weak or not the test proves the presence of the antibodies in baby's whose mother received the shot while pregnant. One antibody molecule can wipe out one red blood cell - that's all it takes. Any amount of antibodies is dangerous because it decreases the baby's red blood cells and hence the oxygen that the baby's brain receives.

 

From http://www.drugs.com/mmx/rhogam.html

 

 

Quote:
Protective effect

Administration of Rh o(D) immune globulin (full dose) within 72 hours of a delivery of a full-term Rh o(D)–positive infant by an Rh o(D)–negative mother reduces the incidence of Rh immunization from the usual 12 or 13% to 1 or 2%. The 1 or 2% treatment failures are thought to be due to immunization that occurred during the latter part of pregnancy. Studies have shown that 2 doses, the first given at 28 weeks gestation and the second given following delivery, can reduce treatment failures to 0.l%. {01} {02} {03} {05}

 

In other words, the 28 weeks shot decreases risk of sensitization by only 1 -2% above the risk decrease if you just get the post natal shot.

 

http://www.orthoclinical.com/en-us/ProductInformation/RhoGAM/Pages/RhoGAM.aspx

 

     Quote:

RhoGAM® and MICRhoGAM® Ultra-Filtered PLUS Rho(D) Immune Globulin (Human) are made from human plasma. Since all plasma-derived products are made from human blood, they may carry a risk of transmitting infectious agents, e.g., viruses, and theoretically the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) agent.

 

You can read part of the book Anti D in Midwifery here: http://books.google.com/books/about/Anti_D_in_midwifery.html?id=UYAxtk29yRMC

 

 

post #34 of 47

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here - math is not my strongest suit - but I believe that dropping the risk from 1% with only a postpartum dose to 0.1% with a prenatal dose is a 90% decrease, since .1 is 10% of 1.  I think a 90% decrease is pretty darn good, personally, and given the very serious health risks to the baby I'd jump at the chance to decrease the risk to my child by 90% if I were rh-. But that's me.

 

ETA: Also, I am not understanding how a baby being weakly coombs positive at birth is proof that the Rhogam shot is bad. Yes, it shows that the baby was exposed to low levels of antibodies that attacked the baby's red blood cells. However, that is the ENTIRE reason for getting the rhogam shot in the first place - to prevent the mother's body from making those antibodies which can then cause HDN in the baby.You could argue that the antibodies were caused by the rhogam but you could also just as easily argue that the antibodies were kept in check by the rhogam and that the babies were prevented from becoming more seriously ill because their mothers had the shot. Honestly, I just don't understand the logic in arguing against a shot intended to prevent the mother's body from forming antibodies against the baby's red blood cells by saying that some babies whose mothers received the shot show very weak levels of those antibodies at birth.  That doesn't compute for me. If you want to explain it more in depth for me I'm happy to learn, but right now that argument just doesn't make sense to me at all.


Edited by BeanSprout Mama - 6/27/11 at 6:40pm
post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanSprout Mama View Post

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here - math is not my strongest suit - but I believe that dropping the risk from 1% with only a postpartum dose to 0.1% with a prenatal dose is a 90% decrease, since .1 is 10% of 1.  I think a 90% decrease is pretty darn good, personally, and given the very serious health risks to the baby I'd jump at the chance to decrease the risk to my child by 90% if I were rh-. But that's me.


Yes, and it's not like you're decreasing it from say, 72% to 71%.  You are reducing the risk from 1-2% risk to *practically 0 risk*

 

I'm a VBACer and if you could drop my risk of uterine rupture from 1% to .1% with a shot, damn straight I would get the shot.

 

post #36 of 47
Thread Starter 

Found this article on the harm of prenatal Rhogam shots here: http://www.vaccinetruth.org/rhogam.htm . Not sure it's a credible source, but interesting nevertheless.

 

Rhogam and Pregnancy Stealth Mercury Assault
By Stephen C. Marini, D.C., PhC

There have been far too many moms at my seminars the last 3 months reacting with alarm, surprise and anger to my cautioning them regarding giving Rhogam during pregnancy. As you can guess, these moms received the rhogam injections during their pregnancy and are now caring for neurologically injured children. They were never aware that these shots could be harmful to their fetus. It is frightening to contemplate how many mothers are getting these shots while pregnant without realizing the potential for fetal neurological damage. What's the deal?

Rhogam is a human gamma globulin (antibodies) directed against the Rh positive factor of blood. It is given to Rh negative mothers who give birth to Rh positive babies. The shot is designed to prevent these moms from becoming sensitized to the baby, rh+ blood. Once the mom becomes sensitized to this rh factor, there is the possibility of mom's immune system destroying the red blood cells of her next child. Historically, babies born after mom's immune system destroyed their blood cells acquire hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN). 1 These babies require exchange transfusions after they are born. Such transfusions can now be done in utero.

To prevent rh- moms from becoming sensitized to baby rh+ blood. Rhogam is usually given within 72 hours after the birth of the rh+ baby. 2 There is a likelihood of baby blood, only 15 ml is needed, mixing with mom's blood during the birth process when the placental membrane breakdown. During pregnancy there is no mixing of mother's blood with baby blood. Giving mom rhogam after the baby's birth is sufficient to reduce the risk of HDN in her next child to about 1-2%. Rhogam is also indicated if the mom has an abortion, either natural or induced, or has abdominal trauma or an amniocentesis. Giving rhogam during pregnancy can reduce the risk of HDN by less than 1%. 2 It is doubtful that the slight benefit acquired by giving rhogam during pregnancy outweighs the risks to the fetus from the injection.

So what is the problem with giving the rhogam during pregnancy? The standard rhogam preparations contain the mercury compound, thimerosal. We commonly link this preservative with vaccines. Rhogam is a type of vaccine but not a vaccine directed against an infectious disease. The PDR cautions that the use of rhogam during pregnancy can have adverse effects on the fetus, 2. The high mercury content of the rhogam preparation can have serious neurological consequences on the developing fetus. Hair analysis of unvaccinated children born from mom's injected with rhogam demonstrate the presence of mercury. It is essential that these babies seek appropriate medical care to chelate and remove this mercury as soon as possible. How many babies have suffered permanent damage due to mercury toxicity from this desire to reduce the risk of HDN by less than 1% by injecting pregnant mothers?

How do we avoid damaging these children? First, mom's should question the rationale for injecting them while pregnant. Second, if rhogam administration during pregnancy is absolutely necessary then mom's should demand mercury free rhogam. Many moms report to me that their physicians blow them off when confronted with the request for mercury free rhogam or say that such a product is not yet available. The reality is that mercury-free rhogam is available in this country from Bayer Pharmaceuticals under their product name of BayRoh-D. This mercury free product has been available sine 1996. Their number is 800-468-0894.
References available at:
www.icpa4kids.com/chiropractic_newsletter_references.htm

http://www.icpa4kids.org/research/articles/pregnancy/rhogam_newsletter.htm the ICPA.



I don't have compiled information on Rhogam......I do know that they started using Rhogam during pregnancy in the late 1980s. Before that, it was give IMMEDIATELY after birth. Many women get multiple Rhogam shots now DURING pregnancy, without a second thought from their OB. Until about 2001, each Rhogam shot had 25mgm of mercury in it.....horrid for the rapidly growing nervous system of the fetus!! Stephanie Cave, MD told me that she did a survey of patients in her office....62% of autistic kids had Rh- moms....only 3% had Rh+ moms.....and she said that those kids were more difficult to treat (probably more true neurological damage that occurred during embryological development--that would be my "guess")

Dr Sherri

post #37 of 47

Rhogam is not made with thimerosal any more. And it's just plain wrong to say "During pregnancy there is no mixing of mother's blood with baby blood." That line in this article is a flat out lie and makes me question the entire source.  Under NORMAL circumstances there should be no mixing of the maternal and fetal blood, BUT it does happen, and it can happen "silently" without major trauma. This mixing is most likely to happen after 28 weeks which is why the shot is given at 28 weeks, to protect both the baby you are currently pregnant with and to protect any future babies as well.

post #38 of 47

DDCC- i'm due in feb.

I'm A-, my dh is +.  In your case, if you can test to see whether your dh is -, i would tell them to stuff the protocol.  that's pretty stupid.

however, we are staunchly anti-vaxxers, but i still get the rhogam.  i've had multiple miscarriages, though, and one of them was an ectopic.  i've read some pretty frightening things about what can happen.  you can also have what beansprout mama describes, and be unaware that anything has happened. 

the shot does NOT contain mercury.  there is no way i would elect to not get that one, and we are very much for low intervention and no vaxxes, etc. 

post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by demoonunit View Post

Found this article on the harm of prenatal Rhogam shots here: http://www.vaccinetruth.org/rhogam.htm . Not sure it's a credible source, but interesting nevertheless.

 

Rhogam and Pregnancy Stealth Mercury Assault
By Stephen C. Marini, D.C., PhC

There have been far too many moms at my seminars the last 3 months reacting with alarm, surprise and anger to my cautioning them regarding giving Rhogam during pregnancy. As you can guess, these moms received the rhogam injections during their pregnancy and are now caring for neurologically injured children. They were never aware that these shots could be harmful to their fetus. It is frightening to contemplate how many mothers are getting these shots while pregnant without realizing the potential for fetal neurological damage. What's the deal?

Rhogam is a human gamma globulin (antibodies) directed against the Rh positive factor of blood. It is given to Rh negative mothers who give birth to Rh positive babies. The shot is designed to prevent these moms from becoming sensitized to the baby, rh+ blood. Once the mom becomes sensitized to this rh factor, there is the possibility of mom's immune system destroying the red blood cells of her next child. Historically, babies born after mom's immune system destroyed their blood cells acquire hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN). 1 These babies require exchange transfusions after they are born. Such transfusions can now be done in utero.

To prevent rh- moms from becoming sensitized to baby rh+ blood. Rhogam is usually given within 72 hours after the birth of the rh+ baby. 2 There is a likelihood of baby blood, only 15 ml is needed, mixing with mom's blood during the birth process when the placental membrane breakdown. During pregnancy there is no mixing of mother's blood with baby blood. Giving mom rhogam after the baby's birth is sufficient to reduce the risk of HDN in her next child to about 1-2%. Rhogam is also indicated if the mom has an abortion, either natural or induced, or has abdominal trauma or an amniocentesis. Giving rhogam during pregnancy can reduce the risk of HDN by less than 1%. 2 It is doubtful that the slight benefit acquired by giving rhogam during pregnancy outweighs the risks to the fetus from the injection.

So what is the problem with giving the rhogam during pregnancy? The standard rhogam preparations contain the mercury compound, thimerosal. We commonly link this preservative with vaccines. Rhogam is a type of vaccine but not a vaccine directed against an infectious disease. The PDR cautions that the use of rhogam during pregnancy can have adverse effects on the fetus, 2. The high mercury content of the rhogam preparation can have serious neurological consequences on the developing fetus. Hair analysis of unvaccinated children born from mom's injected with rhogam demonstrate the presence of mercury. It is essential that these babies seek appropriate medical care to chelate and remove this mercury as soon as possible. How many babies have suffered permanent damage due to mercury toxicity from this desire to reduce the risk of HDN by less than 1% by injecting pregnant mothers?

How do we avoid damaging these children? First, mom's should question the rationale for injecting them while pregnant. Second, if rhogam administration during pregnancy is absolutely necessary then mom's should demand mercury free rhogam. Many moms report to me that their physicians blow them off when confronted with the request for mercury free rhogam or say that such a product is not yet available. The reality is that mercury-free rhogam is available in this country from Bayer Pharmaceuticals under their product name of BayRoh-D. This mercury free product has been available sine 1996. Their number is 800-468-0894.
References available at:
www.icpa4kids.com/chiropractic_newsletter_references.htm

http://www.icpa4kids.org/research/articles/pregnancy/rhogam_newsletter.htm the ICPA.



I don't have compiled information on Rhogam......I do know that they started using Rhogam during pregnancy in the late 1980s. Before that, it was give IMMEDIATELY after birth. Many women get multiple Rhogam shots now DURING pregnancy, without a second thought from their OB. Until about 2001, each Rhogam shot had 25mgm of mercury in it.....horrid for the rapidly growing nervous system of the fetus!! Stephanie Cave, MD told me that she did a survey of patients in her office....62% of autistic kids had Rh- moms....only 3% had Rh+ moms.....and she said that those kids were more difficult to treat (probably more true neurological damage that occurred during embryological development--that would be my "guess")

Dr Sherri


This is such a fascinating piece - an article written by a chiropractor citing data on Rhogam that is ten years out of date, and referring to unpublished and statistically inexplicable observations by an MD (62% of autistic kids had Rh- moms, only 3% had Rh+ moms, moms only come in two flavors, what's up with the other 35% of patients?), all signed by a third doctor "Dr Sherri."  Who are these people?

 

I already did some tracking on Mr. Marini, a few months back.  It's here: http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1287636/any-rh-negative-ucers#post_16148888, but for those who don't want to click through, here's what I said:

 

 

 

Quote:

Stephen Marini's CV is here: http://www.icpa4kids.com/seminars/instructors/CV_Marini.htm

 

Please note the following interesting features:

 

 

Quote:
  • Pacific Western University, Los Angeles California-Ph.D. Microbiology (1987-1989)
  • 1988 Pennsylvania College of Straight Chiropractic, Langhorne, PA - D.C.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_University - Pacific Western University was not an accredited institution in 1989.  In fact, the federal government identified it as a diploma mill in 2004.  I also note that Marini somehow managed to obtain a D.C. from an institution on the other side of the country *while* allegedly pursuing the world's shortest PhD program in microbiology (2 years for a PhD is pretty incredible).

 

Pennsylvania College of Straight Chiropractic has since shut its doors, but was also unaccredited: http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=45198

http://www.ed-oha.org/cases/1990-8-sa.html

and apparently a little sketchy: http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/lattanze.html

which helps explain Marini's ability to obtain two credentials simultaneously.

 

Quote:
  • 1978 LaSalle College, Philadelphia, Pa - Master's Program -Ethics & Religious Education
  • 1976 Hahnemann University, Philadelphia, PA - M.S. Microbiology & Immunology
  • 1971 Villanova University, Villanova, PA - B.S. Biology, Minor-Chemistry

 

I can't find LaSalle College on the internet.  I did find a LaSalle University that may have offered a Masters Program in Ethics and Religious Education in 1978, though it no longer does.  In any case, note that Marini does not claim to have obtained any credentials from this program, and in any case, the program in question does not qualify him to comment intelligently on genetic and immunological issues (it's worth noting that a degree in microbiology would also not be helpful in these matters, even if it was legitimately obtained.  Immunology is, at least, relevant.) 

 

I also find no online record of a Hahnemann University in Philadelphia.  There is a Hahnemann University Hospital, but no university.  It's named after the founder of homeopathic medicine, and is affiliated with Drexel University.  Marini notes that he attended in 1976.  No other years are listed.  So he also got his MS in two highly demanding fields in a single year.  I suspect another diploma mill.  Villanova University is legit - I suspect the BS in Bio may be Marini's only actual credential. 

 

On to his work experience:

 

Quote:

Professional Qualifications

  • Has maintained 2 chiropractic practices focusing on children's health since 1988
  • Post-Graduate Faculty - Parker College, Dallas, TX
  • Post-Graduate Faculty - Life University Atlanta, GA
  • Post-Graduate Faculty - Cleveland Chiropractic College - LA
  • Post-Graduate Faculty - Cleveland Chiropractic College - KC
  • Professor of Microbiology & Immunology, Pennsylvania College of Chiropractic 1987-95
  • Associate Professor of Microbiology & Immunology, PA. College of Chiropractic 1981-87 Assistant Professor of Microbiology & Immunology, Pennsylvania College of Podiatric Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 1978-1979
  • Instructor of Microbiology & Immunology - University of PA College of Nursing, 1977-79
  • Instructor of Microbiology & Immunology - Pennsylvania College of Podiatric Medicine, 1975-78
  • Consultant National Board of Chiropractic Examiners Greely CO, (1989 - 1995)
  • Consultant Omni Medicorp 1990 - 1995
  • Frequent lecturer in Canada Europe and US on Microbiology & Immunology
  • Frequent lecturer in Canada Europe and US on chiropractic pediatrics

 

Parker College, Life University, and Cleveland College of Chiropractic are all Chiropractic schools.  I haven't checked to see if they are accredited or list Marini as faculty.  I leave this as an exercise for the dedicated reader.

 

Pennsylvania College of Chiropractic is another name for Pennsylvania Straight College of Chiropractic, where Marini was apparently working as a professor in Microbiology from the same year that he began obtaining his PhD in Microbiology (which he interrupted to get his DC from the same institution) from an unaccredited institution on the other side of the country.  He seems to have tought a lot of Microbiology for someone without a PhD.  I also note that he allegedly became a Consultant for the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners one year after obtaining his DC.  This makes me suspect that he wasn't consulting for them on matters pertaining to the chiropractic examinations, if he consulted with them on anything at all (maybe his personal exam scores?). 

 

Dr. Cave believes she has found a cure for autism.  You can read all about it at whale.to: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/cave_h.html

While you are reading, please keep in mind that Dr. Cave has difficulty with basic addition, and that whale.to is a hot mess of online craziness.  That site also makes the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS: http://www.whale.to/aids.html, and that the US government staged the 9/11 attacks: http://www.whale.to/b/terrorism.html.  This does not help Dr. Cave's credibility.  Cave's own website, http://cypressintegrativemedicine.com/default.asp, touts her book on vaccines, and then describes her practice in integrative medicine, which seems to be mostly concerned with skin care.  In addition to offering hyperbaric oxygen therapy, her practice offers the BioSET system, which is "not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. "  In my opinion, it is just a wee bit odd for a doctor to treat both autism and wrinkles.  In any case, she seems to be de-emphasizing her treatment of developmental and neurological disorders at this point.  I consider her work to be, at the very best, quite seriously out-of-date.  To be honest, I'm disinclined to be that charitable. 

 

So who the heck is "Dr Sherri," and what is she a doctor of?  I'm working on that.  

 

Demoonunit, I commend you for stopping short of cutting&pasting the entire page from vaccinetruth.  You censored out the baby-killing herbal supplement regimen designed to change your blood type by "purifying" your blood of something that isn't there.  Thank you.

post #40 of 47

Stik, I want to hug you.  Thank you.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: January 2012