Negative Blood Type - Page 2 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 47 Old 06-26-2011, 05:57 PM
 
BeanSprout Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.


wife to my  love.gif, mom toenergy.gif, blahblah.gif, jog.gif, and 3rdtri.gif ! a person is a person, no matter how small.

****5****10****15****20****25****30****35stork-girl.gif***40*

BeanSprout Mama is offline  
#32 of 47 Old 06-26-2011, 05:58 PM
 
BeanSprout Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.


wife to my  love.gif, mom toenergy.gif, blahblah.gif, jog.gif, and 3rdtri.gif ! a person is a person, no matter how small.

****5****10****15****20****25****30****35stork-girl.gif***40*

BeanSprout Mama is offline  
#33 of 47 Old 06-27-2011, 04:00 PM
 
Devaskyla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: in my great new home
Posts: 4,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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

 

 


mom to all boys B: 08/01ribboncesarean.gif,  C: 07/05 uc.jpg, N: 03/09 uc.jpg, M: 01/12 uc.jpg and far too many lost onesintactlact.gifsaynovax.gif

Devaskyla is offline  
#34 of 47 Old 06-27-2011, 05:04 PM
 
BeanSprout Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

chilichiki likes this.

wife to my  love.gif, mom toenergy.gif, blahblah.gif, jog.gif, and 3rdtri.gif ! a person is a person, no matter how small.

****5****10****15****20****25****30****35stork-girl.gif***40*

BeanSprout Mama is offline  
#35 of 47 Old 06-27-2011, 06:20 PM
 
softlysinging's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.

 

Ammaarah likes this.
softlysinging is offline  
#36 of 47 Old 06-28-2011, 10:24 AM - Thread Starter
 
demoonunit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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


First-time momma-to-be with my amazing man. Planning a homebirth and expecting a baby girl mid-January 2012. love.gif

demoonunit is offline  
#37 of 47 Old 06-28-2011, 10:31 AM
 
BeanSprout Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.

Sanveann and hildare like this.

wife to my  love.gif, mom toenergy.gif, blahblah.gif, jog.gif, and 3rdtri.gif ! a person is a person, no matter how small.

****5****10****15****20****25****30****35stork-girl.gif***40*

BeanSprout Mama is offline  
#38 of 47 Old 06-28-2011, 10:55 AM
 
hildare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: in-the-sticks-off-a-dirt-road, GA
Posts: 2,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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. 


Is it getting lonely in the echo chamber yet?

hildare is offline  
#39 of 47 Old 06-28-2011, 01:30 PM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.

stik is offline  
#40 of 47 Old 06-28-2011, 01:51 PM
 
Conchobhar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Stik, I want to hug you.  Thank you.


Wife to Phil, Mom to Saoirse (3/09), and Niamh (1/12)  waterbirth.jpg.crochetsmilie.gif
 

Conchobhar is offline  
#41 of 47 Old 06-28-2011, 03:25 PM
 
StephM76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.

 

 



It's not credible. Any site that claims that by dietary changes you can change whether you are Rh negative or not is a crock. Unless they have found some revolutionary diet that can change your DNA. It is impossible to change your blood type, it is genetic, encoded in your DNA.

Alenushka and Ammaarah like this.

Stephanie, Mama to five beautiful kids, wife to J
 
StephM76 is offline  
#42 of 47 Old 06-29-2011, 01:01 AM
 
Devaskyla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: in my great new home
Posts: 4,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

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

 

 

Probably Dr. Sherri Tenpenny.
 

 



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.

 

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.



Sorry, math really isn't my strong suit either.

 

The problem is the antibodies are from the Rhogam shot. Those antibodies cross the placenta and attack the red blood cells of the Rh positive fetus. They do exactly what they supposedly prevent. The baby is still attacked, it's just it's attacked by the antibodies from the Rhogam instead of it's mother. And since it requires fetal blood mixing with maternal blood twice during the pregnancy for the current baby to be affected (once to sensitize and once to produce antibodies) the odds are incredibly high (98-99%) that the current baby would never have encountered antibodies against them if the mother hadn't gotten the Rhogam shot.

 

The problem with the routine Rhogam shot, and something I think a lot of people don't really understand, is that it does nothing for the current baby, it's to protect future pregnancies. I really am not sure why so many people seem to be so adamant about protecting a possible future baby by getting a shot during pregnancy that even the manufacturer admits can harm the [b]present[/b] baby, especially when getting the shot after the baby is born reduces the chances of problems with future babies much more effectively and has no risk of harming the current baby.

 

Obviously, if you have something happen which could sensitize you (miscarriage, abortion, severe abdominal trauma, amnio), you should have the shot even during pregnancy because the current baby is then at a much greater risk from your antibodies.

 


mom to all boys B: 08/01ribboncesarean.gif,  C: 07/05 uc.jpg, N: 03/09 uc.jpg, M: 01/12 uc.jpg and far too many lost onesintactlact.gifsaynovax.gif

Devaskyla is offline  
#43 of 47 Old 06-29-2011, 05:57 AM - Thread Starter
 
demoonunit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
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.


I got the quote from my father in an email...I did not know there was more in the web page. I appreciate you pointing that out, but the attitude is not necessary. I thought this was supposed to be a supportive, dare I even say it--friendly group where we exchange ideas and knowledge without belittling others. Guess I was wrong.


First-time momma-to-be with my amazing man. Planning a homebirth and expecting a baby girl mid-January 2012. love.gif

demoonunit is offline  
#44 of 47 Old 06-29-2011, 06:10 AM
 
contactmaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)

Demoonit, i appreciated the information, even if i wasnt convinced by it. Thanks for posting. (cutting and pasting doesnt bother meshrug.gif)

contactmaya is offline  
#45 of 47 Old 06-29-2011, 08:03 AM
 
Alenushka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CA
Posts: 1,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Do not google Rhogam, gogle  hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN). 

 

Do you know anyone who died from it? No, neither you nor I know anyone who died from it. Before 1968, about 10 thousands babies died from HDN in US.

 

HDN was discovered not by some evil OB but by a French MW in 17th century.  

 

The reasons  why you providers are so insistent is that small number of fetal and maternal cells mix and it happens without any trauma.   It became known when Kleihauer-Betke test was invented. It is quiet sensitive.  

 

Internet is all goog, but you hired professional to keep you and your baby safe. Request another appoitment , sit down with them and talk to them. Would you listen to an advice  to a bunch  of lay people on the internet about your car? I doubtit,  as no one want their engine to explode.  You would go to car mechanic .

 

 

Alenushka is offline  
#46 of 47 Old 06-29-2011, 09:10 AM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by demoonunit View Post





I got the quote from my father in an email...I did not know there was more in the web page. I appreciate you pointing that out, but the attitude is not necessary. I thought this was supposed to be a supportive, dare I even say it--friendly group where we exchange ideas and knowledge without belittling others. Guess I was wrong.


I'm sorry I sounded snarky. I genuinely am thankful, especially now that I know the info was sent to you by your dad. We all have crazy relatives, and sane relatives who go a little nuts when they're trying to be helpful. It's good to know that, at the very least, yours aren't unintentionally recommending a massive dose of abortifacaents plus some arsenic and cyanide in their efforts to help with your concern.

That's the kind of thing that keeps me awake at night - the idea that someone would take crackpot advice they found on the web, and seriously harm themselves or their child in an effort to avoid a prophylactic injection with an excellent record of safety and efficacy.
Alenushka likes this.
stik is offline  
#47 of 47 Old 06-29-2011, 10:17 PM
 
chilichiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Flint, MI
Posts: 313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

bottom line- getting information from the internet generally sucks.  you will always find what you are looking to hear/most afraid of/etc.

Alenushka likes this.

Mother of one hyperactive little boy bouncy.gif(9/07) and expecting baby number 2 (Henry Magnus!) on January 25th.

 

chilichiki is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off