Re: Rhogam/Dana

[Guest guest]

Dana,

I didn't have Rhogam but I had a flu shot during pregnancy that was

highly damaging.

The Rhogam antibodies will attach to the baby's blood cells and render

them incapable of delivering oxygen effectively. This has long term

consequences on

brain development, regardless of whether it has Thimerosal or not.

The decision to give Rhogam at all these pre-delivery time intervals

is strictly for monetary reasons.

Doctors try to rationalize this by saying that even during the first

pregnancy blood can mix and antibodies can be produced that will

attack the

baby. This almost never happens because the blood would have to mix

twice,

once to stimulate antibody production in the mother and the second time

for those antibodies to diffuse to the baby. The paradox is that if

the mother's

antibodies can diffuse to harm the baby, then so can the injected

Rhogam antibodies.

They are the same exact antibodies. How are a mother's own anti-RH

antibodies more harmful

than the ones in Rhogam? They're not. Doctors follow the government

recommendations

without question. Doctors do not make the decisions; they follow orders.

Childbirth is what causes the blood to mix and, when given at this

time, RhoGam can prevent stimulation of the mother's immune system.

There is no reason to give RhoGam during pregnancy except to

increase profits for the manufacturer because Rh- mothers with Rh-

babies also get the injection even though they don't need it.

The shot does work after pregnancy when it can not possibly harm the

baby.

It offers no additional benefit during pregnancy. The safety concern

during

pregnancy is real. Does it make sense to you to inject antibodies

into the

mother's blood stream that are designed for the sole purpose to

eliminate

cells of the baby? There are numerous case reports of babies born anoxic

and asphyxiated because the Rhogam antibodies crossed the placenta

during

the gestation period.

The reason that it is a risk for Rh- mothers to carry Rh+ babies is

that the mother could produce antibodies against her own child. If

those antibodies are in her blood while she is pregnant

there is a small chance that they will come into contact with and

harm the

baby. Rhogam during pregnancy GUARANTEES those antibodies will be

there. It

does not matter if the mother made the antibodies or if they were

injected;

the baby is now at risk for attack from Rh+ antibodies.

Rhogam antibodies against the baby and antibodies produced by the Rh-

mother are identical. If the whole point is to prevent these antibodies

from circulating in the mother during pregnancy, why on earth would you

inject them into the mother when she is pregnant?

You give Rhogam to a mother AFTER delivery because that is when the

blood mixes.

The rhogam antibodies destroy the baby's cells so that the mother's

immune system

never sees them and therefore never becomes sensitized to make those

exact same antibodies. If

you give the Rhogam antibodies during pregnancy you have just created

the

situation you were trying to avoid. The whole point is for the pregnant

mother to NOT have antibodies against her own child circulating in her

system while she is pregnant. Any blood mixing would allow those

antibodies

to attack the baby. It doesn't matter if the mother's immune system made

those antibodies or Rhogam provided those antibodies. They are

molecularly identical

and you do not want them to contact the baby.

It makes no sense to give the injection at 28 weeks during a

healthy pregnancy.

The blood does not mix in a sufficient manner to cause an immune

response in the mother.

If there were that much mixing then the injected antibodies would

have access to the baby

and kill the baby's red blood cells. It's a no win situation giving

Rhogam at

28 weeks. The reason the manufacturer can get away with it is exactly

because there is no blood mixing. The Rhogam works it's way out of the

mother's system without ever doing anything.

Rhogam kills the baby's red blood cells no matter where those cells are.

If the baby's blood cells are in the mother, those cells will be

destroyed.

If the baby's red blood cells are circulating through the baby

delivering

oxygen to the baby's brain, the Rhogam will kill those cells and

deprive the

baby of oxygen. It is not a good idea to take any chance that would

allow the

Rhogam access to the baby.

That was probably more info than you wanted but I hope it was helpful

to you,

> -I wonder why I had to have it then because my daughter is my first

> and so far only child and I had the Rhogam at 7 months.

> I have long been convinced that it was Rhogam and the flu shot both

> containing thimerisol that gave my daughter autism.

> I had a miscarriage in March and had to have the Rhogam twice but at

> least I was able to get thimerisol free (I had to pay out of pocket

> as insurance only covers the mercury preserved injection)but it is

> still loaded with aluminum so I have been chelating with Malic Acid.

> I want to have another baby and worry on the subject of Rhogam.

> You can't not have it if you are RH - right? So if you wait to have

> it 48 hrs after birth does it pass to breast milk if you are nursing?

> And what's the point of having it after birth b/c isn't it to protect

> blood of baby and mommy mixing during childbirth?

> Please keep this thread going,it's important to me and I just can't

> learn enough on the subject...

> Dana

> Priscilla's mom

>