RE: Rh issues...The article is interesting.

[Guest guest]

Rh- moms receive RhoGAM shots about 3 months before the child is born;

therefore, the developing child gets mercury at least 3 months sooner than

other children. The younger you get the mercury, the more profound of an

effect it has.

At 01:21 PM 8/22/2004 -0400, you wrote:

>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0838/is_2002_July-August/ai_1008069

>75

>

>I don't happen to be Rh neg, but I was interested when I read the recent

>postings and looked at the article myself. One thing I thought that was

>interesting is that they mentioned the impossibility of a " genetic

>epidemic " (one of

>Dr. G's lines <grin>). The similarities between Dr. G and the article stop

>there though.

>

>I wonder why there is a higher rate of Autism among Rh neg moms? More prone

>to auto-immune disorders? The article quoted 22% of moms of kids with autism

>vs. 3% of the general population. I'd be interested to hear Dr Goldberg's

>take on this.

>

>Sharon L.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Not all Rh neg Mom's get Rhogam. If the father is Rh neg there is no need

for the shot. We are both Rh neg and the child is still on the spectrum. Guess

we can't blame thimersol all the time???

[Guest guest]

Out of curiosity, I typed in RH negative in and quickly found the

incidence - " About 85 percent of people are Rh-positive, though it varies

by race. About 90 to 95 percent of African Americans are Rh-positive. Among

Asians, the figure is 98 to 99 percent " - see

(http://www.babycenter.com/expert/2709.html).

If every family with an ASD or child had an RH negative compatibility

issue, then one might be able to draw some conclusion. However this is not

the case. We don't, for example, though I notice a high number of responses

on the list saying they have. Bringing in the RhoGAM issue and mercury might

then be stretching it. The idea that an RH incompatibility plays a role in

some autoimmune diseases as someone on the list suggested a couple of days

back makes some sense and in this way may play a role in a condition,

but it certainly isn't for all.

Maybe we should ask Dr G what proportion of his patient base has this

problem?

R

Re: Rh issues...The article is interesting.

Not all Rh neg Mom's get Rhogam. If the father is Rh neg there is no need

for the shot. We are both Rh neg and the child is still on the spectrum.

Guess

we can't blame thimersol all the time???

[Guest guest]

R,

I'm trying to understand your point here. The way I see it, all of our

babies were exposed to mercury. Some in Rho-Gham, some in vaccines,

some from dental amalgams, and some from fish. All of our babies

weren't exposed to Rh negativity. But maybe I'm missing something...

Jane

On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:12 AM, R M wrote:

> Bringing in the RhoGAM issue and mercury might

> then be stretching it.

[Guest guest]

Jane,

I think the point is that everybody IS exposed in some way. There are other

exposures that make it extremely difficult to decide this is a main factor

leading to the increases. Ones with peer reviewed research by many showing

that other factors can contribute to symptoms of autism. Most of the

research being cited about vaccines has not gone through credible peer

review. The one study saying that the preservative could cause these

symptoms was done in an animal strain bred for studying autoimmune disease

and triggered off by just about everything and anything including milk.

The marker mentioned is not higher in autism than in the general population

so that certainly doesn't tell us anything about susceptability to vaccines.

----Original Message Follows----

From: Jane <jbjny@...>

Reply-

Subject: Re: Rh issues...The article is interesting.

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:47:14 -0400

R,

I'm trying to understand your point here. The way I see it, all of our

babies were exposed to mercury. Some in Rho-Gham, some in vaccines,

some from dental amalgams, and some from fish. All of our babies

weren't exposed to Rh negativity. But maybe I'm missing something...

Jane

On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:12 AM, R M wrote:

> Bringing in the RhoGAM issue and mercury might

> then be stretching it.

_________________________________________________________________

Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!

http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

The discussion over the last few days was about the apparently higher

incidence of RH negativeness in families with an ASD or child. The

point I made is that RH negativeness may have more to do with a

condition through an autoimmune condition rather than through mercury

contamination by the use of RhoGam. Also there are many families where RH

negativeness does not play a role yet ASD/ occurs.

Also, not all kids are exposed to mercury through vaccines since they are

not vaccinated at all (we have had people write in on the list in the past),

yet still suffer ASD/.

If mercury played a major role, then wouldn't the incidence be yet much

higher?

Cheryl's post just now ads some clarity to this.

Please don't get me wrong - I am not advocating leaving mercury in vaccines

either - take it out, its not needed and might remove another questionable

factor, however there are many more parts to this puzzle than mercury.

Re: Rh issues...The article is interesting.

R,

I'm trying to understand your point here. The way I see it, all of our

babies were exposed to mercury. Some in Rho-Gham, some in vaccines,

some from dental amalgams, and some from fish. All of our babies

weren't exposed to Rh negativity. But maybe I'm missing something...

Jane

On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:12 AM, R M wrote:

> Bringing in the RhoGAM issue and mercury might

> then be stretching it.

Responsibility for the content of this message lies strictly with

the original author(s), and is not necessarily endorsed by or the

opinion of the Research Institute.

[Guest guest]

>

there are many more parts to this puzzle than mercury.

I couldn't agree more. I have been becoming more and more aware

of all the chemicals that all of us come in contact with in our daily

environment....our water, our food, our homes, furniture,beauty

supplies....it's all full of chemicals.. And of the ones that are known to

be harmful, one of the effects listed is always.......take a

guess.....immune dysfunction.

So in addition to genetic predisposition to a vulnerable immune

system and 1000's of chemicals that assault us, our kids, and our unborn

babies every day, we're left with the chicken and the egg dilemma.

Which comes first, the immune dysfunction or the chemicals/toxins (or

whatever in our environment) that is causing this epidemic. Like Dr. G

says, how do you have a genetic epidemic? Certainly there is a genetic

predisposition, but why do so MANY have that disposition now? Or was it

always there, but just not being set off by the environment?

Just some rambling thoughts....

Becky

[Guest guest]

The thought is that there are those with the MTHFR mutation (like me,

my husband, and two of my three children) who are more sensitive to the

insult.

I don't claim to know everything either. More will be revealed in

time.....

jane

On Aug 25, 2004, at 8:31 PM, R M wrote:

> If mercury played a major role, then wouldn't the incidence be yet much

> higher?

[Guest guest]

In our case, both my husband and I have the mutation. I consider both

of us to have no neurological issues. The two of my three children who

have neurological issues both have the mutation. IMHO, I think it was

set off by the environment.

Jane

On Aug 25, 2004, at 10:35 PM, & Becky wrote:

> Or was it

> always there, but just not being set off by the environment?