What is your blood type?

Post Reply New Topic

Just so we don't give DM a swelled head, etc... Could everyne write a little message saying their blood type also. Seeing A so prominent in the last post was no big deal. I predicted it. A- is another story ENTIRELY! A is common, and A- is pretty rare. DM was A- and trying to prove merely that A was more likely to be autistic(or have aspergers, I forget which).

Steve

SteveK, I am pretty shocked too at the number of A-.

I am A-, my AS son is A- as well.

O negative.

It could also be that people who are Rh- are more likely to know their blood type, given the dangers involved (i.e. they cannot accept tranfusion from an Rh+ donor, and the risk of sensitization for females during pregnancy). I demand a thoroughly scientific investigation!

Now for some wild, unscientific speculation: if there is a link between Rh- factor and autism, perhaps the alleged explosion of autism in the population can be credited to the relatively recent ability to prevent Rh- mothers from losing their Rh+ offspring to hemolytic disease. Since the babies survive, they can grow up to develop and pass on the genetics traits of the mother.

And, if they do find some link between being Rh- and autism, they might try to blame it on the Rh-immune globulin given routinely to all Rh- mothers during pregnancy, and after the birth of an Rh+ child to an Rh- mother.

I don't know. I know it's the red kind though.

Yeah another B- here.

Weird I never knew it was rare

weird!

0-

A-
and my son is also negative (but not A), our 2 NT's (father and daughter) have positive blood, funny ...

but as you said when you have negative blood , you 'll be prone to look at a subject
talking about blood.

Rho(D) Immune Globulin was first produced in 1968... I wonder if the rise in autism correlates at all?

http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm

This article mentions Rhesus negative in relation to autism.

Well if there is a connection between Rh- factor and autism, it would make sense that there has been a spike in autism over the past 2 generations, as Rh- females in the developed world have been able to reproduce safely with little to no risk to their offspring, since the introduction of Rhogam. In other words, since 1968, the gene pool has been flooded with more autistic genes than ever before in human history (IF there is indeed a connection). Before medical technology intervened, nature had a built-in method, so to speak, to limit the reproductive capacity of Rh- females. If an Rh- woman, hundreds of years ago, unwittingly reproduced with an Rh+ male, she was doomed to lose some or all of her babies if she became sensitized.

For instance, in my case, were it not for Rhogam (and this doesn't even account for miscarriages I had, which could have sensitized me had I not received Rhogam), while my first 2 children would have been ok (they are Rh-) my third child (Rh+) could have sensitized me, giving my 4th child (Rh+) hemolytic disease. And if I had incurred a fetal death, I probably wouldn't have gone on to have a 5th (she too is Rh-)... and so on. Apply this to countless women over generations and you can see how the Rh- factor limited reproductive capabilities.

Just found this too about characteristics of people with RH-

What's interesting is if an Rh- woman had a miscarriage early in life without realizing it, she could be sensitized and not able to have any healthy Rh+ children. Without sensitization she could give birth to one Rh+ baby but no more without a risk. So medicine has knocked out one of nature's forms of birth control, and the gene pool has been altered (the same could be said for other issues or diseases aided by medicine, like diabetes).