I'm SICK of the RH Negative thread SLANDER.

Well, I could do with the practice. You're asking for honesty, so it won't be entirely pleasant. Sherlock scan as thus:

You're:

Arrogant - Post with an 'I'm right', non-open minded attitude. Sure... when I'm right. I'm not always right, but when I know that I'm right, can show ample evidence indicating such, I'm right. You say a ball will fly if you drop it from the roof, I say it doesn't, you argue with me, I get arrogant. Because I'm right.

Jealous - beratement of Rh negatives, which leads to the next point... Jealous? Of what? Misinformation and false rumours?

Ridiculed, and made to feel inferior (you're emulating the same behaviour that was used on you, hence the over-reliance on evidence), so I'd imagine you were bullied at school. Hence 'anonymous coward' and no real name to go with it (wary of the backlash). Which leads to the next point... Nope. Never bullied, never a bully, especially not at school. The AC is because I'm mostly lazy. How would not putting a name in avoid backlash? Do you want my full legal name? Phone number? Address? Credit card numbers and expiry dates?

You're over-relying on evidence to verify claims, because at one point in your life you were made to feel inferior (get ready for the next point, it's a surprise!), so you formulated the reliance on proof and evidence as the defensive mechanism against being ridiculed, because who could ridicule a fact? No-one, hence the insistence on proof. You call it over-reliance on evidence, I call it accepting reality. If you refuse to believe in genetics, there's nothing I can do about that except let other people reading the misinformation know and provide links and explanations that said people can then look up on their own.

Intelligent. Hence the ridicule. Your peers, were, surprise, jealous - but don't let it get to your head because people have different sets of unique skills. This follows on the next point... Thanks, I do think I'm fairly intelligent, despite my blood handicap in that department. However, I don't think I view intelligence the way you think I do. I'm well aware that people have different kinds of smarts and I don't think intelligence comes from a number on an IQ test. I consider myself much more of an artist than a scientist, but then again, I view them as two sides of the same creative mind coin. I don't advocate unquestioning faith in anything.

...That you probably, as a result, liked science (where's the proof? - You take after what you like... and also what you don't like) and mathematics, and no doubt you're a gamer (but, modern day society, who isn't?). Given the amount of aggression I'd say first person shooters are your style of game given the competitive nature of play. I like science. And math. And patterns. And understanding the world around me. I never play video games and I detest first person shooters. I like board and card games, but I'm not very competitive, except when I'm gambling or playing with myself.

As a result, loner. Or rather, narrow social circle of friends ("believe it or not, this is me being tactful" - a lack of understanding of social diplomacy and thus a lack of social experience). Hence the ridgidity and near-literal mindedness of analysis. Do you really think I'd be on GLP if I was so rigid and closed-minded? As for my circle of friends, I love them dearly and have been friends with my best friends since childhood and I am always expanding my circle of friends. I also run several support groups for chronically ill patients and their loved ones and live a good portion of my life immersed in social diplomacy. Still doesn't change genetics.

Atheist. World's unjust, why is it so wrong, how could it be so stotic, where's the proof? There's a small amount of doubt showing in most of your posts though, so you suspect something is there, you just can't yet prove it (and you're not going to say anything out of fear of ridicule - sure, you don't fear being ridiculed but you're afraid to step outside the boundary into the grey area... all inventors stepped into the grey area at some point...). Huh? Trust me, that is so far from the truth, it's laughable. I just don't subscribe to any religious doctrine. But I absolutely believe there is something akin to God and I don't shy away from talking about that. But, yeah, lots of people assume I'm atheist.


As a result of feeling inferior and feeling this knee-jerk drive in order to prove yourself, you decided that you would appeal to the group consensus (that's a logical fallacy, look it up) by ridiculing a strawman point (also a fallacy, look it up) in the hopes people would agree in order to boost your flailing self-esteem from your diminishing social circle. What?!? Strawman, maybe. Ad populum? Really? This isn't about winning an argument, it's about discussing on a discussion forum. But, still, wrong is still wrong. Carrying an unexpressed gene for CF doesn't mean you have cystic fibrosis. Saying that all AB+ people are psychic, inhumanly strong, and make wicked chocolate chip cookies, then dismissing anyone who's AB+ with STFU liar who disagrees and dismissing AB- people who say that they fit those criteria as full of shit doesn't make you right. Especially if the only evidence of your argument comes from a pseudoscientific website where you have to pay a monthly membership fee.


In summary, you need to have more confidence in yourself, and less of a focus on facts. Many ideas started out as unproven concepts which had no factual basis before finally reaching acceptance. A lack of evidence for something does not mean it does not exist, just there is a lack of evidence. Don't point out the lack, search for the answer. In summary, thanks for your analysis. It was an interesting read. I fully agree with your statement that a lack of evidence for something does not mean it doesn't exist. Search out the answer for yourself, but eventually you're going to need evidence. (Hence my suggestion of an unbiased questionnaire) If you can't get any evidence, then chances are pretty good that your hypothesis is faulty. If you need to rearrange biology and suspend belief to fit your the-o-ry, it's probably time to start reevaluating.

very good point, and i've experienced the same..I work in the medical field (hemodialysis). But it seems that my experiences with the doctor's diagnosis or advice seems to hurt me further or not help at all. I'm trying currently to abtain a test to see if i have the HLA-B27 genetic marker. I have reasons to believe my grandmother was suffering from A.S. (she isn't around anymore and i was young) Not only is the doctor throwing rock's, but he keeps blaming to insurance policy. *sigh*

I'm in shock!!! I know we negatives share similarities..but damn, we really are alike ! And good theory on the adrenalin thing! I have nick named that 'hulk syndrome' bc being angered makes me (tiny 5'1 and a half, 105lbs) female, a force not to be messed with. Also do you control you're emotion's well? I seem to be very tough as nails at getting past the barriers..what usually does it to me is endangering my life or someone around me ..or a loved one. etc.. I basically have to backed into a corner..but once i do.......

Ok, great start. Perhaps we should separate them into verifiable, measurable traits and subjective traits next. Like, physical characteristics (ie hair colour) and psychological characteristics (ie higher IQ) and subjective experiences (ie psychic experiences). I would do it right now, but I have to get out for my walk.

I believe this is the best idea! and along the way we should try to find the best reliable source or link to back it up, or attempt to give a good standing on why this is possible. Off to a great start!

I apply to even what I've been taught. No theory too absurd so long as it fits the facts.



Keep calm dude. You're going at this with aggression (even if you don't think it is, it's giving that impression), you only need to reason, and Aiyanna understands the point. There's already been some effort on constructing a better supported list (although I seem to have been left holding it so to speak).

I've addressed the other points you've brought up. Calm; the correct response to any division is not beratement or aggression, but reconciliation.

Demonstrate, don't lecture. Here's an Rh positive, they are like you, we're not so different.

The post was coming from a psuedo-Biblical point of view that at one time fallen angels bred with human women and that DNA is still with us.

Again, from that point of view, Sephardic jewish people were God's chosen people and unlikely to have that non-human DNA. That is why the Isrealites were commanded to kill everything in Cannan, children as well, as the Cannanites were not fully human. They failed at that task if you read the Old Testament.

My assumption is that most who slander RH- as reptilian or Nephalim leftovers come from this Biblical viewpoint. I'm refuting it from their point of view.

THE PRODUCTION OF ANTI-HUMAN GLOBULIN
SERUM (COOMBS REAGENT) IN GOATS
BY
I. DUNSFORD AND C. C. BOWLEY
From the National Blood Transfusion Service, Northfield Road, Crookes, Sheffield
(RECEIVED FOR PUBLICATION MARCH 8, 1956)
The rabbit is customarily used for the preparation
of anti-human globulin serum, but there are
several objections to the choice of this animal.
These are: (1) The volume of serum obtained is
small. To maintain supplies it is necessary either
to have several animals producing the reagent, or
to hyperimmunize and bleed the rabbits used too
frequently, which in turn results in a less specific
reagent. (2) The rabbit is prone to myxomatosis.
This note reports the preparation of the reagent
in the goat. The procedure has the following
advantages over preparation in rabbits: (1) It
yields larger volumes of serum. (2) The goat is not
prone to infection with myxomatosis. (3) The
immunizing and bleeding operations are simpler
and quicker. (4) For the laboratory using or distributing
large quantities of the reagent feeding
and housing a goat is less costly than keeping 20
or 30 rabbits.
Method
Sterile group 0 serum, 5 ml., was injected intramuscularly
(gluteal muscles) every three to four days
to a total of 10 injections.
Ten days after the last injection 10-20 ml. blood
was withdrawn from the leg vein.
After heating the serum at 56° C. for 30 minutes
(to inactivate complement) the serum was titrated in
parallel against red cells sensitized with an incomplete
anti-D and against unsensitized cells.
Provided that the titre against the sensitized cells
was at least 20 times as great as that against the
non-sensitized cells, the goat was bled from the external
jugular vein for 400 to 500 ml. The hair of the
neck was closely clipped and a long (20 cm.) largebore
needle (3 mm. external diameter) used. The
blood was allowed to run straight from the needle
into a sterile bottle.
After clotting the serum was separated with aseptic
precautions. Following inactivation of the complement
as before, the anti-human agglutinins were removed
by absorption with well-washed A, B, and 0
cells as for rabbit anti-human globulin serum.
The goat anti-human globulin serum was standardized
in the...

I couldn't copy the link, so posted part of the paper here. Also, [link to en.wikipedia.org]

A Coombs reagent (aka "anti-Human serum") was manufactured from the blood of Rhesus monkeys, back in the 1940's, when scientists were trying to understand why a particular anonymous couple kept giving birth to stillborns.

The mother's blood (like all Rhesus negatives) did NOT "agglutinate" (or, clump; coagulate, curdle, etc.) when introduced to the serum made from the monkey blood.

However, her husband's blood DID agglutinate when in contact w/ the Coomb's reagent (which is still used for testing blood samples for the 'Rhesus factor').

Therefore, Rhesus negatives' blood is compatible w/ monkey blood, while Rhesus positives are not.

It is not the fault of Rhesus positive people, that the scientists at first erroneously reported the woman's husband, instead of the Rh- woman herself, as the one whose blood was compatible with the "Anti-Human" serum. In fact, it seems to have been some sort of mis-communication. Because the fact is that it is Rh negative blood, which is compatible (doesn't agglutinate) in the testing serum (made from Rhesus monkey blood).

Blood products from Rhesus monkeys are (or were) incubated in rabbits, goats, or other lab animals, in order to produce the Anti-D (aka "Anti-Human" serum). "D" is the factor found in Rhesus positive people.

There are many websites which point out that fact. Here's one, but I've also seen it stated on the AMA / Red Cross sites.
[link to www.ginkgo-web.de]

As for not putting your ancestors past it, remember: Humanity has been forced to survive climatic cataclysms which have cause severe bottlenecking of our species.

Human beings are intelligent enough to survive such things, but also enough to get ourselves into lots of trouble.

Also, take a good look at the temple frescoes in Northern India: the "Monkey Armies". Those aren't totally mythic, there's a lot of truth behind it. They were agriculturalists, who prided themselves on their ability to create hybrid crops and animals too (cattle, etc.).

Around the same time that the Vedic agriculturalists were experimenting with breeding, they also introduced the caste systems, monarchies, and slavery to their societies.

Even today, certain people are talking about creating a slave race of hybrids (Human x Chimpanzee). However, whether they realize it or not -- it's already been done.

And the only way to do it, is to breed a female Human with a male lower primate (certain monkeys or apes).

Hello OP, thank you for this. I'm in the rabbit hole like you, and I'm o-. I wish I could have conversation w you outside this forum, because I have some "private2 experiences that I don't reallt want to share publicly. however,pls tell me - of all the possible theories - where do you land? until now I feel like I'm in between different ones and doubting all of them.....
I have eyes that change their colour...is that something mentioned in connection w this?
Thank you.

HAHA still no hate from me love! To address the Genetic marker test, I asked for it [peace of mind] and He wasn't willing to take cash. First instinct was to pull out the wad..lol. I fail. But i have contacted another doctor that says he will do it and get back to me for an appointment mid summer. As for the A.S I have some of the signs, other then that i wouldn't know or not. But even tho i have some of the sign's he has no reason to believe i have it. Seems like it just doesn't matter to him anyway. Wish he would have just checked for peace of mind. But i fail again, lol.

As for the genetic marker, my main target with that is to see if I have it bc of some of the theories i have heard, if i have it [[or let's say my lineage does]] Some theories will ring true for me. (serious of personal beliefs and a mission within myself)

6 hours is not a rapid healing time. And that was only the clotting of the blood. I had a skull fracture, so bone regeneration time would have been within weeks.

You seem to be seeing something there that I don't. I said the hospital service was so slow (and thus useless) that I healed due to the amount of time that passed.

A+. I can show you the card with it written on too if I still have it to hand. That was a joke! I'm sorry you had a bad experience, however I still believe that not all doctors are idiots and inferior to your Google-fu.



You seem to be merging a number of concepts to form one general concept that is ignorant of the specifics. Either or fallacy.

There's a term (look it up) called 'weakly typed D', because, yes, they test for a marker, but just like any other blood test, there is a specific amount. In the same way there can be 'too much B12' and 'too little B12', there's an amount (because genetics aren't black and white, and you should know that).

I would demand proof that it's as black and white as you're claiming (because I've already given an example that blood tests work by amount: Iron, B12, electrolytes, glucose, and surprise - protein!). The tests you mentioned test levels in the blood, yes. However, it is your genes that determine your blood type by determining what proteins make up your blood. You can't be weakly A or kinda HIV positive.

The clump test would be fallacious because it relies on the body (and not the blood) having made anti-bodies (which have to be generated by the glands in the body) in reaction to the blood, so if you were to insert Rh negative blood into Rh positive blood, the anti-bodies likely wouldn't be present as it hasn't been introduced to the body specifically (which is why the first baby in Rh disease is relatively safe - no anti-bodies).You're right. My bad.

However, you're not testing for the presence of an anti-body (and thus clumping via white cells attaching to the foriegn red cells), but the amount of a specific protein - one could say there's 'a lot' or 'a little' but what about those who have it where there is 'some' - Rh negative or Rh positive? Too much blood sugar, or too little? So an anti-body test would be flawed (and you don't want to inject it directly into the body as that is dangerous and would cause complications in females).


Remember how white cells work. Generally speaking, foreign bodies, marker cells, marker cells attach to/identify foreign body, other white cells attack. No marker cells, no white cells attack.



Despite beating the pro-doctor drum, my skull fracture, I most assure you was physical, and waiting 6 hours before treatment (would you leave a stab wound for 6 hours? One quarter of a day.) means it wasn't in my best interests.

They are supposed to be trained, but instead, I, a member of the public, who only does some part-time googling, the 'armchair researcher', so to speak, am better informed than someone who spend years studying? How does that work? What did they do for all those years? How arrogant of you! I like it!

I have a skull fracture. It's only one of two things - it's either very serious, and needs to be seen to ASAP, or it only needs minor treatment and I can go home - rather than sitting around in a dingy waiting room for 6 hours potentially catching some other disease.

The for-profit system in the US is far worse, because they are more likely to scam you for cash. Here, it's bad for the opposite but same reason, they will more likely fob you off with 'no need to worry! Your head's just bleeding.' in order to save cash.


If I, a student who failed his degree, scrapped grades at school and breaks stuff, am more competent than a 40 year old man who sits in a medical practice in regards to medicine (I had explained why there was no need to test for diabetes - I didn't drink that much water. The test confirmed my glucose levels were normal.), they have well and truly muffed up. You should really try working with your doctor instead of belittling him. Would you be so arrogant with a contractor when discussing the hidden foundational structure of your house? Or would you share information and respect both his expertise and your insider knowledge of your house? Or maybe you should just find another doctor. I, for one, wouldn't visit an armchair surgeon, no matter how much she thought she knew about everything.



No, you're just getting the wrong end of the stick here. And that social inexperience showing again, and I'll explain why. Firstly, there's a logical reason for Rh negative women to have Rh negative men - it reduces the number of potential miscarriages due to the potential anti-body reaction and the blood clumping, as you said. The baby is a living being too, don't forget that. So does the shot.

Secondly, this isn't what's being advocated (everyone is getting riled and ruffled feathers), there's no 'purist' element. I'm sorry, did you miss the Rh- bloodline icon at the end of the OP?

As for the social inexperience? People who fall in love will cross many boundaries when doing so. Actually, statistically speaking, assuming neither person knows their bloodtype, there would be no reason to suspect that an (unaware) Rh negative person would favour an Rh negative person over an Rh positive person (assuming all people involved were ignorant and had similar lifestyles etc). Again, that's why they made the shot. You know, the evil medical establishment. There would be no favouritism if it weren't for these campaigns to keep the bloodline pure.

In terms for love crossing boundaries, it's why you have -/+ hybrids. From my understanding, Rh negatives seem to fall in love with just as many Rh positives as Rh negatives.Yep, demonstrating that the differences really aren't that great, huh?



Herd behaviour. I have no group to associate with. You won't be able to get people to stop acting like it though, because it's how group cohesion is maintained.



Ayianna mentioned about compiling a list a number of pages earlier, which I did attempt to construct using information I know was supported at least in reference and also anecdotally, but it completely scraps, rather than expands upon, the version originally stated. Alright, I see. My apologies.




I have always reasoned this, but you're going a bit far with it. I think lists such as those provoke jealousy and the like from those not deemed on the 'in-group'. How am I going too far with it?



You're not inferior, and you're not hated. If anything, I see a lot of myself in you.

Ok, another thing that is disturbing came up.. I'm not so sure 'statisically' how many people actually have this issue [LOL] but seriously, would like to tackle this one as well.

The "cauda" nick named 'the dragon's tail'
I have the extra vertabra..on my tail bone. Now considering I have heard the tailbone is actually considered a vestigial organ or bone structure. How many people actually have a tail bone? And i dont have the actual cauda [thank GOD] but, I do have a tail bone with an extra vertabra attached..I don't think it's supossed to BE there? Any one know anything about tailbones or anything along those lines?

Ok lately I have seen many threads on the rhesus negative subject...