Blood type changed during pregnancy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

... do you know how blood transfusions work?

There are people who only will consent to blood donations from those who never received a COVID vaccine, so, you know. There's a lot of interesting opinions out there.

Except blood banks don't track vax status, so there is no way of actually knowing or verifying. So you either take a transfusion with that risk or you don't get any blood at all. They don't actually get to choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m just wondering if anyone else has experienced something similar. I’m pregnant. Before pregnancy, my blood type was B-. I know this for certain because I have been a blood donor for years, and it says B- on my blood donor card and Red Cross app. When I had my blood drawn recently, I was told that I’m A-. My parents (also donors) are type B and type O, so it’s also genetically impossible for me to be type A. My doctor has told me that it’s not possible for your blood type to change if you have never had a blood transfusion or bone marrow transplant. She seemed sure that I’m A-.

It doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, but my curiosity has been peaked. I wonder if pregnancy can cause something like this and if it will be temporary or permanent.

Second test required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Holy s***! I've never been more happy to be RH+. I'm not even a religious woman but praise the Lord. 🙌🏻

In 1971, there was nationwide concern over bacterial contamination of saline IV fluid manufactured by Abbott Laboratories. Just imagine if you needed a bag of IV saline today, e.g., if you were dehydrated in the ER. No thanks! Praise Jesus!

What? I’m RH+. I don’t need the shot, thankfully. I’ll never have to worry about any of these issues. 😂

According to multiple people on this htread, that can change on a dime. Look out!

They don’t know what they’re talking about. 95% of the people on this thread are clueless. Blood type doesn’t change.

I don't know about that. When I get mad, my eyes burn a delicate lavender fire, and my bone marrow rapidly vacillates between AB+ and O-.

🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

... do you know how blood transfusions work?

There are people who only will consent to blood donations from those who never received a COVID vaccine, so, you know. There's a lot of interesting opinions out there.

Except blood banks don't track vax status, so there is no way of actually knowing or verifying. So you either take a transfusion with that risk or you don't get any blood at all. They don't actually get to choose.

Well, that assumes people are rational and/or listen to rational arguments. The ED would like to have a word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

... do you know how blood transfusions work?

There are people who only will consent to blood donations from those who never received a COVID vaccine, so, you know. There's a lot of interesting opinions out there.

I mean, they literally don't sort blood that way so those people are just choosing to die.

I don't know why anyone would decline the Rh factor when there's such a high risk of serious issues if you don't.

Because the plethora of great marriage options means it's no biggie to sort out potential candidates based on their Rh factor, the size and shape of their ear canals (to mitigate the horror of an ear infection in their future child), whether or not they are flat-footed, and if their parents needed reading glasses.

Oh sh+t. No lie, I’m a Rh-, two-time Rhogam-using, flat-footed, reading-glass wearing, eustachian-tube-dysfunction-having woman here.

Glad I reproduced before reading this thread! Also no lie, I have a flat footed child with chronic sinus disease who is a professional athlete. And two other delightful children. What an utterly bizarre person the eugenisist PP is.

[Anonymous]

All I can say is that you and your offspring would have been at a significant disadvantage in 1600s England, missy, and I hope you know that. For some reason that is very important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

... do you know how blood transfusions work?

There are people who only will consent to blood donations from those who never received a COVID vaccine, so, you know. There's a lot of interesting opinions out there.

I mean, they literally don't sort blood that way so those people are just choosing to die.

I don't know why anyone would decline the Rh factor when there's such a high risk of serious issues if you don't.

Because the plethora of great marriage options means it's no biggie to sort out potential candidates based on their Rh factor, the size and shape of their ear canals (to mitigate the horror of an ear infection in their future child), whether or not they are flat-footed, and if their parents needed reading glasses.

Oh sh+t. No lie, I’m a Rh-, two-time Rhogam-using, flat-footed, reading-glass wearing, eustachian-tube-dysfunction-having woman here.

Glad I reproduced before reading this thread! Also no lie, I have a flat footed child with chronic sinus disease who is a professional athlete. And two other delightful children. What an utterly bizarre person the eugenisist PP is.

Good job snagging someone to father your children before you genetic defects ruined your chances. (Sarcasm)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
All I can say is that you and your offspring would have been at a significant disadvantage in 1600s England, missy, and I hope you know that. For some reason that is very important.

Anyone who was living in 1600s England was probably pretty good about bubonic plague, tho.

Or lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

... do you know how blood transfusions work?

There are people who only will consent to blood donations from those who never received a COVID vaccine, so, you know. There's a lot of interesting opinions out there.

Except blood banks don't track vax status, so there is no way of actually knowing or verifying. So you either take a transfusion with that risk or you don't get any blood at all. They don't actually get to choose.

Well, that assumes people are rational and/or listen to rational arguments. The ED would like to have a word.

Oh for sure, they can demand it all they want, doesnt mean they are even getting it lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
All I can say is that you and your offspring would have been at a significant disadvantage in 1600s England, missy, and I hope you know that. For some reason that is very important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Holy s***! I've never been more happy to be RH+. I'm not even a religious woman but praise the Lord. 🙌🏻

In 1971, there was nationwide concern over bacterial contamination of saline IV fluid manufactured by Abbott Laboratories. Just imagine if you needed a bag of IV saline today, e.g., if you were dehydrated in the ER. No thanks! Praise Jesus!

What? I’m RH+. I don’t need the shot, thankfully. I’ll never have to worry about any of these issues. 😂

According to multiple people on this htread, that can change on a dime. Look out!

They don’t know what they’re talking about. 95% of the people on this thread are clueless. Blood type doesn’t change.

I don't know about that. When I get mad, my eyes burn a delicate lavender fire, and my bone marrow rapidly vacillates between AB+ and O-.

Was the eye color change for people with hazel eyes ever a real thing? I always thought there was maybe some reflection based on what people are wearing? Like a deep blue shirt makes someone with blues has appear to have a deeper blue. I thought it was my mind playing tricks on me.

There's the actual pigment in the iris, and then there is how you perceive the pigment. The former doesn't change, but the latter can. Different lighting, different makeup or clothing colors (you already know how some blue shirts can really make blue eyes pop), even the change in pupil size can affect how you pereive the pigment that is there.

Ah so maybe if someone had hazel eyes and was angry the pupils could change making you think the color did?

Oh, certainly.

[Anonymous]

My husband is AB+, and I am A+. Our son is O+. This is impossible under normal circumstances. We were both sure of our blood types, and I knew that I did not have an affair. We ended up finding out that my husband has the cis-AB variant. It is rare (which is why it wasn’t even on our radar).

This wouldn’t apply to your situation, but my point is that strange things can happen when it comes to blood types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
All I can say is that you and your offspring would have been at a significant disadvantage in 1600s England, missy, and I hope you know that. For some reason that is very important.

Anyone who was living in 1600s England was probably pretty good about bubonic plague, tho.

Or lucky.

So believe it or not, the last major outbreak of bubonic plague ended around 1960.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_plague_pandemic

Yersinia Pestis, been plaguing humanity for at least 2,000 years.

[Anonymous]

Plague is certainly still an ongoing problem. It's still being diagnosed and treated in Southwest ERs. Not spreading person to person, but people still catch it from fleas from rodents, or from inhalation or exposure to contaminated fluids.

A New Mexico man was diagnosed with both septicemic and bubonic plague in August 2025. There are about 7 cases per year in the US, on average.

[Anonymous]

As someone who works in the field, the likeliest explanation is that you mistakenly thought you were B- when you’re actually A-. We get a lot of patients that say they were mistyped. The scenario that usually ends up playing out is that they were incorrect about their blood type. When you have this job, you realize just how faulty the human memory can be.

We get a lot of people who think they’re B (+ or -) when they’re actually O (+ or -) or A (+ or -). We also get a lot who think they’re the universal donor (O-) when they’re actually O+ (the most common blood type). Many can also not accurately remember whether they are + or - even if they know their correct ABO group. These are the most frequent mix-ups for some reason.