Yesterday at 10:30 am by 
Blood types and cancer risks
rhesusnegatives@gmail.comFebruary 23, 20170
Once again I have read a claim that stunned me and what stunned me was not that someone would fabricate something to get attention the lazy way, but that actually people appear to believe it. The claim made:
“O negs rarely get cancer“.
Really?
The claim states:
The truth is that while blood type O appears to be less likely at risk for cancer, O negative people are actually at a higher risk as rh negatives are at much higher risk of getting cancers overall, according to some studies as high as twice as much.
In our own study Worse Health Status and Higher Incidence of Health Disorders in Rhesus Negative Subjects a higher cancer risk for rh negative men and women has already been pointed out. But let’s look at some additional studies:
Breast cancer:
Endometriosis:
This specific cancer actually doubles the likelihood of getting it for rh negative women. And while 5.6% of the controls were O negative, the percentage of O negative endometriosis patients is as high as 9%.
More here: Rh negative women are twice as likely to develop endometriosis
Ovarian cancer:
O again shows lower likelihood. Rh negative blood factor not of significance:
Pancreatic cancer:
A German study actually shows 21% frequency of rh negatives amongst pancreatic cancer patients. Once again, just like in breast cancer, blood type A appears to be the highest risk.
Studies examining various cancers usually conclude blood type O being at a lower risk of developing cancer.
So now my question is as follows:
Why is it so easy to convince rh negative people of something untrue when we often consider ourselves “human lie detectors”? Is it because we have such a desire to feel special that complete fabrications are more appealing than something that is actually negative and face it?
Stating something that is completely false is not a joke as it can lead to risky behavior assuming immunity. Whether it is the claim that O negatives cannot get HIV/AIDS or are immune to cancer.
Even when there are studies showing a lower risk of getting HIV for rh negatives, it is irresponsible to publish claims without proof.
Thanks to: http://www.rhesusnegative.net
- Rh Negative Facts
rhesusnegatives@gmail.comFebruary 23, 20170
Once again I have read a claim that stunned me and what stunned me was not that someone would fabricate something to get attention the lazy way, but that actually people appear to believe it. The claim made:
“O negs rarely get cancer“.
Really?
The claim states:
Below I will set the record straight with various examples, but you are free to find your own and leave a comment should something else pop up that I have missed.
Ever wondered why O negs rarely get cancer? It is because cancer rarely occurs naturally, however the virus that causes cancer was created in rhesus monkeys and was used as a vaccination against Polio. People are dropping dead from cancer because they had the Polio vaccination. However, the virus can not bind to the blood of O negs because it is a simian virus. The virus is called SV40. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40
The truth is that while blood type O appears to be less likely at risk for cancer, O negative people are actually at a higher risk as rh negatives are at much higher risk of getting cancers overall, according to some studies as high as twice as much.
In our own study Worse Health Status and Higher Incidence of Health Disorders in Rhesus Negative Subjects a higher cancer risk for rh negative men and women has already been pointed out. But let’s look at some additional studies:
Breast cancer:
Source: Influence of ABO blood group and Rhesus factor on breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 9665 breast cancer patients and 244,768 controls.
Caucasians with blood type A may have a higher risk of breast cancer than other Caucasians. No association was found in any other blood type or any other population. Similarly, the Rh factor had no association with the risk of breast cancer.
Endometriosis:
This specific cancer actually doubles the likelihood of getting it for rh negative women. And while 5.6% of the controls were O negative, the percentage of O negative endometriosis patients is as high as 9%.
More here: Rh negative women are twice as likely to develop endometriosis
Ovarian cancer:
O again shows lower likelihood. Rh negative blood factor not of significance:
Source: ABO and Rh blood groups in relation to ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancer risk among the population of South-East Siberia.We suggest that carriage of non-O blood groups may elevate risk of ovarian cancer and can play a role in its development.
Pancreatic cancer:
A German study actually shows 21% frequency of rh negatives amongst pancreatic cancer patients. Once again, just like in breast cancer, blood type A appears to be the highest risk.
Source: Blood group determinates incidence for pancreatic cancer in Germany.The incidence of PC in the German cohort is highly associated with the AB0-system as well. More patients with blood group A suffer from PC (p < 0.001) whereas blood group 0 was less frequent in patients with PC (p < 0.001). Thus, our findings support the results from other non-German surveys. The causal trigger points of this carcinogenesis correlation are still not known.
Studies examining various cancers usually conclude blood type O being at a lower risk of developing cancer.
So now my question is as follows:
Why is it so easy to convince rh negative people of something untrue when we often consider ourselves “human lie detectors”? Is it because we have such a desire to feel special that complete fabrications are more appealing than something that is actually negative and face it?
Stating something that is completely false is not a joke as it can lead to risky behavior assuming immunity. Whether it is the claim that O negatives cannot get HIV/AIDS or are immune to cancer.
Even when there are studies showing a lower risk of getting HIV for rh negatives, it is irresponsible to publish claims without proof.
Thanks to: http://www.rhesusnegative.net
