Day 21: Okay, Here are a Few More (Unusual) Myths for Ya...

Okay, so this post may be a bit "out there" and you'll probably be chastising me privately (or publicly - hey, there's room for comments!) for not doing my research first, but since so many Ds blogs out there are posting the myths and realities of Down syndrome this month, here are a few more for ya - two odd myths I've heard about people with Down syndrome that I'm inclined to believe, although they're a little, um, unusual, and obviously open to either interpretation (the nice version) or total disbelief ("where the heck did you get that??")...  Holy crap, was that seriously only one run-on sentence?  I can almost sense all of my English-Teachers-Past rolling their eyes and sighing in acknowledgement of their failure right now.

**People with Down syndrome are more likely to have straight hair.  Really.  Just think about it...have you ever seen someone with Down syndrome that has curly hair?  I have seen very few with wavy hair, but no curls.  And this may vary by race, but if you're strictly polling caucasians, this is what I'm finding.  I wonder if there is something unusual about the hair of people of other races with Ds, too.  Samantha's hair is super-straight.  And fine.  If I braid it and it stays in braids all day and even overnight, it only takes a few short hours of not being in the braids for all the glorious, shiny crimpy waves to fall out and her hair to return to it's stick-straight resting state. 

**People with Down syndrome may be more likely to have blue eyes (although this is certainly not always the case...keep reading).  I seriously can't remember where I heard this, or how credible it may be, but I can't help to think that it may be true.  Does that extra chromosome find that recessive blue gene and bring it to the forefront?  I remember, from 6th grade science, that you have to have 2 blues (one from your father and one from your mother) to make a blue.  Or a green.  Or a hazel.  Or, really, anything but brown.  Meaning, that somewhere in the family trees and genetic make-ups of both the father and the mother, there are family  members (distant or otherwise) that made their mark on the blood lines by having blue eyes.  And if science is correct (as it invariably is), this had to have gone all the way back to the beginning.  To the very first two cavemen to walk the earth, right?  Now, I'm certainly no scientist, so I can't account for mutations and environmental modifications over time, but theoretically this is correct, right?  Now I'm getting off my track here...my point being, that the extra chromosome may dictate a dominance by that blue gene.  I don't know of any people in my family with blue eyes.  I think there are some hazels back a way on both sides, but no blues.  This means there had to have been blues somewhere, though.  Steve's family is predominantly blue, so there's no question there.  I'd venture a guess that any child of ours would be more likely to have brown eyes, since brown dominates my family into the visible past, right? 

But Samantha has absolutely gorgeous, brilliant blue eyes.  Really?  This child is mine??  Wow!!  And wow again, every time I think about how unusual that must be.  (Okay, armchair scientists, and even real scientists - please stop laughing and set me straight?)  I just tried Googling this and came up with...nothing.  I think I may be just making this up as I go along.  Made you all think, though, right?

And please add any other unusual physical myths you may have heard over the years (other than the usual Bruschfield spots, palmar creases, etc. that fill the Ds medical journals).