U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-28-2015, 02:09 PM
 
5,644 posts, read 3,196,510 times
Reputation: 6628

Advertisements

Suzy, yes they do test pregnant women for Rubella, but at least they didn't with every subsequent pregnancy years ago. They didn't for me with my second pregnancy, but that was with natural immunity to Rubella not vaccinated. Maybe they trusted natural immunity more than they do now with vaccinated immunity?

I will have to ask my daughter about this since she is pregnant with her second 13 months after her firstborn.

Will 13 months change that much with antibodies to Rueblla? Right, cannot never be safe enough in 2015.

 
Old 07-28-2015, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,499 posts, read 26,102,510 times
Reputation: 26471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
Suzy, yes they do test pregnant women for Rubella, but at least they didn't with every subsequent pregnancy years ago. They didn't for me with my second pregnancy, but that was with natural immunity to Rubella not vaccinated. Maybe they trusted natural immunity more than they do now with vaccinated immunity?

I will have to ask my daughter about this since she is pregnant with her second 13 months after her firstborn.

Will 13 months change that much with antibodies to Rueblla? Right, cannot never be safe enough in 2015.
Most women get tested with every pregnancy because the tests often come as a package. The cost is the same even if the rubella test is not strictly necessary.

If you are immune, you are immune. No "trust" is involved.
 
Old 07-28-2015, 05:02 PM
 
5,644 posts, read 3,196,510 times
Reputation: 6628
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Most women get tested with every pregnancy because the tests often come as a package. The cost is the same even if the rubella test is not strictly necessary.

If you are immune, you are immune. No "trust" is involved.
The point being immune for how long? Year after the first test? Don't know what they do today. They only tested me for Rubella ONCE for my first pregnancy and not the second one 5 years later. Maybe having having the actual disease gives far more antibodies than the vaccine? Don't know. I will ask my daughter if she has any "package deal" for her pregnancy. lol Is that part of Obamacare too?
 
Old 07-28-2015, 05:51 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,499 posts, read 26,102,510 times
Reputation: 26471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
The point being immune for how long? Year after the first test? Don't know what they do today. They only tested me for Rubella ONCE for my first pregnancy and not the second one 5 years later. Maybe having having the actual disease gives far more antibodies than the vaccine? Don't know. I will ask my daughter if she has any "package deal" for her pregnancy. lol Is that part of Obamacare too?
Rubella (German Measles) | Vaccines.gov

"FOR ADULTS
Anyone born during or after 1957, who has never had rubella or has never been vaccinated, against rubella should receive at least one dose of MMR vaccine. If you are not sure if you are protected against rubella, first try to find your vaccination records or documentation of rubella immunity. If you do not have written documentation of rubella immunity, you should get MMR vaccine. Another option is to have a doctor test your blood to determine whether you’re immune, but this is likely to cost more and will take two doctor’s visits. There is no harm in getting another dose of MMR vaccine if you may already be immune to rubella.

Women who are planning to become pregnant should make sure they have a pre-pregnancy blood test to see if they are immune to rubella. Most women of childbearing age were vaccinated as children with the MMR vaccine, but they should confirm this with their doctor. If they need to get vaccinated for rubella, they should avoid becoming pregnant until one month (28 days) after receiving the MMR vaccine and, ideally, not until your immunity is confirmed by a blood test.

Pregnant women who are not protected against rubella should wait until after they have given birth to get MMR vaccine."

http://www.who.int/immunization/posi...11_summary.pdf

"Although one dose of rubella vaccine probably induces life-long protection, in most countries using the MR or MMR vaccines a second dose is offered at 15–18 months or 4–6 years, as indicated for protection against measles and mumps."

"In clinical trials, 95–100% of susceptible persons aged ≥12 months develop rubella antibodies after a single dose of the vaccine. In outbreak situations the effectiveness of different rubella vaccines has been estimated at 90–100%. RA 27/3-containing vaccines have eliminated rubella and CRS [congenital rubella syndrome] from the western hemisphere and in European countries with high vaccination coverage."

Why is the idea that someone gets a rubella titer with each pregnancy so threatening to you? It is standard of care and has nothing to do with the ACA. Do you not understand what a catastrophe a maternal rubella infection is during early pregnancy?

Everyone, please note that the best time to get tested for immunity to rubella is before you get pregnant. If you are not immune, take the vaccine.Though there have been no cases of congenital rubella due to inadvertent vaccination during pregnancy, it's best to wait a month after the vaccine before getting pregnant. The package insert says wait three months, but that is outdated info kept in by lawyers.
 
Old 07-28-2015, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Washington state
4,680 posts, read 2,302,044 times
Reputation: 13686
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post




The French girl you are referring to still is infected with HIV, it just has not progressed to AIDS despite her being off anti-viral drugs for a considerable length of time. There are others, too, still the exceptions rather than the rule, as you say.

French teen in 'unprecedented' remission from HIV
Thank you. I was being lazy and didn't want to go back and hunt for and reread the article. I also read where she was given antivirals fairly early, and maybe that's why her HIV is in remission.

Quote:

I suspect your friend meant rubella, not measles, since all pregnant women have rubella titers done with each pregnancy, because congenital rubella syndrome is such an awful complication of rubella in pregnancy.

She would be referred to as a non-responder, and why some people do not respond to some vaccines is unknown, although genetics does play a part. Sometimes the apparent non-responder just has antibody levels too low to be picked up by commercial tests. Some will eventually respond after repeating the vaccine. Those who do not respond after two additional doses, like your friend, do not need to take the vaccine again. They will be considered compliant as far as vaccine requirements are concerned. Some of them are immune; those who are not get to enjoy the protection of the herd.
I asked her that too, and she no, it was definitely measles she was getting vaccinated and tested for. She was probably getting the MMR shot at the time. You know, I probably got the MMR shot myself, which, even though I had had measles, was a good thing. As I said, I never did find out which side I had mumps on, or whether I had already had them on both sides. And I know I never had rubella myself. The MMR shot took care of all that.

Quote:

Actually I do agree with you, it's just that the risk of encountering someone in that age demographic who is not immune is pretty small. Anyone who knows for certain he never had one of the diseases on the childhood schedule or who may have gotten the less effective measles vaccine should certainly be vaccinated. The risk of a serious adverse reaction is tiny.
I thought that's what you meant. I just wanted to clarify it for Jo.
 
Old 07-28-2015, 07:35 PM
 
Location: BC, Arizona
1,170 posts, read 747,863 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Rubella (German Measles) | Vaccines.gov

"FOR ADULTS
Anyone born during or after 1957, who has never had rubella or has never been vaccinated, against rubella should receive at least one dose of MMR vaccine. If you are not sure if you are protected against rubella, first try to find your vaccination records or documentation of rubella immunity. If you do not have written documentation of rubella immunity, you should get MMR vaccine. Another option is to have a doctor test your blood to determine whether you’re immune, but this is likely to cost more and will take two doctor’s visits. There is no harm in getting another dose of MMR vaccine if you may already be immune to rubella.

Women who are planning to become pregnant should make sure they have a pre-pregnancy blood test to see if they are immune to rubella. Most women of childbearing age were vaccinated as children with the MMR vaccine, but they should confirm this with their doctor. If they need to get vaccinated for rubella, they should avoid becoming pregnant until one month (28 days) after receiving the MMR vaccine and, ideally, not until your immunity is confirmed by a blood test.

Pregnant women who are not protected against rubella should wait until after they have given birth to get MMR vaccine."

http://www.who.int/immunization/posi...11_summary.pdf

"Although one dose of rubella vaccine probably induces life-long protection, in most countries using the MR or MMR vaccines a second dose is offered at 15–18 months or 4–6 years, as indicated for protection against measles and mumps."

"In clinical trials, 95–100% of susceptible persons aged ≥12 months develop rubella antibodies after a single dose of the vaccine. In outbreak situations the effectiveness of different rubella vaccines has been estimated at 90–100%. RA 27/3-containing vaccines have eliminated rubella and CRS [congenital rubella syndrome] from the western hemisphere and in European countries with high vaccination coverage."

Why is the idea that someone gets a rubella titer with each pregnancy so threatening to you? It is standard of care and has nothing to do with the ACA. Do you not understand what a catastrophe a maternal rubella infection is during early pregnancy?

Everyone, please note that the best time to get tested for immunity to rubella is before you get pregnant. If you are not immune, take the vaccine.Though there have been no cases of congenital rubella due to inadvertent vaccination during pregnancy, it's best to wait a month after the vaccine before getting pregnant. The package insert says wait three months, but that is outdated info kept in by lawyers.
I admire your patience but you're posting science for a troll that keeps asking questions, ignoring the answer and posting the same absurd question. I'm virtually certain there's a bridge missing a troll somewhere.

For those that care about science, vaccinate your kids.
 
Old 07-28-2015, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,386,559 times
Reputation: 1690
So there can be no immunity without infection yet vaccination is not infection....
I guess vaccination does not equal immunity.
 
Old 07-28-2015, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,499 posts, read 26,102,510 times
Reputation: 26471
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
So there can be no immunity without infection yet vaccination is not infection....
I guess vaccination does not equal immunity.
A vaccine infects with a weakened organism, or it contains a dead organism or a piece of an organism which the body recognizes as it would a live one, mimicking infection with the live organism.

You can become immune by being infected with the wild organism or by being vaccinated with the weakened organism, dead organism, or key proteins from the organism.

You cannot become immune to a wild organism with which you have never been infected just by being exposed to someone who is infected.

When you are infected you may or may not have symptoms of the illness caused by the infecting organism. Symptoms are not necessary for immunity to happen.
 
Old 07-29-2015, 03:35 AM
 
538 posts, read 435,356 times
Reputation: 1682
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlvancouver View Post
I admire your patience but you're posting science for a troll that keeps asking questions, ignoring the answer and posting the same absurd question. I'm virtually certain there's a bridge missing a troll somewhere.

For those that care about science, vaccinate your kids.
For those that buy into big pharma's propaganda machine, vaccinate your kids. Are you going to call me a troll too? Be careful as it is against the TOS of this forum to do so.
 
Old 07-29-2015, 05:13 AM
 
Location: Marquette, Mich
1,022 posts, read 384,204 times
Reputation: 2322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie the heartbreaker View Post
For those that buy into big pharma's propaganda machine, vaccinate your kids. Are you going to call me a troll too? Be careful as it is against the TOS of this forum to do so.
There are hundreds of pages that negate that overly simplistic, unscientific answer. That's not an argument, that's not proof. That's propaganda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top