Originally Posted by MsFortune
You have to look critically, and realize that not all webpages are legit sources. The one you posted is someone's personal blog, and what she posted are opinions and not facts.
If you want to risk having a GBP baby, that's your right, but I really think you need to go into it knowing the actual facts, and no, garlic won't help.
Given that the screening isn't perfect - i.e. you can screen negative on the day of the swab, but since GBS can start to thrive at any point after that (or babies can pick it up from a source other than mom), one could argue that everyone should have antibiotics in labour. That is not how it's approached, though, because you have to balance risks and benefits, at the population level (if you're a health care provider) or individually (when making decisions for yourself).
I always refer to the CDC site on this issue, because although it is written kind of alarmingly, you can't argue with numbers. And they do say right on there (http://www.cdc.gov/groupbstrep/about/newborns-pregnant.html) that "only 4-6% of babies with group B strep infections die." That doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about it, and it also doesn't include babies who have long-term health issues as a result of infection, or the stress on babies and parents even when baby makes it through without residual issues. But the number the PP cited wasn't wrong.
Also from the CDC site "A pregnant woman who tests positive for group B strep and gets antibiotics during labor has only a 1 in 4,000 chance of delivering a baby with group B strep disease, compared to a 1 in 200 chance if she does not get antibiotics during labor." Many will focus on the reduction in risk by using antibiotics; others will see that the risk of infection is still pretty low (0.5%) even in GBS positive mothers. To each their own, IMHO. Everyone makes their decisions and lives with risks...and not just on this issue, there are lots of things other pregnant moms decide that I might not be comfortable with personally, and vice versa.
Edited to add: The number cited in that childbirth.org site about 2000 deaths per year would correspond to a total of over 33,000 cases per year (assuming 6% mortality). The Centre for Disease control says the average number of newborn (under 1 week) infections per year is 1200, which would correspond with an estimated 72 deaths per year (http://www.cdc.gov/groupbstrep/about/newborns-pregnant.html). I'm not sure what numbers that other site is quoting, perhaps all infections over the first year of life (or all infections recorded in the general population)? It's not really accurate to lump them all together, because antibiotics received in labour are not going to prevent a GBS infection in a baby a week or 3 months or a year after the birth. They don't provide a reference so it's hard to fact check their numbers.
Edited by clutterbug - 3/13/11 at 3:43pm