Here's a reference - no idea how reliable this is - but it's interesting. It seems to be saying that many cases of infection actually existed prior to birth (i.e., not due to colonization as baby passed through vagina) http://www.glowm.com/?p=glowm.cml/section_view&articleid=179#1264
And this is a case study from the NIH website about twins where the one with ruptured membranes was fine and the one with intact membranes got sick: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364382/
Actually, I think the possbility that most cases of GBS infection come in utero and are only discovered after birth makes the case against testing and treating as per protocol pretty strong. I'll still test because of my concern about having an early baby and ending up in hospital - hospitals really like their i's dotted and t's crossed. And I'd still treat given 2x risk factors. But NOT simply for a positive test.
thanks! interesting reads. I love learning new and very relevant stuff! Now I have a new thing to really get into ;) After reading your comment and the links, I agree with you that logically it would make sense that early onset of GBS could very well be from bacterimic infection in utero from amniotic fluid. interesting.
Every one makes the decisions thaat are right for them and that can never look exactly the same between two women even if the info was all the same ;) We all do what is right for our circumstances when we are truly informed--that's the part that matters--getting educated.
I think we all gave lots for OP to consider and review and I don't doubt she will be able to make an informed and educated decision based on what she finds is the most acceptable risk and outcome for her and babe ; ) This is truly what these forums and these groups are for and I LOVE seeing it at work!
Love learning and sharing from all you mamas!