parents who choose/chose/may vax: titers, maternal immunity, breastfeeding

[Mynn]

Guess this is one more for the nursing/nursed mothers.

In a thread that was around for a short time, a comment of mine in regards to titers was ... well ... let's say "hilighted".

This assumes you have a practitioner you can trust to not 'dump you' for 'trying to game the system' with regards to delaying or avoiding vaxes were partial/personal/religious/medical exemptions aren't possible ...

If your child is partially vaxed, or even not; if you were vaxed or had the diseases, and you breastfed for any length of time (or "extended" whoohooo!) - have you discussed with them/your insurance company about testing for titers first?
Insurance companies might not be fond of it; maybe offer to have the tests run out of pocket? And run them for yourself as well (I know I had it run as part of my prenatal care) as a comparison? Run them early for a baseline, and later on, as well?

I know I've gotten out of annoying "you must vax" situations by titers or other truthful excuses, but then again, I don't have the law asking me to submit forms every year or so, either, as our children do.

[alegna]

It depends on the state. Some states accept titers, others don't. And it varies by disease.

Personally I refuse to make any medical decision because of what any other person says- lawmakers included.

-Angela

[LongIsland]

Originally Posted by Mynn

This assumes you have a practitioner you can trust to not 'dump you' for 'trying to game the system' with regards to delaying or avoiding vaxes were partial/personal/religious/medical exemptions aren't possible ...

My son's former pediatrican looked at me like a deer in headlights when I mentioned that we wouldn't be doing the MMR booster. He said that he wouldn't be able to get into school

When I told him we had his measles titers check by the immunologist, he just said, "Oh" and never said another word and just wrote down "refused" with the date on the immunization sheet. I also had to remind him that in New York only a second measles was requried for entry to kindergarten.

Originally Posted by alegna

Personally I refuse to make any medical decision because of what any other person says- lawmakers included.

And that goes for pediatricans too. If my new ped practice would have had a problem with my religious exemption, they can go shove it and I'll just fire another one.


New Jersey actually enacted a law (Holly's Law) requiring health care providers to give parents information on titers. I'll link that up here in a sec.

[LongIsland]

Here is the think to NJ's MMR titer law: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=354169

[mangosink0]

can someone tell me if you can check titers in TN

[~member~]

Originally Posted by mangosink0

can someone tell me if you can check titers in TN

It is a blood test done by your doctor. So, yes, you can.

[lyttlewon]

I have thought about titers off and on. I don't really trust them but if I was using them purely for exemption purposes I probably would. THe way it was explained to me is if you have a high titer to something you don't need the vax for it. That is an awesome thing to do if you are going to selectivly vax. You do take the risk though that they are truely immune, don't have an elevated titer, and you vax anyway.

[amnesiac]

Originally Posted by mangosink0

can someone tell me if you can check titers in TN

You would have to check what your state code says. Some states accept serologic evidence of immunity in lieu of vaccination for certain diseases only - not all of them.

[mom0810]

Actually, I would argue that if you have ANY titer to something, you are immune to it. Titers change on a daily, hourly, minute-to-minute basis, depending on what you are exposed to. The immune system never forgets. As long as you *have* a titer, you have immunity.

That's my argument, based on seminars in immunology. Whether or not the state is up on the science is another story.

[Mynn]

See, that's what I'm thinking, mom0810, having experienced it personally.

Any selective vaxers run into this?

[amnesiac]

I'd really like mom0810 to further explain. Are you saying that if you have any level of antibodies to a given antigen that means you are immune to that antigen? And did you really mean that the immune system never forgets in the sense that once immune, always immune? Can you please direct me to references for that information because that's really not my understanding at all?

[Mynn]

That's what I don't get, either. I'm thinking the laws/guidelines have been written for "immune enough"?

I've had experience with having illnesses that are now vaxxed for, vaxxes for things there are vaxxes for, and being told I need vaxxes for both because my titers were too low.

And then had those same titers checked again a few years later and being told my levels were fine - they had indeed gone up.

[mom0810]

Sorry I haven't checked this thread in a while.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, is "once immune, always immune." I have attended seminars given by a professor of pathobiological sciences, and he does studies on vaccine efficacy for vaccine co's. Here's the deal... once the body "sees" something, it does not forget. Once it creates antibodies to something, as in a vaccine or disease, it will recognize that every time it "sees" it again, regardless of titer "level."

Titer levels change constantly, depending on what we are exposed to. If you have not been exposed to, say, chocken pox, for a long t ime, then your titer may be low... but you still HAVE a titer, meaning that you are immune.

Dr. Ron Schultz is the source of my information, and you can find out about his research online, or by attending onde of his seminars. Although his seminars are mostly for veterinary vaccines, much of what I learned applies to people, too.

As far as what the LAW in any state says, that is another story. As I said, the law is not always congruent with the science, in any given subject.

[Awaken]

Originally Posted by mom0810

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, is "once immune, always immune." I have attended seminars given by a professor of pathobiological sciences, and he does studies on vaccine efficacy for vaccine co's. Here's the deal... once the body "sees" something, it does not forget. Once it creates antibodies to something, as in a vaccine or disease, it will recognize that every time it "sees" it again, regardless of titer "level."

Titer levels change constantly, depending on what we are exposed to. If you have not been exposed to, say, chocken pox, for a long t ime, then your titer may be low... but you still HAVE a titer, meaning that you are immune.

How would one explain, then, that immunity from vaxes apparently wears off and we 'need' boosters?

Also, I had a very mild case of CP (7 pox!) when I was around 6, and had my titers checked before I got pregnant the 2nd time, and my titers were high! It's hard to imagine that a mild case almost 30 years ago would have given me immunity, but apparently so. And I hadn't been recently exposed to AP as far as I know.

[mom0810]

[QUOTE=itsybitsy25]How would one explain, then, that immunity from vaxes apparently wears off and we 'need' boosters?

Exactly my point, I do not believe that we DO need boosters. I believe that the reasoning behind the "booster" theory is that many doctors do not understand the way immunity works, and they think that if the titer number is too low, we must "boost" immunity with another vaccine. Based on Dr. Schultz's research, this is just NOT true. Vaccine protocol and Policy is not always up on the science, either, sadly.

[amnesiac]

I must continue my search of his work later because what I see today doesn't indicate that at all. Anyone interested can check out Dr Schultz at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...22%5BAuthor%5D

[mamakay]

How would Dr. Schultz explain the mumps epidemic?
Or the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pertussis cases a year? Or the outbreak of shingles in the elderly when the varicella vaccine is given to the young?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. The evidence for immune system "boosting" by either vaccines or wildly circulating pathogens is overwhelming.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by amnesiac

I must continue my search of his work later because what I see today doesn't indicate that at all. Anyone interested can check out Dr Schultz at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...22%5BAuthor%5D

Yeah, here's one of his articles:

Two canine distemper virus (CDV) vaccine types are currently commercially available: modified-live virus (MLV) vaccines and a canarypox recombinant CDV (rCDV) vaccine (Recombitek, Merial). This study compared the ability of the rCDV vaccine and MLV vaccines to significantly enhance (boost) the antibody response of previously immunized adult and juvenile dogs. A significant (fourfold or greater) increase in titer occurred in significantly more dogs revaccinated with Recombitek C-4 or Recombitek C-6 than with the MLV-CDV vaccines. This study demonstrates that Recombitek, the only vaccine for dogs containing rCDV, is more likely to significantly boost the CDV antibody response in previously vaccinated dogs than are the MLV-CDV vaccines. Because rCDV vaccine can boost the antibody titer of dogs previously vaccinated with an MLV vaccine, it can and should be used when core vaccines are readministered.

[mom0810]

It's odd, because these articles do NOT reflect what he stated in his seminars at all. They contradict it, in fact. I am guessing this is because they are studies funded by vaccine companies.

As far as Mumps and pertussis outbreaks in vaccinated children, I would argue that these children clearly did not have titers present, even though they were vaccinated. If the vaccine worked well, then everyone would build titers to them. I am not saying that vaccination in itself is proof of immunity, or even that it always works. I am saying that, in my opinion, based on what I have learned, that TITERS, regardless of how high they are, are proof of immunity, in that they prove exposure, which is all the vaccine does.. expose the body to the disease. Does the body always make antibodies? No. We know that, because vaccinated people can get the disease they were vaccinated against. Vaccines are, at best, only efffective on some people. Read your vaccine inserts.

Soo.. if we are talking about vaccines vs. titers to prove immunity, I am saying that the exsistence of a titer is as good as or better than a booster vaccine. Titer proves exposure, which means the body "remembers" it. Vaccine only means exposure, not memory.

The studies that I spoke of, which Dr. Schultz goes into in depth in the seminar, are studies that his lab has done privately, on his OWN dogs, proving that ONE vaccine given at 12 weeks of age lasts for LIFE in canines. That would equal 10-15 years. However, dogs have a muhc faster metabollism than people, so it actually equates to much longer. The studies that you found are, I believe, funded by Merck or other vaccine co's, which Dr. Schultz points out in the seminar are designed to prove that MORE vaccines, not less, are needed. You always have to consider the source. Almost nothing that is published is unbiased.

A good example of this is the Rabies vaccine, which is exactly the same, whether you get the 1 year or the 3 year. The difference is, there were two different studies done to determine length of effectiveness on THE SAME VACCINE. So, one is labeled one year, and the other three. But they are exactly the same. This is an example of the law not being up on the science. They only tested for 3 years, but in fact, the vaccine lasts for LIFE, proven by Dr. Schultz in his own private studies. But, do you really think Merck will ever publish a study telling you that? Nope. Of course not because they, the vet, the County... lots of people get money from the fees and registration associated with Rabies vaccine, just to name one.

I don't know if you will find published studies online indicating this, but Dr. S. went over all of them in the seminar.

This all only applies, of course, if the vaccine "takes", which if you read vaccine inserts, admittedly, they do not, always. Pertussis, for example, only works in 60-80% of people, and the vaccine manufacturers know it. I would guess a similar rate of effectiveness in Mumps and others, but I do not have those inserts because I am not even considering those. You would only "make" titer if the vaccine worked, though.

Hope this helps.

[amnesiac]

It seems to me that all Dr Schultz is saying is that boosting isn't needed as frequently as vet vax manufacturers state, not that boosting is never necessary.

You know, you might actually check out page 5 of the flu thread over in the other forum - there is some interesting discussion as to the role of antibodies in viral illness & the significance of antibody concentration levels. Did you know that sometimes low levels of antibodies can actually enhance viral infection rather than prevent it? While having just a little bit of antibodies does indicate prior exposure, it doesn't necessarily mean you're immune. Antibody levels do matter, they do wane over time (though how much time is variable) & they do require boosting to maintain.

This is true even in cases of natural infection, I'm not just talking about booster vaccines. That's how people end up getting chicken pox twice. That's how your titers can be high 30 years after infection like itsybitsy25 mentioned - when viruses continue to circulate in our communities then we get a boosting effect. Lose that boosting effect & you end up shifting the susceptible age to older people who are more at risk of complication.

But back to Mynn's original question - I just wanted to tell you this story.
There's a little girl who lives near me who went to see an allergy/immunology doc recently (she was about 3 1/2) to explore the possible role of allergies since she seemed to keep getting sick a lot. They did a lot of allergy testing but they also checked antibody levels. Among other labwork, they found her to be immune to tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, M, M & R. They gave her a signed letter saying she had serologic evidence of immunity & didn't need her 4 year old shots. BUT - she's not in school yet so I'm not certain this will fly with them. Our state law says the letter must state that getting them would be harmful & it also only allows for serologic evidence of immunity for M,M,R, hep a/b & chicken pox. When/if I hear any more of her experiences I'll let you know.