Checking titers

[mlrowley]

Dd is 5 and has not had her booster mmr yet. I told her ped we would like to check titers first. To make sure she is immune. Doc said they don't know what levels consititute immunity. Anyone have any info on this before I get her blood drawn?

[flitters]

I don't know specifically about MMR, but I had a titer done on myself for pertussis and it was the lab, not the doctor, that provided the information on what levels constitute immunity along with the results they returned.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by mlrowley

Dd is 5 and has not had her booster mmr yet. I told her ped we would like to check titers first. To make sure she is immune. Doc said they don't know what levels consititute immunity. Anyone have any info on this before I get her blood drawn?

Wow, that doctor lied to you.
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/...on/black17.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00001142.htm

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/002328.htm

[flitters]

interesting. i read "they" as "the doctors in that office" while i think mamaintheboonies read "they" as "doctors and medical professionals in general." i wonder which way it was meant. and if mamaintheboonies' interpretation was the correct one, i wonder if it was an intentional lie or simply negligent ignorance.

[kaylee18]

I had rubella, cytomegalovirus, and toxoplasmosis titers done. By the way, there aren't vaccines available for the latter two, and CMV is the most common (as in, 1 in 200 births) and preventable cause of severe birth defects (as in, deafness and retardation) that you never heard of.

Anyway, the lab reports had printed on them what levels are considered indicative of immunity, and what titer levels are indicative of recent vs. past infection. So even if your physician doesn't know, the lab will likely provide a clue.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by mlrowley

Dd is 5 and has not had her booster mmr yet. I told her ped we would like to check titers first. To make sure she is immune. Doc said they don't know what levels consititute immunity. Anyone have any info on this before I get her blood drawn?

I would go and ask that doctor a few questions. Like:

Do you actually read laboratory forms?

If you don't know what levels constitute immunity, then what did you learn in Immunology 101?

What is the difference between primary immunity and an amnestic response?

If you don't know what constitutes immunity in general, what business do you have in either recommending vaccines, or revaccination?

[emma_goldman]

Suscribing. I am planning to have this done in the future. Thanks for the info, Mamas!

[CookieMonsterMommy]

:

Um, yeah, they sh*tsure do know that!

One of my M's wore off when I had to get tested for nursing school (forgot which one). Let me tell you--my doctor and the dean of nursing sure knew the parameters!

[superstella]

Originally Posted by CookieMonsterMommy

:

Um, yeah, they sh*tsure do know that!

One of my M's wore off when I had to get tested for nursing school (forgot which one). Let me tell you--my doctor and the dean of nursing sure knew the parameters!

Just had the exact same thing done, also for nursing school, and yes they sure do know!

[mlrowley]

It was "they" as in the general medical establishment. Someone on another board summed up what I think the ped was saying very well, I'll quote her.

It may be an evasion. Titers show antibodies in the blood. The presence of antibodies doesn't necessarily mean that someone has immunity. What it means is that a vaccine may be pointless -- since the purpose of vaccines is to stimulate antibody production, if a person already has antibodies, the work is done. There are no guarantees, though -- there are people who receive the same vaccine several times without getting immunity. There are people who never get the vaccine but still have immunity. There are also people who get "one-time" diseases multiple times. So I guess what your doctor said is "technically" true, but not very helpful.


Thanks so much for the links. I just have to decide if I should get her titers checked or keep putting the doc off about the booster.

[kaylee18]

The second dose of MMR is not a booster.

Unlike other shots given to children, the second MMR is not a booster. It is intended to "catch" some of the 5% of children who do not respond strongly enough to the first shot. 95% of children show what is considered "sufficient immunity" after one shot. The second dose is not intended to increase the antibody level beyond that. It is intended to stimulate antibody production in the other 5%.

This was brought out in New Jersey legislation after a little girl died from the second dose. The legislation requires NJ parents to be informed, before the second dose is given, that it is very commonly non-beneficial and that a titer test is available to tell for sure whether it will do anything.

The second MMR is not a booster. Any ped. who tells you it is a booster is glossing over the truth. The truth is that re-vaccinating is less expensive than running a titer, and does stimulate antibody production in many of the 5% who do not respond to the initial dose. It does nothing for the other 95%. Nothing.

The whole thing about "we don't know..." is utter B.S. too, because the only point of administering the vaccine is to stimulate a certain antibody titer level. The target for this level is very well known. Vaccines are tested based on whether their administration commonly produces titer levels at or above the target in different people. It may not have "worked" (produced actual immunity) in all cases in which the titers are sufficient; however, the correlation between sufficient titer and actual immunity is pretty high, and there is no better measure of a vaccine's effect.

I would insist on getting a titer so you can put the idea of another MMR dose to rest. If this pediatrician continues to be resistant, I would get a different one. He should not be administering vaccines if he's so skeptical about the meaning of antibody titers. If the decision is not to get a titer, I sure as heck would not get a second MMR dose either.

[mlrowley]

Ok, Thanks for all the info. I will get her titers checked. Anyone know what the levels need to be to be considered "immune". I just want to make sure she's not in that 5%. We'll do individuals if she needs any more.

[alegna]

Why not skip it all together? None of the three diseases is serious.

-Angela

[gretelmom]

please be careful.

My mother's vision impairment (legally blind), was caused by Mumps. For real, in the sixties! They even had antibiotics. Here's the kicker: her dad was a doctor! So, the only lesson here (i'm a non-vaxer, so don't think i'm provax) is that you need to be careful in what you say about the diseases not being "dangerous", because though to the larger population they may not be, but there are exceptions, and with Mumps there actually were high rates of vision/hearing loss to varying degrees, though mostly minor.
We want everyone here to make the most informed decision possible when deciding about vaxing.

[Spy]

Originally Posted by gretelmom

My mother's vision impairment (legally blind), was caused by Mumps. For real, in the sixties! They even had antibiotics. Here's the kicker: her dad was a doctor! So, the only lesson here (i'm a non-vaxer, so don't think i'm provax) is that you need to be careful in what you say about the diseases not being "dangerous", because though to the larger population they may not be, but there are exceptions, and with Mumps there actually were high rates of vision/hearing loss to varying degrees, though mostly minor.
We want everyone here to make the most informed decision possible when deciding about vaxing.

Any chance it happened because of antibiotics used in a viral disease? It used to be a very popular thing back in the sixties. I was born at that time and quite a few of my peers have impaired vision and hearing exactly because of the medical infatuation by antibiotics back then, they were used for every cold and at very early age! I was lucky my mother didn't like antibiotics and never gave them to her children! If only she could think the same about vaccines (now she does, luckily, but too late for me and my brother).

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

You beat me to it Spy...

I was also going to mention that.. and all the babies who went blind because in their enthusiasm to put babies in incubators they didn't reckon on oxygen causing blindness.

And another thing. Measles in Africa also causes blindness.

But you know what? It can be totally reversed if vitamin A in high doses is administered.

Even though that was known from the 1930's the medical profession only got their backside into gear in the 90's. I wonder if that applied to the mumps as well??? Regardless of the fact that antibiotics also can cause deafness....

When they used to use chloramphenicol for meningitis the rates of deafness and eye problems was horrendous.

[alegna]

Yep. I bet big bucks her blindness was caused by the antibiotics. What on earth were they doing giving antibiotics for a virus anyway? : Even NOW in the height of vaccine hysteria, you'll find on mainstream sites like the CDC that mumps is very mild.

-Angela