Group B Strep, did anyone refuse antibiotics during delivery? - Page 2

[alegna]

Originally Posted by kltroy

Either way, my main point was that it is up to each of us as individuals to inform ourselves and decide what odds we're comfortable with.

Right, but you have to have good stats to work from.

-Angela

[G's mama]

Thank you all so much for the great advice. (It's my first time posting a thread and since I didn't see it right away I assumed I did it wrong)
I was so happy to see all your responses this morning.

I will try the home remedies as well as asking to be re-tested and go from there.

thank you, thank you, thank you.
I feel so lucky to be a part of this wonderful cyber-group of caring mothers.

peace & love,
Michelle (G's Mama)

[Ironica]

Originally Posted by kltroy

Those are the numbers I just read in "The Birth Partner" by Penny Simkin (great book, btw). She didn't specify whether they included all babies or just term babies, so yes, it's entirely possible it's skewed. She probably cites a reference but I don't have it off the top of my head.

The American Pregnancy Association cites a number of 1 in every 100-200 babies born to GBS positive moms without antibiotics, and 1 in every 4000 with antibiotics, that will have complications.

I've seen numbers similar to those cited by Simkin reported by the March of Dimes, but I don't know where they got them. The CDC's 1993 surveillance data, upon which they based the original risk-based protocol (which was then revised to the screening-based protocol) gives 1 in 200 chance of infection without treatment, and 1 in 4000 chance of infection with treatment.

The overall death rate of babies that develop early-onset GBS infection is 6.5%. However, as Angela pointed out, preemies skew these numbers quite a bit. While the CDC's surveillance data does not break out the infection rates for preemies vs. term babies, they do break out the death rates, and it turns out that while preemies have a 22.9% death rate from early-onset GBS, term babies have a 1.48% death rate.

So, if your baby is born after 37 weeks, and you ARE GBS positive, there is a 1 in 13,615 chance of death from the infection. Any given time a person receives penicillin, even if they've received it before without adverse reaction, there's approximately a 1 in 10,000 chance of anaphylaxis. This is a risk to BOTH mom and baby, and once you've had an allergic reaction to penicillin, you should never ever get it again... which limits your treatment options for future infections. There is little to no data on the other adverse affects of the antibiotic protocol, such as how it interferes with normal labor, increased incidence of thrush in the newborn and mother, or autoimmune issues due to abnormal gut flora colonization for the baby.

The antibiotic protocol has absolutely no effect on late-onset GBS infection (onset after the first week of life).

Ultimately, the antibiotic protocol calls for one MILLION women to receive IV antibiotics to save the lives of 309 babies each year. Meanwhile, the CDC is engaged in aggressive surveillance efforts to watch for a penicillin-resistant strain of GBS (currently, there is no such thing, which is why penicillin is the drug of choice for treating GBS-positive moms). If one wanted to design a protocol for breeding a drug-resistant strain of this bug, I can't think of a better way to do it than to identify a million carriers of the bacteria and pump them all full of the drug. :-/ When it finally does happen, I imagine it will be a public health disaster, and I don't even want to think about how many babies will die from it.

All of the data I'm citing here is available on www.cdc.gov (except that the approximate number of women per year who would be treated for being GBS positive is based on US live birth statistics from census.gov).

[alegna]

Great info.

Also to add to that, antibiotics for mom in labor for GBS INCREASE the chance of e. coli infection in the newborn which can ALSO be very serious and cause death. So those stats should be weighed as well.

-Angela

[IdahoMom]

An hour after birth my first baby was septic because I was StrepB positive and the doctor took too long approving antibiotics (she was in the building but "busy", and wouldn't even give the okay over the phone until she made it to my room, hours after my water broke). She was very, very sick her first week and could have died. That's all the stats I've needed. With every other birth I have been very diligent about getting to the hospital ASAP to get the antibiotics going.

No baby or mother should have to go through what we went through. It wasn't just the strep, either. Because she was so sick, she was too weak and felt so awful that our nursing relationship had a very bad start. I believe it affected other things, too, but I'll end my post with saying I feel very strongly that antibiotics are not only advisable, but the responsible choice.

[Ironica]

Originally Posted by IdahoMom

An hour after birth my first baby was septic because I was StrepB positive and the doctor took too long approving antibiotics (she was in the building but "busy", and wouldn't even give the okay over the phone until she made it to my room, hours after my water broke). She was very, very sick her first week and could have died. That's all the stats I've needed.

A single case is not a statistic. I understand your emotional reasons for wanting prophylactic antibiotics... but the CDC's policy is based on statistical data that, IMO, is being used poorly, and their actions will result in many more sick and dead babies in the future. I wouldn't want to be the mom of the first baby with penicillin-resistant GBS sepsis... would you like to tell her your story? Do you think it will make her feel better? That baby will probably die.

My son has several food allergies, probably at least partly as a result of our repeated treatment with antibiotics. So far none of them are life-threatening, but that could change with any given exposure. I know several people whose children can be KILLED by someone else eating an ice cream cone, and there is a definite relationship between gut dysbiosis (inadequate colonies of "good bacteria" in the intestines) and food allergies, as well as other potentially lethal autoimmune disorders such as asthma. I do not see prophylactic antibiotic use as benign, and in this case, I do not see it as particularly responsible on the part of the medical community.

Especially when it comes to birth, it's very common for people to make decisions from a place of fear. How many women get an epidural the second they are allowed to, because they fear the pain of labor? How many women have surgical births because they're afraid that baby is too big, or taking too long? How many women could not possibly consider having an out-of-hospital birth, because they're too scared of the possibility that "something" would go wrong? Is it appropriate, here or anywhere else, for these women to tell us that pain relief, c-sections, and hospital births are THE "responsible choice" when they've made that choice from a place of fear, rather than information?

[alegna]

Originally Posted by Ironica

Especially when it comes to birth, it's very common for people to make decisions from a place of fear. How many women get an epidural the second they are allowed to, because they fear the pain of labor? How many women have surgical births because they're afraid that baby is too big, or taking too long? How many women could not possibly consider having an out-of-hospital birth, because they're too scared of the possibility that "something" would go wrong? Is it appropriate, here or anywhere else, for these women to tell us that pain relief, c-sections, and hospital births are THE "responsible choice" when they've made that choice from a place of fear, rather than information?

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Fear is never a good decision-making tool.

-Angela

[IdahoMom]

If you'd been through it, I'm not sure you'd feel the same. But I thought the OP deserved to hear another side of it. Intervention does not automatically equal evil. Infant mortality is higher than it used to be for a reason.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by IdahoMom

Intervention does not automatically equal evil. Infant mortality is higher than it used to be for a reason.

You're right- intervention does NOT = evil.

Not sure what you mean about infant mortality being higher for a reason... the biggest reason I see is intervention...

AND, last I really researched it, antibiotics for GBS did NOT reduce overall newborn mortality because as much as they reduced it for GBS, they increased it for other infections.

-Angela

[Ironica]

Originally Posted by IdahoMom

If you'd been through it, I'm not sure you'd feel the same.

I might not FEEL the same about prophylactic antibiotic use. But I would still THINK the same about the actual risks involved. That's an important distinction.

Fear is a feeling. A legitimate, important feeling. It's a feeling that can save our very lives if we listen to it appropriately. But, just because *I've* had a scary experience in a particular situation, it does not translate into a general rule that *you* should follow... and vice versa.

Were my gut instinct to tell me that I and my baby should have antibiotics, I'd definitely get them. And, knowing what I know about the numbers, if I'd gone into labor before my culture came back and before term, I would have gotten antibiotics (since GBS is far more virulent for preemies in general). But no one's feeling, fear or otherwise, changes the actual statistics, and the statistics show that as a society we're taking an *enormous* risk for very little reward.

[abreakfromlife]

Where on the CDC website would I look for those numbers? I just read a CDC article (that is a few years old) group b article saying that in the '90's,

Before the widespread use of intrapartum antibiotics, the incidence of invasive neonatal GBS disease ranged from 2 to 3 cases per 1,000 live births. Active, population-based surveillance in selected states in 1990, when GBS prevention was still rarely implemented, projected an incidence of 1.8 cases per 1,000 live births in the United States (early-onset disease: 1.5/1,000; late-onset: 0.35/1,000)

So why would it have changed from 1.5/1000 now to 1 in 200??? Or am I misreading this article? (highly likely )


nm. I must be a numbers moron I read some other older posts about this and saw where you were talking about this and it was linked to the same article.

[theatermom]

Originally Posted by Ironica

I might not FEEL the same about prophylactic antibiotic use. But I would still THINK the same about the actual risks involved. That's an important distinction.

Fear is a feeling. A legitimate, important feeling. It's a feeling that can save our very lives if we listen to it appropriately. But, just because *I've* had a scary experience in a particular situation, it does not translate into a general rule that *you* should follow... and vice versa.

Were my gut instinct to tell me that I and my baby should have antibiotics, I'd definitely get them. And, knowing what I know about the numbers, if I'd gone into labor before my culture came back and before term, I would have gotten antibiotics (since GBS is far more virulent for preemies in general). But no one's feeling, fear or otherwise, changes the actual statistics, and the statistics show that as a society we're taking an *enormous* risk for very little reward.

:

[anna_2]

has anyone heard of taking colloidal silver to get rid of GBS?

[Ironica]

Originally Posted by abreakfromlife

Where on the CDC website would I look for those numbers? I just read a CDC article (that is a few years old) group b article saying that in the '90's,

So why would it have changed from 1.5/1000 now to 1 in 200??? Or am I misreading this article? (highly likely )


nm. I must be a numbers moron I read some other older posts about this and saw where you were talking about this and it was linked to the same article.

The numbers you cited above are for the WHOLE population. the 1 in 200 number is the chance of transmission for a woman who has tested postive for Group B Strep via culture around the 36th week of pregnancy. Only 20-40% of the female population carries around GBS at any given time, though.

There, does that help? ;-)

[MyBoysBlue]

Originally Posted by anna_2

has anyone heard of taking colloidal silver to get rid of GBS?

In my original post to this thread there was a link to holistic approaches to GBS it mentions using colloidal silver. Here. I did use it along with most of the other recommendations.

[abreakfromlife]

does that help? ;-)

yeah, that makes sense I printed out the whole thing and read it last night - much better than just picking out paragraphs online. I am just floored by it. I kept reading parts out loud to dh and thankfully he is 100% in agreement with me. I couldn't believe the part in talking about preterm labor that said 'giving antibiotics in labor may be associated with adverse neonatal outcomes' - so only give antibiotics where there is a significant risk for preterm delivery..................and yet a page or two before it says that giving antibiotics increases penicillin-resistant e. coli in preterm babies.

It is just so frustrating that this kind of stuff is so hidden and unknown unless you really go digging for it. I've been fairly natural for a few years now, and have really gotten a lot more serious about it over the past year, and I still don't know much when it comes to naturally giving birth. This is my 5th pregnancy and I am so irritated at how the previous ones have been handled. I've been reading a bunch of back posts on here the past couple of days, gearing up for labor, and I had NO IDEA you could refuse to have your water broken, or that it is unnecessary!! Or that you don't need fifty million vag. exams, or that you could refuse abx..........I just assumed having a midwife guaranteed a 'normal' labor....And it's so irritating that this stuff isn't mainstream knowledge and it should be. It's annoying having people look at you like you're crazy for not getting an epi, or not getting abx or thinking the only bad thing about Pit is the pain......

[fireweed]

I tested GBS+, so I'm planning on using the antibacterial rinse chlorhexidine gluconate (0.05%), called 'hibidil' here in Canada. So, how do I go about using it? I assume I have to dilute it? And do a rinse every 7 hours when I'm in labour? Even after my waters break? Should I do any rinses before I go into labour?
Thanks!!!

[Mamabeakley]

I did some herbal/supplemental things to try to reduce my risk of testing +.

I tested +.

After looking at all the research I could find, I declined ABX.

I would have taken the ABX if I had had prolonged rupture of membranes, or a fever.

As it was, I was only in labor for 6 hours total and there would not have been time to initiate the protocol even had I rushed somewhere or had my MW rush to me as soon as my water broke (which started labor).

Babe was healthy and fine.

I'm glad I did the herbal/supplemental stuff even though it didn't kill the germs, because I felt it did some other nice things (for my iron levels, general feeling of wellbeing, etc.)

[MyBoysBlue]

I can't say my doing the herbals really helped with the GBS cause DS was born 3 weeks after being originally tested. I could have been - by then and my water was broken for only 25 minutes. But it did boost my immune system so that can't hurt.

[DragonflyBlue]

I tested postitive with my twins. I had the antibiotics. The only trouble we had was that I am allergic to penicillan so they gave me a different med to prevent any allergic reactions. I found another abx that I am allergic to.

I looked at the data, researched and made a decision that I was comfortable with and that I believed was in the best interest of myself and my babes.

There is no such thing as a risk free pregnancy, labor and birth. All you can do is educate yourself and decide which set of risks you feel most comfortable taking. It's very individual.