Should I receive the rubella vaccine after I birth this baby??? - Mothering Forums

Thread Tools
#1 of 8 Old 10-09-2004, 04:05 PM - Thread Starter
CortLong's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: sitting at my computer
Posts: 1,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Ok, a little background- I was negative for immunity to rubella when I birthed my dd nearly 3 years ago although the doctor never told me so obviously I don't have immunity now. In my initial bloodwork with my new midwife (when I was first pregnant) she said that she would give me the rubella vaccine after birth.

I've been doing some reading since then and it seems that most people agree that you shouldn't get it while you're breastfeeding, right???? And since I hope to get pregnant AGAIN while I'm still breastfeeding this babe (a couple years after this birth) that really leaves me no time to get it.

So......would you get the vaccine after birth? Or would you forget about it totally?

Give me YOUR reasons.
CortLong is offline  
Sponsored Links
#2 of 8 Old 10-09-2004, 04:39 PM
alegna's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. BUT- I am not vaxing my kids nor would I accept any vax for me or my family at this point. I assume that you were vaxed for it at some point in the past- yet you don't have immunity now- why would you after another? Perhaps it wore off, or perhaps you're one of the people who never gains immunity in the first place. Also I know that the MMR has a history of causing arthritis (not sure if you can get rubella alone or if it's the component with the bad track record though.)

Just my $.02

alegna is offline  
#3 of 8 Old 10-09-2004, 06:51 PM
Deborah's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,080
Mentioned: 323 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2721 Post(s)
Here are a couple of abstracts from journal articles by a doctor named Yazbak. He has been investigating the dangers of giving mothers who just delivered vaccines. It looks like a bad idea to me.


From PubMed.

1: Med Hypotheses. 2002 Sep;59(3):283-8.

Live virus vaccination near a pregnancy: flawed policies, tragic results.

Yazbak FE, Yazbak K.

TL Autism Research, West Falmouth, Massachusetts 02574-0770, USA.
[email protected]

Vaccination of women with live virus vaccines around conception has always been
contraindicated by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the
vaccine manufacturer because of potential risks to the fetus. Nevertheless this
dangerous practice occurs and is associated with maternal health problems and a
very high incidence of early-onset autism in the children.Postpartum vaccination
with live virus vaccines has been recommended by the CDC, and described as
'convenient' by the vaccine manufacturer. This 'routine practice' may lead to
health and is also associated with many health and obstetrical problems in the
recipient, and is frequently associated with autism in both current and future
children. Re-vaccination often fails to produce immunity, the very reason for
which it was recommended.

2: Med Hypotheses. 2002 Sep;59(3):280-2.

Postpartum live virus vaccination: lessons from veterinary medicine.

Yazbak FE, Diodati CJ.

TL Autism Research, Massachusetts 02574, USA. [email protected]

Pregnant rubella-susceptible women are often revaccinated during the postpartum
period with the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine (MMR).It is known that the
rubella virus from vaccine is secreted in breast milk and persists in the nose
and throat for up to 28 days but it is not known whether the measles and mumps
viruses are similarly secreted.It is probable the measles virus from vaccine is.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#4 of 8 Old 10-09-2004, 07:48 PM
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,476
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
The problem is that ALL VIRUSES CAN CAUSE DEFECTS during pregnanty.

The medical people use an acronym called TORCH to define these defects. This acronym stands for:
T = Toxoplasma gondii
O = Other viruses (HIV, herpes simplex, chicken pox, human parvovirus, Treponema pallidum, measles, mumps…)
R = Rubella
C = Cytomegalovirus
H = Herpes simplex.

In order of severity of the first 5:
1 = HIV,
2 = Cytomegalovirus,
3 = Toxoplasma gondii,
4 = Rubella,
5 = Chickenpox, etc.

The question to be answered is "Why do viruses cause these defects?

The reason all these different ‘nasties’ could cause almost identical defects was that viruses pull Vitamin A (and Vitamin C, folic acid and other critical nutrients) out of the system. But vitamin A is the biggest key to the puzzle. If you feed a pregnant dog a diet deficient in Vitamin A (but no viruses) you will get TORCH defects in the puppies.

If children in Africa who are malnourished get measles, they can go blind (as can babies born with congenital rubella effects, except in babies the blindness is permanent.). But the blindness in malnourished children is reversible with Vitamin A.

The reason for these defects in babies is that in the first few weeks that a baby is forming, cells divide very quickly. One of the nutritional keys to proper cell division is vitamin A, and proper DNA integrity is controlled by Folic Acid. If a mother contracts any virus, the body uses that Vitamin A to fight the infection… but the baby keeps on forming – minus one essential building block. And if the mother is minue several building blocks, as if often the case, that compounds the problem.

The problem with the Vitamin A information is that the studies done on animals are old, and have not been recently corroborated, nor have any studies been done on pregnant women. I don’t suppose they thought it worthy of study. After all, why bother when there is a vaccine? And why bother mentioning other viruses that we don't have a vaccine to? "Mustn't confuse the issue" must "we"?

According to the medical literature, if a pregnant woman gets rubella in the first 4 weeks of gestation, 30 – 50% of babies run the risk of congenital malformations. Infection between the fifth and eighth week gives a risk of 25%; and during the ninth to twelfth weeks it is 8%, giving an overall risk in the first trimester of 20%.

How is it that 80% of babies come through rubella in utero, in the first trimester, with no problems? What went wrong in the babies who had deformities?”

Every pregnant woman should know that every virus could cause TORCH. It is her responsibility to ensure that her diet is such that she can fight off any virus without depleting nutrients needed to build a baby.

The likelihood of a baby becoming congenitally deformed is mother-dependant, in that her diet (Vitamin A, folic acid, Vitamin c, Zinc, selenium and other trace elements...) and how many weeks pregnant she is are the important factors. After all, 80% of pregnant women who catch rubella in the first trimester do not have babies with congenital deformities.

What happens if a mother finds out at the beginning of her pregnancy that she is not immune? This is becoming more common, as children who were vaccinated as babies, and again when they were 11, often lose their immunity. The standard line from the medical profession is that the two rubella shots result in immunity for life. This is not true. A problem also exists where some doctors, if a young mother has a history of vaccination, do not test for immunity. They should, regardless.

If you are told for instance, that despite being vaccinated, you are no longer immune, you will be offered a vaccination immediately after your baby is born. In my opinion there are some very good reasons why you should not do this.

firstly, is the fact that for at least 6 weeks after birth, the mother's immune system is Th2 skewed, and therefore there is a much higher chance of a serious reaction involving autoimmunity.

Old research done in 1982 showed that in mothers vaccinated 2 – 4 days after birth, significant amounts of infectious rubella virus is shed from nasopharyngeal secretions and in the breastmilk for two to three weeks after vaccination, although a period of 34 days has been noted in the literature. Infectious virus was recovered from 56% of babies, none of whom showed any clinical evidence of rubella. 25% developed transient antibodies to rubella virus which became undetectable after 18 – 20 weeks . This work hasn't been replicated as far as I can find. Given that the journals I have access to are limited, it could be that I simply haven't found the information.

Breastfed babies can mount a response to virus from their mothers, but the response is not sustained. Natural, long-term immunity is not acquired. Possible reasons for babies not developing permanent immunity are that babies are selectively competent to mount immune responses. That competence is age dependent, with certain immune components only reaching adult levels at about 8 yrs of age.

Research using the measles virus shows very clearly that babies’ immune systems are quite different to adults,(Nature Medicine 1996: 2(11), pg 1250-1354.) and that there are some viruses and bacteria which a baby might fend off, but will not develop immunity to, in the early months.

If a mother vaccinated with the rubella vaccine can excrete significant quantities of rubella virus, can vaccinated infants also excrete virus? I think so. Usually parents with babies have pregnant friends, but never have I heard anyone query whether their vaccinated 15-month-old could pass the rubella virus on to a pregnant friend or her children. This possibility also needs considering since, to be consistent, parents who vaccinate their children should make sure they are quarantined from all pregnant women or her children for at least 21 days. In reality, this is never going to happen, because mothers who vaccinate assume their child is “clean”.

You have to decide whether or not your nutritional information is sufficient for you to be confident that no virus of any kind would cause problems with your baby, or whether you are going to risk the possible ramifications of vaccinating your self with a vaccine that has a history of causing problems in postpartum women.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#5 of 8 Old 10-09-2004, 09:30 PM
daisymommy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,043
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
But what I don't understand is this--if the main risk of rubella is to the unborn baby, and you are getting the shot AFTER the baby is already born, then what's the point? Who is it to help?

Amy ~ SAHM to DS (9) DD (5) and DS (2) And  expecting a  stork-girl.gif  late May 2012!

 homebirth.jpg  cd.gif  slingboy.gif  familybed1.gif  winner.jpg  novaxnocirc.gif  goorganic.jpg

daisymommy is offline  
#6 of 8 Old 10-09-2004, 09:43 PM
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,476
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Originally Posted by daisymommy
But what I don't understand is this--if the main risk of rubella is to the unborn baby, and you are getting the shot AFTER the baby is already born, then what's the point? Who is it to help?
The medical logic is that if she has the shot after the baby is born, then her next unborn baby is supposedly protected from congenital defects, were she to "get" rubella when pregnant.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#7 of 8 Old 10-09-2004, 09:53 PM
USAmma's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 18,563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
You will probably get more educated, researched answers than I can provide to you, but the same thing happened to me. I was negative for rubella immunity and was terrified during dd's pg that I would get it and she'd be damaged.

Unfortunately my mom got a bad case of rubella with my brother and he was born deaf because of it. He was born deaf, mentally retarded, was missing one arm, and had very slow growth. Lots of other problems, too. It was later determined that he had a random genetic syndrome (like Downs but more rare). However there were a several things that were not associated with the syndrome such as deafness, that were traced back to the rubella my mother had while she was pregnant with him.

Because of what happened to my brother I did go ahead and get the shot the day after I had my dd. Everyone I talked to said it was okay to get while bfing.

Hope you stay healthy and feel at peace with whatever decision you make.


7yo: "Mom,I know which man is on a quarter and which on is on a nickel. They both have ponytails, but one man has a collar and the other man is naked. The naked man was our first president."
USAmma is offline  
#8 of 8 Old 10-10-2004, 03:32 AM
DarkHorseMama's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Viva Nashvegas!
Posts: 4,056
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I was found to not have immunity per my titre test results during my first pregnancy. OB told me not to go around any children with Rubella and that we could take care of it post-partum. Had my C-section and I distinctly remember them coming to me while in the hospital to offer the MMR vax and I declined. I wasn't "against" vaccinations at that point, but I just didn't see the point in getting it.

When I was pg with my second child, lo and behold, my titre comes back *immune* to Rubella! Hmmmm. Who's correct? At any rate, I don't know if one lab result was wrong or the other (or, hell, BOTH of them could have been wrong).

If you're truly concerned about the possibility of getting Rubella, perhaps have another titre draw to see what comes back and then you can make a more informed decision. I'm still glad I didn't get it though.

An Official, Approved Signatureâ¢
DarkHorseMama is offline  

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 18,029

35 members and 17,994 guests
6unvaxxed , avocet , bananabee , blessedwithboys , Bow , Dakotacakes , Dear_Rosemary , Deborah , eastbaymama , Evelyn Marie Garcia , girlspn , healthy momma , hillymum , IsaFrench , katelove , Katherine73 , manyhatsmom , Michele123 , Mirzam , moominmamma , MountainMamaGC , NaturallyKait , Nessiesmith81 , Pulsar , rightkindofme , RollerCoasterMama , sarahjs , sciencemum , shantimama , Skippy918 , Springshowers , worthy , zebra15 , zoeyzoo
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.