Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Rubella: the one I'm not sure about Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
11-14-2008 01:53 PM
Jayray Swiss study number two is comparing a computer model of what the expected response of mandatory immunization to the actual response. Their conclusions are, despite a larger number of rubella infections than expected by the computer simulation are "Even though the number of infections is much higher than the number of reported cases of disease, limited serosurveillance data and case notification data show that females of childbearing age are well protected by immunization."
11-14-2008 11:56 AM
Tracy
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookAMH View Post
I know it can cause arthritis in adults, but are there any known risks to kids? My immunity came back positive from my pregnancy bloodwork, and I was vaccinated as a child. This is the one I am actually not sure about for any girls I have. Anyone have anything on the individual shot? I read that it's not very readily available as a single vaccine though it is made. If we did this one, it would be as a young child and would be the only shot we do.

Any thoughts?
For me the risk of my child getting rubella was not compelling enough to outweigh the risks of the shot...at least in my mind.



But just to give you an idea:
Here are the hard numbers for 2007. This is what I found for the last week of the year..... this is the total amount of cases reported to the CDC for 2007.....

Total reported cases to the cdc:

Disease Cases

Diptheria 0
Measles 28
Mumps 707
Rubella 12
Congenital rubella 0
Tetanus 19
Hib (under 5)
Sero b-17
Non sero b-141
Unknown b-187


Out of a population of 300 million people in the united states!!



check out my thread in resources

there is more you would probably like to check out.
11-14-2008 10:42 AM
Emmeline II Some good info; I'm adding it to my pile.
11-14-2008 05:40 AM
battymama this was one that i was maybe concidering for my dd when she becomes a teen (foreplanning i know) but now i wont i hadent looked into it yet, thanks so much. I cant believe how worthless some of these vaxines are.
11-14-2008 12:39 AM
CookAMH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti View Post
OK. I thought you would reiterate the March of Dimes propaganda. Because that is all it is. Anyway...Deserie pretty much posted everything that is necessary.

Here is a different link -

http://www.*********/v/rubella9.html

And here some studies from Switzerland -

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract
Good stuff, thank you.
11-14-2008 12:36 AM
the_lissa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti View Post
Don't be surprised if she shows no immunity to either. Titres are not a correct way to gage immunity. And even if she shows titres to either, that does not guarantee immunity.

There is no good way of knowing whether a body is immune or not, othe than when there is an actual outbreak.

It's not worth the money and pain imo.
Thanks. I didn't know that.
11-14-2008 12:24 AM
Gitti OK. I thought you would reiterate the March of Dimes propaganda. Because that is all it is. Anyway...Deserie pretty much posted everything that is necessary.

Here is a different link -

http://www.*********/v/rubella9.html

And here some studies from Switzerland -

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract
11-14-2008 12:14 AM
CookAMH That is interesting and helpful info. Thanks! No, I don't have info to the contrary. I hadn't really seen any stats on it, so I'll need to check that out more. Any links you can provide would be helpful.
11-14-2008 12:14 AM
Gitti
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
I'm going to get my dd's titres checked soon because my doctor thinks she had either roseola or rubella while ago.
Don't be surprised if she shows no immunity to either. Titres are not a correct way to gage immunity. And even if she shows titres to either, that does not guarantee immunity.

There is no good way of knowing whether a body is immune or not, othe than when there is an actual outbreak.

It's not worth the money and pain imo.
11-13-2008 11:55 PM
DesireeH They say rubella is risky for women to get because it can cause birth defects in their unborn child (congenital rubella syndrome.) The stats alone showed me the vaccine is pretty worthless.

In 1966 (before the vaccine was even introduced) there was 11 cases of CRS (congenital rubella syndrome.) In 1967, there was 10 cases reported. In 1968 there was 14 cases reported. In 1969 when the vaccine was introduced the CDC recorded 31 cases of CRS. In 1970, it went to 77 cases. In 1971, 68 cases. By 1991, while the cases of RUBELLA itself (which is pretty harmless in itself) was just at 1,401, there was still 47 cases of CRS. In 1992, rubella cases dropped to 160 however CRS still had 11 cases, which is the exact number recorded by the CDC BEFORE the vaccine was introduced.

There may be less cases of rubella itself but not of CRS. In fact the opposite was true. Since the vaccine, rubella has declined yes (and that is what they use to try to get us to get it) but the birth defect aspect INCREASED after 1969 and didnt go back down to what it was pre-vaccine for almost 30 years.
11-13-2008 11:50 PM
the_lissa I was not immune during my first pregnancy, despite being fully vaccinated. I had the shot the day after I had my baby though no one explained any of the risks. During my first pregnancy, when I was not immune, there was a rubella outbreak near me, and no one was concerned. I'm going to get my dd's titres checked soon because my doctor thinks she had either roseola or rubella while ago.
11-13-2008 11:43 PM
Gitti
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookAMH View Post
I know it can cause arthritis in adults, but are there any known risks to kids?
About the same as any other vaccine, it contains aluminum and we don't know yet where Alzheimer's came from...


Quote:
My immunity came back positive from my pregnancy bloodwork, and I was vaccinated as a child.
Do you bleive it is from your childhood shot? I doubt that. A Swiss study showed that most of that immunity comes not from the vaccine virus but a wild virus.


The fact is that the vaccine caused NO CHANGE in the overall numbers of birth defects. If you have information to the contrary, could you post it.
11-13-2008 11:28 PM
CookAMH I know it can cause arthritis in adults, but are there any known risks to kids? My immunity came back positive from my pregnancy bloodwork, and I was vaccinated as a child. This is the one I am actually not sure about for any girls I have. Anyone have anything on the individual shot? I read that it's not very readily available as a single vaccine though it is made. If we did this one, it would be as a young child and would be the only shot we do.

Any thoughts?

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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