Mothering Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,766 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Okay...here's what I'm dealing with. I walk in the front door after a quick meeting and DH hits me with "The Health Department just called. A child in our (his & DD's) Music together class just tested Pos for TB. We have to go get tested"

Here's my dilema

I can't seem to find any good info on the test either on MDC or the web. (maybe I'm not looking in the right places?)

I worry that allowing this might interfere with out vax exemption...Does this being injected undermine out religious exemption legally in CT? LongIsland?? Where are you?

What are the dangers of the test? (I found some info on the package insert but of course it was pretty vauge)

What are her chances of actually having contracted it? We have a pretty good idea which kid tested + they won't tell us of course because of HIPPA. If it's who we think it is, there was very little if any contact. Lots of if's though.

WWYD?

Any thoughts or advice are welcome!!

-Dee
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,766 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks for the link. I must not have been specific enough in the search, I kept coming up with pregnany testing threads...Maybe I should have used qoutes!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,766 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Just did an advanced search by post and am having alot more luck!! Still trying to find info on what the chances are she might have contracted it. I also found a link to a new test MT had posted and the link is broken
...still looking.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,766 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
That's what I'm thinking...Poor DH is freaking out!!.

I just found a link to Quantiferon and am going to look into that or possibly a sputum test if they start getting really pushy. Otherwise...I'm thinking they just want her tested for statistical purposes and I'm not okay with that.

I already refused state mandated Heb b and HIV testing for her...What's one more!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,137 Posts
TB is VERY hard to catch. A friend of mine used to work in a homeless shelter and had to be tested all the time (like every six months or something ridiculous) and she is TB free. She told me, and I read in my own research, that you have to be in a room with someone something like 24 hours a day for several months to actually catch it from them (that is not the exact data, but it's something like that).

That said, I have tested positive for TB myself. It was back in 2000 and I was thinking about becoming a nanny, so I got the test. I either had a HUGE reaction to the injection or it was positive. It was the same arm I had a reaction to tetanus to and still have my small pox vax scar, so I'd like to think it was just a reaction.

I did a ton of research on it at the time (mind, it was six years ago) and from what I remember, a healthy person who is a carrier has a VERY small chance of it turning active. And the chance goes down each year that it doesn't become active.

Is the child in your children's class a CARRIER or does he have ACTIVE tb?

ETA - I refused to take the isoniazid (sp?), the antibiotic "they" wanted me to take. I figured I had a higher chance of catching something REALLY horrible from trashing my immune system than I had of becoming active with the tb...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,074 Posts
I would avoid the PPD test and vaccine at all costs. If your dc tests positive, the health department might "require" you to have your child take 3-4 different antibiotics short-term until a definitive test reveals an inactive case of TB. These antibiotics are TERRIBLE on your body. They're especially hepatotoxic.

Unless your dc is immune compromised, the likelihood of having an active case of TB is small after being exposed. If your dc does develop a cough, a sputum culture can be obtained for the acid-fast bacilli test to see if there's an active TB case.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,766 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Okay...I'm gonna share what I've found so far....this is going to be long!!

I've included references at the bottom. Alot of the info came from the vaccine truth website and I have included thier references where possible.
From the American Lung Association Web Site

Quote:
It is not easy to become infected with tuberculosis. Usually a person has to be close to someone with TB disease for a long period of time. TB is usually spread between family members, close friends, and people who work or live together. TB is spread most easily in closed spaces over a long period of time. However, transmission in an airplane, although rare, has been documented

Even if someone becomes infected with tuberculosis, that does not mean they will get TB disease. Most people who become infected do not develop TB disease because their body's defenses protect them. Most active cases of TB disease result from activating old infection in people with impaired immune systems.

Anyone can get TB. However, some groups are at higher risk to get active TB disease. The groups that are at high risk include:

· People with HIV infection (the AIDS virus)
· People in close contact with those known to be infectious with TB
· People with medical conditions that make the body less able to protect itself from disease (for example: diabetes, the dust disease silicosis, or people undergoing treatment with drugs that can suppress the immune system, such as long-term use of corticosteroids)
· Foreign-born people from countries with high TB rates
· Some racial or ethnic minorities
· People who work in or are residents of long-term care facilities (nursing homes, prisons, some hospitals)
· Health care workers and others such as prison guards
· People who are mal-nourished
· Alcoholics, IV drug users and people who are homeless

None of these things describe my daughter

From the Vaccine truth website from an article (fully referenced which I will provide at the end) Called:
The Rationale for TB Screening of Healthcare Workers (HCWs) and OtherLow-risk Populations:
A Critical Review of CDC Policy or
The Emperor Has No Clothes, Cough or Fever

Quote:
The most commonly used Mantoux skin test is Tubersol® manufactured by Aventis Pasteur. The package insert claims that "Tubersol® is prepared from a large batch Master Batch, Connaught Tuberculin (CT68) and is a cell-free purified protein fraction obtained from a human strain of Mycobacterium tuberculosis grown on a protein-free synthetic medium, and inactivated. Tubersol® is a sterile isotonic solution of Tuberculin in phosphate buffered saline containing Tween 80 as a stabilizer. Phenol 0.28% is added as a preservative."

The 1972 edition of Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine and Nursing defines phenol as "an extremely poisonous antiseptic, germicidal and disinfectant." The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1955) defines phenol as "A hydroxyl derivative of benzene, commonly known as carbolic acid."

The current research on the stabilizer Tween 80 reveals the following:

"Neonatal female rats were injected ip (0.1 ml/rat) with Tween 80 in 1, 5 or 10% aqueous solution on days 4-7 after birth. Treatment with Tween 80 accelerated maturation, prolonged the oestrus cycle, and induced persistent vaginal oestrus. The relative weight of the uterus and ovaries was decreased relative to the untreated controls. Squamous cell metaplasia of the epithelial lining of the uterus and cytological changes in the uterus were indicative of chronic oestrogenic stimulation. Ovaries were without corpora lutea, and had degenerative follicles." ~ PMID: 8473002 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

This test is also composed of a protein fraction derived from a human strain of tuberculosis. Aside from the shedding of RNA and DNA into the lymphatic system from this test, the presence of foreign proteins in one's blood has been associated with the development of allergies.

RNA & DNA????

From that same article

Quote:
How Safe is it?
According to the Tubersol® package insert, this product has never been tested for carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials or impairment of fertility. Even so, the Aventis asserts that this product is safe to administer to pregnant women. And this is noted despite the fact that phenol is a known mutagen and associated with skin cancer development in animals that were injected intradermally.

How does it "work"?
A negative reaction, meaning that the person does not have tuberculosis, is determined if induration (hardening of tissue as in a spider bite) at the test site is less than 15 mm. If induration is greater than 15 mm, it is assumed that the person has active tuberculosis and is then "requested" to have a chest x-ray to rule out the possibility of a false-negative reaction.

"False negatives are thought to occur frequently. Listed causes include anergy, recency of exposure, viral infections, various vaccinations, overwhelming infection, various drugs(steroids) and malignancies and any condition that can impair the cell mediated immune response (sarcoid, malnutrition). False positives include non-tuberculous infections and BCG vaccine state. In spite of these inaccuracies, the CDC states that for persons with latent TB infection who have a normal immune system, test sensitivity approaches 100% ( 2, p 11). This statement is ridiculous for several reasons. First, the TB skin test is the gold standard, so it is not possible to accurately gauge the incidence of false negative exams. The sensitivity of this test, in actuality, remains unknown. Secondly, false negative exams occur in the groups who are at the very highest risk for disease in the first place, meaning that the false negative tests weigh heavily against the efficacy of screening in the most important risk groups─ the one's most likely to develop disease in the first place!

"Compounding the inaccuracies of the TB skin test is the revelation that only one in three positive reactions are correctly classified as positive by screen test interpreters." (1)

Although there is substantial proof that the Mantoux skin test is an inaccurate method for detecting the presence of tuberculosis infection, it is still considered the "gold standard" for diagnosing tuberculosis.

I found this especially interesting:

Quote:
Risk analysis for TB and the rationale to screen HCWs There are an alleged 10-15 million infected (skin test positive) persons in the US (1, p20:no source given). Of these, if not detected and no preventative treatment is initiated, the CDC states that 10% will develop TB at some point, 5% within the first 1-2 years, in spite of normal immune system (1, page 7; (2) page 8). The primary source of this data is not referenced in the CDC publications. Accurate natural historical data is critically important in order to support screening of asymptomatic HCWs. A study recently published in JAMA (3) challenges the CDC report and showed that of the estimated worldwide TB infection (TB test positive) rate of 32%, only 7.96 million cases of disease were reported in 1997, or a TB disease incidence of less than 0.2% amongst infected individuals (assuming a 6 billion world population). This is far less than the 5-10% rates quoted in the CDC publications and are consistent with the general concept that TB is a disease of opportunity, generally harmless to the immune competent host.

Now for the test safety data

Quote:
Serious untoward reactions to the Tuberculin substance have been reported. Adverse reactions include local skin reactions (vesicles, ulcers, necrosis, scarring), rashes, and anaphylaxis. Shockingly, in spite of its widespread use, the manufacturer's insert 6) states that Tubersol has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials or influence on fertility. This is surprising considering the widespread use and frequent repetition intervals of administration, particularly to the long term HCWs employee. It is also irresponsible for the CDC to state that tuberculin is safe and reliable throughout the course of pregnancy (1, p. 29). This is in direct opposition with the manufacturers statement that Tubersol is NOT tested for mutagenicity. It is a fact that a declaration of safety without testing is a declaration of assumed safety, not a proven scientific fact.

What can we gather from the toxicology of its components? Tubersol contains 0.28% phenol(5), which is known to be highly toxic to humans (8). The 1969 American Heritage Dictionary defines phenol as a "caustic, poisonous, white, crystalline compound...derived from benzene and used in various resins, plastics, disinfectants, and pharmaceuticals. Phenol is also known as 'carbolic acid.'" Amongst the known adverse reactions to phenol are:

-irritating to skin, eyes, mucous membranes in humans
-ingestion in humans may cause death, paralysis, weakness, seizures, coma, respiratory collapse
-animal testing has shown severe toxicity
-limited data available on the chronic effects in humans, but in humans has caused dermal inflammation and necrosis, arrhythmia's, hepatic enlargement and dysfunction.
-animal studies have shown chronic exposure effects the CNS, respiratory, renal and cardiovascular systems
-no human development and reproduction studies have been performed BUT...-animal studies have shown reduced weight, growth retardation, abnormal development, increased maternal mortality and decreased maternal weight gain.
-no studies have been done in humans with regards to carcinogenicity BUT...- animal studies show phenol applied to skin is a skin carcinogen in mice

Here are all the references:

Quote:
1) Core Curriculum on Tuberculosis. What Every Clinician Should Know. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fourth Ed. 2000
2) Targeted tuberculin testing and treatment of latent TB infection. MMWR; 49, June 9, 2000
3)JAMA 1999;282:677-686
4) McKenna, MT, et. al., The association between occupation and tuberculosis. A population-based study. Am. J. Resp. Crit Care Med.154: 587-93, 1996.
5) Kwan, SYL, et. al., Nosocomial tuberculosis in hospital staff in a Hong Kong chest hospital. Chinese Med J. 103, 909-914, 1990.
6) Tubersol PDR, 2003
7) Underreading of the tuberculin skin test reaction. Kendig, et.al., Chest,113,1175,1998
8) http://www.lakes-environmental.com/toxic/PHENOL.HTML
9) Fridkin, SK, et. al., SHEA-CDC Tuberculosis survey, Part 1. Status of tuberculosis infection control programs at member hospitals. Infect. Control Hosp Epidemiol. 16: 129-134, 1992
10) Raad, I. et. al., Annual tuberculin skin testing of employees at a university hospital: a cost-benefit analysis. Inf. Control Hosp Epidemiol; 10, 465-9, 1989.
11) http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/infect/tb90-01.htm
12) F. Gordin, et. al., NEJM; 337(5), 315-320, 1997.
13) Tsevat, J, et. al., Isoniazid for the tuberculin reactor: take it or leave it. Am Rev. Respir. Dis., 137: 215-220, 1988.
14) Update: Adverse event data and revised American Thoracic Society/CDC recommendations against the use of rifampin and pyrazinamide for treatment of latent tuberculosis infection---United States, 2003. MMWR; 52(31), 735-39, 2003.
15) http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/6...OfInterest.htm
16) http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct1/fda_drug_approvals.htm
17) http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/rel...ID=1469-profit margins by drung companies
18) N.K. Choudhry, et. al. Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry JAMA; 287,612-617, 2002.

And finally…thanks for hanging in this long!!

The Info on Quantiferon from http://www.docguide.com/news/content...2570D9006A6753

Quote:
Extensive clinical data has demonstrated far superior specificity (>99 percent) of QuantiFERON®-TB GOLD over the TST. In addition, QuantiFERON®-TB GOLD is set to yield dramatic cost savings in terms of medical staff time and the elimination of common false-positive results. For hospitals and health departments, such a test would relieve the huge administrative and cost burden associated with maintaining TB testing compliance. According to a recent study (Lambert et al. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology Nov. 2003), researchers observed that the cost of running a TB control program using the TST is considerably more expensive than the simple cost of the TST supplies, given the labor required to successfully perform the TST. Specifically, costs to a hospital ranged from $41 to $362 per employee, with the TST supplies representing less than 1.5 percent of the total cost of the program. QuantiFERON®-TB GOLD is an in vitro diagnostic test unaffected by subjective interpretation of the physician or nurse, previous BCG vaccination, and cross-reactivity with most non-tuberculous or environmental mycobacteria. These capabilities mean virtual elimination of those TST false-positive individuals normally recommended for unnecessary and potentially harmful TB therapy. For the U.S. born population, the false-positive rate due to non-tuberculous mycobacterial infections can be as much as 50 percent of all TST responses (von Reyn et al. Int J. Tuberc Lung Dis 5(12), 2001). While for foreign born individuals living in the U.S., cross-reactivity to past TB vaccination with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) is a common cause of false-positive TST responses.
Well, I still have some (A LOT) of reference material to check out, but I thought someone out there might be interested in this info as well
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,766 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Oh...one other thing, I found this as well (I think it was also from the vaxtruth site) Has anybody heard of this? It sounds similar to bioset diagnosis...

Quote:
BioMeridian System, which happens to be approved by the FDA. It is also referred to as the Meridian Stress Assessment.
The Best BioMeridian is run through a PC, and has additional hardware to hook up to the computer. There are stainless steel handholds that you hold in your hands with a damp paper towel while the practitioner tests you via a series of meridian points on your hands and feet. It can scan for active and latent viruses, bacteria, fungi and other pathogens. To find out more about this testing method and to find a practitioner in your area, go to http://www.biomeridian.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
Testing positive to TB and having TB are 2 separate events, last time I checked. One can test positive for TB and not actually have active TB, of course, Tine Test this was the case and reason for switching to all PPD testing. I believe a positive PPD test still yeilded a chest x-ray to rule in or out active TB.
I grew up in Latin America where many people are positive for TB exposure, but do not have active TB.
You can be exposed to TB and never get TB -- I was exposed throughout my life and never got TB, never even showed exposure on the Tine Test. Never would take the PPD test, injection of an air bubble under the skin that made my friend cry every year, she was always Tine Test positive due to exposure to TB!
SO, I wouldn't freak out or worry about this revelation. See if others in the group turn up positive. Ask specifically what positive is, are they on antibiotics? Did they have a confirmation of a chest x-ray?
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top