Hi I'm new to these boards. I really need ot know about Rubella. I was vaccinated in 1985, it is possible atall that it can still be caught even though I 'm immunised. I currenly have similar symptoms (aching, swollen glands, low enery, little rash on torso, pain in & behind ears, headache & fever) my rash looks similar to a rubella rash I've seen on the net. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Yes, it is possible to get a disease after you have been vaccinated. The MMR vaccine requires two shots, and you only mention one. So if you didn't get the second shot that would increase your risk. Also, it is possible (very rare) to not develop immunity or to have the immunity fade over time. And yes, these diseases are still around (although in very low numbers since they don't spread because most people have been vaccinated). If you suspect that you have it, call your doctor or hospital. It is important that you be checked to see what you have because you don't want to expose others, as this disease is very contagious. Good luck.
I agree with previous poster as that you should find out what you do have.
If you had the vaccine, you would only have 'superficial immunity' and could get it again.
If in fact you have Rubella now, then you will have 'core immunity' from the disease forever and will never get it again.
The reason why you may have it although you were vaccinated is not because you weren't vaccinated twice. (The booster is only given as an assurance for the 5% of kids who don't develop immunity.) The reason is because vaccines wane after several years and leave you vulnerable to the disease at a later age.
That is why we should all have 'childhood diseases' in childhood, when they are NOT dangerous but actually beneficial to create a strong immune system.
without getting into another debate:
i have a couple of questions.
could you please define "core" immunity vs "superficial" immunity and tell me where you got those definitions?
also, when you said that childhood diseases are NOT dangerous when caught in childhood, do you mean that is true in every instance?
are you saying that if a child gets POLIO, it's not dangerous?
and just so you know, childhod diseases CAN be dangerous. both to children and to adults. take for example, the case of the child who never gets chicken pox in childhood, but gets it later in life, as a pregnant woman. that's pretty dangerousfor her and her fetus my mom never had it and so had to get vaccinated in her late thirties before she had my sister.
Measles antibody titres for instance the result can inform as to the source of the infection. Whether the antibodies came from the vaccine (superficial immunity) or the actual disease (core immunity).
Childhood diseases can be dangerous in malnourished children, or kids who are neglected, live in war torn countries or have poor drinking water. They are very dangerous for children who are extremely weak or ill.
But they are not dangerous in an otherwise healthy child.
Childhood diseases can be VERY dangerous to adults. That is why they are called "Childhood" diseases. The adult body can not defend itself as well as a child nor can it cope with the vaccine that is supposed to prevent them.
POLIO is not a dangerous virus. And we actually NEVER had a POLIO epidemic in the US or anywhere else, which was caused by a POLIO VIRUS.
It is too bad that we can not give links here, but if you do your research you will find out that 95% or more of the kids who come in contact with the POLIO virus never show any symptoms at all. The rest show mild flu like symptoms. Very few will get any paralysis that lasts for a few days to a week. And an infinitesimal amount of people will have lasting paralysis.
The only time we've had a Polio epidemic in the US from the POLIO virus was after the mass vaccine program was started.
Chickenpox is not dangerous to a pregnant woman nor the fetus.
wow. i am not surewhere you are getting your info, but it's not correct.
CHICKEN POX can be extremely dangerous and in some cases FATAL to the fetus. if passed from mother to fetus in early pregnancy, it can lead to:
mental retardation, defects in the limbs, eye problems, skin scars, prematurity, or even death. this is called congenital vacirella syndrome and even though it's rare, it can obviously be devastating, ending in fetal death.
as far as your comment about "childhood diseases not being dangerous to children", that can't be farther from the truth.
let's take MEASLES for example. did you know that when a child has measles, he is more succeptible to bronchitis, pneumonia, and croup?
did you also know that measles can lead a child to develop ENCEPHALITIS(swelling of the brain)? tell me that's not dangerous to a child.
and here's the real kicker:
did you know that a child who has been exposed to measles before age 2 can develop a condition called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis? this is a disease in which the brain slowly becomes more and more swollen and damged.
that sounds very dangerous to me.
luckily, this is uncommon in children in the united states because the use of the measles vaccine is so widespread.
thank goodness for that!
Just to add my two cents worth...childhood diseases are not dangerous for the vast majority of children in developed countries. Yes, occasionally measles, chicken pox, etc. have dangerous or even fatal consequences, but that is very very rare. Vaccines also have side effects. One advantage of contracting a disease naturally as opposed to being vaccinated is that you have lifeline immunity once you contract a disease (I know there are exceptions, but it's rare). Vaccination is not effective in a small percentage of children, and by adulthood, the immunity has worn off in a higher percentage of people. Plus, if a woman contracts a disease as a child, she will pass on the immunity to her baby while breast-feeding, thus preventing the child from catching the disease while it is most vulnerable. If she was vaccinated for the disease, she will not pass the immunity on to her child.
As far as certain diseases being dangerous while in early pregnancy, unless you are going to be tested to make certain you are still immune to whatever you were vaccinated for (chicken pox, rubella, etc), being vaccinated is absolutely no guarantee that you are still immune to that disease. I believe the percentage of women of child-bearing age who have been vaccinated for rubella and are not immune is the same as the percentage who were not immune because they did not catch the disease during childhood before vaccinations were introduced (ie the vaccination hasn't really changed anything). If someone is concerned about rubella during pregnancy and is not immune, they can get the vaccination at that time, but I believe adults who get the rubella vaccine have a very high chance of getting temporary or permanent rheumatoid arthritis (I've seen statistics between 15-50%).
For me personally (and I am 3 weeks pregnant), I don't know if I am still immune to rubella, in spite of being vaccinated as a child, so I am just going to try to avoid babies who have recently been vaccinated for rubella, as that is probably the most likely way I could catch it if I am not immune. I am immune to chicken pox because I had a severe case as a child. It wasn't fun, but at least I don't have to worry about my baby catching chicken pox because he will be naturally immunized while I am breast-feeding.
As far as the great vaccine debate goes...if you feel that vaccines are important/necessary for you or your family, that's fine. I believe you should still be informed about the relative risks of actually catching the disease and the possibly side effects of the vaccinations, but that is your choice. If you have researched vaccination and choose not to use them for yourself or your family, that should be your choice and others shouldn't condemn you for it.
i'm not trying to condemn anyone for the choices they make for their own family. i'm only trying to state some facts in rsponse to other posts.
and just so you know, breastfeeding is NOT a substitute for vaccination and it does not offer lifetime immunity. it only protects your baby WHILE you are breastfeeding and only against certain diseases. i assume you will only be doing it for a limited amount of time, so it's a good idea to get your children immunized in addition to it.
Everything you have said about the natural MEASLES can definitely be said about the measles vaccine.
No matter how the virus comes in contact with the body it can create havoc, true. But when it is via the natural route, it is challenged by the bodyís natural defenses. When the virus is injected directly into the blood though, it can cross the body/brain barrier and cause exactly the problems you have mentioned much more readily.
The reason why we do not see measles in the US is NOT due to widespread use of vaccine since over 90% of most childhood diseases had become mild diseases BEFORE vaccines were introduced.
In Europe where the same diseases were prevalent, childhood diseases continued to drop at the same rate as in the US after the intro of vaccines. Europe introduced vaccines to some childhood diseases much later and even to this day most countries have NO mandatory vaccine schedule.
In some instances vaccines caused the childhood disease to rebound whereas in Europe it continued to drop.
Originally Posted by cademyn
Plus, if a woman contracts a disease as a child, she will pass on the immunity to her baby while breast-feeding, thus preventing the child from catching the disease while it is most vulnerable. If she was vaccinated for the disease, she will not pass the immunity on to her child.
That is a very important point because that shows that we can only pass on 'core' immunity not 'superficial' immunity.
Of course the immunity only lasts while breast feeding, but those are the years when childhood diseases can be dangerous, when a child is very young. Once a child no longer depends on suckling, he is able to defend himself against common childhood diseases and build his life-time immunity.
I believe the percentage of women of child-bearing age who have been vaccinated for rubella and are not immune is the same as the percentage who were not immune because they did not catch the disease during childhood before vaccinations were introduced (ie the vaccination hasn't really changed anything).
As was proven by a Swiss Study which unfortunately I can not post here.
If someone is concerned about rubella during pregnancy and is not immune, they can get the vaccination at that time, but I believe adults who get the rubella vaccine have a very high chance of getting temporary or permanent rheumatoid arthritis (I've seen statistics between 15-50%).
That is something I would really research first because as you've pointed out, the vaccine against 'childhood diseases' in adults can have severe side effects, one being autoimmune diseases.
For me personally (and I am 3 weeks pregnant), I don't know if I am still immune to rubella, in spite of being vaccinated as a child, so I am just going to try to avoid babies who have recently been vaccinated for rubella, as that is probably the most likely way I could catch it if I am not immune.
You sound like you have read a lot of books and done vast amount of research. That will be one lucky baby. Congratulations!