I plan pregnancy

[Charly]

Hello.

At me were 2 not developing pregnancy (11 and 7 weeks).

After the second I handed over many analyses. Infections have not found. Reaction VA slabopolozhitelnaja. In gemostaziogramme have written the Hypercoagulation. IgM - negative, IgG - slabopolozhitelnyj. To me have registered only aOn?-Aspirinum on half a year (I of its or his propyl already), and have told or said, that with other troubles it is possible to consult 2 weeks prior to pregnancy.

Whether it would be desirable to learn or find out so it?



I plan pregnancy in half a year. Tell or say please if to begin treatment now, whether the result in half a year will be saved?

And how often it is necessary to repeat analyses?

[imported_]

Except for gemostaziogrammy and VA there are many other analyses necessary for planiroanija to pregnancy. They can be passed or taken place now while there is still time (antibodies to a rubella, for example to look or see and many other things). With VA in advance anything to do or make it is not necessary, one month prior to planning peresdadite a hemostasis with VA.

[Wad]

In addition it would be quite good to make analyses on TORCH-infections

(The toxoplasmosis, a cytomegalovirus, a herpes, a clamidiosis) If that will be found out, that is time to understand and if it is necessary to treat.

[Ketas]

Thanks all for answers!

On all viruses and I certainly shall hand over an infection analyses.

But what to do or make with slabopolozhitelnym IgG? How it is treated?



And a question in occasion of a rubella: if to inoculate now, how much months it is impossible to become pregnant?

[Zajtseva Leokadi]

Slabopolozhitelnyj VA it is possible to not treat in advance, peresdadite for mests before planning, he can change...

If antibodies to a rubella are not present, to argue there is nothing, it is necessary to do or make an inoculation. After it or her under different references naod to be protected from 3 mes up to 1 mes (last references - more modern), it is possible peresdat antibodies and to cease to be protected, when there will be a sufficient immunity according to IgG.

[ekaterina]

I had one more question (more precisely at my husband).

If I shall inoculate against a rubella, I shall not infect the husband? He did not hurt or be ill;be sick in the childhood.

[Nataliya_A]

It hardly. The husband can not worry. However, he all the same when that should have been ill, and adults transfer or carry a rubella very hardly.

Be vaccinated together.

[Oxana]

It is impossible to infect with a vaccinating virus anybody

[Mashoka]

Well why you so think? To catch probably.

On the other hand it is not necessary to exaggerate danger of a rubella even during pregnancy. There are researches in which speak, that teratogennoe influence of a rubella very slightly. While the vaccine variant of a rubella can lead to Diabetum.

[Olga_Tarasova]

I do not think. I recently steadfastly prosecuted this subjects and collected the information. I can send you a set of links. To infect with a vaccinating virus it is possible, but he does not cause or cause a syndrome of a congenital rubella in a fetus and the newborn, only development or manufacture of antibodies. Teratogennoe influence of a rubella very much considerably. The inoculation made during pregnancy, is not the indication to its or her discontinuing as on thousand cases frequent infection of a fetus with the vaccine strain and any (!) case in the world of a syndrome of a congenital rubella is shown thus. For the wild strain percent or interest of development SVR at infection of a fetus - up to 50 %.

[/\ / \iLe/\/A]

50 % are at that extreme case when there was an infection of a fetus. And what probability of infection of a fetus, at illness or disease a rubella of the woman?-20 %

Following probability theory 0,50,2=0,1

That is at disease by a rubella of the pregnant woman probability of damage of a fetus of 10 %

And what probability to be ill with a rubella for the woman? We Shall take a situation of epidemic-1,3 % (an epidemic threshold)

It turns out 0,10,13=0,013

There are 1,3 %.

And when there was last time epidemic of a rubella?

In a reality with a rubella fall or are ill on the order less often.



0,13 %



Besides it is not necessary to forget, that the virus of herpes leads to similar damages. But in attention he is not accepted.

[Elza]

It teoretizirovanie in air.

The facts:

In Russia in 97 g was ill with a rubella 178 tys chel, in 98 - 446 tys, in 99 - 526 tys, thus of 25 % - are more senior than 15 years, thus have counted up only cases of an obvious rubella, and asymptomatically she proceeds in half of cases (officially. As though not more often - a situation, when the woman adult *quot; not i?N?a*quot;, and antibodies are, meets more often than when she remembers, that hurted or was ill;was sick or that its or her mum spoke about it or this).

At such level of a case rate consider or count, that number SVK db 1000 in a year, i.e. consider or count less than 1 % from adult obvious cases - almost as you up to the allowance *quot; on the order ???N*quot;. And nevertheless the obvious acute rubella not so is dangerous - at her as at any ORVI, not always become pregnant, and becoming pregnant, often lose pregnancy. Much more dangerously the latent rubella which frequency only is supposed same as obvious.



It is much less than really registered cases SVK, probably because two opinions at doctors and genetikov are not present - unequivocal discontinuing at revealing.



*quot; in a reality fall or are ill with a rubella on the order ???N*quot;.....

In a reality the pregnant women who are not having immunity, fall or are ill with a rubella. Till 30 years live without immunity, become pregnant and fall or are ill from detsadovskih children and dr is practice, instead of the theory. And whichever there was theoretically someone the calculated percent or interest of a lesion of a fetus, genetics digits up to 50 % (in the first trimester) name and give the unequivocal reference to discontinuing, even because there is no opportunity of prenatal monitoring - if we shall see a heart disease and a nanocephalia on uzi a mental retardation and deafness even at a birth we do not distinguish or we recognize.

And even if the real percent or interest is not too high, as frighten, to the woman who has got in it or him, it is absolute all the same. The inoculation from a rubella costs or stands copecks, to wait developments or manufactures of immunity and to exclude even this headache - same so easily - about what we argue? With the same herpes, for example, if there is no immunity, to develop or produce it or him it is impossible, and with a rubella such opportunity is - what for to theorize and subject people to risk of abortion or a psychosis on all pregnancy?



98 % of adult people have antibodies to herpes and consequently frequency of primary infection with it or him during pregnancy is much less, than risk of infection with a rubella. Nobody belittles value or meanings;importance of herpes, on the contrary exaggerate so, that force to go mad and be treated (!) people with IgG.. Be not mistaken - harm of herpes is accepted in superfluous attention! At that that vaccines are not present.

And with a rubella, at that what to be saved elementary - find an occasion podiskutirovat.

You count probability of disease as a poliomyelitis in is universal or without exception to the vaccinated country. We continue to take root or be inoculated.



I know only one woman who has counted up all as YOU and have decided to leave pregnancy, observing on uzi and as on uzi defects were not, have left it or her finally. Deafness it has appeared precisely, that else from a neurology - any more I do not know.

Also I know the person 5 which have not obeyed or did not know about necessity of an inoculation both were ill. Also have interrupted under the unequivocal reference genetikov (institute of genetics of Russian Academy of Medical Science).

I have written it not for acknowledgement or confirmation of the thesis of a harmfulness of a virus, someone will result or bring other examples with other outcomes - and to illustrate frequency of an acute rubella at pregnant women - frequency of occurrence of this situation in practice of the usual doctor. e. It is not theoretically far-fetched as you try to prove in digits, and the real existing problem - a problem is. And its or her decision is. About what our dispute?



The rubella at the pregnant woman today is not kazuistika.

Unlike primary herpes which for example I yet did not see.... Well it is logical - 45-65 % 15-years have no antibodies to a rubella, this percent or interest below, but all the same - tens means for genesial age... And for herpes = 2. And to it or him;them there is no vaccine - what for simply so to speak about its or his harm? He is harmful, harmful. Also what to do or make?

[chip]

I at all also do not argue with you, I have simply specified your data. In fact these or it of 50 % - concern not to an opportunity to be ill, and to an opportunity of a lesion of a fetus provided that he is already infected.

And me cases when the woman has not killed the child are known, and has given birth to it or him, having had been ill with a rubella, and the child was healthy.

To make your advice or council abortion-contradicts medical ethics.

And to compare with risk of disease of the future child from improbable illness or disease - a rubella and 100 % go hits of a vaccine virus additional researches are necessary.

How for a long time use the given vaccine? You have an information, on that as the vaccine on a gene can affect or influence? Or you suggest future mother to participate in genetic experiment?

Thanks for a reality. 526 000 on 150 000 000 =0,00350 (6)

That is my calculations can be corrected or adjusted

It turns out not 0,10,13=0,013, and it is much less 0,10,0035=0,00035

In Finland 23 cases of an acute thrombocytopenia on 700 000 doses MMR 0,000035 are described. It not unique possible or probable complication. Therefore doing or making an inoculation or not doing or making it or her risk equally if to not speak that taking root or being inoculated risk more, in view of allergic rekattsy on components of a vaccine.

[SIL]

Additional researches are spent in America and Canada where an inoculation from a rubella do or make greater time, than at us and consequently more saved up or saved experience of casually vaccinated pregnant women. While on the basis of researches already spent there in all of them and our Official references a line about theoretical risk, but practical safety of the vaccine strain with the official resume - pregnancy at the spent bacterination to not interrupt - it is registered, when it would be possible to be limited simply to a phrase - the alive vaccine is counter-indicative. A point. But is not present, were not limited and everywhere have added frazu-the indication for discontinuing is not.

I did not allow advice or council to do or make abortion, where you it prochli! I spoke that this advice or councils other doctors and in particular medical give genetics. I certainly can try to go against current - and I more recently was engaged in it or this and naobrot persuaded the woman to leave (she have caught in the very first weeks, and I counted on the law *quot; all or ???Nu*quot;, and in 12 weeks uzi was absolutely normal), resulting or bringing calculations similar to yours. But behind more exact calculations and references has sent it or her in institute of genetics of Russian Academy of Medical Science where to her and have given the unequivocal reference, having calculated risk SVK there are less 25 %. While we have a stereotypic approach to a rubella during pregnancy, and nobody will give other reference. There can be separate daredevils like you.

Expecting your answer, has specially saved the letter - simply one of daily mail, yesterday's. Also can believe. Letters on this subject I receive on a regular basis enough. And itself vsterchajus with this problem far not for the first time.

The citation:

Hello, the doctor! To me of 28 years. We have decided to give birth to the child. And already we "work" in the given direction. Now we in city had an adverse situation on a rubella, to be exact - quarantine at schools and kindergartens is declared or announced. As I planned pregnancy, accordingly by me there are passed or are taken place necessary analyses and including on a rubella. Results are those: IgM-are not found out, IgG - are found out in a credit 1 : 1600. I know, that the transferred or carried rubella during pregnancy can lead to teratisms of a fetus. As I do not know the pregnant woman I now or not now I experience in occasion of that I could have contact with sick of a rubella. The doctor, prompt, whether speak results of my analyses what I have an immunity to a rubella? And what our further actions should be: whether if this time at me it has not turned out we can become pregnant to continue "to try" further or it is better to wait some time when epidemic of a rubella will pass or take place? Thankful in advance for the answer.



- ---



Name: Elena

City, the Country: Vladivostok

Age: 28



So with the formulation *quot; improbable i?N??y*quot; it is categorically not consent, and with it or this and only with it or this I argue. I believe correctness of your mathematical calculations and I suspect that with inoculations not all so smoothly as it would be desirable.. Also it can be absolutely right you in all all. Except for a conclusion - about maloverojatnosti. He does not coincide at all with a reality. It is a problem which demands the decision, and except for inoculations of other decision while is not present. And in other spore any is not present.

[korzhik]

Dear mariamm, it is glad, that you vzveshenno approach or suit to the given question.

On pregnancy is also *quot; secular o?u?nn*quot;, distinct from scientific theories when parents believe, that the child conceived - already human flesh and though sick, but liked. For such people - my reasons are closer and maloverojanost illnesses or diseases is compared not to medical statistics of a rubella in other countries or in relation to druim to illnesses or diseases, and under the attitude or relation of risk of any accident.



In a word, probability to be run over by a car above much more, than probability of damage of a fetus a rubella. However will not come to you mysll to recommend to interrupt pregnancy on the basis of such risk. From my point of view, cherezmernoe the attention to this problem leads to huge number of unreasonable abortions. In fact the reference of the doctor to make abortion is not discussed more often.



Would like an example

Hello! Now there is 2-nd month after to me was inoculated against the rubella. We were protected, but now at me the delay and the test shows 2-nd stria. Me will force to do or make abortion? Help or assist! http: // forums./showthread.php? t=7949

[Mary1804]

In fact the reference of the doctor to make abortion is not discussed As it more often is not discussed. If it really is necessary possible to go to other doctor, to private or individual clinic i.td. Often the responsibility shift on shoulders of doctors, and? I communicated with many women who if doubted have visited at experts two-three places and the decision accepted osoznanno.