Лик, есть прививки, без которых никуда. Я вот сейчас в универ собираюсь, а меня даже до регистрации на классы не допускают. Необходимо иметь прививки от кори и краснухи. От кори всем делали в России, а от краснухи тут пришлось сделать.
А вот вакцинацию от хьюман попилома вирус (или как там его?) я бы не стала делать, потому как эта прививка относительно новая и непроверенная годами. Конечно тебе решать, но я бы рисковать не стала.

|kleverok, | Nastik, my zhivjom v svobodnoi' strane i pojetomu ot vsego pridumali formochki, zapolniv kotoruju ne nuzhno delat' privivki i mozhno posechshat' i shkoly i univery, drugoe delo, chto mnogie ob jetom ne znajut i nas zapugivajut vsjakimi boljachkami, o kotoryh esli by ne govorili tak r'jano i ne bylo privivok, my by dazhe i ne slyshali! ;)

не знаю про какие формочки ты говоришь.
у нас в универе для допуска для регистрации надо иметь прививку от кори и от краснухи. Если делал - нужно показать документ, удостоверяющий это, или можно сделать тест на наличие вируса в крови. Если ты против прививки по религиозным соображениям, то нужно написать заявление и тогда разумеется никто ничего насильно делать не будет.
Я пошла и сделала недостающую прививку от краснухи (50$). Кто знает, а друг по кампусу будет какой-нибудь больной студент бегать, который формочку заполнил на эксепшн, и у меня не будет иммунитета - а не дай Бог краснухой во время беременности заболеть - это ж искусственные роды на любом сроке!
Детские болезни во взрослом возрасте могут привести к печальным последствиям.
Я знаю, что тут прививками пичкают, и я это не поддерживаю, но те прививки, кот. делали нам с тобой от рождения и до школы 20 лет назад, их и до сих пор всем там делают - я бы сделала не задумываясь. Береженного Бог бережет!

http://shsweb.shs.usf.edu/RegMedReqs.html
это ссылка на мой универ. ты про релиджин эксепшн говорила?

kleverok, да, можно по религиозным или личностным, философским убеждениям написать заявление. я прекрасно понимаю о чём ты говоришь, и как намного страшнее заболеть краснухой вов ремя беременности, чем сейчас, когда не беременна, но вот только прививка не даёт 100% гарантии того, что ты не заболеешь, да и доказательств того, что после болезни краснухой во время беременности какие то осложнения в принципе тоже нет, нужно просто пить много витамина А, который поможет организму боротся со всякими вируасми ( оргазниму зародыша я имею ввиду), Настик я много читал по этому поводу, особенно когда малая заболела розеоллой и моя заловка причислила нас чуть ли ни к врагам народа! :))) всё построено на страхе.. :)

вот здесь всё оч популярно написано, было бы время читать
http://www.vaclib.org/

http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html
top line

http://www.whale.to/m/butler2.html

Rubella in babies and pregnant women

by Hilary Butler

In 1973 at the age of 19, my then boss told me to go and have a rubella
vaccine, because my records showed I hadn’t, and rubella was going around.
He didn’t want me off work, since we dairy-herd testers worked 24 days on,
rest of the month off. Anyone who got sick was a pain in the neck.

Being a conforming dutiful employee, I trotted off, had the jab and carried
on working. Within three weeks I had carpal tunnel syndrome and very sore
joints which, I was told, was the price you pay for doing something as
stupid as full-on gymnastics in earlier years. The carpal tunnel was
operated on, and the joints settled down into a pattern of progressively
worsening and "learning to live with it" each winter and "freedom" in the
summer.

In August 1980, having got married, my then doctor (an American), on
hearing of the prospect of "pregnancy", made me have a blood test. Happily,
he told us that since I had beautifully high levels of rubella antibodies,
I could go ahead and get pregnant, so I did.

At about 8 weeks pregnant I got as sick as a dog, and couldn’t figure it
out, so went to the doctor who took a blood test. I didn’t think of
rubella, because I had "immunity", but did discuss "viral infections" with
a friend of mine who was a midwife. She explained several things, the most
important of which at that time was that ALL VIRUSES CAN CAUSE DEFECTS.

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, etc8.

My friend explained that the reason all these different ‘nasties’ could
cause almost identical defects was that viruses pull Vitamin A out of the
system. 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 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.

The problem with this 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.

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%1.

The logical thought, to me, is not, "That is high, have the jab", but, "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?" I believe that diet and Vitamin A in the mother is the answer.

But this line of thought was not "there" in my first pregnancy because I
had not even considered that the vaccine-produced antibodies might not
work. I was sick, and all I knew then was that if any virus could cause
defects, something had to be done. So, at 8 weeks, really sick, funny rash,
glands up on back of neck and behind ears, the shot-gun approach was
used…vitamin A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,…the lot.

Another blood test was taken at the next antenatal visit, but I felt fine,
and nothing further was said during the pregnancy. Neither did we think to
ask.

I enjoyed the winter during that pregnancy. No joint-pain – what a way to
go. And Ian was born with no signs of any "TORCH" problems.

But what a rotten winter the following one was! However, by the next winter
No 2 was on the way. Another pain-free fantastic winter, bouncing around
like a spring donkey, which is pretty hard to do when you carry like an
elephant with twins!

The winter after David’s birth was so bad that a lot of time was spent in
tears (won’t use painkillers), and the two following it were not that much
better. In desperation, when David was four, I went to my GP with a whole
load of questions like:

Why does this "arthritis" only come in the winter?
Why did it start after the rubella jab?
Why does it stop in the summer?
What is the solution?
His only reply was to question 4. "Get pregnant every year."

I lost my rag and stormed out of his rooms taking my file. In the car, I
decided to have a read, and staring up at me were the blood tests done when
I was pregnant with Ian. I had had rubella. I went back in and asked the
doctor why he hadn’t told me. His response ensured I never went back. So I
found another more sympathetic (I thought) GP. (My second thought was to
query how was it that someone who, a few weeks before the pregnancy, could
have "immunity" then get rubella when pregnant?)

The new GP had no idea where to start with my "arthritis", so ticked
everything in the immunology boxes on the basis that if something abnormal
came up , we’d look at that and figure from there. I went to the medical
library and ran a Med-line search on every relevant word for rubella, only
to find lots of cases of carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis following the
use of the rubella vaccine. I also found documented cases of women with
laboratory proof of immunity who caught rubella while pregnant, and some of
their babies had congenital rubella.2,3,4,5,6,7

I knew that this was common with cytomegalovirus but not with rubella. My
GP’s response was that this was so rare (1 in a million!) that no one he
knew of had come across this. Later, when I went to teach gymnastics, and
the subject came up during one of the Health Department’s ‘scareness’
campaigns, I found that three of us within the gym club had had the same
experience. I hadn’t realised that 3 million women lived in Franklin District!

In the meantime the GP decided that the tests showed an "immunodeficiency"
so maybe the vaccine was not the culprit. (Usual tactic – blame the
patient). So my file and all my tests were sent to the rubella expert in
America. He sent a nice letter back saying that since I was in New Zealand,
and not the States and so couldn’t sue anyone, he could easily confirm that
my arthritis was actually rubella vaccine-induced, but I should take heart,
because had I got it "naturally" it would have been much worse. Do
something about it? No – just learn to live with it.

Ian and David both got rubella in their second year – diagnosed not by the
doctor, who couldn’t tell, but by the Plunket nurse on the basis of low
fever, swollen glands behind the ears, and a rash that did not leave a
stain. The question of whether or not they could pass it on to other
pregnant women never came up, for several reasons. The first was that it
was my policy never to take my babies anywhere if they were lethargic, or
grizzly, or I knew they were sick. Secondly, in an area where most women
were tested, immune or vaccinated, why should the issue even arise? The
conventional wisdom is "immunity means you won’t get it" and at that time
it was never questioned.

During the last measles vaccination campaign I started to look for data of
how much rubella was around now, but could find very little information on
this. The "experts" aren’t studying it. After all, why should they with a
vaccine to stop it all? In the past, all they studied was the levels of
15-year-olds who had natural immunity. That has not been done now for
nearly 20 years. So, last year, this parent got caught out, to my
embarrassment. I really should have known better.

After all, I had just written an article on rubella!

Hmmm….

Ian got sick. Very strange, I thought. Definitely a virus, with him not
liking the light (in goes the Vitamin A and Vitamin C), bit of a mild
headache, didn’t want to eat, mild sore throat. Just a low temperature and
sleeping a lot. Sort of nothing much, but not right. Then he said, "What’s
this rash, Mum?" I took one look, and straight away felt around the neck
and behind the ears, and there were the telltale glands. And no, the rash
did not leave a stain.

Rubella. I had just written about it, and missed the obvious! Why? Because
it never occurred to me that the children would get it twice. And where did
he get it from? I never found out. Could have been anywhere, anyone – even
a casual contact with a recently vaccinated child in Woolworth’s.

I rang the doctor’s surgery, detailed the symptoms, progression etc, and
they agreed it was most likely rubella. I really wanted some blood tests
done this time, because I wanted proof, but was laughed off the phone.
Waste of resources, he’s not going to die, etc – same excuses as when David
had measles the second time – so I haven’t the "proof" I’d really have liked.

So, in answer to the issues raised in the letter in Wavelets:

Every pregnant woman should make it her business to find out her immune
status for rubella, even if previously vaccinated. Even so, this does not
guarantee immunity.

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. Damage done
at this stage is irreversible.

No one knows how much rubella is around at any one time. You can’t tell
when a child might get something. Or, for that matter, an adult. My husband
taught in schools with "mumpy" children for years but didn’t catch mumps
until the age of 63.

Every parent who decides not to immunise their children should, out of
fairness to everyone else, keep a close watch on their child. If they are
not ‘all-go’ as normal, don’t take them out, or risk exposing visitors to
them.

When discussing risks, ask your parents how you fared with rubella as a
child. Amongst my children, and my friends, rubella has proven to be
nuisance value only. Subclinical infections with no symptoms, but which
give immunity are estimated at 25%1.

The risks to normal children from rubella are remote. Complications from
rubella are rare, with the following observed in large epidemics where
virus load is heavy:

Transient arthralgia/arthritis – Rates vary from epidemic to epidemic –
London, 1962; 33% in 40 female adults, 6% in 34 males; Bermuda, 1971; 24%
under 11 yrs, 52% in 11 yrs and over1.

Encephalitis – usually cited at 1 in 6,000 cases1.

Purpura (reduction in platelet count) complicates rubella in rare
instances. Most patients become symptom-free in 2 weeks and platelet count
returns to normal values. May last from weeks to months1.

Prognosis – "…the prognosis is almost uniformly excellent. Rubella is one
of the most benign of all infectious diseases in children. However, the
rare complications of encephalitis and thrombocytopenic purpura may alter
the prognosis. Many reported deaths attributed to rubella infection reflect
errors in diagnosis".1

The likelihood of a baby becoming congenitally deformed is
mother-dependant, in that her diet (Vitamin A, folic acid) 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.

This leads to another problem not mentioned in the letter. 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 Health Department is that the two 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 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.

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 weeks9.

So 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,10 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".

So where did Ian get rubella? Who knows – but Ian got sick just over three
weeks after the local area had had their Form 1 MMR shots. Co-incidental or
causal? With an excretion time of up to 3 weeks after vaccination, and an
incubation time of around 14 days, I’d say the timing was impeccable.

References:

Krugman’s "Infectious Diseases of Children" 1998, 10th Edition, pg. 403-413.
British Medical Journal, 16 May 1987, pg. 1277-78
Medical Journal of Australia June 12, 1982 pg. 514-515
New England Medical Journal, 1988:319, pg. 1415-1416
Communicable Diseases Report, 1991:1 (R5), pg. 7-9
Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal, 1994:13, pg. 812-815
Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal, 1997:16, pg. 249-251.
Medicine International, No 51, March 1988, pg. 2107-2110.
Journal of Infectious Disease 1982: 145:5, pg. 655-666.
Nature Medicine 1996: 2(11), pg 1250-1354.