 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Herpes / December 2003In case you missed my post
Angela "Babies born prematurely may be at a slightly increased risk, however, even if the mother has a long-standing infection. This is because the transfer of maternal antibodies to the fetus begins at about 28 weeks of pregnancy and continues until birth. "Babies delivered at term should be protected by antibodies -- but premature babies haven't gotten a full load, "explains Brown." quoted from: http://www.herpes.com/pregnancy.shtml 28 weeks is when antibodies begin. I told you. In case you missed my original post of talking to your Midwife....why haven't you rather than arguing with people here? >Angela > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >28 weeks is when antibodies begin. I told you. >In case you missed my original post of talking to your Midwife....why >haven't you rather than arguing with people here? Because Angela is making people think that herpes antibodies are "gold" and protecting the fetus from day one, which is so untrue. The antibodies are not present until 28 weeks of gestation, so again, what's protecting the baby (who has no antibodies) in utero? I am not arguing with the midwife because there is no reason to. She is the one who told me it COULD get to the baby. She is the one who put the fear there once again. Joanne, *Herpes* Antibodies are developed by a person whether they are pregnant or not pregnant Joanne. A person that contracts herpes for the first time will eventually develop antibodies to the herpes virus. As for pregnant women with herpes . . . you need to go over to WebMD and discuss this with Terri Warren. Perhaps she will be able to clear things up for you. Best Wishes, Angela www.yoshi2me.com >>In case you missed my original post of talking to your Midwife....why >>haven't you rather than arguing with people here? >Because Angela is making people think that herpes antibodies are >"gold" and protecting the fetus from day one, which is so untrue. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >one who told me it COULD get to the baby. She is the one who put the >fear there once again. Have you considered that the fetus doesn't need antibodies before a certain time because the fetus can't play host to certain diseases before a certain time? The herpes simplex virus may not recognize the fetus as a suitable host until it reaches a certain stage of development. The virus, is, after all, confined to a very narrow range of operation. If precise conditions don't exist, no infection. Just a guess. Feel free to discount it. Mike Hey Mike! :) With all that environmental stuff going on around the unborn child there is no way that herpes is going to be a threat to the baby. There is too much involved. Not to mention a mucous plug and all that goes with it. Plus, herpes is *not* a blood borne virus. The only time it becomes necessary to pay attention is during labor and delivery and that's only if the virus is active and on the surface of the skin. Even after all that . . . if the mother had herpes prior to becoming pregnant . . . then the chances are even more slim that the baby will not contract herpes even with virus present. On top of that . . . many women opt for suppression during the last few weeks, etc. But . . . I know you already know all this Mike. I just had to chime in on what you just said . . . lol Angela >Hey Mike! :) > >With all that environmental stuff going on around the unborn child there is >no way that herpes is going to be a threat to the baby. There is too much >involved. Not to mention a mucous plug and all that goes with it. Plus, >herpes is *not* a blood borne virus. I never said it was a blood borne virus. I said if there is a lesion inside the cervical canal, my midwife claims it can ascend through the bag of water and infect the babys skin. Most women don't need to worry about this, as it is RARE to get a lesion inside the cervical canal. Do I need to draw you a picture? You don't seem to understand what my midwife said. >Have you considered that the fetus doesn't need antibodies before a >certain time because the fetus can't play host to certain diseases [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Mike I guess I have not considered that because at 19 weeks the baby has skin cells just like us. Plus, there is a thing called congenital herpes, although it is rare. Which tells me that the fetus is a host, since they can get infected in utero during a primary attack (5% of all cases) Look, I was feeling pretty good this time around until the midwife told me might baby might get the virus in the womb. Her reasoning is because most people don't get lesions inside the cervical canal, which is only a centimeter or less away from the baby. She freaked me out, I'm sorry you people cannot understand. I would guess most of you do not have children. Angela, how would you feel if your doctor told you what my midwife told me? Anyone who loves their unborn baby would feel the same, I would think. >Look, I was feeling pretty good this time around until the midwife You're lying. You posted here in September, when you supposedly had a checkup at your obstetricians, allegedly during an outbreak. You claimed then that you were worried about viruses being pushed past your cervix and infecting the fetus. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Message-ID: <a91ab680a6c71e1e5559c5470c806e81@news.teranews.com> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:43:09 GMT From: Jo <no@nospam.com> Newsgroups: alt.support.herpes Subject: Whose had a baby? I have an 18 month old, so I know having a healthy baby is possible. I've had herpes for 10 years. Here's my concern- I went in for my first prenatal exam (pap smear, pelvic exam, etc) and I told the OB I was in the middle of a herpes outbreak and did not think the exams were a good idea. The OB said it would be fine and used the dreaded speculums, did the exams, plus a pelvic exam. My worry is that the OB could have pushed the active virus up into my cervix and uterus and spread it to the baby. Did anyone else have an outbreak and an exam like this at the same time? I am only 6 weeks along. Thanks. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I think you didn't get enough attention with that post so now you're back claiming outbreaks inside your cervix. I guess it takes all kinds, but some people sure are sicker than others. Mike >>Look, I was feeling pretty good this time around until the midwife > >You're lying. You posted here in September, when you supposedly had a >checkup at your obstetricians, allegedly during an outbreak. You >claimed then that you were worried about viruses being pushed past >your cervix and infecting the fetus. Yep, I worried about that for about 3 days, then did some research and felt better. >I think you didn't get enough attention with that post so now you're >back claiming outbreaks inside your cervix. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Mike I felt better until this last outbreak where my midwife basically told me my baby may die of herpes since I have a lesion inside my cervical canal. She is supposedly a professional and I am supposed to trust her. Don't worry, I won't be asking you all for advice again. That should make you very happy. Just be careful what you tell new pregnant women who may have questions. I would look for a pediatric infectious disease specialist to talk to before I took the word of your midwife. Honestly . . . I believe she doesn't know too much about herpes. If it will make you feel any better . . . please consult with Terri Warren. Don't take anybody's word for it . . . not even your midwife. Keep doing the research until you feel you have found somebody that knows what they are talking about. Keep in mind . . . I'm not a doctor or a specialist. I do have herpes and run a herpes support group not to mention on the online support that I'm involved in but in the bigger scheme of things . . . it doesn't mean squat if you are still unsure of what is going on. At 39 weeks pregnant myself I am pretty confident and not in the least bit worried. But, that is simply where I am at. I hope you will find some peace soon. Angela > Angela, how would you feel if your doctor told you what my midwife > told me? Anyone who loves their unborn baby would feel the same, I > would think. >I would look for a pediatric infectious disease specialist to talk to before >I took the word of your midwife. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Angela And your baby girl will be fine. You have no reason to worry. You don't get lesions inside your cervix like apparantly I do. If my midwife had just told me not to worry, that everything would be fine, then I WOULD NOT BE HERE! She freaked me out and I do not want my baby to die because of some stupid virus. I am in the process of finding a new doctor. Joanne, You don't know for sure that you have a lesion inside your cervix. You only have the word of your midwife. Yes, she's supposed to be a professional, but there are just as many misinformed doctors out there. Have you spoken with Terri Warren yet? She's a real herpes professional. ar "Joanne" <joannewaters2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message > And your baby girl will be fine. You have no reason to worry. You > don't get lesions inside your cervix like apparantly I do. If my > midwife had just told me not to worry, that everything would be fine, > then I WOULD NOT BE HERE! She freaked me out and I do not want my > baby to die because of some stupid virus. I am in the process of > finding a new doctor. > And your baby girl will be fine. You don't have to convince me. lol I already know that my baby will be fine. I've done the research and I have an excellent obgyn who is on the same page with me. I am not in the least bit concerned and neither should anybody else out there that has herpes and is pregnant. (In case you ladies are out there reading this post.) > You have no reason to worry. I already knew that much Joanne. > You > don't get lesions inside your cervix like apparantly I do. It's possible to have lesions on your cervix and that usually can be found during a true primary outbreak. I suppose there are women that might occasionally get them on their cervix. However, the virus doesn't travel through all those barriers surrounding the baby to attack your baby. That is not how the virus works. The only time we need to be aware of possible transmission is if their is virus in the birth canal at the time of delivery. Skin to Skin contact would create the possibility of neonatal herpes. The virus is not going to travel through blood or the mucous plug, etc. > If my > midwife had just told me not to worry, that everything would be fine, > then I WOULD NOT BE HERE! I can't believe that you are even taking into consideration anything that this particular midwife would tell you. She didn't even culture your supposed lesions that she saw. You don't even know if what she saw was a herpes lesion. If you cared about what was truly going on with you and your unborn child you would not be here posting to this forum. You would instead be out looking for an informed doctor. > She freaked me out and I do not want my > baby to die because of some stupid virus. You are freaking yourself out. > I am in the process of > finding a new doctor. Yea . . . you keep saying that but I don't believe you any more. Angela Ok ... now we are talking about premature babies Joanne. In the meantime . . . somebody that gives birth to a baby has been sharing her antibodies with that baby. By the way ... how far along are you? Angela >Ok ... now we are talking about premature babies Joanne. In the meantime . . >. somebody that gives birth to a baby has been sharing her antibodies with >that baby. By the way ... how far along are you? > >Angela Again, 19 weeks. Yes, but you said that "obviously I know nothing about herpes antibidies" when I mentioned that they were not passed until the latter half of the pregnancy. If a woman has a lesion in her cervix or close to the baby, there are NO ANTIBODIES protecting that baby unless that woman is 28 weeks along, and even then the antibodies just started to get passed. So again, what's protecting the baby before 28 weeks IN UTERO? I just don't think you all are getting my point. I am not talking about delivery, I am talking about in utero. If one has a bad recurrence with lesions in the cervix, why could it not climb up a half a centimeter and get to the baby? If the virus is SO SMALL, why couldn't it pass through tiny microscopic holes in the amniotic sac? (which there are) If this happened at 15 weeks, there are not yet any antibodies protecting the baby. Joanne, Joanne, Herpes will *not* go through an intact placenta. That's why it's there. Plus, your cervix is closed right now. Plus, you have a THICK mucous plug. The baby is well protected! Herpes is *not* blood borne so it will not effect the baby before the actual birth starts! Go talk to Terri Warren. Perhaps she can explain it better than I can. Congratulations on your pregnancy. Stop worrying about this and quit trying to freak people out! Angela www.yoshi2me.com > Again, 19 weeks. Yes, but you said that "obviously I know nothing > about herpes antibidies" when I mentioned that they were not passed [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > in the amniotic sac? (which there are) If this happened at 15 weeks, > there are not yet any antibodies protecting the baby. >Joanne, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Angela >www.yoshi2me.com That's what I thought, too, until the midwife told me it CAN if it's close enough. Do you love this little baby girl that you are carrying? Sure you do, even though you have not met her. What if your doctor told you you had a lesion inside your cervical canal, and that it may penetrate the intact amniotic sac (bag of waters) . By the way, my cervix is not all the way closed because I have been pregnant before, so it is a fingertip open according to the midwife. It looks like I have everything stacked against me, which is why I have been researching this so hard. Also, you seem to be confusing the membranes and the placenta. No offense, but I don't think you know the difference between the placenta and the amniotic sac. The placenta is totally different than the bag surrounding the baby. <snip> >If a woman has a lesion in >her cervix or close to the baby, there are NO ANTIBODIES protecting >that baby There are the woman's antibodies, no? I would imagine that the uterus is rich in them. >unless that woman is 28 weeks along, and even then the >antibodies just started to get passed. So again, what's protecting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >virus is SO SMALL, why couldn't it pass through tiny microscopic holes >in the amniotic sac? Maybe the *outside* of the amniotic sac is bathed in antibodies. You can speculate along dire lines all you like, but statistically, as you're well aware, the scenario you keep harping on is extremely rare. And what you intend to do about it is something else that seems to have gone unconsidered. Are you looking for an excuse to terminate your pregnancy? That's the only thing that seems to make sense with your trying to assuage your nebulous guilt in misc.kids about raising an only child. Mike Interesting hypothesis Mike. I had not thought of that one. Thanks for pointing out that possibility. Angela > Are you looking for an excuse to terminate your pregnancy? That's the > only thing that seems to make sense with your trying to assuage your > nebulous guilt in misc.kids about raising an only child. > > Mike >Interesting hypothesis Mike. I had not thought of that one. >Thanks for pointing out that possibility. > >Angela Nope, never entered my mind. If that was the case, then I wouldn't be so worried about my baby contracting the disease and dying. I want this baby more than ANYTHING in the world. You'll understand, Angela, once your first child is born soon. You have no idea the love that will fill your heart. >There are the woman's antibodies, no? I would imagine that the uterus >is rich in them. Antibodies are in the mothers bloodstream, and they get passed thorugh the placenta starting at 28 weeks. At that point there will be antibodies in the fluid surrounding the baby, but not any earlier. >Are you looking for an excuse to terminate your pregnancy? That's the >only thing that seems to make sense with your trying to assuage your >nebulous guilt in misc.kids about raising an only child. > >Mike Absolutely not. I would never do that. My daughter may end up being an only child because of this stupid virus. Do you have kids, Mike? >>There are the woman's antibodies, no? I would imagine that the uterus >>is rich in them. >Antibodies are in the mothers bloodstream, and they get passed thorugh >the placenta starting at 28 weeks. How do they get to the placenta? I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think antibodies are confined to bloodstreams., ie. they cross cell boundaries. The uterus is a blood rich environment, also. >At that point there will be >antibodies in the fluid surrounding the baby, but not any earlier. The outside of the amniotic sac does not rest against a vacuum. >>Are you looking for an excuse to terminate your pregnancy? That's the >>only thing that seems to make sense with your trying to assuage your >>nebulous guilt in misc.kids about raising an only child. >Absolutely not. I would never do that. My daughter may end up being >an only child because of this stupid virus. Do you have kids, Mike? No, I don't have children, and don't expect to. In misc.kids you claim that your daughter is already doomed to being an only child. Which of your competing claims is a lie? All of them? Mike >>>There are the woman's antibodies, no? I would imagine that the uterus >>>is rich in them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >How do they get to the placenta? Per my midwife, my books and other websites the antibodies are passed via the bloodstream through the placenta. >>Absolutely not. I would never do that. My daughter may end up being >>an only child because of this stupid virus. Do you have kids, Mike? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Mike Aha. I did not think you had children. You seem like the "childfree and lovin it" type. My child very well may be doomed to be an only, according to my negative midwife. As I stated, my uterus is all screwed up so if this baby gets congenital herpes (which the midwife thinks is likely) then she will be an "only" and I wanted to know the positives of having an only child. Look, you don't give a hoot about me or my baby, and you are probably wishing us ill as we speak. Just be careful what you say to new pregnant women. Most pregnancies will go just fine, hopefully my midwife is wrong & my daughter will get her sibling. If not, I will be extremely depressed but have researched the "positives" of that and she will be okay. Joanne... If you are trying to find a new doctor...you sure are posting alot. >Joanne... >If you are trying to find a new doctor...you sure are posting alot. What does one have to do with the other? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.