I got exposed to TB two years ago through my fiance and I have yet to take the preventative meds. Ive seen a couple posts in here about TB, and some peopel talkinga bout these meds.. So Im just curious as to if I can get opinions on this, maybe some websites to direct me.
My fiance and I are talking about getting pregnant sometime soon, Maybe next 6 months or so. He wants me to take these meds first. I on the other hand am scared to take such powerful drugs and then turn around and get pregnant. I havent had any symptoms of TB even though Ive ben sick countless times since then and I was exposed during my first pregnancy. So my immune system has been tested plenty of times with no sign of this illness so Im not as nervous about getting TB as I am about the drugs.
Does anyone know how long these drugs stay in yoru system? How long ebfore its safe to even consider getting pregnant? Or what the chances are of actually getting TB after beinge exposed?
My fiance says he will stand by whatever choice I make on the issue.. but he wants me to know that I should take the meds. He wants me to know because he knows if something like TB happens during the pregnancy and I lose the baby for whatever reason, I will be destroyed over it. Im just not sure if I feel comfortable with these meds after seeing several different people take them for months.. after watching the side effects and seeing how unhealthy they looked during the process.
Have you ever had a positive test? Did he have a positive test? If you had a skin test, I would get the blood test. If the blood test is negative, then your exposure did not result in even a latent case of TB.
If you only have the drugs because your df was merely exposed, and does not have an active or latent case of TB, I don't see any reason to take the drugs now. My understanding is that the drugs are to head off an active infection; they do not remove the bacterium from your body.
He had active and very serious TB. He was sick living with me for months. Ended up in the hospital with me staying in his room most nights with a closed venilation ( sp?) system.
I had a postitive skin test at one point. But the first skin test was negative. Second they poked at for 10 minutes, then pulled another person in the room to poke at me, then said it was positive. It ended up having an edge two days after that, but at the time of the reading, it did not have any edge to it. They just simply said that after being around my DF so much, I had to have had an exposure.
Ive never had TB. Never had an active case. Ive had plenty of chances because I get broncitous ( sp?) twice a year. And I had a good chunk of my *exposure* time during a pregnancy when my innume system in theory shoudl have been lowered correct?
Quoting Kayere: He had active and very serious TB. He was sick living with me for months. Ended up in the hospital with me staying in his room most nights with a closed venilation ( sp?) system.I had a postitive skin test at one point. But the first skin test was negative. Second they poked at for 10 minutes, then pulled another person in the room to poke at me, then said it was positive. It ended up having an edge two days after that, but at the time of the reading, it did not have any edge to it. They just simply said that after being around my DF so much, I had to have had an exposure.
Ive never had TB. Never had an active case. Ive had plenty of chances because I get broncitous ( sp?) twice a year. And I had a good chunk of my *exposure* time during a pregnancy when my innume system in theory shoudl have been lowered correct?
If your test is positive then you would have a latent case of TB (it is basically a titer test; they are testing if your body has made antibodies to the TB bacterium), so I would get the blood test.
I would not rely on that test. Even if the blood test is positive and you do not have an active case, I don't know if you would derive any protective benefit from prophylactic drugs now.
Quoting happytexasCM:
Quoting Kayere: He had active and very serious TB. He was sick living with me for months. Ended up in the hospital with me staying in his room most nights with a closed venilation ( sp?) system.I had a postitive skin test at one point. But the first skin test was negative. Second they poked at for 10 minutes, then pulled another person in the room to poke at me, then said it was positive. It ended up having an edge two days after that, but at the time of the reading, it did not have any edge to it. They just simply said that after being around my DF so much, I had to have had an exposure.
Ive never had TB. Never had an active case. Ive had plenty of chances because I get broncitous ( sp?) twice a year. And I had a good chunk of my *exposure* time during a pregnancy when my innume system in theory shoudl have been lowered correct?
If your test is positive then you would have a latent case of TB (it is basically a titer test; they are testing if your body has made antibodies to the TB bacterium), so I would get the blood test.
I would not rely on that test. Even if the blood test is positive and you do not have an active case, I don't know if you would derive any protective benefit from prophylactic drugs now.
Ill look into getting the blood test def. Maybe it can be a nice compromise for my Fiance. I just wish I could find studies on how long that crap stays in your body. And it would push back us having another kid for a good like two years. 9 months of meds then at least a year to make sure there is none of it left anywhere in me so I feel comfortable.
And there better be some kind of protective benefit from those drugs. They tortured my premature newborn son with that crap for almost a year because I legally couldnt do anything without having him taken away and me put in jail.
Quoting Kayere:
Quoting happytexasCM:
Quoting Kayere: He had active and very serious TB. He was sick living with me for months. Ended up in the hospital with me staying in his room most nights with a closed venilation ( sp?) system.I had a postitive skin test at one point. But the first skin test was negative. Second they poked at for 10 minutes, then pulled another person in the room to poke at me, then said it was positive. It ended up having an edge two days after that, but at the time of the reading, it did not have any edge to it. They just simply said that after being around my DF so much, I had to have had an exposure.
Ive never had TB. Never had an active case. Ive had plenty of chances because I get broncitous ( sp?) twice a year. And I had a good chunk of my *exposure* time during a pregnancy when my innume system in theory shoudl have been lowered correct?
If your test is positive then you would have a latent case of TB (it is basically a titer test; they are testing if your body has made antibodies to the TB bacterium), so I would get the blood test.
I would not rely on that test. Even if the blood test is positive and you do not have an active case, I don't know if you would derive any protective benefit from prophylactic drugs now.
Ill look into getting the blood test def. Maybe it can be a nice compromise for my Fiance. I just wish I could find studies on how long that crap stays in your body. And it would push back us having another kid for a good like two years. 9 months of meds then at least a year to make sure there is none of it left anywhere in me so I feel comfortable.
And there better be some kind of protective benefit from those drugs. They tortured my premature newborn son with that crap for almost a year because I legally couldnt do anything without having him taken away and me put in jail.
I meant a benefit to you now, since it has been so long since exposure.
Quoting happytexasCM:Have you ever had a positive test? Did he have a positive test? If you had a skin test, I would get the blood test. If the blood test is negative, then your exposure did not result in even a latent case of TB.
If you only have the drugs because your df was merely exposed, and does not have an active or latent case of TB, I don't see any reason to take the drugs now. My understanding is that the drugs are to head off an active infection; they do not remove the bacterium from your body.
Christian- Libertarian, NON-vaxing, Natural child birthing, Breastfeeding, Non-circumsizing, Earth- friendly, mom of One Happy, Healthy baby boy! 
I had to have a skin test done my senior year in high school for work that had come back positive. They sent me to have xrays and watch some bullshit movie and then tried to push the meds on me to which I told the health dpeartment to take them and shove somewhere and walked out and they called every month after that for 2 years tryin to get me to take them now 6 years later and they still call every 4 or 5 months. The side effects from those meds are serious and there is no way in hell I would risk it. My parents at the time told me it was my choice, they stood by me through that one. Honestly I wouldn't suggest taking them at all!!!!
Check out these Tasty Treats from The Stir's partners:
Head Start turned us away. Question
- Kayere
on Nov. 28, 2009 at 8:12 PM