Wednesday
Jun082011
Babies in Bloom GBS Redux
Wednesday, June 8, 2011 at 03:11AM Amber Plyer re-did her GBS post and this one, in my opinion, is fantastic! Please take a few minutes to peruse. I'm sure I'll use this as a reference. And even as it still contains information on Hibiclens, it does include references and is much more balanced than the previous post.
Great job, Amber. Really.
Reader Comments (4)
Yes, it is better. Not great, but better. The risks of antibiotics section is fairly biased and the alternative treatments so that you won't test positive is bogus. Sticking garlic gloves and herbal teas up your yoni? Pluleeze. She also uses outdated studies on Hibiclens and data from third world countries. The bottom line for GBS + is IV antibiotics in labor or if your labor is too fast, then close, careful monitoring of the baby for 48 hours. The end.
I will give kudos to Amber for doing her best to correct the original. It would have been better for her to discontinue the blog until she is better educated but her willingness to learn from her mistakes is apparent.
I'd say there should always be close monitoring of the baby for signs of infection...it's not like IV AB's prevent all cases of GBS infection in newborns.
One of the arguments against that, VW, is that once a baby is symptomatic, they are likely to be very ill. I'm not saying that isn't a valid option, but thought I'd mention another POV on that thought.
I think we're on the same page on this...I wasn't saying skip the ABs and just monitor...I meant, even if you've had IV AB's, don't think your baby might not show signs of infection...and by monitoring I meant close and careful observation, not repeated spinal taps ;-)
Actually, I was curious about something you wrote in your original post on this article. You said that recent conversation with parents whose babies had developed GBS infections had made you feel much more inclined toward IV AB's in GBS+ mothers in labor...would you share what aspects of those conversations changed your mind?