Just when we thought the world could not get any more insane, it does! News came in today of a study entitled ‘Inhibitory Effect of Breast Milk on Infectivity of Live Oral Rotavirus Vaccines’ advising nursing mothers to delay breast-feeding until after vaccinations. According to the authors this is because breastfeeding lowers the vaccines efficiency!!!
A paper outlining the study was written by Sung-Sil Moon, PhD, Yuhuan Wang, MS, Andi L. Shane, MD, MPH, MSc, Trang Nguyen, PhD, Pratima Ray, PhD,§ Penelope Dennehy, MD, Luck Ju Baek, PhD, Umesh Parashar, MB BS, MPH,Roger I. Glass, MD, PhD, and Baoming Jiang, DVM, PhD. This long list of experts were from the National Centres for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; Division of Paediatric Infectious Disease, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; The National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Hanoi, Vietnam; Department of Paediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India; Department of Paediatrics, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI; Department of Microbiology, and the College of Medicine.
The purpose of this study was to determine why live oral rotavirus vaccines have been less immunogenic and efficacious among children in poor developing countries compared with middle income and industrialized countries. To establish a reason for this breast-milk was examined from mothers from India, Vietnam, South Korea and the USA. The milk was assessed to see whether or not the neutralizing activity of breast milk could lower the titer of vaccine virus and explain this difference in vitro.
All of the breast-milk samples were collected from mothers breast-feeding infants aged 4 to 29 weeks. This was because these babies were said to be of vaccine eligible age. The samples were examined for rotavirus-specific IgA and neutralizing activity against 3 rotavirus vaccine strains-RV1, RV5 G1, and 116E using enzyme immunoassays. The results of the study revealed:
‘The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity inbreast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.’
To read an outline of the study go to GreenMedInfo.com (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article…)
The original paper was published in the ‘The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal • Volume 29, Number 10, October 2010’. You can purchase a copy from them.
(http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/2010…)
In my opinion this is complete and utter madness. Breast-milk has always been recommended as the most efficient and effective way to boost a babies immune system. In an article by Jane Sheppard entitled ‘Breastfeeding for a strong immune system’ Sheppard cannot stress enough just how important breast-feeding is. She emphasis that although babies are born with a few antibodies from the placenta, they in fact enter the world largely unprotected. She explains how breast-milk protects a newborn baby against illness and encourages development of their immune system
She says that this is because:
‘Breast-milk contains lymphocytes and macrophages that produce antibodies and other immune factors. It provides lactobacillus bifidus, the “friendly” bacterium that helps prevent the growth of dangerous bacteria. Another molecule in breast-milk actually kills harmful bacteria. In addition to providing protection against pathogenic bacteria, breast-milk contains elements that guard against viruses, fungi and parasites. The immunology of breast-milk is quite amazing. Mother Nature definitely knows what she is doing!’ (http://www.healthychild.com/for-healthy-immunity…)
This is in complete contrast to the ingredients in the rotavirus vaccine:
5 live rotavirus strains (G1, G2, G3, G4, and P1).
Inactive Ingredients: sucrose, sodium citrate, sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate, sodium hydroxide, polysorbate 80 and also fetal bovine serum. [PDF] (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines…)
I certainly know which I would choose for my baby.
The Natural Resourses Defence Council agree saying:
‘Breast milk is a unique nutritional source that cannot adequately be replaced by any other food, including infant formula. Although pollutants can accumulate in breast milk, it remains superior to infant formula from the perspective of the overall health of both mother and child.
Infants are fragile and susceptible to disease, partly because their bodies are not fully developed. They must be treated with special care and given adequate nourishment. Infant formulas are able to mimic a few of the nutritional components of breast milk, but formula cannot hope to duplicate the vast and constantly changing array of essential nutrients in human milk. Nevertheless, breastfeeding is often devalued, both in the United States and abroad, and in many parts of the world it must compete with relentless advertising by infant-formula companies.’(http://www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/benefits.asp)
I believe that the pharmaceutical industries are finding that breast-fed babies are healthier babies. Weak sickly babies would of course benefit from the vaccines the most. The more sick babies that can be given these vaccines the more vaccines they can sell. The more vaccines that are sold the higher their profit margins rise. Another factor to take into consideration is that sickly babies are more likely to develop side effects from being given the vaccines. These side effects include autism, ADHD, diabetes, heart disease, crohns disease, allergies etc. The more side effects that children develop the more drugs they will require in the future. If babies are no longer breast-fed from birth then the pharmaceutical industries are laughing all the way to the bank.
Another interesting fact that many of us are unaware of is that many of the companies manufacturing the baby formula’s are actually funding doctors and paediatricians to promote their products.
‘Paediatricians funded by baby milk companies
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY (http://www.cspinet.org/integrity…)
“Received $548,000 from two of the four major formula makers in 1993.” (Mothering magazine, July-August 2000, p.60)’
For full insight into this and much much more please go to (http://www.whale.to/w/baby_milk.htm)
It appears that Pakistan has already began to offer mothers formula feed as the norm. In a report by Breastfeeding.com it states that doctors are given a 20% cut for every tin that they recommend.
In an interview a former ‘Nestle’ representative told the network that they were told repeatedly by the management that one prescription of Lactogen ensures the company a profit of Rs. 50,000 (US $1,250). (http://www.breastfeeding.com/advocacy…)
This is barbaric, women are given breasts for the sole purpose of breast-feeding and nurturing their young. To advise mothers not to breast-feed their babies until the pharmaceutical industries have crammed them full of poisons and chemicals is criminal, purely financially motivated and going completely against mother nature herself.