Experts Recommend Delaying Breastfeeding Until Vaccinations Have Taken Effect

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.

 

 

 

  • Chrisb59901

    Breastfeeding Mom’s of the world unite! “They” are so afraid of us and the power we have as Mother’s. Pathetic, in my opinion. Delay breastfeeding so vaccines can do their work better?? Give me a break. When will all this madness stop. Human nature is such, that I bet more and more women will breastfeed just because they say not to. My philosophy is to do the opposite of their reccommendations. Such a rebel:) Great article, as usual!!

  • Sandy L

    To suggest delaying breastfeeding is the unkindest cut of all.

    A long time ago I worked for ten years in several African countries. Nurses employed by milk formula companies (eg Nestlé) gave African women free samples. The women soon lost their breastmilk and became dependent on buying formula milk. They often didn’t have the know-how or possiblity to sterilise bottles,etc. Babies got very ill and many died.

  • Christina England

    I could not agree more. I am totally outraged by this!

  • Free-Man

    You get to a certain age in life and you think nothing will shock or surprise you anymore, HOW wrong can we be… Disgusted!

  • http://www.facebook.com/Portia27 Portia Barrett

    Incredible but not incredibel from a patriarchal money oriented point of view which cares nothing for human life, only profit.Mothers of the world must unite lest we have another 5,000 years of suppression.

  • Désirée Röver, the Netherlands

    Breastmilk has many purposes besides simply feeding the infant with the exact right nutrients on the exact right temperature.
    Breastfeeding also aisll about bonding, reinforcing hormonal connections, maturing the emotional system, the creation of beneficial neuronal pathways in the baby’s brain, next to training and protecting the baby’s immune system.
    What morons these ‘scientists’.

    The only correct conclusion of this study is that breastmilk does its jobs more than perfectly!

  • http://www.facebook.com/Portia27 Portia Barrett

    These people are not “experts”. Mother Nature is the only expert on Mother Earth. Her remedies are Free. Now with the closing of the age, we will all see that we no longer need the medical mafia profession and will all heal for free. Dis ease will be a thing of the past, confined to the dustbin with the profiteers and destroyers of life.Lilith freed herself from this system and we shall do the same. We are demonised like her, so what !!! She is free and so are we.

  • Seonaid

    It seems they are determined to turn human beings into some kind of toxic, profit producing clones. I’m appalled!

  • D. Barnes

    The insane, greedy, power-mad pharmaceutical industries are running the asylum and their voracity knows no bounds. Their hubris is wanton and unmatched.

    Christina, you’ve written another excellent article, as usual, and I am so thankful this website exists and presents such important essays on the topic of vaccination.

    There is absolutely NO WAY that vaccines and their toxic, poisonous ingredients can ever produce health. The whole vaccination theory is based on a lie, on presumptions, on superstition and fear. An excellent resource for people to consider is: “Good-Bye Term Theory: Ending a Century of Medical Fraud” by Dr. William P. Trebing. (Link at amazon.com is: http://www.amazon.com/Good-Bye-Germ-Theory-century-medical/dp/1413454402/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302103650&sr=1-6 )

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1487133284 Erica Johnson

    PLEASE do not use headlines that send the opposite message of the article! More people are reading your headline and not understanding what your view is on this and getting the WRONG MESSAGE!

  • MFP

    Isn’t Christina’s view in this article pretty evident?

  • http://www.facebook.com/Venusgirl214 Kimberly

    I’m sure the formula companies are going to LOVE this! I’m also sure they had something to do with this as well.

  • http://vactruth.com Jeffry John Aufderheide

    Hi Erica,

    Thank you for your feedback and concern. We will take what you said into consideration for future articles.

    As a side note, most mothers can see the absurdity of the ‘science’ being proposed. In the article, Christina used pretty strong language to denounce its practice.

  • Goofeefoot

    I support extended breastfeeding 100%. But I think this study has some merit, for one, it makes sense that the immune cells in breast milk would attack the oral rota virus vaccine. That makes perfect sense. What I could not glean from this article was HOW LONG do the researchers recommend delaying breastfeeding after oral rotavirus vaccine is administered. One hour? One week?

    This article is poorly written. First, it is defensive and biased. It reads like a paranoid hysterical woman wrote it. Second, it does not go into the full journalistic details. It is full of links but not rational (keyword: RATIONAL) examination of the articles it links to. Again, this article reads like the author is wearing a tin foil hat.

    I am a “breastfeeding nut” like everyone else here and I am skeptical of vaccines…but when I read poorly written articles like this that spout “fear! fear! fear!” then I loose all respect for the author and this website.

    Hysteria causes writers to loose credibility. It is OK to feel passionate about a subject you are writing about…but try not to come off sounding like a crazy person. This article fails in that regard.

  • Sdlincoln1

    Screw the experts! Let’s force vaccinate them!

  • http://vactruth.com Jeffry John Aufderheide

    One could reason if breast milk is attacking the rota virus in the vaccine, then what is breast milk doing to the virus when the baby is naturally exposed to it? To interrupt breastfeeding to justify vaccines is insane.

    And consider the ramifications of this policy. If it starts with one vaccine bet your bottom dollar that it will be promoted for them all.

  • LMC

    The study is suggesting not breastfeeding your baby immediately before or after the vaccine, not indefinitely or stopping altogether. That is what “at the time of vaccination” (directly from your quote, above) means. Breastmilk (from women in the studied/affected countries) neutralizes the live virus in the stomach (this is an oral vaccine) and prevents it from replicating, so the body doesn’t start producing antibodies for it.

  • http://profiles.google.com/melodyalyssa Melody Lopez

    There is not enough education or awareness of the countless benefits of breast milk. Far too many woman resort to NOT breastfeeding, and health officicls can sometimes be the culprit. Publications such as Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 Oct;29(10):919-23, are not helping. The full article is only available by purchase, however the abstract speaks volumes. Granted the rotavirus may be dangerous, and there may be children who will need the vaccination due to third-world living conditions, however the very idea that a vaccination would take any measure of prescience over breast milk really made me irate! The authors should have suggested that children be vaccinated after being weaned from breast milk (if at all). BTW, I just wrote a personal email to the corresponding author of this article. I couldn’t resist.

  • http://profiles.google.com/melodyalyssa Melody Lopez

    God is the only expert!

  • http://profiles.google.com/melodyalyssa Melody Lopez

    This was so sad. Thank you for sharing Sandy.

  • http://profiles.google.com/melodyalyssa Melody Lopez

    *comment removed*

  • http://profiles.google.com/melodyalyssa Melody Lopez

    The title is directly related to the interpretation of the study described in Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 Oct;29(10):919-23.

  • LMC

    Breast milk is not attacking it, but neutralizing it/preventing it from replicating (per the study). Vaccinations work by replicating themselves and then the body’s natural defense builds antibodies in response. And the interruption period is limited to before and after the vaccination, ie, “at the time of immunization,” not indefinitely.

  • Goofeefoot

    What I could not glean was HOW LONG do the researchers recommend holding breastfeeding after the vaccine is administered? One hour? One week? If it’s a matter of one hour then that seems reasonable.

    Are we freaking out about nothing?

  • D. Barnes

    Christina, your article was excellent, However, there was one sentence in a paragraph I found confusing. I’m sure you meant to say this from the perspective of the pharmaceutical industry, but it comes across as your thought…. it’s near the end of your article.

    It reads: “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.”

    I am quite certain *you* are not saying that weak and sickly babies benefit the most from vaccines!

  • Goofeefoot

    Exactly my question. What is the time period they are suggesting. I think alot of readers (and the author of this article) assume the researchers are saying to not breastfeed forever.

    I found this article to be very alarmist. The author needs to be asking more questions before jumping off the ledge into hysteria and working her readers into a froth.

  • Christina England

    Thank you all for your comments.

    I feel I made it very clear in my title that the authors of the study had only recommended delaying breasfeeding until after the vaccinations had taken effect. How long they wished to delay the breastfeeding for was not made clear.

    The links I used I feel were the correct links for this piece.

    I feel that Jeffry John Aufderheide made a very relevant comment.

    “One could reason if breast milk is attacking the rota virus in the vaccine, then what is breast milk doing to the virus when the baby is naturally exposed to it? To interrupt breastfeeding to justify vaccines is insane.”

    I notice that no one has picked this up and I wonder why this is.

    Christina England

  • Bleeper123

    Love it. The babys body is doing the job is was made for..attacking a virus. Here in the UK we dont have the rotavirus vaccine and guess what, we don’t hear of lots of babies dying either.

    Ohh also I saw a baby with ‘chickenpox’ playing out at the park today..arrgh.

  • Krystenglor

    okay first not one of those doing the study was even an american, what country funded this stupid study? and the real question is which PHARMACEUTICAL company funded this? seriously? this is the stupidest, most moronic thing i have read in awhile. perhaps its because of the sanitary conditions of third world countries NOT the breastmilk…bunch of idiots.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bunny.st.marie Bunny Dayelle St. Marie

    Christina, I find your perspective refreshing. Far too often we only hear about the positive and healthful “benefits” of vaccinating. We almost NEVER hear the negative side. When a parent asks a health professional whether vaccines are safe, the answer is always yes. In fact it is only when further pressed on the matter that the professional will eventually concede that YES there are risks… -that is, if they themselves are knowledgeable on the matter. At best, the risks are only briefly mentioned, and are of course “rare”.

    We are told to just “get our damn vaccines!” and are expected to follow through compliantly. It seems that whenever someone questions the highly profitable Pharma companies, the aggressive marketing campaigns, not to mention the numerous conflicts of interest, suddenly that person is immediately attacked! WHY is this? That’s not to mention the numerous questions surrounding vaccine safety/efficacy.

    You have boldly dared to question the possible motives behind why “experts” are recommending delaying breastfeeding. And hey, sometimes the truth hurts…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lee-Anne-Guryn/512868260 Lee Anne Guryn

    I see it as a more sinister way to control population. Control the food and you control the people. If you HAVE to have formula to feed your baby you would do anything to get it. Not to mention a government could just not have formula available except for the desirable peoples.

  • http://vactruth.com Jeffry John Aufderheide

    I certainly didn’t gather the researchers saying not to breastfeed forever, and if you can kindly point that out in the article, I would be grateful.

    Second, you seem to be measuring harm by time and are okay with that. However, I would like to point out no matter how long of duration this recommendation is, the breast milk is protecting the child.

  • Viera Scheibner

    The situation with orthodox medical and other “experts” reminds me of NAZIsm. They behave like the NAZI zombies, by supporting any nonsense created by provaccinators, who may even feel contempt for them. Just like Goebbels (Hitler’s propaganda minister). In his last public speech before the NAZI armies’ total capitulation, he attracted a thunderous positive “Ja” response from the crowd when he shouted whether they support total war and beheading of those who do not. Afterward he commented to his entourage “What an hour of idiocy. If I asked them to jump from the fourth floor of the Columbus building they would have done it.”
    I urge all parents NOT to be like those NAZI idiots. Use your loaf.

  • Jerry

    What a coincidence, Dr. Scheibner! I was just looking up the “cot death” chapter in your fine book for my daughter to use in a school report.

    Way back when I was born, the “experts” touted the advantages of bottle feeding. Since then mothers reverted, and now the “experts” can see that mom’s milk is stronger than vaccines! Oh, we can’t have that, now can we?

  • Lmeaglemom

    I agree with you. I view this as the same kind of advice that follows some antibiotics – such as not taking antacids within x hours of taking this medicine or making sure to use a back-up form of BC if you are taking the pill. Use some common sense people – they aren’t telling you not to breastfeed, they just want to make sure that the baby gets the full effect of the vaccine. Apparently something in the vaccine does not react well to breastmilk.

  • Christina England

    D Barnes

    You are right that sentence does not make sense as most know I am against vaccination,

    It was said with tongue in cheek.

    Pharma want our babies sick as then they pump powerful drugs into their little systems for the rest of their lives.

    Give a sickly baby a vaccine and result is they will more than likely react to it.

  • Sandy L

    The study is entitled “Inhibitory Effect of Breast Milk on Infectivity of Live Oral Rotavirus Vaccines” and it does not intend to evaluate potential problems associated with stopping breastfeeding.

    That would have to be tackled in a separate study if the aim is to obtain statistics. It is already known that babies in developing countries become seriously ill with diarrhoea and many die because of contaminated bottles of formula feed.

    Stopping breastfeeding intentionally may cause intense discomfort and distress for mothers and maybe also for the babies. Breastmilk would probably have to be pumped or mothers would have to take hormones.

    It is normal for mothers with poor resources (there are millions of them!) to have close physical contact with their babies and to breastfeed in many sessions throughout the day. Breastmilk has body temperature, is healthy, free, convenient – and it is clean.

    If the breastmilk is pumped it will probably have to be thrown away. Women with poor resources don’t have electric power or refrigerators. When formula feed is used, the women often do not have the know-how or the resources to prepare it or to store it under hygenic conditions. Sterilising bottles and storage of a bottle of milk in a refrigerator is often impossible.

    A bottle with formula feed will be subjected to many hours at sub-optimal temperatures. A few bacteria present in the bottle will multiply within a few hours to many thousands. This also applies to any bacterial colonies which may be on bottle teats, especially if there are flies in the surroundings.

  • http://www.arnica.org.uk Anna Watson

    Dear All
    The health risks of not breast feeding, especially in the developing world, are greater than any perceived risk from a vaccine not working effectively. In the states just 20 children a year die from rota virus. Breast feeding during rota virus reduces mortality by ten times!

    Stopping breast feeding goes against the WHO advise to breast feed exclusively for up to a year and beyond. A lack of breastfeeding can lead to malnutrition in infants and children. Possible reasons for the lack in the developing world may be that the average family thinks bottle feeding is better. The World Health Organization cites malnutrition as the gravest single threat to the world’s public health.

    In the developed world especially, formula feeding compromises health due to poor water to mix the formula, amount of formula being reduced in a bottle due to finances, bacteria like salmonella introduced as water needs to be boiled at 70 degrees, etc.

    Importantly, recommending formula for ‘health reasons’ is a misnomer! The IGa in the breastmilk coats the porous stomach and seals it, just one bottle of formula strips this coating off leaving the stomach open, closing again would take 2 weeks of exclusive breast feeding. If a women delays breastfeeding by a day even the milk supply would reduce and she would need to cluster feed or pump to increase the supply again.

    It takes many weeks for the baby’s gut to close up the leaks in order to seal off germs and to develop the ability to shut out allergenic proteins. If given formula in the early weeks, this closing up is delayed and the risk of allergies and illness increases. The type of bacteria in the gut becomes less protective. In other words, Baby is more at risk for illness.
    Just one bottle of formula – given for any reason – can sensitize babies who may be allergic to cow’s milk protein or soy protein. This is especially important to know if you have allergies in your family. Some studies have indicated that giving cow’s milk formulas early may also increase the risk of some children for developing insulin dependent diabetes.
    http://www.got-breastmilk.org/Onebottlewillhurt.shtml

    http://www.health-e-learning.com/articles/JustOneBottle.pdf

    Anna

  • futuredoc

    The mistake you’re all making by accusing these “experts” is a lack of basic understanding of the immunological power of breast milk. The antibodies and immune powers of breast milk are TRANSIENT. In order for the baby to have its own immunity, it needs to be exposed to the virus and form its own antibodies and adaptive immune response. If you think that your child would be better seeing a wild-type virus instead of an attenuated or killed (yes, killed, as in DEAD) virus, then that’s your choice.

    The pseudo-science of these anti-vaccine factions is sensationalizing an issue that should be best left to scientists in the field.

    If you look at the study, they are evaluating how to improve the vaccine. Obviously, they came to the conclusion that the mother’s antibodies were interfering — that’s fine. If you delay breastfeeding, you will delay those inhibitory effects. That does not mean you should, however — it also doesn’t mean that these people have a genocidal agenda. It is fanatics everywhere that are deluding the discussion to finger-pointing and conspiracy theory.

  • http://vactruth.com Jeffry John Aufderheide

    Your assumption that vaccines are benign is erroneous. Moreover, your faulty belief that vaccination will stop the transmission of the virus should be re-examined. In fact, there are many case reports pertaining to the spread of the virus due to vaccination.

    This is just one.

    Sibling Transmission of Vaccine-Derived Rotavirus (RotaTeq) Associated With Rotavirus Gastroenteritis; Pediatrics 2010;125;e438-e441;
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/125/2/e438

    What is fanatical, however, is the belief that somehow interrupting the breastfeeding process is ‘good’.

  • http://twitter.com/HappyAnceli Anceli Peguero

    FUCKING RIDICULOUS!!! MOM’S BREASTFEED THE WORLD!! THIS ARTICLE IS THE MOST STUPIDEST THING ! Do they really think people will believe all that nonsense?

  • Jerry

    Pseudo science? Scientists testing unnatural interventions run up against nature, and conclude … nature is the problem! Makes perfect sense.

    Conspiracy theory? There are scientists who think some people are inferior and shouldn’t have children. In the 90′s they, the World Health Organization (WHO), peddled a tetanus vaccine containing hCG, effectively vaccinating women against pregnancy. See http://www.thinktwice.com/birthcon.htm Should we not be suspicious over this latest news?

    Your conclusion is to leave decisions to “scientists in the field.” Spoken like an “expert,” eh, future doc?

  • Viera Scheibner

    Dear Jerry, how right you are!

    Last night on TV they interviewed a retired High Court judge and he said words to the effect of that we haven’t democracy, we have elected dictatorship. The minute the politicians are elected, they start pushing their own ideas and programs, often acting against their constituents, and without consulting them. I can add that it is a dictatorship of vested interests, the big end of the town, with medical tyranny taking the cake.

    Orthodox medicine is a large political organisation, basically unopposed and the more unchallenged it is the more nonsense and downright wrong ideas it is getting away with. One thing, though: we still have a choice not to accept their unscientific ideas and toxic medications.

  • D. Barnes

    Thank you for the explanation and clarification, Christina! I guess I was reading your article so avidly and seriously I didn’t hear the sarcasm, lol. :)

  • Viera Scheibner

    Dear LMC,

    According to good orthodox medical research published in reputable peer reviewed medical journals, vaccines represent a major assault on the immune system: anaphylaxis (the opposite to prophylaxis), sensitisation, immune suppression and hence increased susceptibility to the disease which they are supposed to, but do not, prevent. Breast milk is a hyperimmune substance. So, if we listen to provaccinators advising mothers to stop giving their babies such important protection, then we are heaping insult upon injury. By the way, no vaccine viruses are needed for the babies’ bodies to start producing immunity; they do it naturally right from the word go and the breast milk is helping them. Moreover, vaccine viruses are modified, they are not natural viruses and really irrelevant, even if vaccines worked. We should develop immunity to natural viruses and other microorganisms.

    No nitpicking semantics is necessary.

  • Viera Scheibner

    Dear Lmeaglemom,

    Yeah, the full effect of the vaccine. Immunosuppression,

    By the way on the last night news they also read the WHO’s announcement about the end of the era of antibiotics.

    All antibiotics, just as the sulpha drugs etc., have become an unqualified disaster, not healing any infections, but creating a host of resistant superbugs and serious health problems in their recipients. Why? Because the little critters are a superior intelligence (as opposed to homo stupidissimus) and they develop solid immunity to any antibiotic right from the word go.

    However, if homo stupissimus starts using his loaf, he will realise that our bodies have a natural ability to develop natural immunity by exposure to microorganisms and by going through the natural infectious diseases. When not mismanaged by the administration of antibiotics and antipyretics, of course, natural infectious diseases are highly beneficial. Indeed, as I wrote in one my rapid response published in BMJ.com, such unscientific standard procedure intensifies the development of those resistant superbugs. Fever, a natural healing process, kills bacteria and other microorganisms and suppressing it is not only unscientific, but very dangerous.

    Natural infectious diseases not only results in a life-long immunity to such diseases, but also to a host of related and unrelated infections, skin diseases, immunoreactive diseases, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage and cancers, really all those modern iatrogenic scourges of humanity.

  • futuredoc

    Vaccines are not benign. They pose risks just like almost any medical intervention. What bothers me most about these discussions is that in your blatant disregard for the benefits of vaccines, you offer no solutions.

    What would you rather happen? Would you rather your child succumb to a preventable — statistically speaking, of course, because one anomalous case is never significant — illness?

    There is proven eradication of illnesses with the power of vaccination. There is proven lowering of incidence and prevalence since the induction of vaccines for multiple illnesses. You have shown me one case of a brother becoming infected from his vaccinated sibling.

    I am a scientist, and as such, can only ever go by evidence. Show me evidence that the risks outweigh the benefits, and I will gladly — nay, necessarily — change my mind.

  • futuredoc

    I don’t understand the benefit of your way of thinking. When all the evidence points positively to vaccines — and when I say evidence, I mean statistical evidence, peer-reviewed evidence, SCIENTIFIC evidence — I cannot, as a future doctor and scientist, possibly refute it. There will always be anomalies — that is the nature of medicine. Necessarily, we have to be utilitarian in our thinking and think of the larger picture.

    As I posed to the commenter below: What is your solution?

  • Jerry

    All the evidence points positively to vaccines? Nonscience! Nonsense, that is. You admit that your thinking is utilitarian. Some must be maimed so others can live? Will I be free to opt out?

    The vaccine debate has raged for many years, but it isn’t admissible in the hallowed halls of medicine yet. Here isn’t the place to write what has consumed volumes elsewhere, notably at this site as well. But one counterexample to your paradigm of eradication will suffice. Polio: The Cutter fraud. Dr. Herbert Ratner helped expose it before Congress to no avail. See http://www.whale.to/v/vran2.html Furthermore, there is a cure for polio: intravenous sodium ascorbate, published by Dr. Fred Klenner, See: http://www.orthomed.com/polio.htm

    Faced with the US gov’t-backed polio fraud, the WHO anti-pregnancy vaccination program, and vaccines grown in the flesh of murdered babies, do you still maintain that medical minds are deserving of such great respect?

  • Dr. G

    The early farmers in New England used to salt their crops in order to reduce weeds. All the “Experts” of the day recommended salinization of the soil as a necessary evil, even though the the growth of the crops was stunted. Any one who strayed from that practice was considered a dult and was persecuted because they were “non conformists” and allowing the proliferation of weeds. Some bold “husbands” of the land continued to experiment with different methods of controlling unwanted weeds and grasses. Lo and behold they stumbled on a natural solution..
    LIME. Spreading lime enhanced the soil reduced the weeds and led to healthier crops.

    What does this have to do with breast feeding??? Nothing. What it does illustrate is that the agricultural “experts” of that day were selling salt to the farmers and didn’t want to lose the business. To the common farmers “husbands” of the land, they believed there was a more affordable, more available, safer (for the crops) way that nature and natures God had provided, they just had to find the right combination.

    Wives and Husbands who choose nature’s paths are the “dults and non-conformists” of today. We are the ones being persecuted for allowing the proliferation of disease. ( Many pediatrician’s actually advise parents not to let their children play with unvaccinated children.) There are so many natural ways to enhance the health of our families, and very few of those come in a vial, capsule, or syringe.

    As Christina England so eloquently pointed out….This is all about the $ales!!!!

    Here is a great article about the further benefits of breast milk. Of course you haven’t heard much about it until they ($$$$pharm$$$$) managed to medicalize the substance HAMLET!!
    http://www.sciencecodex.com/substance_in_breast_milk_kills_cancer_cells

    In Great Health,

    Dr. G

  • http://vactruth.com Jeffry John Aufderheide

    Have you considered what constitutes creating powerful health?

    Being a scientist then, and respecting that title, please go down this list of vaccine excipients and show me the science on where these ingredients build health in babies, individually or in combination.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-1.pdf

    Second, being a scientist you ought to have access to case reports. You may have issues with VAERS, however, that is a secondary resource you can use. I found 721 adverse events for the Rotavirus Vaccine.

    Lastly, please tell me what scientific tests are used as a measure of potential of harm both before and after vaccination.

  • http://vactruth.com Jeffry John Aufderheide

    Two examples you can start researching and ponder are “Viruses in Foods” (2006) by Sagar M. Goyal and “Foodborne Diseases” (1990) by Dean O. Cliver.

    “Food was first recognized as a vehicle for the transmission of viruses in 1914 when a raw milk-associated outbreak of poliomyelitis was reported. Additional milk-borne outbreaks were recognized after this time, but with the development of a vaccine for poliovirus, no outbreaks were reported in the developed world after the early 1950s.” (Goyal pp.1)

    “Poliomyelitis was the first reported foodborne viral disease, having been transmitted via raw milk as early as 1914. Raw milk predominated as the vehicle among the 10 outbreaks recorded through 1949, the last year in which foodborne poliomyelitis is known to have occurred in the United States or other reporting, developed countries.” (Cliver pp. 283)

    To the hammer, everything is a nail. Can we even have this discussion if the answer is not pharmakeia?

  • Christina England

    I worry when our future doctors and scientists seem to be brainwashed into believing that vaccines are a medical miracle. You ask for our proof but offer no proof yourself.

    Vaccines do not erradicate disease. I offer some evidence here http://vactruth.com/2010/07/23/fact-vaccines-have-never-eradicated-anything-ever/

    There is plenty of evidence around. I have seen no scientific evidence to the contary.

    Jerry has it in a nutshell.

    “Pseudo science? Scientists testing unnatural interventions run up against nature, and conclude … nature is the problem! Makes perfect sense.”

    Please read what Dr Viera Scheibner says, She is a very wise woman,

    “According to good orthodox medical research published in reputable peer reviewed medical journals, vaccines represent a major assault on the immune system: anaphylaxis (the opposite to prophylaxis), sensitisation, immune suppression and hence increased susceptibility to the disease which they are supposed to, but do not, prevent. Breast milk is a hyperimmune substance”

    She is right and this is the reason why that these experts want mothers to delay breastfeeding, it attacks the vaccine. Ask yourselves why this may be. Please allow common sense to kick in.

    Christina

  • Anonymous

    Experts. Now here’s a crucial point. I see through a quick scan of this discussion plenty of people saying “They’re not experts” and the like. Trouble is that they are “experts”, society recognises them as “experts” and they sure as hell think that they are. Yes, they’re wrong, wrong, wrong. You know that, I know that, we all know that but they are still termed “experts”.

    My point: “Society has got to accept that experts do not have sole access to truth. Further, it is often the case that in becoming an expert people lose objectivity and cannot see when they are wrong, just like in the children’s story of the Emperor’s new clothes”.

    Frequently an expert will try to tell you that black is white without even hesitating. Sadly I am not aware of the solution to this problem apart from remaining open minded as an individual and seeking out similar souls!

    Hi.

  • futuredoc

    I know exactly why mother’s milk attacks the virus.

    Breastmilk contains IgA antibodies to any virus or pathogen that the mother herself produces, based on the exposure to antigens that she’s seen in her lifetime. Chances are, she has also been vaccinated against the pox virus, which is evidenced by the inhibitory effect we’re seeing in vaccinated children.

    What I am not understanding is how you claim that breastmilk is an “alternative” to a vaccine. A basic understanding of the science would not lead you to this conclusion. You are using rhetoric and the power of the unknown to scare both yourself and your readers. DEAD MONKEY KIDNEYS; 5 STRAINS OF ROTOVIRUS; SODIUM CITRATE. Such scary things, undoubtedly. Nothing like simple old breastmilk, right? Of course! No one is denying that the ingredients in vaccines are frightening without knowledge of their purpose. And the seemingly docile ingredients of breastmilk — what an alternative!

    The immunological effects of breastmilk are transient. Please, tell me that you understand this. When the antibodies transferred passively to the child are destroyed by the child’s immune system, that child has no more protection. What then? Vaccines illicit the child’s own adaptive immune response, in hopes to mature B and T cells into memory cells who will produce antibodies that can stop infection.

    This transient effect is seen in children of mother’s with antibody-mediated autoimmune diseases like Grave’s disease. Mom makes agonistic antibodies to her own thyroid gland, giving her hyperthyroidism; as the passive transfer of antibodies from breast milk occurs, the child also develops hyperthyroidism. They are usually healed within a year when all the antibodies have been cleared.

    If you think breastmilk is a suitable alternative to vaccines, then you need to re-evaluate your knowledge of the subject.

    We need to criticize vaccine producers. We need to question science. We need to do what’s right for our children. What we don’t need, however, is radical measures like stopping vaccination. I assure you, that is not the solution.

  • Dr. G

    “that’s your choice” That is all we want choice. We don’t like to have these 49 vaccines before the age of six foisted upon us by the govt./medical complex!!! I trust cleanliness, wholesomeness, and nutritousness more than I trust “Theory”!!!

    Furthermore the money for this research comes from the same people who met you on the first day of medical school. You know the ones with short skirts and free pens/clipboards and food. The researcher know which side of the bread the butter is on.

  • futuredoc

    This is the most ridiculous non-scientific nonsense I’ve ever read. The gut to “close up”? Coating the stomach? Do you understand at all what an antibody is? What it does? What the difference between IgG, IgA, IgE, IgM? Which are transferred to the baby? How they work? Please, educate yourself before you write posts like this. It is embarrassing.

    Breastmilk is very important, but for NONE of the reasons you listed.

  • http://vactruth.com Jeffry John Aufderheide

    Docere –

    Please teach us the difference between IgG, IgA, IgE, IgM.

  • Sandy L

    “Statistical evidence, peer-reviewed evidence, scientific evidence”, etc:

    http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/734/9/
    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

    http://www.torstenengelbrecht.com/artikel_medien/message_Angell_English.pdf
    “Richard Smith, chief editor of the BMJ until July 2004, said that peer reviewing is “slow, expensive, prone to bias, easily misused, hard¬ly effective in uncovering crass defects, and almost useless in the exposure of fraud”

    “Just recently it came out that hundreds of scientists from the US health department NIH received millions of dollars of financial contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. These financial conflicts of interests in the meantime have undercut the whole research industry and its reviewers – and with that also the credibility of professional magazines, whose articles appear through the glory of unbiased science through the reviewing process”.

  • Sandy L

    “There is proven eradication of illnesses with the power of vaccination”?

    http://genesgreenbook.com/resources/obamsawin/ImmunizationGraphs-RO2009.pdf
    “Vaccines are not necessary for the efficient elimination of a wide range of infectious diseases”.

  • Sandy L

    http://www.kellymom.com/nutrition/solids/delay-solids.html
    From the above link, info about “open gut”, “coating the digestive tract”, etc:

    “From birth until somewhere between four and six months of age, babies possess what is often referred to as an “open gut.” This means that the spaces between the cells of the small intestines will readily allow intact macromolecules, including whole proteins and pathogens, to pass directly into the bloodstream.This is great for your breastfed baby as it allows beneficial antibodies in breastmilk to pass more directly into baby’s bloodstream, but it also means that large proteins from other foods (which may predispose baby to allergies) and disease-causing pathogens can pass right through, too.

    During baby’s first 4-6 months, while the gut is still “open,” antibodies (sIgA) from breastmilk coat baby’s digestive tract and provide passive immunity, reducing the likelihood of illness and allergic reactions before gut closure occurs. Baby starts producing these antibodies on his own at around 6 months, and gut closure should have occurred by this time also”.

  • Sandy L

    “No one is denying that the ingredients in vaccines are frightening without knowledge of their purpose”:

    Are you certain that participants in this discussion lack knowledge of the purpose of vaccine ingredients?

  • Sandy L

    It is unwise to imply that comments here are “ridiculous”, that someone “lacks basic understanding of science” or “The pseudo-science of these anti-vaccine factions is sensationalizing an issue that should be best left to scientists in the field”:

    Futuredoc. Please note that there are people here who are extremely critical regarding vaccines, yet they may nevertheless have serious scientific backgrounds and they prefer respectful discussions.

  • futuredoc

    Their purpose is to murder babies, clearly. That is all I can gather from the discussion here.

    I understand that as a student of medicine, my knowledge is still nascent. From what I know, however, I can not make the judgement that giving no vaccines at all is safer than giving vaccines. Is this what you believe? I would love to know why. I don’t want to come off as a bigot; my opinion is based on the evidence I’ve gathered from knowledge of the immune system and critical evaluation of statistics and data available on vaccines. While a lot of the links being shared are very credible and eye-opening, I guess I am just at a loss at what a logical step forward might be.

    I am young — naive you might even say. I don’t want to believe that there are people out there who would willingly poison or murder children for financial benefit. That is what is being said here, in a nutshell. Maybe it’s not wrong, but for me, it distracts from the real discussion, which should be about the science.

    The decisions that you make as a parent do not affect you — they affect your children. With a knowledge of the immune system, you know that the only way to develop immunity is exposure to antigens. What, then, is the best way to do this? That is the discussion I want to have. I don’t want to talk about how drug companies murder babies and steal breastmilk from mothers, because that’s a completely unproductive discussion.

  • futuredoc

    Hardly a scientific link, but I will apologize for the harshness of my comment — it was uncalled for. Large components of the vulnerability of a child to infection is the as yet undeveloped parietal and oxyntic glands of the stomach, which secrete acid, the undeveloped commensal bacteria population (the good bacteria), as well as the inability to make their own sIgA due to inadequate exposure to antigens.

  • futuredoc

    I would if you would really like, but I feel you’re being facetious. I do not want to seem hostile or bigoted — let us have an educated discussion, if possible.

  • http://vactruth.com Jeffry John Aufderheide

    You made a comment about monkey kidneys sounding scary in an earlier comment. I would suggest to you to look at SV40 contaminating the polio vaccine. SV40 causes cancer and is vertically transmitted.

    You can find more information on this topic specifically by searching for Bernice Eddy and Maurice Hilleman, for example, on PUBMED.

    You may also want to look at vaccine inserts and ask yourself why it explicitly states they have not been tested for carcinogenesis.

  • http://vactruth.com Jeffry John Aufderheide

    It certainly is possible to have an educated and rational discussion. The question I pose to you is, are you going to act like a teacher (Docere, i.e. Doctor) or a ‘know-it-all-scientist’?

    Everyone has gaps in what they know and don’t know – everyone.

    Most of us are receptive to constructive criticism because that is what makes us grow. You must keep in mind that many of us, including myself, blindly trusted the medical profession to give us answers – as a parent – for what was best for our child.

    Perhaps you have noticed that some are abrasive to you – the attitude being displayed is a familiar one.

    So – at the end of the day, my sincere wish for you, my friend, is for you to apply the same levels of evidence you are being taught in medical school to vaccines.

    And, if you think that the reason a true placebo has never been performed due to ethical reasons, you ought to go look at Salk, Sabin, Koprowski, Krugman, etc. who tested vaccines on mentally retarded children and prisoners.

  • http://vactruth.com Jeffry John Aufderheide

    Bunny, it’s disappointing that health officials have to use fear to get people vaccinated. If they worked so ‘damned’ good, there would be a huge line out the door to get them and the US ought to be the healthiest ‘damned’ nation on the face of this Earth.

    The intention behind the Pharmaceutical companies is to make a profit.

    People are starting to wake up…

  • Christina England

    Futuredoctor

    I was disappointed to see no links to any studies which prove your claims. The readers here however did provide links.

    I will leave you with one thought. You believe that vaccines are not financially motivated and no one would ever knowingly risks children’s lives. Please think carefully about this

    Thimerosal was added to vaccines by Eli Lilly and here is how they did their safety vaccine trials.

    Eli Lilly’s safety testing of the product consisted of a 1930 study of 22 patients dieing from mengiococcal meningitis in an Indiana hospital. Patients were injected with the solutions and followed until their death, which is within days. Because the patients died of meningitis, they are declared to show no adverse reaction to thimerosal and the product is declared safe for use. Thimerosal is subsequently introduced for use in vaccines and in over the counter remedies as a preservative to kill bacteria in the product.

    I can prove this

    Thimerosal, is a preservative used in vaccines since 1930. This preservative is 49.6% ETHYL MERCURY, A HIGHLY TOXIC POISON THAT IS GENO-TOXIC AND NEURO-TOXIC. It collects in the brain and organs such as the kidneys. It interferes with our DNA and can affect our brain and immune system. It also is known to affect the retina.

    Thimerosal is still used in vaccines today.

  • Sandy L

    Futuredoc.You were asked:”Are you certain that participants in this discussion lack knowledge of the purpose of vaccine ingredients?”

    Your statement is unprofessional and disappointing:” Their purpose is to murder babies, clearly. That is all I can gather from the discussion here”.

    We are not a homogeneous group. We have extremely different backgrounds from different countries, continents, different nationalities, educations, political and religious beliefs, even mother tongues.

    Several of us here have seriously studied within many fields of vaccination, including the functions of specific vaccine ingredients, potential side effects and interactions etc. We are capable of discussing both this and related issues in a professional manner. Much of the information exchanged is often informative and appreciated.

    What we do have in common here is the fact that we are critical regarding vaccines. The criticism spans over many levels:

    Some regard one or all vaccine promoters as cynical and corrupt. Some extremely professional participants here believe in safe, affordable, necessary and efficient vaccines.
    Some here have begun by questioning about one particlular vaccine or ingredient, some are negative towards all vaccines. Some have no definite opionion, but simply inform or ask questions about vaccination.

    Every professional field, irrespective of the subject, has signed its own death sentence if it is not permitted to ask questions.

  • Naomi

    Your article reflects the study findings as a recommendation to delay the initiation of breast feeding, when in fact the quote states “delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization”. This could refer to only the milk present in the infant that day. Rotavirus vaccines could effectively save thousands of children from a painful death every year. Without debating the overall need to breast feed from birth(because that is a given), do you care to comment on whether or not you have depicted the reach of this article recommendations accurately and unsensationally?

  • Christina England

    Dear Naomi

    Thank you for your comment.

    The study did not say for how long the mother should delay breastfeeding for. Whether that is an hour, a day, a week is not clear. I do not agree delaying breastfeeding in order to allow vaccinations to take effect A baby is given the first Rotavirus vaccine at 8 weeks, then at 4 months and again at 6 months.

    Now for arguments sake lets say that we have a prem baby. Let us take it a step further and say that baby was born at 24 weeks (which they can and survive). When that baby is given not just the rotavirus vaccine but also DtaP, HIB, PCV, IPV that child is actually minus 8 weeks old. Now I am sorry but I do no agree that a small, fragile baby who perhaps is clinging on to life should be given all these vaccines AS WELL as being deprived of breast milk.

    Please read up on the side effects that these vaccines can have.

    Here is a good site for you to begin at http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html

    Or you could read further articles and information on this site.

    You could try reading the book that I have just written with Dr Harold Buttram a world expert in Shaken Baby Syndrome and Cot Death. The book is called

    Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis – Are Parents Being Falsely Accused?

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Syndrome-Vaccine-Induced-Encephalitis-ebook/dp/B004OEKDMS

    I believe that very young babies are being given too many needless vaccines at a crucial time in their development. Many are given the Hep B at their birth.

    Christina England

  • guest

    Why is this article dishonestly comparing a study that says a vaccine to be effective should be given on an empty stomach to Drs in Pakistan getting a commission on formula sales.

    Read it, it isn’t saying one shouldn’t nurse at all until after this vaccine is given, it is saying rather, that one shouldn’t nursing in the time period immediately surrounding the administration of the vaccine.

    Vaccines might not be the best thing in the world,but, if you want to win people to your argument, use vaild arguments, not this dishonest comparison of 2 different things.

  • Court

    Are these people INSANE!! Do they really want third world women to NOT breastfeed their children from birth and forego all the positive things it can give them especially in their circumstances for the possible effect a vaccine would have? Not to mention that many of these women cannot afford the formula and end up water it down too much to make it last longer and often don’t even have clean water to mix the powder with!

  • http://www.facebook.com/lisaannhomic Lisa Ann Homic

    i disagree with the sentence that weak babies need vaccines more so . No baby should have vaccines. That’s like some people should drink a little gasoline, but not everybody.

  • http://vactruth.com Jeffry John Aufderheide

    Lisa, I agree – but I think that Christina was saying that tongue in cheek. She responded to another person that asked the same question.

  • Brihoopes

    I mostly agree with what you have said. I definitely don’t think this is a black and white issue. There is far too much gray. I am very conservative when it comes to vaccines, but I do think there is a place for them. I plan to delay all my next childs vaccines until the age of 5 except for the dtap (pertussis freaks me out). It does frustrate me when people say vaccines don’t work. There is a reason we don’t see polio anymore. My issue is that we are over vaccinating our kids. I know there are risks to chicken pox (there is risk with everything), but by pushing the varicella vaccine, older people are now getting shingles due to not being exposed to chicken pox as a sort of booster from children. So now Merck (sp?) is coming out with a shingles vaccine. It’s getting out of hand. I am married to a surgeon so I get an ear full of the medical side of things. However, he has been supportive with my choices for our children.

  • Anna watson

    The neonatal GI tract undergoes rapid growth and maturational change following birth
    o Infants have a functionally immature and immunonaive gut at birth
    o Tight junctions of the GI mucosa take many weeks to mature and close the
    gut to whole proteins and pathogens
    o Open junctions and immaturity play a role in the acquisition of NEC,
    diarrheal disease, and allergy
    o sIgA from colostrum and breast milk coats the gut, passively providing
    immunity during the time of reduced neonatal gut immune function
    o mothers’ sIgA is antigen specific. The antibodies are targeted against
    pathogens in the baby’s immediate surroundings
    o the mother synthesizes antibodies when she ingests, inhales, or otherwise
    comes in contact with a disease-causing microbe
    o these antibodies ignore useful bacteria normally found in the gut and ward
    off disease without causing inflammation

    More here…

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=just+one+bottle&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

  • Anna Watson

    Breast Milk is one part of building a strong natural immunity… added to a natural birth, good nutrition, especially until the age of 3, managing fever naturally, supporting childhood illness without resorting to unnecessary antibiotics, etc.

    I am part of a huge community of parents. These things are commonly known to us and experienced by our families and our children are healthy. Compared to complications with products like vaccines, antipyretics, antibiotics etc. ADRs are the 5th leading cause of death in Europe so it seems wise to question their use.

    Vaccines, to name one product, don’t have a benign placebo (it is another vaccine or less the antigen confirmed Prof David Salisbury to me personally) let alone a control group. The real safety studies are when they are used in the community. Unfortunately, the medical profession, do not have to report a ADR unless it it life threatening as vaccines are classed as established medicine. Parents are experiencing amazing unwanted effects but have no voice. Most do not know about self reporting to the MRSA.

    EBM (evidence based medicine) has three strands the ‘research’, the clinician’s ‘judgment’ and the patient’s ‘choice’. Please don’t forget the patient.

    2 million children are totally unvaccinated with the MMR and a further million have not finished the boosters. That is 25 % of under 16 year olds ‘un protected’ but the last death was in 1996 in an immune compromised boy. The maths does not add up. If you are frightened of the disease called Measles have the vaccine of course, as it seems that you are less likely to contract it, but if you are not frightened of the disease then is fear of death from measles really an option?

  • Christina England

    Dear Lisa

    I do apologise and will be more careful in future how I phrase sarcasim. I meant that by sick babies having the vaccines they boast profits long term for Big Pharma.

    For others who feel that vaccines have eradicated illness please see these importants videos where Dr Scheibner shows how these illnesses had declined well before vaccines. She is a very insightlful women and she has taught me so much.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC20RVbWc-E&feature=related

    Thank you so much Anna. You have explained everything so well and been very helpful to many I am sure.

    Christina

  • T2k

    Does it matter how long they saying to delay breastfeeding? Not to me I would not want to deny my baby his source of nourishment and comfort for any duration of time, at a young age. I don’t not use pacifiers or bottles b/c I am his comfort not inanimate objects. There is also the issue of not wanting my son to have the nasty stuff in formula. Beyond the fact that I am against vaccines this just goes against nature.

  • EcoMama

    Regarding vaccination this has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard!

    Aside from the sheer breathtaking stupidity of the suggestion, the researhers have plainly not done their homework: breastfeeding protects against symptoms of rotavirus and a baby infected with rotavirus while he/she is being breastfed derives immunity while suffering no symptoms!

    Generally, rotavirus gastroenteritis is a self-limiting, relatively mild disease. Reinfections are common but the severity of disease decreases with each subsequent infection; after a single infection, 40% of children are protected against any subsequent infection. As a result infection is almost always without symptoms after the age of five. Symptoms are rare in babies under three months of age and this is believed to be because of the protection conferred by maternal antibodies during pregnancy.
    Numerous studies have found that breastfeeding protects infants from rotavirus, by both reducing the incidence of infection and by reducing or completely obviating the symptoms. A study of rotavirus risk factors among children in England found that bottle feeding, even if the babies were breastfed as well, was a risk factor for rotavirus infection. Breastfeeding on its own was found to be protective.
    In an Italian study 10.6% of breastfed and 32.4% of non-breastfed infants contracted rotavirus. However, the most interesting result of this study was that “none of the breast-fed infants who contracted rotavirus infection developed diarrhoeic symptoms.” Breastfeeding completed protected the breastfed babies from diarrhoea!

  • Ilov2dance2010

    Breastfeeding is the best thing for babies! Vaccines, however, are not! I’ve been doing a lot of research about the vaccines and honestly, breastfed babies should not need any while they are so young! 

  • Ilov2dance2010

    Breastfeeding is the best thing for babies! Vaccines, however, are not! I’ve been doing a lot of research about the vaccines and honestly, breastfed babies should not need any while they are so young! 

  • http://twitter.com/nothingsmonstrd nothingsmonstered

    I think you misread the source. Inhibitory effect of breast milk on infectivity of live oral rotavirus vaccines.

    The study is looking at vaccines that aren’t working well in poor countries to see if an interaction with breast milk is causing the problem. The article concludes “Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.”

    The only CDC recommendations on vaccines and breast feeding that I see are about what vaccines are safe for pregnant and breast feeding women to take themselves.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lowell-Hubbs/1285214003 Lowell Hubbs

    Its as simple as this, the immune system is smart enough to recognize any foreign antigen or virus that does not belong there. If those said IgA antibodies exist in a mothers milk, they will in consumption and ingestion by the infant thus be incorporated within to help the immune system of the infant fight off what they yet have not acquired within the immune system the ability to do. 

    There is of course far more to the immune system in regard to this, than just  production of antibodies acquired through breast feeding. Those acquired antibodies through breast feeding would likely only be geared to recognition of a live natural virus, and not a vaccine derived antigen; nor to destruction of such as vaccine derived antibodies the infant thus may have started to produce. So, what goes on in this, that now the infants immune system is recognizing a foreign vaccine derived antigen and destroying it? Or in the alternative is preventing production of vaccine antigen derived antibodies? Which is it? Do they know? 

    As to vaccination, the fact is that in veterinary medicine, this phenomenon has been known of for at least the last 20 years. When I used to raise baby calves from a pail; they hopefully had consumed enough colostrum, and as purchased never seen their mother again. The veterinarian informed me of this when I purchased vaccines. I sent to the University of Minnesota Vet. School for the documentation studies, and sure enough it was true. So, why is this knowledge pertaining to human vaccines, that far behind? 

    Nature takes care of itself, quite obviously. The fact that we have you futurdoc claiming that vaccines are much better than mothers milk, and endorsing that; simply again shows how FAR we have fallen in our understanding of the God given creation of the human body. The amazing self healing body; given the right means.

    You need to realize just how many people are being pulled out of that failed and failed them again medical model you are entering, and how it is happening. You need to get honest, and you need to get real as to what is happening right in front of you; and why. That medical model was based and built on a false foundation that will never have any real cures; just more chronic disorders and disease. How did that happen. I know why; why don’t you know why? And you never will know why as long as you never seriously consider nor investigate the unbiased information and the real history of it all.

    Why do you think this exists right here, and you can not tell me that you do not think this is from a reputable source, because it is the same sources that you and most all doctors use to support vaccinations. 

    Alarming New Studies: 50% of U.S. Children Have Chronic Disease/Disorders, 21% Developmentally Disabledhttp://journal.livingfood.us/2011/05/26/alarming-new-studies-50-of-u-s-children-have-chronic-illnesses-21-developmentally-disabled/

    Here are few studies for you. You are actually interested in the peer reviewed science, correct?
    http://www.vacfacts.info/Show_Me_The_Proof_.html 

    Here is a little collection of information regarding unvaxed verses vaxed health.
    http://www.vacfacts.info/Unvaxed_vs_Vaxed_Health.html 

    How real health care is done. You have a choice.
    http://www.hacres.com/library/testimonies 

    http://www.maximizedliving.com/HealthEssentials.aspx