or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Scientists Say to Delay Breastfeeding to 'Improve' Vaccine Potency
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scientists Say to Delay Breastfeeding to 'Improve' Vaccine Potency - Page 2

post #21 of 55
Thread Starter 

Big Pharma already cornered the market here.  Hell China is even looking into it.  MONEY!  Say what you will. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

"Heres a good idea:  why not do a study of only USA infants, rather than including/comparing to a  3rd world country, who's living conditions dont even come close to ours?" 

 

Because the issue they're looking at is how to improve the vaccine efficacy in infants in 3rd world countries.



 

post #22 of 55
 

www.pediatricsupersite.com

 

No word here about a short time elemination of breastfeeding: "Infants who are breast-fed may mount less of an immune response against rotavirus after vaccination compared with infants who are exclusively formula-fed."

 

Edited to bold the important.


Edited by boomer78 - 1/22/12 at 2:54pm
post #23 of 55
Thread Starter 

There is a lot of contradictory information out there.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer78 View Post

 

www.pediatricsupersite.com

 

No word here about a short time elemination of breastfeeding: "Infants who are breast-fed may mount less of an immune response against rotavirus after vaccination compared with infants who are exclusively formula-fed."



 

post #24 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imakcerka View Post

 

No differences
in vaccine efficacy were noted between mothers who self-reported
breastfeeding, compared with those who did not.
 
 

Bolding mine.

 

Don't they realize it makes an ENORMOUS difference whether the babies were completely breastfed or fed some formula/water (probably tainted) or anything else?????  It's like the researchers are purposely setting this up for an outcome of "formula feeding makes vaccines work better."

post #25 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer78 View Post

 

www.pediatricsupersite.com

 

No word here about a short time elemination of breastfeeding: "Infants who are breast-fed may mount less of an immune response against rotavirus after vaccination compared with infants who are exclusively formula-fed."


No word about the fact that infants who are breast-fed not NEEDING rotavirus vaccination, either.

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/01/breastfeeding-protects-against.html

 

“Rotavirus vaccine cuts deaths of Mexican babies from diarrhoea by 40%," states a January, 2010, British Medical Journal headline summarizing two studies.(1) Yet, a study of Brazilian children finds that exclusive breastfeeding cuts diarrhea cases in this similarly developing nation by a whopping 90% (1 / 9.41), versus a diet of formula and/or other foods.(2)

A study on the cost of breastfeeding promotion programs for Brazil and Mexico accounted a 30 to 40 cent cost per birth for breastfeeding promotion programs.(3) The vaccine costs $190 for a series of 3 oral Rotovirus doses. The vaccine also leads to a substantial increase in cases of intussusception, a dangerous intestinal condition where part of the intestine folds in, inside itself. Treatment costs and lives lost from this side effect of the vaccine should be considered as well.

 

post #26 of 55

 

"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 in breast 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."

They've just proved that BREASTMILK DESTROYS THE VIRUS IN QUESTION. Basically, they've just proved that breastfed babies don't need the rotavirus vaccine in the first place.

post #27 of 55

Hm, it has not been my experience that breast milk is the only thing that goes into a breastfed baby's mouth. My baby puts his fingers, everybody else's fingers, anything and everything he finds on the floor, etc., straight into his mouth. I think that is pretty typical of babies. Depending on a baby's environment, I can see how even an EBF kid could easily be exposed to rotavirus.

 

Look, nobody is trying to get mothers to stop breastfeeding, at least through this line of research. Let's put the torches and pitchforks away.

post #28 of 55
Thread Starter 

Seriously?  You have to realize that big companies always have and always will take advantage of 3rd world countries.  I'll keep my pitch fork out thank you.eyesroll.gif
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Hm, it has not been my experience that breast milk is the only thing that goes into a breastfed baby's mouth. My baby puts his fingers, everybody else's fingers, anything and everything he finds on the floor, etc., straight into his mouth. I think that is pretty typical of babies. Depending on a baby's environment, I can see how even an EBF kid could easily be exposed to rotavirus.

 

Look, nobody is trying to get mothers to stop breastfeeding, at least through this line of research. Let's put the torches and pitchforks away.



 

post #29 of 55


My thought exactly. I should have bolded some words. Some were arguing that the first article only mentioned a SHORT TIME break in bf. The one I posted clearly states breastfed vs. exclusively formula fed. I feel like GSK is paving its path of destruction some more by forcing moms in some countries to not bf at all or to eliminate it. Of course I could be wrong. I'm sincerely hoping I am.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


No word about the fact that infants who are breast-fed not NEEDING rotavirus vaccination, either.

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/01/breastfeeding-protects-against.html

 

“Rotavirus vaccine cuts deaths of Mexican babies from diarrhoea by 40%," states a January, 2010, British Medical Journal headline summarizing two studies.(1) Yet, a study of Brazilian children finds that exclusive breastfeeding cuts diarrhea cases in this similarly developing nation by a whopping 90% (1 / 9.41), versus a diet of formula and/or other foods.(2)

A study on the cost of breastfeeding promotion programs for Brazil and Mexico accounted a 30 to 40 cent cost per birth for breastfeeding promotion programs.(3) The vaccine costs $190 for a series of 3 oral Rotovirus doses. The vaccine also leads to a substantial increase in cases of intussusception, a dangerous intestinal condition where part of the intestine folds in, inside itself. Treatment costs and lives lost from this side effect of the vaccine should be considered as well.

 



 

post #30 of 55

That's exactly what I thought when I had read it. Breast milk, being as wonderful as it is, destroys the virus and takes care of what should not be in the body in the first place (and without the need of toxic chemicals). 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

"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 in breast 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."

They've just proved that BREASTMILK DESTROYS THE VIRUS IN QUESTION. Basically, they've just proved that breastfed babies don't need the rotavirus vaccine in the first place.



 

post #31 of 55



Katie8681 - And that's exactly why breast milk is so beneficial. Just one drop contains about one million white blood cells, germ eaters. On top of it IgA coats the the lining of babies' intestines, preventing germs from attacking.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

Hm, it has not been my experience that breast milk is the only thing that goes into a breastfed baby's mouth. My baby puts his fingers, everybody else's fingers, anything and everything he finds on the floor, etc., straight into his mouth. I think that is pretty typical of babies. Depending on a baby's environment, I can see how even an EBF kid could easily be exposed to rotavirus.

 

Look, nobody is trying to get mothers to stop breastfeeding, at least through this line of research. Let's put the torches and pitchforks away.



 

post #32 of 55

And yet, EBF babies DO get sick. Yes, they get sick less often than babies who are not exclusively breastfed, and/or not breastfed at all, especially in developing countries. That does not mean they don't get sick and die of diarrhea caused by rotavirus. If you do a quick google scholar search on rotavirus and breastfeeding, the research is conflicting about how much protection bf'ing provides against that particular illness. Second, the kind of immunity breastfeeding supplies is not long-lasting. It doesn't cause the body to develop memory T-and B-cells. The vaccine does, so it goes on protecting the child through the 0-5 years when people are most vulnerable to rotavirus.  

post #33 of 55
Thread Starter 

Never said they don't. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

And yet, EBF babies DO get sick. Yes, they get sick less often than babies who are not exclusively breastfed, and/or not breastfed at all, especially in developing countries. That does not mean they don't get sick and die of diarrhea caused by rotavirus. If you do a quick google scholar search on rotavirus and breastfeeding, the research is conflicting about how much protection bf'ing provides against that particular illness. Second, the kind of immunity breastfeeding supplies is not long-lasting. It doesn't cause the body to develop memory T-and B-cells. The vaccine does, so it goes on protecting the child through the 0-5 years when people are most vulnerable to rotavirus.  

 

 

 

 

post #34 of 55
 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

"Heres a good idea:  why not do a study of only USA infants, rather than including/comparing to a  3rd world country, who's living conditions dont even come close to ours?" 

 

Because the issue they're looking at is how to improve the vaccine efficacy in infants in 3rd world countries.


then why did they use American moms and compare us with 3rd world countries?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20442687

 

 

Quote:
Breast milk samples were collected from mothers who were breast-feeding infants 4 to 29 weeks of age (ie, vaccine eligible age) in India (N = 40), Vietnam (N = 77), South Korea (N = 34), and the United States (N = 51). We examined breast milk for rotavirus-specific IgA and neutralizing activity against 3 rotavirus vaccine strains-RV1, RV5 G1, and 116E using enzyme immunoassays. The inhibitory effect of breast milk on RV1 was further examined by a plaque reduction assay.

 

 

post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

 

 

Look, nobody is trying to get mothers to stop breastfeeding, at least through this line of research. Let's put the torches and pitchforks away.

oh really??
 

 

 

 

http://www.breastfeeding.com/advocacy/advocacy_doctors_get_commissions.html

Quote:
Pakistani Doctors get Commission for recommending Formula

 

 

post #36 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

 The vaccine does, so it goes on protecting the child through the 0-5 years when people are most vulnerable to rotavirus.  


You are assuming the vaccine works as purported...that is not always the case. 

 

post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

But breastfed babies are far less likely to GET rotavirus in the first place, which is spread via contaminated feces.  And the best way to rehydrate an infant is with breast milk. 

 

I fear this is simply a marketing ploy of the pharmaceutical/formula industry.  Formula has no place in third-world countries anyway, where it is likely to be mixed with tainted water (likely the primary source of rotavirus in the first place) and improperly watered down to last longer.


I think we forget that breastfeeding is harder in 3rd world countries. The conditions are different. There is no running water and hydration is in a well or a creek one mile away. Go and carry in a couple of canisters, easy enough! Food is scarce, great nutrition is hard to get. (I was watching a documentary recently about the research on nutrition during pregnancy - the clinic gave out food and supplements to pregnant women and it had to be consumed right there, or the women would take it home to give to kids and never eat any of it.) Working in the fields, "homesteading" (in pre-industrial sense, like cutting crops with a small scythe and grinding grain with stones), taking care of the rest of the family and kids, all take a toll. It's not just sitting there with a perfectly stocked fridge and a Boppy pillow.

 

So if breastfeeding ends too soon or the supply is low, those babies need all the protection they can get from food borne diseases.


Edited by DoubleDouble - 1/23/12 at 4:31am
post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

And yet, EBF babies DO get sick. Yes, they get sick less often than babies who are not exclusively breastfed, and/or not breastfed at all, especially in developing countries. That does not mean they don't get sick and die of diarrhea caused by rotavirus. If you do a quick google scholar search on rotavirus and breastfeeding, the research is conflicting about how much protection bf'ing provides against that particular illness. Second, the kind of immunity breastfeeding supplies is not long-lasting. It doesn't cause the body to develop memory T-and B-cells. The vaccine does, so it goes on protecting the child through the 0-5 years when people are most vulnerable to rotavirus.  

 

Trying to use vaccines to prevent third world children from dying is just a bandaid solution; the kids aren't dying because they have poor access to vaccines, they're dying because they have poor access to good food, clean water, and basic healthcare (such as rehydration salts), leaving them vulnerable to things that they would otherwise be able to handle.  Rotavirus is just one of many, many things that they are vulnerable to, and breatmilk provides some protection against most of them, including malnutrition, while the vaccines only protect against a few very specific things.  So I agree with the other posters who are concerned that this study could do more damage than good, as it could result in lower breasfeeding rates, thereby undermining any possible benefits from the vaccine.

 

 

 


 

 

post #39 of 55

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5512a1.htm

 

 

 

Quote:
Prevention of Rotavirus Gastroenteritis Among Infants and Children

 

post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDouble View Post


I think we forget that breastfeeding is harder in 3rd world countries. The conditions are different. There is no running water and hydration is in a well or a creek one mile away. Go and carry in a couple of canisters, easy enough! Food is scarce, great nutrition is hard to get. (I was watching a documentary recently about the research on nutrition during pregnancy - the clinic gave out food and supplements to pregnant women and it had to be consumed right there, or the women would take it home to give to kids and never eat any of it.) Working in the fields, "homesteading" (in pre-industrial sense, like cutting crops with a small scythe and grinding grain with stones), taking care of the rest of the family and kids, all take a toll. It's not just sitting there with a perfectly stocked fridge and a Boppy pillow.

 

So if breastfeeding ends too soon or the supply is low, those babies need all the protection they can get from food borne diseases.



 

So what water, exactly, do you think they would be using to mix formula?  Do you think these women would have enough money to mix the formula exactly as instructed, or might they water it down (with more tainted water, of course) to make it last longer?  Or do you think it would be affordable and practical for them to buy (and carry for miles, without a car) pre-mixed formula?

 

You do know, don't you, that, just like in the US, formula companies give free samples to new mums?  And that they give just enough to make sure that lactation is hindered, thereby creating a "need" for the formula?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Scientists Say to Delay Breastfeeding to 'Improve' Vaccine Potency