Setting up a delayed/Selective Vax Schedule - Page 4

[amnesiac]

I don't understand what you're saying, Kelly. Are you saying that maternal antibodies don't prevent the infant from developing his/her own? Or do you just mean that if they're repeatedly exposed enough times, eventually he/she will make his/her own as maternal antibodies decline?

[Plummeting]

I'm curious. CallMeIshmael, you said that after 6 months maternal antibodies won't help in case of a systemic illness, but isn't it true that as babies get older, breastmilk actually contains more antibodies? I read that as one of the benefits of extended breastfeeding, so I'm wondering what the point would be if the antibodies can't actually do anything. They're only killing the germs in the mouth and throat? I understand how that might prevent an infection from taking hold if it was stopped before it got further than that, but I have a hard time believing that's the only place antibodies in bmilk are doing any good. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.... I guess I don't really have a question and I'm obviously not as educated as you are on this, but I really have trouble believing it.

[KellyB]

Originally Posted by amnesiac

Or do you just mean that if they're repeatedly exposed enough times, eventually he/she will make his/her own as maternal antibodies decline?

Exactly.
Like the way it was with polio in the days before anyone knew it existed....everyone carried it, and no one got sick from it because they developed immunity while breastfeeding.
It was when sanitation improved and people were no longer exposed numerous times in infancy that it became a problem.

[CallMeIshmael]

Originally Posted by Richelle

I'm curious. CallMeIshmael, you said that after 6 months maternal antibodies won't help in case of a systemic illness, but isn't it true that as babies get older, breastmilk actually contains more antibodies? I read that as one of the benefits of extended breastfeeding, so I'm wondering what the point would be if the antibodies can't actually do anything. They're only killing the germs in the mouth and throat? I understand how that might prevent an infection from taking hold if it was stopped before it got further than that, but I have a hard time believing that's the only place antibodies in bmilk are doing any good. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.... I guess I don't really have a question and I'm obviously not as educated as you are on this, but I really have trouble believing it.

Richelle: I too had a hard time accepting that as well, so I looked into it a little more. And from what I can tell, it's correct that breastmilk antibodies stay outside the bloodstream, but they still have a very important function. Turns out that the primary form of antibody in breastmilk is something called sIgA -- in fact, this type of antibody is found in all secretions including tears. Everything I've read suggests that they can't enter the circulation -- they're protein, and in order to reach the circulation, proteins have to be chopped up and escorted by amino-acid specific transporters (otherwise they'd be recognized as foreign and subjected to an immune response).

But even though they seem not to enter the systemic circulation, IgA antibodies do a really good job at preventing infection. Their molecular structure makes them particularly resistant to degredation by stomach acid and intestinal enzymes, so they can potentially end up lining the mouth, throat, respiratory tract, and intestines. Since most common infections enter the body through the respiratory or GI tract, sIgA antibodies really do serve a hugely important barrier function. So I mispoke when I said that their major effect wore off after six months. It looks as if their primary function is as barrier antibodies from the get-go -- and clearly they do a very good job of it, since there's plenty of data showing that breastfed babies get fewer infections.

By contrast, the antibodies that cross the placenta into the baby's bloodstream are IgG. These hang out for a few months in steadily decreasing amounts, and the supply should be mostly gone by the time baby's a year old -- but by then, his or her immune system should be churning out its own antibodies to knock out anything that got past the sIgA barrier or found another way in.

Does that make sense?

But antibodies are only part of the story anyway. There's a whole lot of other good stuff in breastmilk as well. Amnesiac recently pointed me toward a study showing that breastmilk contains "friendly bacteria" -- they seem to be envoys from the colonies that live in our milk ducts (!!!!!!) So breastfed babies will develop a different set of GI flora from formula fed babies. Protective? It's a good bet. And who knows how many immune-boosting chemicals are in breastmilk, especially when there's an infection around. All the more reason to breastfeed as long as possible (my daughter and I will be coming up on a year in a few weeks, and we'll keep on going. Thank heavens for Medela.)

[CallMeIshmael]

[kellyb]First of all, Ishmael, I have the deepest of respects for you.
So I, in no way, want to contradict whatever you believe.

That's lovely. It's very nice to have a civil discussion about these issues.

As I see it, ideally, the breastfed child will come into contact with whatever pathogen numerous times, as will his or her mother, and after several exposers to said pathogen, the breastfed child will become virtually immune, with rare exception.

forgive me, my brain is very slow at this time of night, and I can't quite figure out what the issue is to which you're referring.

Just to clarify, I see the role of transplacental antibodies as providing excellent temporary protection as a baby's immune system develops and body gets stronger. And breastmilk antibodies do seem to provide ongoing, adaptable, renewable barrier protection -- but ultimately, neither one confers permanent immunity. A baby's immune system has to do that itself.

And yes, I agree that it's a problem -- potentially a very major one -- that we're not routinely exposed to common childhood illness and other pathogens. There's evidence that the immune system needs to practice fighting off the bad guys early in the game in order to work right. If it doesn't get that chance, it may get bored or confused and start attacking thing like pollen or dust mites (--> allergies and asthma), or worse, itself (--> autoimmune conditions.) And for whatever reason, "childhood" diseases can be much more severe in adults who missed out on them when they were kids.

So, would you say, should we all try to expose ourselves and our children as often as possible to illneses we, as mothers, know we might be able to give our children immunity to?

In all honesty, I think it's not a bad idea! There are certain illnesses that I'd prefer my daughter not be exposed to, because I've seen that they can have nasty (albeit rare) consequences. I'd put whooping cough, measles, even flu in that category. But I don't seek to protect her from garden variety upper respiratory infections -- not that I'm actively looking for sniffly kids to drip on her or anything, but I'm not locking her up either. And more importantly (to me), I don't try to sterilize her environment. No antibacterial soaps in the house. If she drops a chunk of rice cake on the floor and wants to pick it up and eat it, that's generally OK (depending on the state of the floor!) And so far so good -- the two weeks of bronchitis and sinus misery that I just got over was nothing more than a day or two of sniffles for her. Maybe I need to start eating rice cakes off the floor as well.

Good night!

[KellyB]

I was thinking of chicken pox, but really, it would apply to the really nasty illnesses, as well...
But suppose mom's immune to the chicken pox, and both mom and child spend a day with a kid that has it.
Now the child's immune system meets the chicken pox for the first time, and starts figuring out how to kill it.
Now, it might appear that neither mom nor child "get" the CP, but really, they both did...and while it was mom's antibodies that won the war before it began, the child's immune system learned a lesson or 2 at the same time.
Now suppose 6 months later they do the same thing all over again.
This exposure will act like a booster.
And if regular exposures are periodically available for the rest of the child's life, then we have a scenario for the most probable immunity God or man can provide.
That is the way it works (and did work with Polio, amongst other diseases in the past)
isn't it, or am I missing some big chunk of the equation?

[CallMeIshmael]

No kelly, I don't think you're missing a big chunk of the equation -- it's a pretty convincing scenario.

Problem is, for better or for worse, our world has moved away from that model. Vaccines (in my mind) get part of the credit/blame for reducing the incidence rates of "classic" childhood diseases -- but what takes their place?

[Plummeting]

Your explanation makes perfect sense, CallMeIshmael. Thank you.

[feyfollow]

HI, I know it's been beaten to death here, but I want to comment on the Hep B discussion. I am a paramedic by trade, or as I like to call is underpaid doormat . We are exposed to ALOT in the field, and I do not have the advantage of a stable enviorment, such as a hospital, to work in. I also have to say that I have been exposed to ALL of the Heps (even ones that I've never heard of), HIV, measles, shingles, and Goddess knows what else in the back of that giant infectious box on wheels . I can tell you without a doubt, I have not gotten any of it! I also had been vaxxed for Heb B 5x, and still no immunity(before I found out how horrible vaxxes are). I was vaxxed as a child for the usual for my age at the time, MMR, DTP, OPV, and I contracted chicken pox the good old fashioned way. I had a titre done when I was around 23 to see what I actually had antibodies for. Here goes, NONE OF IT except mumps (had it) and chicken pox! So, I am one of those "odd" humans (so my doc told me) that doesn't get antibodies from vaccines. I asked about them wearing off, and he looked at me like I had another boob. Oh, I was a formula baby too. I DO NOT have Hep B, C, or HIV(tested every year). I have been spit on, thrown up on, and bled on. I am a nut when it comes to cleaning myself up after calls, and I see even modern day nurses touching people and surfaces ALL of the time w/o gloves. I also know that in the hospitals I work in, very few of the healthcare workers have Hep B. Everyone would know, because hospitals are nothing more than hen houses with the overbearing gossip.

The disease that is starting to run rampant among healthcare workers is Hep C, and since they have no vaccine for it, they are not blowing that out of proportion. It is a horrible disease that my Dad picked up in Vietnam, and I'm sure it was from herd vaccinations! OSHA is still preaching to everyone that Hep C is passed through bodily fluids other than blood. If that were the case, my entire family would have it :

I adopted my son here, and I am looking into Eastern Europe/Asia for our next DC. HEP B is in the orphange population, but most of the children are carriers from their mother, and it is NOT as rampant as they make is sound. If so, then I would hear it from all of the mothers on the adoption boards I belong to (approx. 20,000 members strong). I guess I am just ranting, but if HEP B is out of control in Eastern Europe, more so than Asia(AIDS is on the rise there), it is because depressed economics are turning people to drugs, and they can't seem to get the hint to keep it in your pants, or cover the darned thing up! (oh wait, it ould be because none of them are circ'd ). Sorry my bit of sarcasm for the day.

BTW, I cannot lactate for my son no matter how hard I try. I was told that 4oz of donor milk/day should be enough to keep him healthy, but does it change as they get older? I cannot afford to do much more, as it costs us $325/25 days, and insurance will not pay for any of it!

Okay, sorry so long I just wanted to give my view on the entire thing, and maybe have a question answered.


PS-I forgot to add, I had Pertussis last year. We narrowed it down to a child I transported to the hospital that had recenlt been vaxxed!!! I was a vaxxed for that too .

[KellyB]

PS-I forgot to add, I had Pertussis last year. We narrowed it down to a child I transported to the hospital that had recenlt been vaxxed!!! I was a vaxxed for that too .

But I thought the DPT used a "dead" virus?
I thought those types weren't contagious...?

Originally Posted by Ishmael

Problem is, for better or for worse, our world has moved away from that model. Vaccines (in my mind) get part of the credit/blame for reducing the incidence rates of "classic" childhood diseases -- but what takes their place?

That's the question, isn't it?
One method would be to try to purposly expose yourself and your child to as many diseases as you could as often as possible while still nursing...but that just sounds a little weird.
Also, it's hard to know what you definitely still have anti-bodies for, so that method could go horribly wrong.
So really, I just don't know.
I'd probably go with the "intent to expose" method in the second year if I was still nursing (I was dumb and let it end too early).
Pertussis is common, so that's an easy one, the MMR vax is live, so that's an easy one, too...just hang out with recently vaxed kids...tetanus is everywhere, so I'm thinking before they're 3 they should naturally come into contact with this one quite a bit.
And those are the only ones you really have to worry about, anyway.
But really, I don't know...

[feyfollow]

[QUOTE=kellyb]But I thought the DPT used a "dead" virus?
I thought those types weren't contagious...?


Although the virus is dead, you are still compromising your immune system with every vaccine you put into your body. This child had a cold, went to her doctor for her 6 mos shots. Almost 2 weeks later, I transported her to the hospital with that tell tale cough.

3 days later, by law, the hospital notified me that I had been exposed to Pertussis. The nurse was kind enough to tell me that they were actually beginning to see a small outbreak of it with the youger kids first, and now the health care workers. I think it was about 2 weeks later, I was cooking dinner, and starting coughing. Okay, it was a normal cough (I had been fighting off the usual creepy crud myself), but by the next morning it was that damned tell tale cough. I just thought wonderful, now I have Whooping Cough! Well, since it's so contagious, I got to take a few shifts off of work, and go to the doc. She also told me she was seeing alot of children under 1 year and adults in their 20's/30's with it. The older adults weren't reporting any cases of it. Wonder why ? I don't think anyone ever reported it as an outbreak, because we never heard about it. Then again, high tourist area, they may have just kept it quiet.

Again, although the virus they put into you is a dead one, the child getting vaxxed now has a compromised immune system. The DTaP was only one of, oh what is it 6, vaccines she had received that day. So how hard did her immune system have to work along with trying to her through her cold? How hard would if have been able to work if they actually come into contact with an adult/child that has the disease they were vaxxed for? I know I babble , but I do get to hear about things the the general public would not always hear about otherwise..HTH