CDC Advises Delayed Breastfeeding To Boost Vaccine Efficacy

Ten researchers from the CDC’s National Centers for Immunization and Respiratory Disease (NCIRD) released a paper arguing that because the immune-boosting effects of breastmilk inhibit the effects of the live oral rotavirus vaccine, nursing mothers should delay breastfeeding their infants.

This, dear readers, is the kind of convoluted logic that permeates the pharmaceutical industry. To be fair, the paper does not recommend that mothers stop breastfeeding, merely that they delay nursing at the time that the vaccine is administered. It also says that other avenues for boosting the vaccine’s efficacy should be explored.

Honestly, I don’t care how nuanced their recommendation is. Do they not realize what they have stumbled upon? In demonstrating that breastmilk counters the live vaccine, they’ve shown that breastmilk counters the virus.

A live vaccine contains a weakened form of the virus that causes the disease. The idea is that by presenting the weakened virus to your body, your immune system will develop an immune response to the virus sufficient to help you fight off a more virulent attack of the virus later. In other words, when your body is fighting off the live virus, it is effectively fighting off the virus itself, just in smaller quantities.

If breastmilk’s immune-boosting properties fight-off the live vaccine, then that means that breastmilk is fighting off the virus itself (just in smaller quantities).

Yet instead of recommending that the best way to fight this disease in infants is to encourage mothers to breastfeed, they’re recommending that mothers refrain from breastfeeding so that the vaccine can work!

I’m troubled by the underlying assumptions these researchers are making. They’re assuming, for example, that the vaccine should be used regardless of its efficacy. They’re assuming that the vaccine is better for the baby than breastfeeding. They’re assuming that the vaccine is safe.

Or, perhaps they’re not assuming any of those things. They are single-minded scientists after all. Their sole goal in this paper seems to simply be to measure the inhibitory effects of breast milk on the vaccine. They compared the breastmilk from mothers in India, South Korea, Vietnam, and the U.S. Indian mothers had the most potent breastmilk in fighting the vaccine, while U.S. moms had the weakest.

(I wonder if that’s because of our poor diets of overly-processed, industrialized food?)

I think it’s interesting to note that the researchers aren’t asking about what’s best for the baby. The question they have in mind is quite focused: just how much does breastmilk neutralize the vaccine?

Arguably, it’s a win for nursing mothers everywhere since it proves just how effective breastmilk can be!

And yet, these researchers didn’t stop there. They took their snazzy results and had the audacity to call them a “negative effect” of breastfeeding.

Clearly, they have one goal in mind: to sell more vaccines.

And therein lies the rub. The pharmaceutical industry could care less about actual health and wellness. After all, if you are healthy, they don’t make any money off of you. It is in their financial best interests for you to be perpetually sick.

I doubt that these researchers sat in their break room clad in black leather, sipping spiked coffee sporting evil grins as they plotted about how to take over the world. Most likely, they’re family folk feeling quite proud about the fact that they are developing vaccines to use in poor, undeveloped countries.

And yet despite their noble intentions, they can’t see how their assumptions influenced their recommendations. For if they were truly all about the health of the baby, they’d look at their findings and recommend that more women breastfeed. Or they’d look at their findings and ask why Indian breastmilk is so much more effective than American breastmilk, then start creating studies to unpack all the implications of that.

But who would fund those kinds of studies? Surely not the drug companies who are creating and selling vaccines? Surely not the universities who are also funded by grants from those same drug companies? Surely not the U.S. government which also receives large sums of money (as well as employees) from those same drug companies?

Nobody would fund those kinds of studies. (And that’s why they’re not done.)

It’s been said that good health makes a lot of sense, but it doesn’t make a lot of dollars.

Too true, that. Too true.

(photo by malglam)

Print Friendly


  1. says

    Yeah, this had me pretty steamed, too. When I posted the info on Facebook, some folks suggested that if they were asking mothers not to breastfeed for a couple of hours, that wasn’t so bad. I don’t agree, as breastfeeding is a form of comfort as well as nutrition. Also, if you look at the related paper this study references, they discuss how colostrum inhibits the vaccine even more, which to me suggests that they are implying that babies forgo colostrum in order to make vaccines more effective, which is just completely nuts.

  2. Julie D. says

    Please cite where in the study the researchers recommend that “nursing mothers should delay breastfeeding their infants.” I see them saying that “Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.” There is a huge difference between recommending something and saying that something be evaluated.

    • says

      Thanks Julie, this article from the title to the content is misleading. ‎”Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.” This means the paper recommended further evaluation of delayed breast milk feeding as a means to support the findings of the study. The paper never tries to recommend anything and Food Renegade is trying to drum up controversy to gain readership. In fact the study if brought to conclusion could be a step in the direction of supporting breast feeding for the reasons the article mentions. In fact, to date, the CDC still advises to continue breast milk feeding and encourages it in it’s General Recommendations on Immunization.

      • PLW says

        Yes! Yes! Yes! This blog post is terrible because it completely misinterprets the article and its context. This is not a recommendation, it is a scientific article trying to understand why a vaccine doesn’t seem to work in some contexts. Given what they have found, they suggest that future trials should be conducted to better understand the problem. I figured you guys would be all over research to better understand the interaction between breastfeeding and viral infections.

        • KristenM says

          Did I not make this clear when I said, “Their sole goal in this paper seems to simply be to measure the inhibitory effects of breast milk on the vaccine. They compared the breastmilk from mothers in India, South Korea, Vietnam, and the U.S. Indian mothers had the most potent breastmilk in fighting the vaccine, while U.S. moms had the weakest.”

          How is that misinterpreting the study? I simply choose to take offense at the recommendations at the end of the study — at the questions the researchers AREN’T asking. Why, when presented with such proof that breastmilk inhibits the virus, do they interpret that as a “negative effect” of breastmilk rather than something worth more investigation? Why don’t they try to figure out how to improve breastmilk’s efficacy against the virus, rather than how to improve the vaccine’s efficacy by delaying breastfeeding? They take some neat information and ask all the wrong questions about it — questions skewed by the agenda of vaccine manufacturers.

          • Valerie says

            Why, when presented with such proof that breastmilk inhibits the virus, do they interpret that as a “negative effect” of breastmilk rather than something worth more investigation?

            They are not saying that breastmilk is, in and of itself, negative, or that breastmilk has a negative effect in general. Their study wanted to find out why the vaccine was less effective in developing countries, and they found out that it was because breastmilk in those developing countries had higher antibody levels. Higher antibody levels in the breastmilk meant that the breastmilk had a negative effect on the vaccine. The term, as used in this paper, has a very specific meaning that you are either ignorant of or are willfully misinterpreting to suit your preconceived notions.

            The paper doesn’t recommend anything in terms of practical advice for mothers. It is a report on their findings with recommendations on how to further frame studies based on those findings, which is exactly what you’re criticizing them for not doing.

            Let me summarize their summary so that its meaning can be clearly understood:
            Hey! We wondered why rotavirus oral vaccine wasn’t working as well in developing countries, so we looked at the breastmilk in those countries and found out that it is pretty awesome at fighting rotavirus by itself! If we want to see all the implications of this information, studies should probably be done where we have some moms with this super milk wait a little while between the vaccine and their baby’s next feed, just to see what happens.

            Nowhere in that paper is there any mention of public health recommendations on any level, so your headline is completely incorrect. This is an article on PubMed, which is intended for students and researchers so they can stay abreast of recent developments and see recent findings to guide their own research. You deliberately, with your headline, make it seem like the CDC sent out a notice to hospitals yesterday saying NO MORE BREASTFEEDING BECAUSE PFIZER SAID SO!

            • KristenM says

              Actually, the paper *does* recommend that mothers wait at least an hour after vaccinating their kids to breastfeed. It then suggests that varying times should be further investigated to see if they are more or less efficacious.

              I am sorry that you don’t like my headline, but I am limited by space. This one is already about 15 characters longer than I like mine to usually be. While some bloggers won’t have a problem with a headline that reads “Researchers in a recent CDC report find breastmilk inhibits rotovirus vaccine and recommend delaying breastfeeding to increase the vaccine’s efficacy”, I do. Writing headlines is difficult because I must balance confined space with enough substance to get readers to actually click through to the article. I also have to make sure the title is keyword rich so that it shows up in searches when readers want to come back to it later, or when new readers want to know my opinion on the subject. Balancing a tidy length with keywords and enough message to get people to click is a precarious endeavor indeed! The headline is not meant to convey actual information or my opinion. (That’s why I write a whole post and not just headlines!) It’s meant to get people to click through to read the post. I apologize if you find some of them misleading, but I do the best I can with what I’ve got.

          • says

            “Why don’t they try to figure out how to improve breastmilk’s efficacy against the virus, rather than how to improve the vaccine’s efficacy by delaying breastfeeding?”

            Because people don’t breastfeed forever, and even if you are breastfeeding its better to have two protections (the vaccine and breastfeeding) than just one.

            • KristenM says

              It is true that people don’t breastfeed forever! What does that have to do with anything? If a mom has natural immunity to a disease, she passes it on to her baby in her breastmilk. So, why not wait to vaccine until babies are no longer breastfeeding and have actually developed an immune system strong enough to respond to the vaccine?

              When Japan delayed all vaccines until children were at least 2 years old, they were much more successful at getting the vaccines to “take” (needing less booster shots to create “immunity”). They also eliminated almost all cases of SIDS (interesting coincidence, huh?).

              • Dreiske Arnold says

                I exclusively breastfed my son for 7.5 months. Breastmilk continued to make up the major part of his nutrition for his first year. He still got rotovirus. Scariest time in my life, watching my almost-lifeless son vomit for six straight days. Breastfed babies still get rotovirus. Please don’t tell people otherwise.

                • Daniee says

                  I don’t believe KristenM is stating kids still can’t get the diseases. In the study, it did show milk from other countries seemed to be more effective. Perhaps, in Japan, the case is the same, and we need to investigate why milk here isn’t as effective.

            • says

              Nicholas – as with many other vaccine-preventable illnesses, Rotavirus is an example of one that is only severe in the first year or two of life. If one plans to breastfeed their child during this stage and doesn’t put the child into daycare, then I can see why some people choose not to administer this vaccine. Also, I would agree with your comment about it being “better to have 2 protections,” if only the vaccine were simply another protection. But the unfortunate reality is that Rotavirus vaccine is not entirely risk-free. For one thing, it contains some controversial ingredients, like monkey kidney cells and fetal cow blood, which some believe could introduce other infectious diseases. Also, there are a number of documented side effects that were discovered during the clinical trials of this vaccine. Sure, the probability of having one of these side effects is low, but hopefully you can see why some people choose not to double-up on their protections after evaluating the full risk/reward equation.

          • Susie says

            It is misleading and inflammatory because the TITLE OF YOUR POST in YOUR OWN WORDS says “CDC Advises Delayed Breastfeeding To Boost Vaccine Efficacy”.

            The CDC DOES NOT advise any such thing. In fact, the actual CDC recommendations pertaining to the vaccine in question say just the opposite.

            One can open a dialogue about the implications of this paper without sensatioalizing it.

            I am disappointed in seeing how REAL FOOD advocates, whom I respect deeply and from whom I have learned so much, resort to tactics like this. It is no different than real milk detractors writing about the horrors of infection from raw milk without ever actually looking raw milk’s safety record.

            The credibility of the whole movement–at least for me—is at stake. I’m a WAPF member but if this kind of material keeps pouring out of the community, I will no longer be part of it because I won’t be able to trust the science any more than that of the medical-agricultural-industrial complex.

            Do not become what you battle.

            • KristenM says

              Hi Susie,

              Please see my response to Valerie above to understand how and why I title my posts the way I do. I am sorry that you don’t like how I title my posts. You are always free to stop reading.

          • Bayley says

            Thank you so much, Kristen. I follow you on Facebook and while I find you to be groovy, I also find you to be informed, informative and most importantly, without alterior motives.
            I recently made the decision to adobt the no shots, no way policy for my children, and it’s because of this kind of stuff. It’s my children’s lives; it’s these people’s jobs.
            I have a degree in marketing and marketing materials are all I found on The CDC website.

    • KristenM says

      The study actually does recommend waiting at least an hour after administering the oral vaccine to breastfeed. What they implied needed further study was the exact time frame necessary to have the desired effect (Would 20 minutes be sufficient? How about 30? Would it be more effective to wait even longer — say several hours?).

  3. Kevin says

    Vaccines still have the dubious measure of bypassing all of the body’s normal channels of pathogen/viral/bacterial defenses which is one of its main detractions (not to mention from a toxicological perspective all of the NASTY adjuvants used to evoke a “proper” immune response will be directly resulting the in immune dysfunction mainly via damage to the CNS) Vaccines are, will be, and will always be of questionable to outright worthless value… immune competency is much more effective without being enslaved to the pharmacuetical paradigm.

    • says

      Vaccines actually use the body’s immune system. It doesn’t bypass the defenses, instead it stimulates them. Although it is a valid possibility, that it might not come up with as strong set of antibodies as a natural infection would.

      • says

        My understanding is that the immune response triggered by a vaccine is *not* the same as what you get from natural infection. I attended a talk by Dr. Thomas Cowan, who explained that the problem with vaccines is that they “only affect the cell’s mediated response, but not the humoral response…which has led to an epidemic of people with compromised cell mediated response.” I suspect he’s explaining what has been observed in studies, like Poland and Jacobson’s ’94 study entitled, “Failure to reach goal of measles elimination”, which show that measles vaccination “produces immune suppression which contributes to an increased susceptibility to other infections.” In other words, people who contract illnesses like the measles or rotavirus may be less susceptible to sickness later in life.

    • JennyS says

      “Vaccines are, will be, and will always be of questionable to outright worthless value”. This is an unbelievable statement coming from someone who quite clearly does not work in public health. Vaccines have saved so many lives. How is that worthless?

    • KristenM says

      One Facebook commenter said something interesting about that. She proposed that rather than it having to do with diet, the increased efficacy of breastmilk in Indian women may have to do with the fact that the women themselves are/were unvaccinated and have a stronger natural immunity to pass on in their milk. I like that theory!

  4. says

    Kristen, I was appalled when I saw this yesterday, but you make a very good point. This should be encouraging us to promote breastfeeding over vaccines all the more! Thanks for the reminder and keeping positive.

  5. carolyn says

    i can’t wait to see how many sick, autistic and learning disabled kids are produced when they vaccinate them without prior fortification of breast milk!
    can our social safety net handle a generation of sick kids?

    • says

      The supposed link between autism and learning disabilities has been quite thoroughly debunked.

      If it weren’t for vaccines we’d still have people dying or disabled due to polio, and small pox would be running rampant!

      • Josh says

        I am assuming that you meant “between autism and vaccines” or “between (autism and learning disabilities) and vaccines” not “between autism and learning disabilities”, as autism is by definition a learning disability.

        That being said, this is still a very inflammatory comment that is based on sensational claims without the studies to back them up. Although according to epidemiological data, the incidence rates of many diseases decreased faster than they had been (as most diseases with vaccines were already dropping in prevalence pre-vaccine) following introduction of a vaccine, the mortality rates do not show the same decrease. Smallpox is a prime example of this, along with others like measles, rubella, and chickenpox.

        One possible explaination for this is that the vaccine helped to prevent the otherwise healthy individual whose naturally functioning and stimulated immune system would otherwise be perfectly capable of handling said disease from getting it in the first place, while not conveying the same level of protection to the person who really needed it, ie the person who couldn’t fight off the disease in the first place. While the concept of “herd immunity” sounds really nice, placing all people on the front-lines in the “War Against Bugs”, there are holes in it. One example is that even people who have received a vaccine for a disease, like the flu for example, can still catch, harbor, and spread the virus responsible for the disease in amounts significant enough to cause infection, even if they are not expressing symptoms, which can actually increase the spread of disease in certain circumstances.

        Although polio’s epidemiologic data does not fit the pattern described above, of interesting note is the simultaneous drop of polio morbidity and mortality, linked with an increase in the morbidity and especially the mortality of aseptic meningitis following the introduction of the polio vaccine, as diagnostic criteria for polio were changed such that if someone had recieved the vaccine, they “couldn’t have gotten” polio, and so were automatically lumped into a catch-all diagnosis.

  6. says

    “To be fair, the paper does not recommend that mothers stop breastfeeding, merely that they delay nursing at the time that the vaccine is administered.”

    You were pretty clear, I’d say. Thanks for the well-written post that asks just the right questions. Too bad no one at the CDC will ever have to answer them.

  7. says

    I too would love to see some research into the questions that haven’t yet been answered. I think the study results, and in fact that this particular study was done at all, are remarkable, but it would be great to see some conclusions that have the mother and baby first, not the vaccines (and by extension, the pharmaceutical industry).

    Thanks for thinking about this stuff! :-)

  8. JBAR says

    I tried to look up the offending article and finally found it. Everything states that there is no change in efficacy of the vaccine when the recommended dosage is given (i.e. all three doses.) When reading what the CDC says on the subject, they clearly state that mothers should continue to breastfeed their children and no mention of delaying breastfeeding have been officially made in the hopes of making the vaccine more effective. In fact, in the articles I read, they stated that breastfeeding was one of the best ways to prevent rotavirus and the vaccine should be used in conjunction with breastfeeding to build the child’s immunity. I know I breastfed both my children immediately after they had the vaccines and no one told me not to. If I have another child, I’ll do the same. You have taken one study and run with the misinformation that the CDC says to hold off breastfeeding when the CDC officially says nothing of the sort.

  9. says

    Ugh. My prediction: doctors will no longer be nice and accomodating about mamas nursing their babies in the doctor’s office after shots. Babies will be crankier because they don’t receive comfort/pain relief as quickly. Nursing moms will feel guilty whether they nurse their baby immediately or whether they wait while their baby fusses.
    Not cool.

    but cool that the study showed another cool disease-fighting feature of breastmilk!

  10. Hebe says

    Thank you Julie, Emiliano, PLW, Valerie, and Susie, for helping other readers like me look at the big picture and not just at an inflammatory statement.

    Thank you Kristen, for letting us know the good news that are found in this study (breastmilk helping fight viruses).

    I’m completely in favor of breastfeeding, completely against having a healthcare system that makes profits out of healthcare.

    If you are ok with constructive criticism, I would definitely choose a different headline, not because I don’t “like it” (as in a matter of style) but because it does say something different from what the rest of the post says. Headlines are difficult, and so are many things in life, but that doesn’t mean they should say something that does not correspond to the actual news or information provided. The evaluation of the recommendation to delay (not a recommendation, but evaluation to recommend) considers an extremely temporary delay compared to the big-picture of all the time nursing, not significant enough to be called a “delay” as in “stop nursing so we can make money out of vaccines”.

    I also believe many of the misunderstandings commented here come from the fact that you’re jumping to contradictory conclusions. Your post, in fact, says that ” the paper does not recommend that mothers stop breastfeeding, merely that they delay nursing at the time that the vaccine is administered”. How is that, in any way, going against breastfeeding just to sell vacciens???

    However, later you state that:
    “Yet instead of recommending that the best way to fight this disease in infants is to encourage mothers to breastfeed, they’re recommending that mothers refrain from breastfeeding so that the vaccine can work!” {…} “They’re assuming that the vaccine is better for the baby than breastfeeding”.

    Mmm… No, they are not assuming the vaccine is better for the baby than breastfeeding, unless you meant it is better during one hour of the baby’s life (the time when it is being administered). And no, they are not recommending that mothers refrain from breastfeeding, they are only considering evaluating delaying nursing A BIT while the vaccine is being administered.

    Just a thought.

  11. says

    I think I’ll file this information under “WTF did the makers of formula pay for this?”

    Both of my son’s nursed within minutes of birth- as soon as they were weighed by the staff and handed back to me, they started right in. Our youngest was overdue so a bit dehydrated. He nursed for an hour right after birth.

    There is no freakin’ way these kids were getting needles within a minute of their birth!

  12. C. Aoyagi says

    I have two little girls.
    My eldest had almost all her shots, had skin issues, iron deficiencies, and some emotional issues all remedied by diet (eliminated almost all grains and I limit high starchy and sweet foods for us all)
    She was breast fed till she was 3.5 years old
    Littlest has had no shots, with no issues (although she has been on our above diet pretty much since birth) She is still breastfeeding (she is almost 2)
    I do notice that the littlest one gets sick more often (maybe due to having an older sister out and about?) and when she does get sick, it seems to last a little longer than her sisters bugs ever did or do
    BUT- Even though it is quite miserable for parents when your little one is throwing up for a week straight, or has a raspy, gooey cough for 2+ weeks- especially when the mother gets sick too- Maybe the trade off is acceptable? It’s too early to tell, but like one response above pointed out (in different words), maybe getting sick while young is better? I know it’s anecdotal, but I know quite a few really old, healthy people (and not so old, my dad!) that had quite a few of these childhood disease when young, and don’t get nearly as sick as often as I see my generation getting.
    (And yes, I know that there are some disease I don’t want my kids getting, like polio and TB- but some scientific evidence exists that point to these diseases being prevented and protected against through diet; it is a risk, and not one I’ve determined worth taking yet..)

    As a note to parents who freak out about their kids getting sick- you need to know what you’re looking for, and you need to know the protocol with dealing with sickness- I’m not a doctor, but with these simple steps I’ve taken on the worst bugs with no doctor or hospital visits. (And know quite a few nurses and other non-hypochondriac medical professionals who follow this as well)
    If your child has the sniffles, cough, flu symptoms with a fever bellow 103(not lasting for more than a day or two) and they aren’t catatonic, leave them be with the over the counter crap (no fever suppressors or chemical loader cough suppressor) and doctor visits and antibiotics. Use breastfeeding, comfort, trust, and maybe some safe simple herbal remedies to help with the discomfort, but try not to meddle too much! Fevers are meant to burn off the bad stuff, coughs are meant to clear out the lungs. Stomach flues are bad, but making sure the child is hydrated (I know it sucks seeing your child throw up your breast milk for the 4th time that day.. but) that is the only thing the doctors can do for a child in the hospital anyway (IVs suck and your child has the potential to come down with something worse!)- the cause of deaths due to stomach flues (the rotavirus included) are mostly due to dehydration and it’s complications- if you don’t panic your child will be uncomfortable but fine in a few days.

    Sorry for the little rant, but seriously, if you have children, don’t just think it’s other people’s jobs to take care of them (doctors), ‘school’/raise them (schools), and indoctrinate them in everything from food to what to think (government).
    Educate yourself, keep an open mind, and question eveything (well almost everything) that comes your way. That way you teach you children that as well.

    I love Food Renegade’s posts, and the fact that she bluntly points out the weaslely way this paper minces words to ‘prove’ it’s theory (i.e. twisting the questions and answers to get the conclusion they want)
    People as a mass can be easily swayed by things calling themselves science and people calling themselves experts.

    Thank you for another glimpse!

  13. says

    india loses almost 100,000 children a year to rotavirus. this fact negates pretty much everything in your post. if breast milk were as effective as the vaccine, that would not be the case. if western mothers were endangering their kids with their poor diets and leading to lower, vaccine reliant immune systems in their children, that would not be the case. what is actually the case is that poor kids in india die every day because the vaccine is only available privately and their mothers cannot save them simply breastfeeding.

  14. molecule says

    This is such a hugely important subjet. Through no fault of their own, mose American women don’t really understand what the function of breastfeeding is. The main purpose of breastmilk is not to supply the totality of baby’s “food” or nutrition support. Breastmilk is not about baby’s diet. That is way too huge a subject to cover in a comment.

    In the 1860s an evil man named Jenner was doing research in England on use of vaccines. Whether it was his intent or not, I personally believe his research became the foundation by which vaccines could be adopted for use in warfare. (This was back when the political horizon was being ploughed in preparation for mass exterminations of WW-I and II, largely by disease. Another huge subject.)

    Jenner was working with diseases of the time, being smallpox, syphilous, and tuberculosis. He found that when one of the four teats of a cow was painted with the pus from an open infection, or with the saliva of an infected patient, then, that particular teat (and only that teat) would produce a strange and powerful kind of milk. That milk, when put in a petri dish with the virus in question, would kill the virus. (This was before antibiotics.) He also observed that milk drawn from the three other teats of the same cow would not kill the virus. His studies started when he noticed that milk drawn by milkmaids who had encountered cowpox infections were cured by that milk.
    It may be too radical for this site, but the CDC and MDs are part of a depopulation agenda, and toward that end, they are well aware that purpose of breast milk is to build and protect baby’s immune system, in accord with the environment that he finds around his mouth. The first thing a baby does is put everything from his or her environment on its mouth. 350 million years ago, he might put poop from sabre tooth tiger on his mouth. Today, he puts whatever on his mouth. Then baby attaches to his mother to nurse.
    Baby does not have an immune system of his own for the first two years. This proves the fraud of baby vaccination. Baby does not yet have an immune system for the vaccine to tweak. For the frst two years, baby’s antibodies are produced by the thymus gland behind the breast sternum in front of the mother’s heart. These antibodies flow across the breast gland where they are homeopathically tuned to build baby’s immune system. The nipple of the breast gland is a homeopathic sensor. When baby attaches to it, it immediately senses what is in baby’s environment, and what is safe and not safe. Baby’s vibrations on the nipple then instruct the mother’s breast gland how to produce the milk fats in the milk in such a way as to assist baby in strengthening in his environment. (All diseases have frequencdies (Royal Raymond Rife … Rife machines) Homeopathy cures (C-word!) diseases by useing the same frequencies to destroy a virus … right there I’ve lost many people if they are not seen or are not familiar with the powers of vibrations, essential oils and homeopahtic remedies.)
    The breat nipple is a vibrational sensor. It tells the breast gland how to vibrate the mother’s milk, so as to prepare exactly immune system that baby needs for his environment, as measured by baby’s mouth and the exchange of saliva during attachment.
    What this means is that the mother’s breast is detecting the true nature of the vaccine … it’s making baby weaker … it’s designed to do that. The true weapon is the serum itself, but the mercury and formaldehyde and aluminum, and squalene (which mimicks serotonin and thus tricks baby’s growing immune system into thinking that his own serotonin is a hostile for foreign protein) are no help. If the mother’s diet is lacking in nutrients, especially minerals and oils, or her endocrine system is off and she’s not producing antibodies for herself, she won’t be able to produce the antibodies that her baby needs as well. Also, suction pump (breastfeeding without attachment) does not communicate baby’s health to the nipple sensor system. I’m suspicious that the 100,000 babies die in India each year from a rotavirus due to solely to inadequacy of mother’s breast milk or breastfeeding technique. Arghhh … hurriedly … so please forgive misspelling etc

  15. Cholla N says

    The next time you take your pet to the veterinarian ask them why they always wait until a puppy or kitten is fully weaned from breastmilk before they vaccinate! It’s common knowledge is the animal health industry that vaccines do not work effectively while infants are nursing….the studies have been done and the logical conclusion is to wait to vaccinate until infants are fully weaned. Not the other way around! Human doctors take a hint from veterinarians maybe you’ll learn something new!

  16. says

    Why what the Indian mother’s breast milk better? That’s easy, because they are exposed to more types of Rotavirus more often so they have more antibodies, it’s not because they have some super better organic diet, you can’t even get organic food in India, they use tons of chemicals there.

  17. stephanie says

    Actually, part of the reason babies in other countries have more resistance is that their mothers have more resistance. Breastfeeding mothers pass on their immunities to their babies. So mothers in India have more immunities to give since they are not vaccinated for everything under the sun as we are in our “developed” world. I hate GMO’s, too, but have read that diet is not much of a contributing factor.

  18. sandy peterson says

    This was copied from another website…
    Rotavirus is the leading cause of severe diarrhea and dehydration in young infants worldwide. Each year, rotavirus illness is responsible an estimated 453,000 deaths among infants around the world. Before the introduction of a rotavirus vaccine, rotavirus illness caused in an estimated 55,000 to 70,000 hospitalizations and 20-60 deaths in children under 5 years of age in the United States each year…
    So if I need to delay breastfeeding my infant by 2 hours after the vaccine, so be it! Im glad to do it if the spread of rotavirus is less likely. Cheers.

  19. joyce wang says

    hi Kristen,

    i have been following your blog on eating real food and home natural remedies but now a new thing came up and i really would like to seek your opinions.

    i am 28 weeks pregnant, doctor has recommended that i receive the tdap vaccination stating that if i don’t take it, and if the baby gets the whopping cough within his first month after birth it could cause serious problems and babies die from it.

    i don’t want to be vaccinated and especially not during pregnancy but then i don’t want to live with that risk of what it could potentially do to my baby, what should i do? i feel like i won’t be able to sleep at night no matter which i choose!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>