parents who dont vaccinate your babies??

Some people on this site has implied or said outright, that vaxers have the right to blame unvaxers for not protecting their children by herd immunity. I'm a vaxer, but I've wondered if those people has even thought about the opposite being true as well?

To explain: In a perfect world as mother nature intended it, babies was protected via breastmilk. The mom's immunity excreted into the breastmilk, and everyone did extended breastfeeding until toddlerhood. Once they stopped breastfeeding, their immunity waned, and during age 5-15, these children would be exposed and immunised (by getting the illness) against all the childhood diseases. Before age 5, when it's dangerous to a child to get for example measles, he would be protected. When he reaches adulthood, when it's dangerous again, he would already have been exposed to the disease and built the necessary immunity. Then, for the rest of his life, he would regularly come into contact with said disease, via his children, family's children, community's children, etc. This would boost his immunity every time and make sure immunity doesn't wane. Keeping him safe during adulthood and most importantly, when he's elderly.

Now, vaccinations have messed this process up. Because it's not natural immunity anymore, it doesn't always excrete as it should've, in breastmilk. And the child isn't left unprotected during age 5-15, when it's the optimal time to get this diseases (least dangerous). Then you also don't come into contact with loads of cases of this disease anymore as an adult, that would've boosted your immunity. So when you're elderly, your immunity might've waned, leaving you vulnerable.

So for an unvaxed parent, you vaccinating your children might be problematic. Because her child won't be exposed as it should anymore, leaving them vulnerable at the wrong times of their lives. So you vaccinating, influence their children, just as they not vaccinating, influence your children.

I vaccinate, but I did consider this scenario, and it's one of the (less important) reasons I do vaccinate. I feel forced into it by society that vaccinate! Because their children wouldn't boost my children's immunity as it should've anymore. I feel guilty for "dropping" those that stand by their convictions to not vaccinate.

Excellent post and well said. This is one of the reasons I don't vaccinate but I was way too tired to try to explain all of this. :haha: I am fully vaccinated, and I wish I wasn't so I could be giving LO natural immunity to some of these illnesses. I'm sure that plenty of my vaccines have worn off, though, so perhaps I've come into contact with something. Since injected vaccines bypass mucous membranes and go directly into the bloodstream, you can't pass on vaccinated immunity through breastmilk but you can pass on natural immunity.

Quick aside, this study shows that breastmilk contains high levels of antibodies that may help protect children from four childhood diseases in particular, including whooping cough. Assumedly you would have to have natural immunity to these diseases to pass on the antibodies. So while breastmilk cannot fully protect your children from catching diseases (same with vaccination), it certainly helps.

Thank you for that part that I bolded. I never read up on the workings for this, so it's quite interesting. And an even bigger thank you for that link!! You won't believe how much that meant to me. Neisseria meningitis is the biggest meningitis killer in my country (this differs from country to country), so I've always been especially worried about it. So reading that I'm probably giving her at least some protection from it, is such a relief. I think I have to research a bit into how IgA and IgG, etc. works. I'd love to know why the one was higher in breastmilk than it was found in the mother! And why the other one was lower. :shrug:
 
Those of you that do not vaccinate, I'm wondering if your opinion would change if your child became really poorly from a childhood illness, or even worse? Do you think if that happened you would vaccinate your next child or would your opinion still be the same?

My opinion would still be the same :)

Thanks for replying. I will be honest, this is something I find very difficult to get my head round. To see your child suffer or even die from something that could have been prevented, but to then take not vaccinate against that illness next time round is something I struggle to grasp, but I do appreciate that we all have own views and we all parent differently.

:hugs: Lora. I guess it is the same with anything we can think we will know what decision we would make, but faced with it, we might make a different decision completely.
 
I am choosing to keep my LO vaccine free for a number of reasons.

(1) Vaccines include a lot more than just the "virus" they are trying to prevent. Vaccines need to have a lot of other additives in them to be injectable into the body. Primarily, the biggest turn offs are mercury (thimerasol), aluminum, formaldehyde, biological ingredients such as aborted fetal cells, chick embryo cells, aborted calf cells, oil-based adjuvants, peanut oils, preservatives, and more (and worse).

Each vaccine contains most, if not all, of those ingredients (plus more I didn't list). Keep in mind that the average child will be injected with 36 vaccines before the age of 3. Each time you give your child a vaccine, you inject more mercury, more aluminum, more formaldehyde, more chemicals, more aborted cells, etc, into your LO's bloodstream.

The human body is not made to expel these ingredients easily. Mercury and aluminum can build up in the body, causing a lot of health issues and a lot of side effects. For example, the peanut oils in the vaccines cannot be easily broken down by the body. Thus, the body develops an intolerance to them and - ding ding - you get peanut allergies (ever wonder why the sudden increase in peanut allergies???)

Vaccine ingredients are absolutely terrifying. You can read more in depth about these ingredients here:
https://vran.org/about-vaccines/vaccine-ingredients/what-is-coming-through-that-needle/

(2) My second reason for not vaccinating my child is that the childhood illnesses they are attempting to prevent are NOT commonplace anymore. And it was not vaccinations that made these illnesses decrease to the extent they have - it was the improvement of living conditions - running water, waste management systems, better healthcare, increased hygiene, etc. If you had any idea the squalor people lived in back when these illnesses were rampant, the living conditions of today are 100x better. We don't go poop in a bucket in our house and then toss the bucket onto the muddy street, where it runs down a makeshift sewer and infects the local butcher's shop....Medical care for illnesses was very primitive - they didn't understand coughing on people spread illness, or what germs were.

(3) Even if my child contracted an illness, chances are it would run its course as "childhood illnesses" do, and if she ended up getting more sick than usual, medical technology of today can cure it up pretty darn well.

(4) I believe in evolution, I believe in nature, I believe that, for the human species to have survived as well as it has, our immune systems must be pretty tough. ESPECIALLY to make it through hundreds of thousands of years of dismal living conditions, and dismal medical treatments. Obviously our bodies can handle a sickness here or there.

I believe that breastfeeding and giving my child a natural antibodies to fight sickness is nature's intention. I believe that my child can be exposed to certain germs and her body will develop its own antibodies, and thus she will have a natural immunity rather than an artificial one.

(5) Vaccines don't necessarily protect your child from the intended illness. The whooping cough vaccine is notoriously known for being very ineffective. As a child, I was vaccinated for whooping cough and guess what - I still got it, in grade 3. I was MISERABLY sick for weeks, but with the proper treatment (humidifiers, puffers, etc), I was fine. And not just in the child's case, but ANY vaccine has the potential to be ineffective (ie: the flu vaccine "attempts" to predict which strain of flu could be the bad one for the year...most of the time, you inject yourself with the vaccine for the WRONG strain.) I would rather be sniffly and sneezy for 10 days than inject myself with such chemicals and nonsense.

In conclusion, there is NO way to know what the accumulation of all these vaccines will do to a person. 36 injections before the age of 3? Injecting things into your baby's body that were NEVER meant to be in a human's body is just a deplorable thought to me. I don't know how anyone could honestly justify vaccinating, especially after doing the research.

I find that many people shun those who choose not to vaccinate. But the difference, is that those of us who do not vaccinate have DONE OUR RESEARCH. We have not blindly accepted that "doctor knows best" when doctor is paid by pharmaceutical companies to sell, sell, sell. It is not about protecting health anymore, it is about making money. I find that, those who do vaccinate, have done so without an hour's worth of study. They do not investigate deeper, go around what one doctor suggests, and truly do the research and find out what these vaccines are doing to this world.

And when those parents who vaccinated because of fear DO do their research, they quickly become defensive about their decision to vaccinate because they feel cognitive dissonance between their decision and the evidence. That creates a hostile person, because they have done something that contradicts what the evidence truly says.

For all of these reasons, and then some, I choose not to vaccinate. I could never justify doing that to my child, especially after knowing what those vaccines contain, and the VERY high unlikelihood my child will contract anything in this day and age. And if she does catch something? No big deal. Maybe she'll be sick, but her body will fight it and she will be all the stronger for it.

Parents who do not vaccinate are often attacked by parents who do vaccinate. Why is it any of your concern? Why would you be worried? If your child is "VACCINATED" then you should have no problem with those who don't vaccinate. After all, your child won't 'get sick', right? So you are SO concerned for the health of my child? That you are willing to tell me I'm a bad parent for not vaccinating? I'm not sorry to say it, but I feel if you vaccinate without having done research, you fit the category of bad parent. In this day and age, it is essential to research. It is essential to go around the big pharmaceutical companies and the highly paid doctors and go behind the front lines, to discover for yourself what is going on. Watch documentaries, read the clinical experiments, open some books and do some research. This is your child's life, after all.

Yes it is and i therefore, choose to vaccinate :thumbup:
 
My lo had his second lot of vaccines today I'm surprised by his reactions he's not bothered one bit! He didn't even cry bless him! Even being there watching made me feel uneasy but glad that he will be protected. When I discuss this topic with mothers I know including my own : ) they have never heard of people opting out of immunisation before supose we forget that everybody has a choice! As long as you feel it's best for you and your own! I won't tell you what my mother said!!
 
I consider myself a pretty open-minded person and I don't think anyone should be forced to vaccinate against their will but to me, the whole anti-vaccination mindset comes from such a privileged place. And I am totally astounded that anyone could claim that those of us who choose to vaccinate are ignorant and haven't done our research, not even going to bother arguing back to that quite frankly ridiculous statement.

Re: the ingredients thing: formaldehyde occurs naturally in the body and ETHYLMERCURY, not methylmercury, was used in vaccinations which doesn't stay in the body for nearly as long therefore never reaches toxic levels like anti-vaxers claim. Surely it couldn't take you that long researching to find that out? You are exposed to more mercury eating tuna than you are to a flu vaccine. But regardless of this it has still been removed from all vaccines anyway.

And to whoever said that the diseases we vaccinate against wouldn't be as harmful/deadly these days due to better sanitation (although smallpox is CRAZY contagious and you only need to be in the same room and breathing the same air as someone to catch it...) Maybe you live in an educated area with great healthcare and sanitation but once again not everyone is that privileged and some areas would be hit really hard by an outbreak of such a potentially dangerous disease...once again its not just about your kid.

I never understand when people claim that these vaccines were only introduced after certain diseases were already decreasing...where is the proof of this? In poverty-stricken, poorly sanitised countries that have had massively high rates smallpox and polio for hundreds and hundreds of years, how did these rates start magically going down before the vaccine was introduced?

Of course there are potential risks in taking any kind of medicine including vaccines, but the risks are so much smaller than the risk of a child contracting a horrible and deadly disease like polio! And these diseases DO come back when people stop vaxxing, it happens in middle-class areas of London all the time because this is the 21st century and we no longer live in small communities that encounter the same people with the same immunities every day.

Normally I would be a bit more respectful when it comes to anti-vaccination debates but hearing someone accuse me of being ignorant and not doing my research because I CHOSE to trust medicine and vaccinate my daughter has actually really pissed me off.
 
I mean smallpox and polio eradication are probably amongst the greatest achievements in human history. I can't believe anyone could try and find something terrible and sinister about that - maybe they wouldn't think that way if they had experienced a world when both of those diseases were still a threat.
 
I agree! There are more known cases for people who have suffered as a result of not having thease vaccines than thoes who do! I do understand that everychild is different and in some cases there might be a small minority that have a reaction but that's not enough for me to decide not to vaccinate my son! The benefits for be outweigh anything else X
 
I mean smallpox and polio eradication are probably amongst the greatest achievements in human history. I can't believe anyone could try and find something terrible and sinister about that - maybe they wouldn't think that way if they had experienced a world when both of those diseases were still a threat.

That's a good point. It's easy to miss how important some of these vaccines are because we aren't familiar with a world where the diseases actually run rampant. Ironic that the benefits of vaccines are pushed aside because of the fact that they've been successful.
 
Because it's not natural immunity anymore, it doesn't always excrete as it should've, in breastmilk.

Since injected vaccines bypass mucous membranes and go directly into the bloodstream, you can't pass on vaccinated immunity through breastmilk but you can pass on natural immunity.

Could someone supply an evidentiary link for this? I've been trying to Google the science but not having much luck. TIA.
 
I consider myself a pretty open-minded person and I don't think anyone should be forced to vaccinate against their will but to me, the whole anti-vaccination mindset comes from such a privileged place. And I am totally astounded that anyone could claim that those of us who choose to vaccinate are ignorant and haven't done our research, not even going to bother arguing back to that quite frankly ridiculous statement.
First of all, I'm a non-vaxer and I never said that people who vax are ignorant and don't research so I won't even respond to that. I just don't see how not vaccinating comes from a "privileged" place though. That statement sounds pretty judgemental. It would really be great if we could talk about this without judging or unfairly characterizing the other side as anything negative (and that goes for whoever called people who vaccinate ignorant).

Re: the ingredients thing: formaldehyde occurs naturally in the body and ETHYLMERCURY, not methylmercury, was used in vaccinations which doesn't stay in the body for nearly as long therefore never reaches toxic levels like anti-vaxers claim. Surely it couldn't take you that long researching to find that out? You are exposed to more mercury eating tuna than you are to a flu vaccine. But regardless of this it has still been removed from all vaccines anyway.
Just because formaldehyde occurs naturally in the body doesn't mean that it's acceptable to inject artificial formaldehyde directly into your bloodstream. Sorry, I don't eat tuna since I'm vegan -- I'm saying that to demonstrate that my mentality when it comes to bad preservatives and ingredients extends into all areas of my life and not merely vaccines. That's why I hate when people say "you eat more food containing crap every day than so and so vaccine." Well, I try my very best to avoid said crap whenever possible. And there's a reason people tell you not to eat fish containing mercury when you're pregnant. You shouldn't be eating mercury! And no, mercury (thimerosal) is still in some vaccines in North America (mainly the flu shot and one brand of DTaP). I could be a dick and say "surely it couldn't take you that long researching to find that out" like you but I won't. We all have different bits of information, so it would be helpful to contribute information to the thread about how long methylmercury stays in the body and how it reaches toxic levels; but it's not helpful to be disrespectful about the way in which you present information.

And to whoever said that the diseases we vaccinate against wouldn't be as harmful/deadly these days due to better sanitation (although smallpox is CRAZY contagious and you only need to be in the same room and breathing the same air as someone to catch it...) Maybe you live in an educated area with great healthcare and sanitation but once again not everyone is that privileged and some areas would be hit really hard by an outbreak of such a potentially dangerous disease...once again its not just about your kid.
Isn't this just an argument for vaccinating or not vaccinating depending on the prevalence of disease in one's area? I don't see what education has to do with anything, but I live in an area with good sanitation and great healthcare, and there isn't a terrible outbreak of anything at the moment so that's one of my (already said) reasons for not vaccinating. If I lived in a third world country that had diseases rampant and poor access to healthcare then perhaps I would think differently. This has nothing to do with being "privileged"; analyzing the risks associated with your area is a perfectly legitimate reason to not vaccinate. And once again, everyone is looking out for his or her child first and foremost. You can't tell me that you would inject your child with something potentially toxic that you felt was risky if it were for the "good of mankind" or something like that!

I never understand when people claim that these vaccines were only introduced after certain diseases were already decreasing...where is the proof of this? In poverty-stricken, poorly sanitised countries that have had massively high rates smallpox and polio for hundreds and hundreds of years, how did these rates start magically going down before the vaccine was introduced?
Certain diseases were decreasing before vaccines were introduced (it varies based on the disease/vaccine), but vaccines did certainly help as well. Basic sanitation did help quell things, and diseases have natural "life" cycles where they peak and wane as well. However, some of the CDC numbers are misleading. Let's use polio for example. Before the Salk IPV, poliomyelitis was NOT defined based on cases of the virus being confirmed. Doctors were calling ~any~ paralysis (regardless of duration) as well as ~any~ case of viral or aseptic meningitis or cocksackie virus as polio. After the Salk IPV came out, polio was redefined and the paralysis standards were more rigorous. A few years later, cases of meningitis and cocksackie virus were considered separate; these changes in themselves, regardless of the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine, would make the numbers look like they were declining automatically. That's not to say that the Salk vaccine wasn't also effective; my mom imported the Salk IPV from Canada in the late 80's to vaccinate me just so I wouldn't have to get that blasted oral live-virus vaccine (which is still, unfortunately, being used in third world countries and is continuing to cause polio itself...)

Of course there are potential risks in taking any kind of medicine including vaccines, but the risks are so much smaller than the risk of a child contracting a horrible and deadly disease like polio!
Not true in the least. There hasn't been a case of polio in Canada since 1994 so my risks of contracting polio (if I don't go to a country where it has not been eradicated) is basically zero. My risks of having a reaction to the vaccine are definitely higher. In fact, I have a much higher chance of contracting polio from the oral live-virus vaccine than I have of contracting wild polio in North America. Thankfully, I don't believe the oral live-virus version is used anymore in North America.
 
Thankfully, I don't believe the oral live-virus version is used anymore in North America.

No, it was discontinued in 2000, so you have no chance of acquiring polio from a polio vaccine in America or the UK or a number of other first-world countries. The live vaccine is generally only used in countries where polio is still endemic.
 
I think the original poster asked vaxers reasons why they don't vaccinate. It seems she wasnt looking for yet another debate. Reasons were given why they don't vaccinate. From what I have read no one called vaxers ignorant for vaxing. I don't understand the underlining hostility. If you want to know if the diseases were eradicated before vaccines were around, look it up yourself. If you don't care to know than don't ask.
Maybe another non vaxer will be happy to list all the links, articles, and books they have read on the subject to fulfill your request but tonite I am not one of them.
Formaldehyde occurs naturally, yes BUT it is still a toxic substance to inject into your body. That argument annoys me, no offense.

As far as poorer countries benefiting from vaccines....hmmm wonder if that village in chad that just had a whole village of children disabled because of the new vaccine they were given really believes vaccines are modern days medicine most precious blessing. Sorry to say but IMO these "poorer" countries are used as human test dummies. No I will not post a link. You can look for yourself if you want.

Like we said earlier, it's not about who is right or wrong, it's about our kids AND the CHOICE to raise them how we see fit, with the information at hand. We ALL want our kidsh to thrive and b healthy. This is a tough subject BECAUSE vaccines have never been proven to be safe or effective sooooo it leaves a lot open to be discussed, dissected and analyzed.
 
Because it's not natural immunity anymore, it doesn't always excrete as it should've, in breastmilk.

Since injected vaccines bypass mucous membranes and go directly into the bloodstream, you can't pass on vaccinated immunity through breastmilk but you can pass on natural immunity.

Could someone supply an evidentiary link for this? I've been trying to Google the science but not having much luck. TIA.

Here's an article about the potential for edible vaccines to combat the problem about vaccines bypassing the mucous membranes. I'll quote the important part:

Additionally, researchers wanted to know whether edible vaccines would elicit what is known as mucosal immunity. Many pathogens enter the body through the nose, mouth or other openings. Hence, the first defenses they encounter are those in the mucous membranes that line the airways, the digestive tract and the reproductive tract; these membranes constitute the biggest pathogen-deterring surface in the body. When the mucosal immune response is effective, it generates molecules known as secretory antibodies that dash into the cavities of those passageways, neutralizing any pathogens they find. An effective reaction also activates a systemic response, in which circulating cells of the immune system help to destroy invaders at distant sites.

Injected vaccines initially bypass mucous membranes and typically do a poor job of stimulating mucosal immune responses. But edible vaccines come into contact with the lining of the digestive tract. In theory, then, they would activate both mucosal and systemic immunity. That dual effect should, in turn, help improve protection against many dangerous microorganisms, including, importantly, the kinds that cause diarrhea.

Also, this link explains how mucosal immunity of the mother is transmitted to babies via breastmilk.
 
From what I have read no one called vaxers ignorant for vaxing. I don't understand the underlining hostility.
Here you go:
But the difference, is that those of us who do not vaccinate have DONE OUR RESEARCH.

I find that, those who do vaccinate, have done so without an hour's worth of study. They do not investigate deeper, go around what one doctor suggests, and truly do the research and find out what these vaccines are doing to this world.

And when those parents who vaccinated because of fear DO do their research, they quickly become defensive about their decision to vaccinate because they feel cognitive dissonance between their decision and the evidence. That creates a hostile person, because they have done something that contradicts what the evidence truly says.

I'm not sorry to say it, but I feel if you vaccinate without having done research, you fit the category of bad parent.

Basically, she says, if you vaccinate, it's because you are ignorant of the facts. Or if you did actually research, and chose to vaccinate, you're lying to yourself.

Or if, god forbid, you actually took a licensed medical professional's word that vaccination is a good choice and did not put in hours (possibly days, or maybe the equivalent of a seven-year medical degree, I'm not sure how much 'counts') of your own investigation, then you are flat-out a bad parent.

Several other posters quoted her in entirety and said they agree fully.

That's where a little of the hostility is coming from.
 
From what I have read no one called vaxers ignorant for vaxing. I don't understand the underlining hostility.
Here you go:
But the difference, is that those of us who do not vaccinate have DONE OUR RESEARCH.

I find that, those who do vaccinate, have done so without an hour's worth of study. They do not investigate deeper, go around what one doctor suggests, and truly do the research and find out what these vaccines are doing to this world.

And when those parents who vaccinated because of fear DO do their research, they quickly become defensive about their decision to vaccinate because they feel cognitive dissonance between their decision and the evidence. That creates a hostile person, because they have done something that contradicts what the evidence truly says.

I'm not sorry to say it, but I feel if you vaccinate without having done research, you fit the category of bad parent.

Basically, she says, if you vaccinate, it's because you are ignorant of the facts. Or if you did actually research, and chose to vaccinate, you're lying to yourself.

Or if, god forbid, you actually took a licensed medical professional's word that vaccination is a good choice and did not put in hours (possibly days, or maybe the equivalent of a seven-year medical degree, I'm not sure how much 'counts') of your own investigation, then you are flat-out a bad parent.

Several other posters quoted her in entirety and said they agree fully.

That's where a little of the hostility is coming from.

I guess I missed that post. Lol
I will have to go backpack and see what occured before she posted that. She could have been driven to that---not defending her, just want to see the context as I have seen quite a few posts that were rude against non vaxers.
 
Since injected vaccines bypass mucous membranes and go directly into the bloodstream, you can't pass on vaccinated immunity through breastmilk but you can pass on natural immunity.

Could someone supply an evidentiary link for this? I've been trying to Google the science but not having much luck. TIA.

Here's an article about the potential for edible vaccines to combat the problem about vaccines bypassing the mucous membranes. I'll quote the important part:

Also, this link explains how mucosal immunity of the mother is transmitted to babies via breastmilk.

Thanks. At the moment I'm not quite seeing how those links support the claim that vaccine-acquired immunity cannot pass into breastmilk but naturally acquired immunity can. From what I understand, no *disease-specific* antibodies pass into breastmilk, no matter how they were acquired, but antibodies that raise a baby's general immune response do pass into breastmilk.
 
Man, we REALLY need to quit calling each other bad parents or ignorant. Let's try to have a nice discussion on this :thumbup:

Here's an interesting link (PDF) with graphs that show a decline in diseases prior to vaccines being introduced. Each graph also has a source. https://genesgreenbook.com/resources/obamsawin/ImmunizationGraphs-RO2009.pdf

Also, here's a study done on breastfeeding and the Hib vaccine in Sweden: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10195681

I'll keep looking through my many bookmarked websites for further links :thumbup:

Edit: Here's another really great link on further information on the decline of diseases prior to vaccine. It was an actual study conducted. https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249#FIGJOC80862F4
 
I guess I missed that post. Lol

You'd liked it, so not sure how you missed it. LOL.

What page was that post on? From what I recall I did like one of her posts where I remember she listed many reasons why she does not vaccinate, which I agree with. To be honest I dont recall reading that snippet you took from her post about vaxers being bad parents. In my defense, like many other mommies here I post and read (mot times skim) very quickly (because of LO) so that's probably how I missed it. For the record, I don't agree with her statements about vaxers being bad parents. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't "like" or agree with the rest of the info she provided.
Lol damn larkspur..you are good, making me sweat. :haha:
 
For those mamas that don't vaccinate, do any of you do it for religious reasons? :flower:
Yes.

I do vaccinate, though, but have to pick and choose. In my religion, parents are urged to make every effort to find and use morally licit vaccines when available, and to take the time to ask (beg!) manufacturers to consider other options in preparing their vaccines when they do use aborted fetal cells in the production of their vaccines.

So, I did all of my research and contacted the manufacturers directly to verify when and if they used fetal cells in their vaccine production before deciding which ones we would go with. For example, for the Dtap, Hib & Polio vaccine, I couldn't in good conscience agree to Pentacel (uses the MRC5 fetal cell line) but could to Pediarix (uses monkey cells) instead. There is no morally licit option available for Varivax (chicken pox), so if my sons don't contract it by their teen years, well, we will cross that bridge when we get to it, and in the meantime, hope (and beg!) the manufacturers reconsider their methods in producing that one. :)

Personally breast feeding does give me a extra level of reassurance. Especially those early weeks when babies own immune system is non existant

I've seen this idea several times in this thread - that breastfeeding helps with a baby's immune system, protecting it from diseases. In humans, the immunities passed from mother to baby only help with gastrointestinal issues - the antibodies in human milk do not cross into babies' blood streams. This has been known for decades: the antibodies a newborn gets from its mother to protect against illnesses are the ones it is born with (which it got from the placenta) until it begins to make its own.

There are many benefits to breast-feeding, but immunity to disease (unless you're only talking about gastrointestinal) is not one of them. For more info:

https://www.slate.com/articles/heal...er/2006/03/tales_from_the_nursery.single.html

Joan Wolf's Is Breast Best is also an excellent source for looking into which widely-believed benefits of breast-feeding truly do hold up to scientific scrutiny. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,650,306
Messages
27,144,869
Members
255,758
Latest member
yednow
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "c48fb0faa520c8dfff8c4deab485d3d2"
<-- Admiral -->