I don't vaccinate my child because it's my right to determine which diseases come back

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

What's your source for the chickenpox? I haven't found anything yet. It's a new vaccine though, and it wasn't routinely offered to my generation. I don't know how many people who've received it also have children.

It is a live virus though - so I find this particularly interesting that a source would suggest antibodies are passed due to having the virus, but not the vaccine. There is evidence to show that chickenpox antibodies are passed via breastmilk, I see no reason why the vaccine should be any different, other than just differences in concentration due to the immune response.

I was hoping you could tell me, LOL!
I actually can't find if there is a comparison to passive immunity (passed on from the mother to infant) or from only a vaccinated mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_immunity#Artificially_acquired_passive_immunity
 
I was hoping you could tell me, LOL!
I actually can't find if there is a comparison to passive immunity (passed on from the mother to infant) or from only a vaccinated mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_immunity#Artificially_acquired_passive_immunity
I didn't see anything in there to suggest that passive immunity doesn't work with vaccines. Can you quote the section you were referring to?
Sorry, I missed your second post, reading it now.

Umm, the second link is the article I posted. It shows that the antibodies are passed through breastmilk, including for the vaccinated mothers. I just noticed the MMR aspect when I posted it, it also mentions varicella.
 
It seems to suggest that they have compared vaccinated to unvaccinated in the Netherlands. But I can't find any information on vaccinated women that are now bearing children that were never breastfed. I would be interested in a comparison of vaccinated mothers that were not breastfed and the ones who were vaccinated and breastfed to see if there is a trickle down effect from the previous generation or not into their breastmilk for the passive immunity. Hope I'm explaining this right?
 
From that article:
For varicella, no participants were vaccinated. The level of varicella antibodies did not differ between the 2 study groups. The decay rate for maternal varicella antibodies was 7.36 per year (Supplementary Table 4). The duration of protection against varicella was 3.4 months for newborns
So no info on chickenpox vaccines and passive immunity via breastmilk.

This comparison suggests that, as vaccination coverage among mothers increases, the level of maternal antibodies at birth among infants and the duration of the protection afforded by maternal antibodies among newborns decrease. The most likely explanation for this is that MMR vaccine induces lower antibody levels than natural infection with measles, mumps, and rubella and that antibody levels of vaccinated cohorts are no longer boosted by exposure to wild-type infection.

This is what I suspected earlier. Vaccine = lower levels of antibodies than getting the disease. There are still antibodies though. The infants of the vaccinated mothers have antibodies to measles they are just at a lower level.

It's concentration dependent. The more higher concentration that mom has, the more than can be passed on to baby.

This study wasn't specifically mentioning breastmilk at all. Just passive immunity. Passive immunity can be conferred via breastmilk, but it's not the only method; antibodies also pass through the placenta.
 
This study wasn't specifically mentioning breastmilk at all. Just passive immunity. Passive immunity can be conferred via breastmilk, but it's not the only method; antibodies also pass through the placenta.
I always thought the immunity only lasted as long as the baby was breastfeeding. Is this incorrect?
 
Curious too,why Merck is considering vaccinating babies younger and younger when their immune systems are not fully developed in order to compensate for the lack or passive immunity, when studies have shown that those with lowered immunity should not be vaccinated.(eg. leukemia)
 
I always thought the immunity only lasted as long as the baby was breastfeeding. Is this incorrect?
It really depends on how long the antibodies last, how much they had originally and how much is needed for immunity. The half life is typically in the weeks range I believe. Breastfeeding will continue to pass antibodies, so they supplement those that are being destroyed.
 
Curious too,why Merck is considering vaccinating babies younger and younger when their immune systems are not fully developed in order to compensate for the lack or passive immunity, when studies have shown that those with lowered immunity should not be vaccinated.(eg. leukemia)
During the measles outbreak here, it was recommended by the government.

This type of immunity does not last, due to the immature immune system. It will protect the baby during the outbreak though. People with lowered immunity often are often in the groups who are told they should keep vaccinations up to date. Live vaccines are an issue for those with lowered immune systems.
 
I don't know how much the antibody concentration differs, but antibodies are passed via breastmilk beyond the colostrum form.
Did you read the link? It's pretty powerful stuff and that is why it's important to get the baby to latch on ASAP if you've decided and can breastfeed.
 
Colostrum only comes in at the beginning of breastfeeding and it's the part that "vaccinates" the newborn.

Interestingly there are some ethnic groups that avoid this part of breastfeeding because they believe the "yellow milk" colostrum is bad milk. Maybe a cause for some areas of the world to experience more diseases in childhood if they don't have access to the vaccine?
 
Last edited:
Colostrum only comes in at the beginning of breastfeeding and it's the part that "vaccinates" the newborn.
So what's the approx concentration difference or difference in overall amount? It sounds like you know. I don't.
 
Don't know what Rita would say, but as one who believes that the earth is about 4 billion years old, because that's what the best and most solid evidence tells us, and as one who also has no problem with evolution, I'd argue that for most of the time that humans have existed, we were one with nature; a part of nature, acting on instinct rather than with any notion of good or evil. At some point, humans developed the capacity to discern notions such as right or wrong. We were no longer just a part of nature, we had the capacity to manipulate nature. Once that discernment and capacity became possible, we inevitably made bad choices - thus, the fall. I accept the Genesis account of creation as symbolic of that process of human development. It becomes problematic when we assume that it has to be taken as "fact" rather than as "truth" - the two are not the same thing. The Bible is neither a history nor a science text book. It is a divinely inspired (in my view, both in the sense that God inspired its authors to write, and that God inspired later generations to preserve what was written) collection of writings about human interaction with and perception of God. And, in any event, as has already been pointed out, young earth creationism is a human construct not explicitly supported in the Bible.

(Thank you for your thoughts revsdd. The problem I find with the story you propose is that it makes Satan into the good guy - who came to tempt us out of instinct and into greater knowledge. And then what's a Savior for?)
 
Back
Top