Over the course of the past few years, we have been gathering studies from the US National Library of Medicine on the adverse, unintended health effects of vaccination, in an attempt to offset the one-sided propaganda foisted upon the public, namely, that all vaccines are unequivocally "safe" and "effective," a priori.
Along the way, we happened upon a 2010 study published in the Journal of Pediatric Infections & Diseases which has been shared more than any other article on our database, and which suggests that breastfeeding should be delayed in order to prevent immune factors within breast milk from inactivating vaccine-associated antibody titer elevations and "vaccine potency." The authors concluded the study with the following statement:
"INTERPRETATION: The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity in breast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated."It is not difficult to comprehend what caused the flurry of interest in this study. Readers were obviously disturbed by the suggestion that women in the underdeveloped world temporarily stop breast feeding (often the only source of infant nutrition) in order to increase the vaccine's purported "efficacy." Are we to assume that these breast milk deprived infants should consume formula* in the interim? And to what end? So that the vaccine can generate a temporary spike in antibody production, which is no measure of real-world effectiveness?
*Note: Infant formula has been linked to 48 adverse effects, including increased mortality.
First, it should be made clear that the term "efficacy," when used in the context of a vaccine's antibody-elevating effects, does not equate to effectiveness, i.e. whether or not a vaccine actually works in real life to protect against the infectious agent of concern.
It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing "efficacy" with "effectiveness") which convinces most of the "developed" world that vaccine research is "evidence-based" and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is primarily a highly successful business enterprise dependent on defrauding its "customers" of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by "health experts," and the manufacturers who produce, them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be overestimated or understated.
Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a bee hive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the "efficacy" (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern, can not be guaranteed; nor must the vaccine researchers prove antibody-antigen affinity to receive FDA approval.
Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating "false flag" responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A, so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection - and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats and exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus. Truth be told, there is actually a shocking lack of evidence to support flu vaccines, in any age or population.
What's worse, the vaccine response can "blow back" causing loss of self-tolerance and, via the resultant Th2 dominant immune system, the body can attack itself (auto-immunity). In the meantime, the first line of defense against infection (Th1) is compromised and this "front door" can be left wide open to unmet infectious challenges.
It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not. One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the developing infant by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.
In the same way that secretory IgA from breast milk deactivates a broad range of "natural" antigenic challenges for the infant, this breast milk derived, indispensable immune factor also deactivates the inherently disruptive and immunotoxic antibody-generating vaccine antigens and adjuvants. Rather than view this as the "enemy," the reduction in antibodies that accompanies a well-nourished breastfed infant's blood work, after the highly invasive and unnatural introduction of a vaccine, is a sign of health, not disease.
This study struck a deep psychic chord out there. Images of phallic syringes stabbing away jealously at the symbolic breast of Nature come to mind, as the increasingly invasive ethos of modern medicine -- always attempting to "improve on Nature" -- drives us sick, mentally and physically. Can't we just leave the timeless wisdom of mothering and nourishing that is woven into the mother-infant dyad alone?