FaceBook Post by Dr. Palevsky

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/technology/personaltech/31basics.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha26

DR PALEVSKY’S COMMENTS:  So now we're getting to the point where modern medicine is finding a way to say that breast feeding impairs the efficacy of vaccines. Perhaps from this article they will go so far as to say that vaccines are more protective against disease than breast milk, and we should avoid giving breast milk at the same time as offering an oral vaccine. I think the public is smart enough to see through this propaganda. But, what is also important to remember is that rotavirus infection does not happen by swallowing the virus. Thus, the administration of the rotavirus vaccine is not simulating a natural rotavirus infection. Any administration of material into the intestines of any human being is going to be met by a very potent immune response, to either accept what is being swallowed, or reject what is being swallowed. The major defense of the body lies in the immune system lining the intestines. Breast milk plays a very important role in maturing the immune system in the lining of the intestines, and also helps to defend the infant's body against foreign materials that the infants are not yet capable of defending against. Perhaps we should look at this study and conclude that the infant's immune system and the mother's breast milk are appropriately rejecting the material in the oral rotavirus vaccine, and that's why there is a neutralizing effect on the vaccine and the production of a lower level of antibodies. Again, a natural rotavirus infection does not happen in infants by having the infant or child swallow the virus that infects them. Thus, to vaccinate with an oral vaccine does not necessarily make sense to the immune system. Children are more likely to have the DNA of the rotavirus virus in the cells of their bodies and not show any signs of infection from its presence, long before we come along with a vaccine thinking that we'll first expose them to the virus through an oral vaccine. This vaccine process will supposedly prepare their immune systems to defend themselves in the event that they are somehow exposed to a natural infection in the environment. But, what if they already have the DNA of the virus sleeping quietly in the cells of their bodies? Do they really need the vaccine to give them protection from the disease? How is it that the cells of their bodies can contain the DNA of the rotavirus virus and be completely ok with it? And, lastly, just to poke further holes in the science of vaccines, the production of an antibody through vaccination is not sufficient to impart a protective nature against a disease. The presence of an antibody after vaccination is used as a measure to support our understanding of a vaccine's efficacy. Unfortunately, antibody production after vaccination is not synonymous with protection, which therefore cannot be used as a measure of the efficacy of vaccines. So much of what we are told about how vaccines work is based on a set of assumptions about the science of the body, and about the science of vaccines, that are coming to light as mere myths, and not scientific truths at all. Don't stop breastfeeding. Please, don't stop breastfeeding.