Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^^The mother will not make antibodies to flu unless she has flu. If the baby gets the flu and gives it to the mom, it will take the mom a few days to develop her own case, then a few weeks for her to have antibodies to it. That explanation is not very scientifically accurate.
In order to pass on antibodies due to having had the disease as a child, you have to get sick, sometimes very, very, sick. If you die, you do not ever get to have a baby at all.
Like minds!
I almost hate answering you suzy, because you are so full of misinformation (yet you are a science addict ), it would literally take me years since you post every day.
But no, you don't have to get sick to pass on antibodies. You either have to merely be exposed to such diseases, or even diseases with similar qualities. Your generalizations are absolutely ridiculous. Case in point: my wife had an antibody test for diseases ranging from measles to hepatitis. Guess what... she never had the diseases, neither the vaccinations for them, and yet she has antibodies.
If one day you realize that most of what you post here is bull, will you please at least admit it?
A lot has changed since 1879. I can't believe you are really using deaths from that era to try and make your claim. So much has changed since that time. See Kat's link for the many examples of things that have changed that have led to longer, healthier lives and our ability to survive illness.
My post was in direct response to the comment about not being able to make the world perfect. Vaccines will not make the world perfect, but they have saved more lives worldwide than any other medical intervention ever, including safer water and better living conditions. They work in countries with absolutely dreadful living conditions.
Quote:
You do have to get sick. Most people can and will survive these illnesses such as rotavirus, measles, chicken pox, rubella, etc. without any complications.
Most, not all, and the risks of serious complications from vaccines are far lower than the risks of serious complications or death from the diseases they prevent.
Quote:
Nothing is without risk. When I was kid, chicken pox was a normal childhood illness that everyone got. Complications being rare. I don't regret getting chicken pox over the vaccine for chicken pox. I answered that ridiculous question up thread. I don't think we need to vaccinate for everything on the CDC's schedule. Some things are more important then others.
All of the vaccines on the schedule are for diseases that can include major complications, serious illness with hospitalization, lifelong handicaps, or death. No one goes to the expense of developing a vaccine for diseases that are virtually never going to cause severe illness.
Quote:
It's all about the health benefits of breastfeeding. Sorry your focus is too narrow to get it.
I do get it. Breast feeding is great. Breast milk contains lots of fascinating substances and cannot be duplicated by artificial baby milk formula. It is, however, not a substitute for vaccination.
Vaccines that are far, far, far, far less risky than the diseases they prevent.
Quote:
The benefits of breastfeeding go on and on. If a baby gets an illness such as flu while breastfeeding, mom's body will adjust and produce antibodies. It is amazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I already provided a cite for the blue. It's from one of the LLL links I posted a ways back. I think I even directly quoted it or at the very least summarized in my own words.
The LLLI link does not mention flu at all. It does say an infant can expose a mother to infectious organisms to which she will make antibodies. That could happen with flu, but mom must have a flu infection in order to make those antibodies. In the real world, mom and baby are more likely to be exposed and get flu at the same time. Vaccinating mom before delivery (and with each flu season) and vaccinating the infant when he is old enough can protect both of them.
Breast feeding is not a substitute for vaccination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Thanks for the anecdotes. I can provide some as well but I won't because it's pointless. And thanks for the article by Hannah Rosin, a women who knows nothing about the benefits of breastfeeding for providing yet another example of how our society works together to downplay the importance of breastfeeding and degrade the people who do it.
If Hannah Rosin is degrading women who breast feed she is degrading herself. Did you miss that she has breast fed three babies? That she was nursing a baby when she wrote the article? Nowhere does she discourage women from breast feeding.
She described the research showing that some claims about the benefits of breast feeding may be a wee bit exaggerated and are difficult to interpret due to biases that can arise from characteristics of women who choose to breast feed.
Quote:
Our breastfeeding rates are abysmal. The health benefits to both mother and child are huge. Yet we do not support it as a society. With the proper support form society, most women can breastfeed. The fact is, our society doesn't want to offer the proper support because it's not easy enough and no money can be made by supporting breastfeeding. Health is not as big of a priority as we are led to believe. Instead nursing mothers who believe in breastfeeding risk public ridicule and scorn when nursing in public, get called "nazis'" if they dare to talk about it's benefits and have no real support from society in any way, shape or form.
No money from breast feeding? Have you not been to BabiesRUs recently? Whole aisles of breast feeding stuff, from nursing clothing and pillows to electric pumps and all the accessories. Just Medela, the breast pump company, makes millions in sales, including products covered by insurance plans (as required by the ACA).
^^The mother will not make antibodies to flu unless she has flu. If the baby gets the flu and gives it to the mom, it will take the mom a few days to develop her own case, then a few weeks for her to have antibodies to it. That explanation is not very scientifically accurate.
During active infection in nursing infants, the total number of white blood cells, specifically the number of macrophages, and TNFα levels increase in their mothers' breast milk. These results may support the dynamic nature of the immune defense provided by breastfeeding sick infants.
During active infection in nursing infants, the total number of white blood cells, specifically the number of macrophages, and TNFα levels increase in their mothers' breast milk. These results may support the dynamic nature of the immune defense provided by breastfeeding sick infants.
The substances in your quote are not antibodies. They do not mean that an infant with flu will induce antibodies against flu in his mother in the absence of his mother also being infected with influenza.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 04-23-2016 at 02:49 PM..
I almost hate answering you suzy, because you are so full of misinformation (yet you are a science addict ), it would literally take me years since you post every day.
But no, you don't have to get sick to pass on antibodies. You either have to merely be exposed to such diseases, or even diseases with similar qualities. Your generalizations are absolutely ridiculous. Case in point: my wife had an antibody test for diseases ranging from measles to hepatitis. Guess what... she never had the diseases, neither the vaccinations for them, and yet she has antibodies.
If one day you realize that most of what you post here is bull, will you please at least admit it?
Making antibodies to an infectious organism requires infection with that organism, not just exposure. Not everyone who is exposed (comes into contact with another person who has the disease) gets infected (has the disease organism actually enter his body).
You may have illness that ranges all the way from no symptoms at all to a severe, life threatening condition.
But if a bacterium or virus does not get into your body, you will not make antibodies to it.
If your wife has antibodies to all those diseases, she either had an infection with them (whether she had symptoms or not) or was vaccinated for them.
Immunoglobulins in breast milk produce an antibody response specific to the germs and bacteria you and your baby contact. When a mother comes into contact with an antigen (whether she contacts it directly or her baby has come into contact with it and her body picks up on this from touching her baby and receiving these germs from him) her body immediately goes to work. Cells in a mother’s body carry these invader germs to either the respiratory or intestinal tracts where her body works fast and furiously to produce IgA antibodies that are specific to exactly what she has come into contact with. Once this antigen response has been made it travels to the mammary glands where your baby receives specific protection in the breast milk. [SIZE=2]1[/SIZE] Secretory IgA lines your baby’s intestinal tract, urinary tract, and oral pharynx and helps fight these harmful pathogens.
Last edited by MissTerri; 04-23-2016 at 02:58 PM..
Sorry that they are not antibodies. They still provide protection to the baby.
Yes, but what you said in your post that resulted in this specific conversation is that an infant with flu could cause his mother to make antibodies against flu without her being also infected:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
The benefits of breastfeeding go on and on. If a baby gets an illness such as flu while breastfeeding, mom's body will adjust and produce antibodies. It is amazing.
That is not true. To make antibodies against flu, she has to be infected with flu. Just nursing a baby with flu will not cause her to make antibodies.
^^The mother will not make antibodies to flu unless she has flu. If the baby gets the flu and gives it to the mom, it will take the mom a few days to develop her own case, then a few weeks for her to have antibodies to it. That explanation is not very scientifically accurate.
I suppose this would not work with a Norovirus because there is no VACCINE for it, unlike a Flu Shot during Pregnancy? If a New Mother coming home from the hospital catches a Norovirus from her older child the 2nd day home from the hospital, then it would take WEEKS for her to pass her immunity on in her milk to her Newborn? So why in the meantime the Newborn did not catch it with all family members holding him and changing his diapers, in addition to his Mom? It is just LUCK when someone doesn't get a disease when there is no Vaccine that can be given for a disease.
FYI, the 2 year old is fully vaccinated on schedule, including his Rotovirus vaccination. Not going to do anything for a Norovirus. Should all of us have rushed to a doctor to be treated for "stomach flu" too and the newborn "quarantined"?
Yes, but what you said in your post that resulted in this specific conversation is that an infant with flu could cause his mother to make antibodies against flu without her being also infected: That is not true. To make antibodies against flu, she has to be infected with flu. Just nursing a baby with flu will not cause her to make antibodies.
I provided quite a bit of evidence showing that the relationship between mother, child germs, bacteria virus and breast milk is dynamic, rather then static and that the content of the breast milk adapts to the environment providing protection to the infant. If you want to argue over whether it's due to antibodies, antibody response, whatever else it doesn't change the fact that breast milk is protective in the face of illness. The flu was just the example of one type of illness. You're missing the forest for the trees.
Interesting stuff:
Quote:
milk antibodies also possess a broad range of specificities, reflecting both maternal immunologic memory and antibodies directed towards pathogens that do not infect breast tissues, such as rotavirus.[SIZE=2][14][/SIZE] Given the symbiosis between the breastfed infant and his/her mother during the first weeks of life, the microorganisms in the mother's environment are likely the same as those encountered by the infant. Intriguingly, milk composition changes (i.e., increase in the total number of white blood cells and higher TNF-α levels) have been documented in relation to active infection in the nursing infant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), it would literally take me years since you post every day.
