Lock Up ALL Parents Who Formula Feed, Call For Mandatory Breastfeeding!!!

That would be a preposterous suggestion wouldn't it?  Yet I've heard similar comments numerous times in recent weeks during the discussions that have surrounded vaccination. Calls to lock up parents who decline, sue them, ban the children from public spaces and schools, report them to the CPS as paediatrician Mike Ginsberg (who appears to have beat a hasty retreat from Facebook) stated he would, make all vaccinations mandatory.  Not vaccinating is apparently a child endangerment issue.

This isn't a vaccine discussion post, because which side of the debate you sit is irrelevant - what's relevant are the demands to remove parental choice.  Force vaccination by any means necessary - even the suggestion terrifies me, and not for the reasons you might imagine.

I wonder how many of those making these demands either formula feed, or believe it should be the choice of the parents whether to breast or formula feed?

That's not the same though.  Is it?

Prior to any measles vaccination in the UK, with epidemics running into hundreds of thousands of cases, the death rate was 0.02%. Other complications could potentially occur such as deafness, although due to the introduction of antibiotics the risks associated with both measles and scarlet fever had somewhat diminished (more on that later). In short for every 100,000 cases, approximately 20 people would die.

Research published in May by the American Academy of Paediatrics concluded that 27% more deaths occurred when no breastmilk (ever) was provided.  They also found that longer duration of breastfeeding resulted in a further reduction in mortality (or shorter duration resulted in more deaths, depending on how you want to phrase things).  When they compared 3 months of "any breastfeeding" to "no breastfeeding", the result was 56% more infant deaths in the babies those receiving mostly formula. They concluded:

Promoting breastfeeding has the potential to save or delay ~720 postneonatal deaths in the United States each year.

Dr Linda Folden Palmer who has explored decades of research surrounding infant feeding, feels the study is flawed and the true figures are actually much higher.  Researchers didn't include deaths within the first 28 days, which is when a significant number occured.  Furthermore they didn't differentiate between "exclusively breastfed" or "any breastmilk" (which might have been just one feed). We know how significant exclusive breastfeeding is in terms of outcome - yet this wasn't compared

She estimates that the use of infant formula costs the lives of an estimated 9,335 U.S. babies each year, which is more than 4 per 1000 or for every 100,000 infants, approximately 400 would die.

You read that correctly.

So presumably anyone who feels you are playing "roulette" with your child's health by not vaccinating, feels even more strongly this is the case when it comes to feeding?

If we are going to force vaccinations to protect children, the next logical step is to force breastfeeding too - because that "parental choice" costs lives and the state right?

Because that's the other argument for mandatory vaccination isn't it?  That it's a public health issue, and treating the diseases the selfish won't vaccinate against costs tens of thousands.

Ditto artifical feeding.

In fact a UK report this year stated if the percentage of women who breastfed for at least four months increased from 7% to 45%, the NHS would save £11 million per year just in treating conditions like ear infections and gastroenteritis. Similarly, the same increase could result in NHS savings of around £21 million related to breast cancer alone over the course of a first-time mothers' lifetime.  That's without even starting to consider the many other health conditions associated with not breastfeeding.

A US report in 2001 states:

A minimum of $3.6 billion would be saved if breastfeeding were increased from current levels (64 percent in-hospital, 29 percent at 6 months) to those recommended by the U.S. Surgeon General (75 and 50 percent). This figure is likely an underestimation of the total savings because it represents cost savings from the treatment of only three childhood illnesses: otitis media, gastroenteritis, and necrotizing enterocolitis.

Do it to protect the vulnerable - the preemies and immune compromised.

Ditto breastfeeding:

All babies are vulnerable, so those trying to force vaccines like to stress - pointing out they're too young to be vaccinated and thus most at risk.  Premature babies even more so.

First described over a century ago, necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) is the most common and devastating diseases in neonates. It has also been one of the most difficult to eradicate and thus has become a priority for research. 90% of babies who suffer are premature. (here)

Although there is thought to be global variation, one US study found an incidence of. 0.3-2.4 cases per 1,000 live births. The mortality rate is 20-40%

A multicenter trial demonstrated the protective effect of breastmilk for these babies.  The lowest incidence of NEC (1.2%) was in the group given only breastmilk, compared with 7.2% when exclusively formula fed.  Among babies born at more than 30 weeks' gestation confirmed necrotising enterocolitis was rare in those whose diet included breast milk; it was 20 times more common in those fed formula only

In fact the authors concluded:

With the fall in the use of breast milk in British neonatal units, exclusive formula feeding could account for an estimated 500 extra cases of necrotising enterocolitis each year. About 100 of these infants would die.

Where on earth are all the media reports shouting how selfish those who don't breastfeed or source donated same species milk are.  Where are the demands for each and every hospital to have a human milk bank to prevent babies dying of a disease like NEC? To have qualified lactation support on hand? We care if babies die from measles, but not NEC?

There's one vaccine where we can link breastfeeding even more closely than typical, and that's rotavirus.

“Rotavirus vaccine cuts deaths of Mexican babies from diarrhoea by 40%," states a January, 2010, British Medical Journal headline summarizing two studies.(1) Yet, a study of Brazilian children finds that exclusive breastfeeding cuts diarrhea cases in this similarly developing nation by a whopping 90% (1 / 9.41), versus a diet of formula and/or other foods.(2) here

Suggesting at times it may even more risky to not breastfeed than it is to not vaccinate.

What's more, the biggest risk of rotavirus are in those too young to be vaccinated. That's why the push to create a herd isn't it?  Yet a 2010 study published in the European journal of paediatrics  in states:

"Our study adds to the evidence of a protective concurrent effect of breastfeeding against rotavirus infection in infants, particularly in children 6 months and younger. Breastfeeding is important to diminish rotavirus-related gastroenteritis in infants before vaccination can be introduced." 

So if you're wandering around insisting everyone gives their child the vaccine, I damn well hope you're breastfeeding and demanding everyone else does too.  Otherwise it's perfectly reasonable for breastfeeding mums to request you keep your "rotavirus incubator" away from their little darling (a comment a pro vaccine poster used online):

"For RV1, live rotavirus shedding in stool occurs in approximately 25% of recipients, with peak excretion occurring around day 7 after dose 1. Transmission of virus has not been evaluated. There have been a few cases of documented transmission to contacts. The rate of transmission is unknown, but no known cases have developed symptoms of rotavirus gastroenteritis" (2009)

Although rotavirus vaccines are known to be shed in stools, transmission of vaccine-derived virus to unvaccinated contacts resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis has not been reported to our knowledge. We document here the occurrence of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq [Merck and Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ]) transmission from a vaccinated infant to an older, unvaccinated sibling, resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis that required emergency department care. (2010)

Oh and presumably you will expect to be sued should your non breastfed baby pass rotavirus, (or any of the other numerous health conditions they're more at risk of) to an exclusively breastfed baby too?

Another reason we hear for forcing vaccination is that it's not just about death rates, but other potential associated consequences, like deafness from measles.

Ditto for breastfeeding:

An obstetrics and gynaecology review published states:

"Health outcomes in developed countries differ substantially for mothers and infants who formula feed compared with those who breastfeed. For infants, not being breastfed is associated with an increased incidence of infectious morbidity, as well as elevated risks of childhood obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome. For mothers, failure to breastfeed is associated with an increased incidence of premenopausal breast cancer, ovarian cancer, retained gestational weight gain, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, and the metabolic syndrome

People state breastfeeding is different, because it only affects your own child, not the health of those around them; vaccines are different as they impact on others.

I'm not sure how that logic makes sense in the bigger picture - if you feel not vaccinating is a risk, you surely feel equal concern for the babies of non vaccinating parents, as you do others they might come in contact with?  To state it's OK if their child suffers as long as those babies who can't be vaccinated don't suffer, wouldn't seem to highlight a huge concern for infants generally?   To me it sounds like, "I don't care if the non vaccinated children are OK as long as it doesn't impact on those who have done what I feel is best to prevent it".  But surely no baby gets to choose, the adult does?

The same goes for paediatricians like Mike above, who openly state they will not tolerate anyone not vaccinating within their practice.  They will be removed to prevent them passing diseases to the vulnerable and those who can't be vaccinated; those who are premature, receiving chemo or with complex heart conditions.  Presumably Mike also boots out anyone who refuses to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months from his practice too? Particularly if they have a baby in these extra vulnerable categories;
because the associated risks are huge, and as a paediatrician how can he possibly sit back and condone it? Better call CPS!

Otherwise what he's surely saying is he won't tolerate babies (in his opinion) suffering as a result of one parental choice, but will another?

And it's not just breastfeeding.

I think Dr. Jack Wolfson, a cardiologist sums it up well:

"Be angry at food companies. Sugar cereals, donuts, cookies, and cupcakes lead to millions of deaths per year. At its worst, chicken pox killed 100 people per year. If those chicken pox people didn’t eat cereal and donuts, they may still be alive. Call up Nabisco and Kellogg’s and complain. Protest their products. Send THEM hate-mail. Be angry at fast food restaurants. Tortured meat burgers, pesticide fries, and hormone milkshakes are the problem."

But people aren't are they?  Angry at all the other causes of suffering and death I mean - not beyond a few diseases, the convenient causes.  The media whips people into a frenzy over a few measles cases, whilst the real causes of mortality and death are in our shopping centres and high streets, right under our noses.

I have a constant battle with my children's school to stop feeding them so much goddam junk, as the NHS partners with confectioner manufactures, and fast food restaurants sponsor sporting events. So if we want to start locking people up, we had better build some bloody big prisons.

Whether you believe in the vaccination schedule or not, mandatory vaccination is a whole different ball game. Where would those who support such a notion draw the line?  Should any public health decision whereby the rest of society deems one action more risky than another should be enforceable? Regardless of the rationale or reasons why a person has made that choice? 

Why Parents Are Confused About Vaccinations...

I have always been confused about vaccines, to be honest attempts to pick fact from fiction turn my brain to mush.  I frequently feel like I'm reading propaganda from both sides, and whilst for some there is no debate to be had, and that's fine either way (I envy parents who are so certain about these things), many more tell me they are utterly confused.

Many falsely believe people are reluctant to vaccinate solely because of Dr Andrew Wakefield and the whole MMR affair,  but I think that's really quite untrue.

 Today we are in the position of being able to draw information from across the globe; the internet connects people worldwide and parents are no longer solely influenced by their pediatrician, health visitor or doctor.  Instead debate rages on social media, links are pulled from a vast array of medical journals and websites as the discussion ping pongs back and forth.

My mum often comments that things were simpler in her day, "when we didn't know so much", and in a way I understand what she means. On the one hand having access to medical texts, studies and cross cultural opinion to allow choice is enlightening. On the other there is a strange comfort in just doing what an "expert" says and the blame sitting squarely with them should anything not pan out as expected.  But the more people know, the more they question - and this is where vaccination is running into problems.

Profit/Trust.

Firstly we have the problem of profit, and the fact many more parents are now aware what some will do for it; manufacturing and selling vaccines has to be extremely profitable.  The number given has sky rocketed since the 1980's and before reaching a year old children in the UK will have had at least 20 vaccinations if the full schedule is followed. For those who appreciate companies can and do take risks with the health of our children, it's hard to blindly trust what we are told.

As an example, baby food manufacturers wont increase the age on their jars of food from 4-6 months (despite contradicting The World Health Organisation and UK guidance), despite the health implications, because of profit. Formula companies employ insidious marketing techniques, whilst producing a product often loaded with aluminium and dubious iron levels.

The Politics of Breastfeeding (when breasts are bad for business), perfectly highlights how when something makes that much money, it's incredible influential.

But where things get really confusing is when one starts comparing the information from countries that don't vaccine against a specific disease, to those that do.  For example Chickenpox (Varicella)

The US vaccinates against Chickenpox

The CDC say (quotes from various pages in no particular order):

"Chickenpox Can Be Serious. Protect Yourself and Your Child."

"The best way to prevent chickenpox is to get the chickenpox vaccine. Before the vaccine, about 4 million people would get chickenpox each year in the United States. Also, about 10,600 people were hospitalized and 100 to 150 died each year as a result of chickenpox." 

"Chickenpox is a very contagious disease caused by the varicella-zoster virus (VZV). It causes a blister-like rash, itching, tiredness, and fever. Chickenpox can be serious, especially in babies, adults, and people with weakened immune systems. It spreads easily from infected people to others who have never had chickenpox or received the chickenpox vaccine."

"Once it gets going, chickenpox is very contagious and can catch up with anyone in its path who’s not received chickenpox vaccine. Before the vaccine was available, about 100 people in the U.S. died each year from chickenpox. Fortunately, you can make yourself nearly invincible against chickenpox if you get the vaccine." 

"Chickenpox is a very contagious disease. You or your child may be at risk if you have never had chickenpox or gotten the vaccine."

"Varicella (chickenpox) is a highly contagious disease that is very uncomfortable and sometimes serious. The chickenpox vaccine is the best protection against chickenpox."

WebMD tells us:

Vaccine Refusal Raises Chickenpox Risk

Kids Are 9 Times More Likely to Get Chickenpox if They Don't Get Vaccinated

""Many parents refuse the varicella vaccine because they think of chickenpox as a mild illness, but this is not necessarily true," study investigator Jason M. Glanz, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente tells WebMD.

"Before the vaccine there were 100 deaths and 10,000 hospitalizations a year due to varicella. It can cause very severe illness in newborns and adults and in children with compromised immune systems."

Shit right! I've had chicken pox, so have my kids, so have 99% of people I know, I don't know anyone who has had severe complications, nor died - yet I'm nearly queuing up for a vaccine after reading that!

Now in contrast lets examine guidance from the UK, a country that doesn't vaccinate against Chickenpox

"Chickenpox is a mild and common childhood illness that most children catch at some point."

"Chickenpox is most common in children under 10. In fact, chickenpox is so common in childhood that 90% of adults are immune to the condition because they've had it before." 

"Chickenpox in children is considered a mild illness, but expect your child to feel pretty miserable and irritable while they have it." 

"Complications of chickenpox are rare in healthy children. The most common complication is where the blisters become infected with bacteria.  A sign that the blisters have become infected is when the surrounding skin becomes red and sore.  If you think that your child's blisters have become infected, contact your GP as the child may need a course of antibiotics."

It's hard to believe we are talking about the same illness.

UK media reports:

"During the first half of the 20th-century it made sense to be introducing vaccines against whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis, all of which were killing thousands of children every year. But nowadays, the vogue is to recommend immunisation for diseases that are either relatively harmless, or serious but rare."

"Chickenpox falls firmly into the former category; most children suffer only a few uncomfortable days. Yet we are being told that it is a serious disease against which we need to vaccinate. These recommendations are based on research that actively looked for serious complications of chickenpox in all children admitted to hospitals in the UK and Ireland over a 13-month period. The researchers found 112 children who had serious complications of chickenpox, most often a secondary infection treatable with antibiotics. Six deaths were reported. Excluding one baby that died in the womb, four had a chronic health problem, such as HIV or cerebral palsy. Only one previously healthy child died, out of a total population of over 10 million. Chickenpox causes serious complications in less than 1 in 10,000 children.  Telegraph.co.uk "

Image used in newspaper article

"Children might soon be vaccinated against chicken pox, according to recent reports. But some experts question the need for a vaccine against an infection that's so mild - especially when it could put thousands of elderly people at greater risk of shingles."

"Chicken pox causes up to 50 deaths a year, 40 of them children, and it seems the Government's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is considering adding a vaccine against it to the MMR jab."

"But there is widespread concern about this. First because a similar MMR super jab now used in America has been found to double the risk of fits in some children."

"Also the jab has raised the rate of shingles among the old - according to one U.S. study, cases have risen by 90 per cent. Here even the Government health watchdog, the Health Protection Agency, has predicted that a vaccine could cause a 20 per cent rise in shingles cases." Daily Mail.

More here

You can see why parents are confused? 

Notice the different language used to describe the same disease and statistics when trying to promote vaccine use, compared to that where it isn't available.  The US make no reference to any potential links with shingles whatsoever, the UK highlights this as reason the vaccine isn't given to all.

Who should parents believe?

The other big problem I find with those promoting vaccine use, is the distinct lack of acknowledgement of risks.  

Now I'm not a doctor, but even a paracetamol tablet carries potential side effects, I look at what those are, weigh up the pros and cons and decide whether to take the tablet - I struggle to believe something injected to alter the immune system doesn't carry any.  Yet how many parents are given these details or perhaps vaccine pack insert beforehand so they can be informed?

How many debates go along the lines of yes there is a X% risk of ABC, but the reduction in illness is XYZ?

No, instead we get told how people die without vaccines, that we should be grateful as some countries would love them, that how could someone forgive themselves if their child caught a disease they weren't vaccinated against?

We are told herd immunity is vital to protect the vulnerable, and as one article recently discussing the flu vaccine how selfish the non vaccinating were.  At the same time the author (without a hint of irony) tells us that the vaccine is only 60% effective, (and even that figure varied depending on one’s age group and other factors), but apparently we should all rush out and get it anyway because of herd immunity, and because the protection isn't 100% the non vaccinated are putting those who have had the shot at risk.  The fact everyone vaccinated could merrily pass it among themselves without needing an unvaccinated person if it's only 60% reliable doesn't seem to matter.

A quick Google on the subject of herd immunity turns up this and this, which means pretty soon parents need  a medical degree to pick apart the facts.

If we are assuming vaccine is risk free, 60% protection is a bonus, but this again is where we hit a bump in the road. As highlighted above parents are connecting at a level unseen before - they hear stories from others who have a vaccine injured child, they see that the UK Government offers a "vaccine damage payment".

"1. Overview If you’re severely disabled as a result of a vaccination against certain diseases, you could get a one-off tax-free payment of £120,000. This is called a Vaccine Damage Payment."

In fact by 2005 the vaccine damage scheme had paid out 3.5 million for injuries that had occured in just the previous 8 years.

But hang on where did anyone mention becoming severely disabled was a risk of vaccinating?   So now along with imagine how bad you would feel if your child caught the disease, we have to throw in imagine how bad you would feel if you gave your child a vaccine that resulted in disability.  Google vaccine injury and there are pages of results - a point which of course is not even touched upon by the author above beyond "there is proof vaccines don't cause autism", yawn, next.

In the UK there is no such debate to be had about flu as only the vulnerable and now children are offered the vaccine, the NHS instead tells us:

"If you are otherwise fit and healthy, there is usually no need to see a doctor if you have flu-like symptoms.
The best remedy is to rest at home, keep warm and drink plenty of water to avoid dehydration.
You can take paracetamol or ibuprofen, to lower a high temperature and relieve aches."

Of course, no vaccine piece would be complete without at least a mention of Wakefield and autism.  An outbreak of measles in Wales prompted "The Independent" to provide a platform here where he published a full statement..

Take Wakefield out of the equation and Google autism and measles, and this piece that lists "22 medical studies that show possible connections to vaccines and autism" soon appears.

A letter from your GP saying Andrew Wakefield has been disproven and so here is your appointment for the MMR, just isn't going to cut it for many.

I personally think we need to be exploring what impact vaccine have on gut flora, just like scientists have done with antibiotics.  We know disturbed gut flora is linked to not only autism but a whole host of problems, see here and here.  New studies also suggest gut flora plays a key role in vaccination - could it be there are people with a certain genetic makeup that have a gut bacterial profile that may be at increased risk of vaccine damage?   We simply don't know because it seems you have to sit in the "pro" or "against" camp and take the hard line either way.

Surely we should be trying to understand all and any possible implications of vaccines, both good and bad?

No it hasn't been proven it's dangerous for certain subgroups to be vaccinated, but nor has evidence proved they're safe for everyone either.  In fact a total of 917 payments from the UK vaccine injury scheme since it started in 1979 (with no doubt thousands more who couldn't provide a compelling enough case for a payout) would suggest otherwise.

If there is a case to be had for vaccinating, health care professionals need to recognise the shift that has taken place in obtaining advice - and realise that "because we recommend so", is no longer good enough.