Print Friendly and PDF

Scientists Say Delay Breastfeeding to ‘Improve’ Vaccine Potency

Anthony Gucciardi
January 20th, 2012
Updated 11/06/2012 at 1:26 pm
Pin It

babyeating1 210x131 Scientists Say Delay Breastfeeding to Improve Vaccine Potency

Scientists are now recommending that mothers delay vital breastfeeding in order to ‘improve’ the effects of vaccinations, stating that consuming breast milk could hamper the potency of vaccinations such as the rotavirus injection. The authors state that the immune-boosting effects of breast milk could negatively affect the vaccine potency. Of course the authors make no mention of the relationship between vaccination and over 189 diseases as observed by peer-reviewed research.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatric Infections & Diseases that anyone can freely read, scientists say that breastfeeding should be halted to improve vaccine effects (which include negative effects).

The advisory is specifically targeted towards developing and poor nations, as is the norm with massive vaccination campaigns funded by the likes of the Bill Gates Foundation and the United Nations. Perhaps most startling is the fact that children in these nations oftentimes rely on breast milk as the only source of quality nutrition, yet the recommendation states that this is a desirable effect. In fact, a weakened immune system is just what the scientists are looking for to increase the potency and ‘effectiveness’ of the vaccine.

An excerpt from the study reads:

“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.”

Scientists: Stop Breastfeeding, Make Way for Negative Effects

What’s more is the fact that the researchers seem to indicate mothers should instead choose to give their children synthetic formula. This is telling, as it shows that synthetic formula has nowhere near the immune-boosting capabilities of real breast milk. In fact, it can be quite damaging to the health of babies. In addition to containing toxic ingredients similar to processed foods, infant formula has been linked to a greater risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and many more illnesses.

What does this ultimately mean? It means the enhanced ‘potency’ of these vaccinations given to children who are starved of breast milk also includes the negative reactions. The same negative reactions that are well documented by published research, tying vaccinations to autoimmune disorders to and infant mortality.

About Anthony Gucciardi:
1.thumbnail Scientists Say Delay Breastfeeding to Improve Vaccine PotencyGoogle Plus ProfileAnthony is the Editor of NaturalSociety whose work has been read by millions worldwide and is routinely featured on major alternative and mainstream news website alike, including the powerful Drudge Report, NaturalNews, Daily Mail, and many others. Anthony has appeared on programs like Russia Today (RT), Savage Nation, The Alex Jones Show, Coast to Coast AM, and many others. Anthony is also dedicated to aiding various non-profit organizations focused around health and rehabilitation as well as the creator of the independent political website Storyleak

From around the web:

  • Hendy

    Oh, for the love of… people, READ, for chrissake! They're saying that breastmilk *at the time of administering* the vaccine. So don't feed your kid for an hour or so before and after they take the vaccine. End of story.

    This is hype, pure and simple. Move along – nothing to see here.

  • Anonymous

    Quite the dishonest article, or at minimum, grossly misleading.

    If you wish people to take you seriously, be serious.

    -Selective Delayed Vaxer & Extended BFer(4 years).

  • AntiCrapJournalism

    Is it too much to ask a journalist to actually read the paper s/he's commenting on before writing the lot of crap about science? The original paper says nothing like what you're suggesting at all, and you're creating an anti-science scare by writing your crap. Even if you look at the study summary that is freely available, it says nothing about breast feeding being bad – it just says that higher titers of IgA (whatever that is) in breast milk of women in developing countries is related to lower immunogenicity and efficacy of vaccines. That's all. I copy the relevant sections below.

    After reading your article I'm pretty convinced that you can't understand what you read, and wonder how you ever became a journalist. I'd say don't trust people who can't understand what they read, not the scientists.

    —– from :


    Breast milk from Indian women had the highest IgA and neutralizing titers against all 3 vaccine strains, while lower but comparable median IgA and neutralizing titers were detected in breast milk from Korean and Vietnamese women, and the lowest titers were seen in American women. Neutralizing activity was greatest against the 2 vaccine strains of human origin, RV1 and 116E. This neutralizing activity in one half of the breast milk specimens from Indian women could reduce the effective titer of RV1 by ∼2 logs, of 116E by 1.5 logs, and RV5 G1 strain by ∼1 log more than that of breast milk from American women.


    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.

    • Anti Corporate Junk

      Vaccine Science as a whole is not proven to be safe and effective. The Pharmaceutical industrial complex had refused to fund and allow independent controlled randomised double blind placebo peer reviewed clinical studies comparing the vaccinated to unvaccinated individuals. Logically, this would be the first scientific test one would do. There exists massive conflicts of interest and corruption in medical science and I would suggest that you bother to study the politics and science of medicine. Naturally acquired immunity is life long, where as unnatural vaccination bypasses the primary immune system that of the mucus membranes and creates a short term weak, low quality and temporary effect. Malnutritioned children in poorer countries have weakened immune systems. Vaccines are supposed to activate the immune system. How can any toxic vaccine containing a cocktail of attunated, and sometimes live pathogens, carcinogens,immunotoxins and neurotoxins activate a weakened and malfunctioning immune system? It makes no sense. 90 to 98% of vaccine adverse reactions are not reported as are 85% of adverse drug reactions.

      lastly, the monomorphic germ theory on which the entire conventional medical rests upon is wrong, or at best a half truth. There is plenty of evidence to prove the pleomorphic theory is correct (See, which the medical pharmaceutical industrial complex has done its best to suppress and misinform the public. If the truth came out their 600 billion dollar a year global industry would collapse. Simply put keep your body alkaline or charged with negative ions/ electrons though good diet, nutrition, vitamins, minerals and supplements there by creating an inner terrain and environment rich in oxygen where the majority of pathogens cannot exist. By injecting acidic toxins and heavy metals into the body one is creating the conditions for disease and future chronic conditions years down the line; this is very good for big pharmas repeatable business. They treat mask manage manipulate control and suppress symptoms while the underlying condtion gets worse, while doing nothing to prevent of cure as they is no money in healing people, only in patentable synthetic toxic substances.

      I apologise for any typos, I am in Japan using their keyboards.


    • Waxing philosophical

      So, instead of promoting an infant's natural immunity by encouraging breast-feeding, "scientists" and doctors are considering advising mothers to delay breast-feeding, in order for any beneficial vaccine effect to becomes noticeable – i.e. due to an infant's lowered immunity when denied breast-feeding…. Quackery, or what?

      There are too many references indicating that vaccines are a) ineffective and b) downright health hazards, however, here are a few to explore:
      (Flu vaccines ineffective)
      (HPV vaccine, i.e. Gardasil, to prevent cervical cancer found ineffective)
      (Gardasil side-effects include death !)


    • DC

      The journalist is correct, Science IS saying breast milk is bad for vaccines. Sure, they say you only need to pausing feeding while vaccinating, but feeding any other time is irrelevant to this issue!

      The point is they want the baby weakened at the time of vaccination by not breastfeeding. This, they say boosts the babies need to create its own antibodies – Great? No…

      It also raises the risks of the vaccine having side effects such as autism…

      Quote the article:

      "It means the enhanced ‘potency’ of these vaccinations given to children who are starved of breast milk also includes the negative reactions. The same negative reactions that are well documented by published research, tying vaccinations to autoimmune disorders to and infant mortality."

      Good journalism IMO. It's those here saying that she hasn't read the article whom it appears have in fact not read article.

  • Anna

    It would be good to read the whole article, but as it refers to only one ORAL vaccine, and says "delay at the time of immunisation", perhaps it refers to holding off THE NEXT breast feed after the oral vaccine is given? So not forever, just for a little while, to allow the oral fax to get a head start into the digestive system, ahead of the breastmilk?

    Would need to see the whole article, but this interpretation sounds quite feasible to me.

  • Susan Warren


    I am a mum of one who is not pro-vaccine. My son is 2yr and 2 months and has only had one single vaccine, for reasons we felt best. He is also still breastfeeding…so we are very much sympathetic to and understand the importance of breastfeeding as well as the risks of vaccines.

    Yet I find the above blog post very irresponsible, both to the reader and to the authors of the research. I am not suggesting that there is not fair criticism of the research to be made. Yet Mr Gucciardi has completely failed to do so. Instead he has produced a tabloid-like, sensationalist headline which has done little to educate or constructively criticise the work. In only misinforms those who read it (and believe it) and discredits himself, the Natural Society and the community of those who are cautious about vaccines.

    First, (which I think has been mentioned above) this is a study about a very specific vaccine not *all* vaccines, as implied by Mr Gucciardi's title 'Scienctists Say Delay Breastfeeding to Improve Vaccines'. This study is concerned only with one specific vaccine, the live oral rotavirus vaccine.

    Second, the researchers make no such recommendation in the abstract that women should delay breastfeeding to improve vaccines. (I haven't seen the article, but am assuming it will be along a similar line). They say specifically "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***." (The asterisks are my emphasis.) So they are saying that delaying breastfeeding at the time of the immunisation, should be *evaluated*. To evaluate means to access merits as well as disadvantages. An evaluation is NOT a recommendation. At all.

    However, there are two very fair criticisms of this study:

    First, the link provided does *not* allow you to read the whole article. It is an abstract of the article. (It's very important to read entire articles, especially when criticising them.) Unfortunately, I don't think the entire article is available for free (which in my opinion is rubbish and terrible!) No doubt some sort of public funding went towards this research and yet the public do not have free access to it? (If I am just missing the link to the entire article, please do tell me…it was a bit of a restless breastfeeding night…)

    Next, is the total neglect of breastmilk's action on preventing stomach upsets in babies. Really, this piece should have also considered the specific research available on rotavirus numbers and outcomes in breastfed vs non-breastfed babies and if such research wasn't available, then this should have been part of their suggestions too. There is the automatic assumption on the part of the researcher that vaccines are unquestionable. Bad science in my view.

    Yet Mr Gucciardi fails to mention this. And this is what is important – the assumption that vaccines are trump and the known benefits of breast milk, *as it relates to this specific study*. I hope his future posts will be more considered.



  • Chris

    I guess i screwed up, I nursed while my baby got his selective shots…wow

    • David

      It only matters for oral vaccines. The immune molecules in breast milk attach to the oral vaccine and prevent the baby's immune system from responding. That's the hypothesis anyway based on the vaccine efficacy data and the study in question. Bottom line is nursing during a vaccine given by injection is not a problem at all.

  • Anonymous

    I cannot logic this load of crap! I was devastated when I gave birth to my son and had difficulty breast feeding. The first two weeks were hell! I was getting an infection and my baby was getting frustrated because no milk would come out, but I did all I could until I was able to enjoy such incredible bond.

    Even went as far as to take colostrum capsules myself during pregnancy and I felt amazing and looked ever better….

    I can't tolerate this sort of brain wash …

  • Julianne

    For a real (and further) eye-opener, check out this less then 15 minute video of Harvard School of Medicine grad Nancy Banks OB/GYN, on the negatives of vaccines for infants and children-especially if you have young children.

  • Caz

    What a load of crap. So they are admitting it has great immune system boosting properties.. but telling mothers to stop doing it (even for a few days is not going to work!) so they can instead rely on the passive immunity of vaccinations??? Should a mother do this, and her milk supply suffers, or even ceases (as it could in early days), then her child would be given more and more formula.. thus opening the baby up to a lifetime of possible issues because they were deprived the benefits of breastmilk. 'scientists', in this case, are absolutely stupid.

    • Zoey

      And in the countries they're talking about the "lifetime" probably won't be too long if they take this advice.

  • alli

    This "scientific" article is despicable to say the VERY least! To encourage new mothers whose early days of breast milk colostrums, that by their very nature, carry THE most powerful antibodies for her newborn are supposed to be by-passed and forgotten about is the most irresponsible suggestion I have ever heard.

    Vaccination IS NOT innoculation! The two words for decades have been used synomously but the procedures are NOT the same.

    Go to the website:

    Dr. Tim O'Shea will give new mothers AND the medical community the truth.

    Suggesting a new mother forgo breastfeeding in order to make way for vaccinations is death to her child.

    You all are a bunch of quacks.

  • Gord Henderson

    Maybe I'm not reading this correctly but isn't the author of the study merely suggesting a brief suspension of breastfeeding at the time of vaccination only and NOT a prolonged delay of breastfeeding or implementation of formula feeding?

    • amy

      Nope, you're reading it right. Everyone else is flipping out over nothing.

    • Aubrey B.

      You're reading it just like I am. Being that the rotavirus is a live ORAL vaccine, it only makes sense to try to minimize it's interaction with the antibodies in breastmilk in the child's stomach. There is NOTHING in the study that says anything about a prolonged delay or that women shouldn't breastfeed. It's a simple matter of scheduling the vaccine around the child's nursing schedule so as to offer the vaccine the least resistance. I know that this is one of several sites that is very anti-vaccine and they will use whatever they can find to justify their stance. But I really wish they would try to use facts instead of scare tactics and hysteria causing opinion pieces.

      (BTW, I breastfed all 3 of my kids, including a set of twins, and all of my kids are fully vaccinated.)

      • Aubrey B.

        That should say "its interaction". Grrr…..I hate typos! :)

      • nwo2012

        Good for you, I hope they all enjoy the future health consequences of your ignorance.

      • nwo2012

        Oh and here get yours too and treat them to some very good nutrition. Ive heard aspartame works especially well on brain tumor formation if you have been vaccinated.

        "Will vaccinate my baby for food!" That seems to be the goal of a program launched last year by the UnitedHealthcare health insurance company of Michigan. It has resorted to enticing parents with junk food to convince them to inject their infants with potentially deadly vaccines containing brain-damaging chemicals. This has been revealed in a letter acquired by NaturalNews and signed by Stephanie Esters, a vaccine-pushing RN who works for UnitedHealthcare.

        The letter declares "Get a FREE $20 McDonalds, Rite Aid, Target or Meijer Gift Card when your child gets recommended shots before their second birthday." It even goes on to offer a "FREE ride to the doctor" for those who are so poor that they don't own cars.

    • Anonymous

      That is exactly how I am interpreting this article. They do not even directly state how long to delay breastfeeding. They definitely say nothing about not breastfeeding. Another point I would like to make is the rotavirus is not given to newborns. One comment was that newborns would not receive colostrum. The mother would have mature milk at the time of this vaccination. I think before we jump to conclusions we need to review the entire article, as well as get a clear definition for "delayed" breastfeeding. I can see how breast milk could decrease the effectiveness of this live oral vaccine if breastmilk is doing its job, which it always does :) Breast milk is designed to fight off viruses because babies are born with decreased immunity. Of course the breast milk will fight off the rotavirus!!Mom will begin making antibodies that will pass into her breast milk as soon as baby nurses at the breast, and mom's body gets exposed to the virus via baby's saliva. Maybe we should all be taking shots fo breast milk! Problem solved.

  • James

    Geesh, can this get any more evil than this?

  • Stuntman MIke

    wow…"The truth is dead. Long live The Truth."

    DR. Dollar Sign has spoken and many of the herd will now go with this "scientific" advice – it's criminal!

  • rich winkel

    I wish this was an isolated case of medical child abuse, but it's certainly not. In fact, at least in the USA, medicine is the biggest threat to the well being of children, starting right from birth. I am not exaggerating. See and look at the two files listed at the top (muchausen obstetrics and male circumcision) Then listen to some of the podcasts on the right. American medicine is full of psychopaths.

    • Gabriel McDermott

      You are absolutley correct i believe. It is tragic about the natural cures available, through organic fruits & vegetables, are supressed by the Medical Industries to the extent that the ruling 'elite' are taking their poisons to 'developing' nations where the people are expecting to be helped due to lack of knowledge. A desperate parent is less likely to resist the 'advice' given by the so-called 1st world doctors in helping them raise their child. Wherever rich & powerful men look to bring their 'advances' in modern medicines (dangerous sorcery) & even deadly philosophys to hurting, needy nations or peoples, you can be sure that the quick deteriation of both mental & phisical health will soon follow after

  • drknow

    Wow, amazing article, thanks.