Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
13. Perhaps I have misunderstood what i have read.
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 11:38 AM
Nov 2012

It is my understanding that when babies are born without a degree of natural immunity to various things, which is what the Immunoglobulins confer (hmmm, wonder where that name came from?) then they fall prey to things that simply don't affect "normal" people.

It's what AIDS, now called HIV does to the immune system, makes it unable to summon its resources to fight off infections, so those who have it tend to get sick with things "normal" people don't.

And I really, really understand the benefits of breast feeding. I think that it is still poorly understood how much passes through the mother's milk, and how resistant a breast-fed baby can be to many illnesses. Especially if the breast-feeding goes on for as long as it would have in the distant past, two to four years. Which is why, if babies are being breast-fed exclusively in the first few months of life, they probably don't need the many vaccines currently recommended.

I know a tiny bit about auto-immune diseases as both of my sons have alopecia areata.

My comment about my opinion not being as good as fact was meant ironically. Sorry to be so subtle.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience»Vaccines: opinions are no...»Reply #13