Can Science Teach a Thing or Two to Nature?

There is so much controversy in the whole science of vaccination. It will not be a good idea to promote the idea of asking mothers not to breast feed their babies around vaccinations. In essence, if the mother is breast feeding for only a few months this policy will deny the child the best elixir nature intended to keep the child’s immune system going all its life

“A great man is always willing to be little”—Ralph Waldo Emerson

Science is a method only and its job is to try and understand nature. With the advent of paper money, human greed, which follows money like a shadow became more important in science than all the other principles governing scientific research. It was shocking to read the following study in a leading American journal some time ago. The inference of the study makes a mockery of nature’s best kept secret—mother’s milk is the best tonic for the immune system of the new-born; the longer one can take mother’s milk the healthier that person will live. Once we stop taking mother’s milk, we lose our enzymes to digest any milk for the rest of our lives! Mother’s milk contains the best fatty acid for the development and good health of the immune system—sodium mono-laureate. Along with mother’s milk the child is also hard wired to pick up dirt from room floorings while crawling to stimulate its immune system to develop antibodies against most germs-nature’s method of vaccination.

Now comes this study from the CDC, a conventionally authentic organization, looking after the health of the public! The fault is not with science but with the man behind the science. Even in the past there have been incidences of those writing papers from such organizations being hired by vested interests! This is nothing new and I am sure it is another one of those attempts by such elements in the lucrative vaccine industry. Let us see the inference of the study.

    “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.” PMID: 0442687 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 

Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 Oct;29(10):919-23.

Inhibitory effect of breast milk on infectivity of live oral rotavirus vaccines 

Moon SS, Wang Y, Shane AL, Nguyen T, Ray P, Dennehy P, Baek LJ, Parashar U, Glass RI, Jiang B.

National Centers for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Ethen Huff, a staff reporter of Natural News writes: “The CDC researchers began their investigation by searching for answers as to why children from underdeveloped countries typically do not respond as well to the live oral rotavirus vaccine as children in developed countries typically do. They came to the conclusion that breast milk, which is packed with immune-building immunoglobulin A (IgA), lactoferrin, lysozyme, and various other important immune factors, inhibits the vaccine from working.

Breast milk, of course, is a young child’s lifeline. It naturally builds immunity during childhood development, and provides perfect and balanced nutrition necessary for human growth. Withholding breast milk in order to accommodate the rotavirus vaccine, as the CDC researchers suggest, is an absolutely insane notion that will deprive children of vital nutrition and proper immune development.

But it is ludicrous notions like these that are birthed from philosophies that view drugs and vaccines as being equal, or even superior, to natural food. Oral rotavirus vaccines contain live viruses, they have questionable efficacy to begin with, and they are even known to cause rotavirus. They are also linked to causing a variety of negative side effects, including diarrhoea, which is a condition the vaccine is supposed to prevent!”

There is so much controversy in the whole science of vaccination. It will not be a good idea to promote the idea of asking mothers not to breast feed their babies around vaccinations of which today there are 26 in all in the USA. In essence, if the mother is breast feeding for only a few months this policy will deny the child the best elixir nature intended to keep the child’s immune system going all its life. I have been very strongly feeling that the essential need for science as a method is to understand nature and never to oppose nature and teach nature a thing or two! When it happens in the vaccine arena that makes it all the more dangerous. Although I am not a vaccine nihilist, I feel many of the vaccines that we give do not do what we think they ought to do. 

This is slowly coming into light despite the enormous efforts on the part of the vaccine lobby to stop such truth from emerging. Recent controversy of autism and MMR vaccination is an example. It is now revealed that even editors and investigators of prestigious medical journals had received hefty amounts to build a case to tarnish the image of that poor researcher, Dr Wakefield and to get his name erased from the General Medical Council’s list after succeeding in getting The Lancet to retract his original paper. Dr Wakefield has enough data to file a defamation suit against the concerned people as also against the GMC. I think he has already filed the case. The Guardian reported his case: In a statement, the BMJ said: "The BMJ is on notice that Andrew Wakefield has issued defamation proceedings, not in London as might be ordinarily expected as concerns a predominately English publication, but in Texas, USA, where he now lives.” A recent case of a child dropping down dead soon after a new ‘flu shot’ created lots of controversy in the USA with opposing groups trying to highlight this and the other group trying to bury the hatchet.

When I read the following news item I was not just shocked but felt sorry for our profession as a whole. “ reports that Oxford’s Susanne Sheehy, and Joel Meyer, together authored the paper, entitled Should Participation in Vaccine Clinical Trials be Mandated? In it, the duo recommends “Compulsory involvement in vaccine studies” in response to a general lack of willing volunteers, many of whom are not exactly comfortable sacrificing their bodies and their health to have a toxic brew of untested chemicals injected into them.” I do not blame the volunteers. Stories abound as to how such volunteers are recruited in poorer countries where human life is just a statistic! The following two reports will reveal more details. “It was revealed back in 2008 that at least 14 Argentinean children died as part of an experimental vaccine trial conducted by British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline$1m-over-tests-that-killed-14--babies). Also in 2008, 21 homeless individuals in Poland died during an avian flu vaccine experiment ( Prisoners of War have been other easy targets in the past.

I only pray and hope that science confines itself to its pristine duty of trying to understand nature and assist nature’s methods, if we could. Let us fight this menace collectively as suggested by Ryunosuke Satroo: “Individually we are just one drop. Together we are an ocean.” How true? David Wootton in his classic Bad Medicine: Doctors Harming since Hippocrates is a serious study of the happenings over the decades and centuries in modern medicine. In fact, this book makes Bernard Shaw’s Doctors Dilemma look like a child’s play. It made me feel bad about my cherished profession.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do”— Ralph Waldo Emerson

(Professor Dr BM Hegde, a Padma Bhushan awardee in 2010, is an MD, PhD, FRCP (London, Edinburgh, Glasgow & Dublin), FACC and FAMS. He is also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Science of Healing Outcomes, chairman of the State Health Society's Expert Committee, Govt of Bihar, Patna. He is former vice-chancellor of Manipal University at Mangalore and former professor for cardiology of the Middlesex Hospital Medical School, University of London. Prof Dr Hegde can be contacted at [email protected])


1 decade ago
is the author for vaccination or against vaccination?Has he adviced vaccination to his family members or not?is it his view that vaccines have done more harm than good?quoting vague articles do not add substance to his essay.What exactly is his point?the article he refers to only advices to probably xplore the opiton of delaying breast feeding for some time around the time of giving the rotavirus vaccine which is an oral vaccine,maybe for 30 minutes or so and not for any other vaccines which are all given parenterally,so how does he make the case that it interferes with the natural benefits of breast milk which is anyway advocated by all of us.the MMR-autism link is dead and buried,that has been studied by multiple researchers and no link has been found. is it the author's argument that all these researchers are compromised?if there is any other modern medical advancement of the last century that has benefitted mankind the most in terms of conquering the ravages of infectious diseases then it is the science of vaccines.the whole debate of unwanted vaccinations have now gained prominence because we are now living in an age where people are not exposed to the various diseases which the same vaccines have helped in eradicating.isnt that an irony?we must remember that if we drop our gaurd and decide to give up on a couple of vaccines ,it wont take much time for the organisms to gain an upper hand and spread death all over again. such articles may in turn confuse the lay people and definitely may casue them to take the ill informed decision against vaccinating their children with even the basic compulsory vaccines which are included in our national immunization programme.
Free Helpline
Legal Credit