CDC researchers say mothers should stop breastfeeding to boost 'efficacy' of vaccines

[kristac]

:banghead:
http://www.naturalnews.com/034722_breastfeeding_vaccines_CDC.html

[niccig]

There's a whackadoddle idea!

[SnuggleBuggles]

There's a whackadoddle idea!

:yeahthat:

And do they mean temporarily or permanently (I skimmed the article)?

[Melaine]

I saw this posted on diaperswappers and honestly it annoys me so much I am unwilling to read it. It couldn't possibly be as absurd as I am imagining, right?

[kristenk]

And do they mean temporarily or permanently (I skimmed the article)?

I was trying to find more information about the study and one of the links I saw mentioned up to 2 hours before and 2 hours after the vaccine. That's not quite what I imagined based on skimming the article that was posted.

ETA: Here's the link where I saw the time frame mentioned. I'm not sure about dates, though, b/c it looks like it references a study of the same name as in the linked article, but it's from 2010?
http://www.drugs.com/breastfeeding/rotavirus-vaccines.html

[carolinamama]

I only skimmed it but no matter what DD will continue to bf. Didn't give her the rotovirus vaccine anyway.

[ellies mom]

That is very interesting. I would like to have read the original sources of the article to get more information except that one link went to an unrelated article. The second link went to a "vaccine ineffectiveness index" that listed a few studies none of which seem to be this research. And the third link is a list of breastfeeding articles. Once again, none seem related to this research and they did not specify which of the articles they used as sources.

ETA- Googling the name of the study, which oddly they did not link to provided this link to the abstract of the actual study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20442687).

[amldaley]

:47: I. don't. even. have. words....

...(which as most of you know is rare for me!)

I get it that people can die from rotavirus...less than 40 kids under age 5 die in the US each year from it. But as a firm believer in the benefits of BF, I have to think the positives for BF outweigh the rotavirus risks. And with no mention whatsoever of how many of those less than 40 kids were BF'd, I will be happily nursing my LO when she arrives and at least until age 1.

(I guess I had words, afterall.)

[amldaley]

I was trying to find more information about the study and one of the links I saw mentioned up to 2 hours before and 2 hours after the vaccine. That's not quite what I imagined based on skimming the article that was posted.

See? THAT would be useful information to know!

[rin]

The linked article above seems to have gotten a different impression from that article than I did; I thought the claims were far, far weaker than the article above suggests.

According to the abstract for the actual journal article (here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20442687, it was written almost two years ago), the researchers state that "Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated." This sounds like they're proposing a study asking breastfeeding mothers to wait several hours after being given the vaccine before nursing their infants again.

I cannot find anything on the CDC website suggesting that they are currently recommending anything of the sort; sounds like this was one paper that came out in 2010, but doesn;t seem to be anything that the CDC is actively promoting.

[wellyes]

I was trying to find more information about the study and one of the links I saw mentioned up to 2 hours before and 2 hours after the vaccine. That's not quite what I imagined based on skimming the article that was posted.

The article linked to says nothing like that. It just says the CDC recommends women stop breastfeeding. Anti-vax isn't doing itself any good with this sort of false rumor-spreading and fear-mongering.

According to this http://www.rotavirusvaccine.org/rotavirus-facts.htm:
In developing countries, however, nearly 1,400 children die from rotavirus infections each day, succumbing to severe dehydration that could be easily treated if they had access to lifesaving care often routine in richer nations. I can see why physicians are so eager to find ways to boost the efficacy of the vaccine.

[carolinamama]

I was trying to find more information about the study and one of the links I saw mentioned up to 2 hours before and 2 hours after the vaccine. That's not quite what I imagined based on skimming the article that was posted.

Perfect example of the media sensationalizing study results to get attention. Ack.

[WolfpackMom]

Perfect example of the media sensationalizing study results to get attention. Ack.

No kidding, unfortunately the average person wouldn't research beyond an article either!

[BabyDahl]

The study is really small (n=202) and the conclusion is that mothers with the highest IgA levels tend to have infants with the lowest rotavirus vaccine response. They are suggesting evaluating whether withholding BFing before/after would lead to better vaccine responses in poor/developing countries. This isn't explained in the link provided, it seems to me to be written in a much more alarmist manner.

I couldn't find anything on the actual CDC site referencing this, which I think is since this is just study results being released, not an actual recommendation.

ETA: I was posting at the same time as several PPs and I totally agree that this "article" isn't well written.

[amldaley]

The article linked to says nothing like that. It just says the CDC recommends women stop breastfeeding. Anti-vax isn't doing itself any good with this sort of false rumor-spreading and fear-mongering.

According to this http://www.rotavirusvaccine.org/rotavirus-facts.htm: I can see why physicians are so eager to find ways to boost the efficacy of the vaccine.

But the CDC makes recommendation for the U.S., correct? We are not a developing nation and our death by rotavirus rate is significantly lower here.

[amldaley]

No kidding, unfortunately the average person wouldn't research beyond an article either!

And THAT is the biggest problem with articles that skim and sensationalize - no matter which side of any debate is being looked at.

[basil]

That naturalnews article is very poorly written, takes the paper completely out of context, and clearly demonstrates that the writer has no clue what the science is that is being studied.

There is no recommendation from the CDC to stop breastfeeding for the sake of the rotavirus or any other vaccine. Here or in any other country.

The paper is a small piece of an entire science looking at the larger question of how vaccines work. People devote their entire careers to this - it's much bigger than one little paper. IMO, it can only be a good thing to further understand the immune system and human reactions to vaccines.

[wellyes]

Correcting my own link http://www.rotavirusvaccine.org/rotavirus-facts.htm


But the CDC makes recommendation for the U.S., correct? We are not a developing nation and our death by rotavirus rate is significantly lower here.
They aren't recommending anything. My guess is that the CDC referenced or even just acknowledged the study, which makes a recommendation for further study of the issue in developing countries.

[rin]

But the CDC makes recommendation for the U.S., correct? We are not a developing nation and our death by rotavirus rate is significantly lower here.

Right, but the CDC has not actually made a recommendation for anyone about this; there's been one (actually two) studies released by researchers at the CDC which suggest that delaying breastfeeding for the two hours on either side of a rotavirus vaccine increases the vaccine's efficacy. Regardless of where you are, the point would be if you're going to get the rotavirus vaccine (which is of course a whole separate question), these are some steps that the study suggests make it more effective.

ETA: Sorry, cross-post!

[Penny's Pappa]

That naturalnews article is very poorly written, takes the paper completely out of context, and clearly demonstrates that the writer has no clue what the science is that is being studied.

There is no recommendation from the CDC to stop breastfeeding for the sake of the rotavirus or any other vaccine. Here or in any other country.

The paper is a small piece of an entire science looking at the larger question of how vaccines work. People devote their entire careers to this - it's much bigger than one little paper. IMO, it can only be a good thing to further understand the immune system and human reactions to vaccines.

:yeahthat:

Perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to:

"Sensationalist Website Pushing Anti-Vaccine Agenda Says CDC Researchers Say Mothers Should Stop Breastfeeding to Boost 'Efficacy' of Vaccines."

[mommylamb]

:yeahthat:

Perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to:

"Sensationalist Website Pushing Anti-Vaccine Agenda Says CDC Researchers Say Mothers Should Stop Breastfeeding to Boost 'Efficacy' of Vaccines."

:yeahthat: It's good to not jump to conclusions.

[abh5e8]

That naturalnews article is very poorly written, takes the paper completely out of context, and clearly demonstrates that the writer has no clue what the science is that is being studied.

yup. very true. but, it is an interesting question...given all the live and active immunologic agents in breastmilk, i don't see how it couldn't decrease the efficacy of an oral live virus vaccine.

[maestramommy]

Say WHAT??

Does it really say that? That sounds so cockomamie, and hard to fathom.

[sntm]

Makes me distrust the natural news. I rarely if ever support anything that interrupts breastfeeding unnecessarily (I operated on the breast of a breastfeeding woman and didn't make her stop) but this sounds not unreasonable.

[boogiemomz]

This is exceptionally bad journalism, embarrassingly bad. I skimmed the article but concluded it is garbage based on:

-the writer calling the study authors "psychopaths," etc
-the links to the article's "sources" turning up... nothing, really
-google search for news of anything concerning CDC, rota, BFing, etc, turned up absolutely nothing recent or noteworthy

Wellyes said it well--the antivax folks aren't helping their cause publishing crap like this. This was the first and last time I will read anything from naturalnews.com.

[mikala]

:yeahthat:

Perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to:

"Sensationalist Website Pushing Anti-Vaccine Agenda Says CDC Researchers Say Mothers Should Stop Breastfeeding to Boost 'Efficacy' of Vaccines."

:yeahthat: It reads a bit like an Onion article.

[mom3boys]

For the PP who asked about the science behind the actual medical journal article (not the irresponsible Natural News, my goodness!). I think the theory is, breastmilk neutralizes bacteria and other contaminants in the gut (i.e, helps keep the baby protected from disease agents)--however, rotavirus vaccine is a live vaccine administered orally, so it travels to the gut. The thought then is that if breastmilk is in the gut at the same time, it might neutralize the vaccine somewhat, thus reducing effectiveness. At least that's the gist. So if you didn't BF for an hour or 2 before or after giving the vaccine, it is less likely to be neutralized in the gut.

[dukie41181]

There's a whackadoddle idea!

:yeahthat:

[Mopey]

I read through it, thinking it wasn't very well crafted..

And then I read that CDC scientists are "psychopaths."

Yeah....

:ROTFLMAO:

[lalasmama]

Interesting.

Not to discount the article, but...

I pulled up our friend Dr Google. In the first page of results of "CDC Stop breastfeeding vaccine" there were several blogs listed, but not a single page from a "reliable"/well known source.... For me, this would be something from CNN, or even Yahoo! News. It's the 3rd to last result on the second page of search results that is from the CDC, which is a page about administering vaccines to nursing mothers.

My theory: I don't buy into it until the CDC is publishing it on their site, or it's being picked up by the big news people.

(And I'll keep telling mamas to nurse those babies after their vaccines until a reputable source tells me differently.)

[ellies mom]

For the PP who asked about the science behind the actual medical journal article (not the irresponsible Natural News, my goodness!). I think the theory is, breastmilk neutralizes bacteria and other contaminants in the gut (i.e, helps keep the baby protected from disease agents)--however, rotavirus vaccine is a live vaccine administered orally, so it travels to the gut. The thought then is that if breastmilk is in the gut at the same time, it might neutralize the vaccine somewhat, thus reducing effectiveness. At least that's the gist. So if you didn't BF for an hour or 2 before or after giving the vaccine, it is less likely to be neutralized in the gut.

Close- The theory as explained by my A&P professor is that up until about 9 months old, the baby's gut is "leaky". The antibodies that would normally be destroyed are able to "escape" into the rest of the body so to speak. The antibodies provide passive immunity meaning that rather than causing an immune response, they are the immune response. So when faced with a live virus, they will go into action which gives the babies' immune system less to respond to. The other live vaccines are typically given after the gut closes and the breastmilk is no longer providing passive immunity. I would guess that the timing theory is pretty similar either way though. It gives the child's immune system a little more time to start responding before mama comes in and goes all mama bear on it.

[TwinFoxes]

Perfect example of the media sensationalizing study results to get attention. Ack.


This is exceptionally bad journalism, embarrassingly bad. I skimmed the article but concluded it is garbage based on:

-the writer calling the study authors "psychopaths," etc
-the links to the article's "sources" turning up... nothing, really
-google search for news of anything concerning CDC, rota, BFing, etc, turned up absolutely nothing recent or noteworthy


Come on now, this isn't "the media" sensationalizing something to get attention, and it's not journalism. We're not exactly talking the NY Times here. It's an advocacy group with a website. It's not journalism. Just because somebody has a website and puts "news" in their name doesn't make them legit. Know your sources. I'm not saying the "real" media doesn't ever blow things out of proportion, but this is so far from journalism it's not even funny.



Perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to:

"Sensationalist Website Pushing Anti-Vaccine Agenda Says CDC Researchers Say Mothers Should Stop Breastfeeding to Boost 'Efficacy' of Vaccines."

:yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat:

[MontrealMum]

:yeahthat:

Perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to:

"Sensationalist Website Pushing Anti-Vaccine Agenda Says CDC Researchers Say Mothers Should Stop Breastfeeding to Boost 'Efficacy' of Vaccines."


Come on now, this isn't "the media" sensationalizing something to get attention, and it's not journalism. We're not exactly talking the NY Times here. It's an advocacy group with a website. It's not journalism. Just because somebody has a website and puts "news" in their name doesn't make them legit. Know your sources. I'm not saying the "real" media doesn't ever blow things out of proportion, but this is so far from journalism it's not even funny.



:yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat:

:yeahthat: Just because information is out there in the ether that is the internet doesn't make it true. I guess it's my librarian training coming out but it is always, always, best to read critically, and to go to trusted, credible sources for information.

[maestramommy]

How nice that I can read more responses and say, "Whew!" :ROTFLMAO:

Which pp said that just because someone writes something doesn't make it journalism? Thank you. :D

[daisymommy]

Spoke without reading everything....oops!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arivecchi]

Come on now, this isn't "the media" sensationalizing something to get attention, and it's not journalism. We're not exactly talking the NY Times here. It's an advocacy group with a website. It's not journalism. Just because somebody has a website and puts "news" in their name doesn't make them legit. Know your sources. I'm not saying the "real" media doesn't ever blow things out of proportion, but this is so far from journalism it's not even funny. :
Seriously. I don't believe any source other than a major credible news organization. They have earned my trust.

[marymoo86]

I believe it was the cochranw group that determined BF was more effective against rotavirus b/c of exactly what a PP said about neutralilzing bacteria in the gut. So if I were choosing, I would pick BF over the vaccine.

That article was poorly written but it is sad to say that it wouldn't shock me if that should ever happen.

[marymoo86]

Double post

[swissair81]

I believe it was the cochrane group that determined BF was more effective against rotavirus b/c of exactly what a PP said about neutralilzing bacteria in the gut. So if I were choosing, I would pick BF over the vaccine.

That article was poorly written but it is sad to say that it wouldn't shock me if that should ever happen.

:yeahthat:

Based on the actual PubMed article (not the NaturalNews trash), I will definitely be discussing the effectiveness of the rotarix vaccine in a breastfed infant. If it isn't effective, I might consider delaying it in the future until I am done breastfeeding. No need to give something that isn't effective. Delaying a feeding for 2 hours before and 2 hours after sounds easily unless your baby is used to feeding on demand. I hate having to delay feeding my baby. It's torture for both of us.

[Fairy]

:yeahthat:

Perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to:

"Sensationalist Website Pushing Anti-Vaccine Agenda Says CDC Researchers Say Mothers Should Stop Breastfeeding to Boost 'Efficacy' of Vaccines."

Word.

ANYONE can write ANYTHING about ANY subject. Doesn't make it valid.

[wildfire]

According to a quick internet search, 82% of the rotavirus deaths in children under 5 (approximately 350,000-600,000 per year) are in poor and developing countries, which are the same countries where the rotavirus vaccine is not as effective. Most of the poeple on this board has access to good healthcare, or at least decent healthcare. If your child is having vomiting and diarrhea and gets dehydrated, chances are you will seek medical help. In some of the other countries people don't have that option. For them holding off breastfeeding for a few hours may be worth it, if they have access to the vaccine. For most of us, it's more of a toss up as to whether or not we want to do that.

[mom3boys]

Close- The theory as explained by my A&P professor is that up until about 9 months old, the baby's gut is "leaky". The antibodies that would normally be destroyed are able to "escape" into the rest of the body so to speak. The antibodies provide passive immunity meaning that rather than causing an immune response, they are the immune response. So when faced with a live virus, they will go into action which gives the babies' immune system less to respond to. The other live vaccines are typically given after the gut closes and the breastmilk is no longer providing passive immunity. I would guess that the timing theory is pretty similar either way though. It gives the child's immune system a little more time to start responding before mama comes in and goes all mama bear on it.


Thank you for correcting me. Didn't have time to read up enough in the "real" medical literature! This makes a lot of sense.

Also I don't know if they can delay the Rotavirus vaccine? DS3 just went for his 6 mo. check up and hadn't been vaccinated yet and the pediatrician basically told me not to bother at this point b/c the riskiest period for attaining the virus is before 9 mos. of age. May differ in a developing country but I wonder if that risk period for the virus also has to do with "leaky" immune system.

[wellyes]

I think the rotavirus vaccine is pretty skippable. It's like the flu virus, could be helpful, but likely no dire consequences for the child or anyone he'd pass it onto if skipped. Unlike pertussis and measles -- stopping any spread of those diseases is pretty crucial for public health even here in the US.

[rin]

I think the rotavirus vaccine is pretty skippable. It's like the flu virus, could be helpful, but likely no dire consequences for the child or anyone he'd pass it onto if skipped. Unlike pertussis and measles -- stopping any spread of those diseases is pretty crucial for public health even here in the US.

:yeahthat: We ended up skipping it (we are very pro-vax and have done everything else on schedule) because our first pediatrician was a crazy anti-vax type who actually lied to us about whether they had the rotavirus vaccine in stock (we called the office later that day and a nurse told us that they definitely had in stock, and pretty much never ran out). By the time we were able to find and make an appointment with another pediatrician, we were told there really wasn't much point in her getting the rotavirus vaccine unless we'd be traveling out of the country before her first birthday.

[boogiemomz]

I think the rotavirus vaccine is pretty skippable. It's like the flu virus, could be helpful, but likely no dire consequences for the child or anyone he'd pass it onto if skipped. Unlike pertussis and measles -- stopping any spread of those diseases is pretty crucial for public health even here in the US.

:yeahthat: We skipped it too, it's the only one we didn't do (except Hep B, which we declined at her birth but had to get recently to comply with preschool/school system standards).

[edurnemk]

http://www.naturalnews.com/034722_breastfeeding_vaccines_CDC.html

:hysterical: It's a joke right? Otherwise: :hopmad: :banghead: :6: :shake: :52: :30:

ETA: I hadn't seen the other posts explaining they meant delaying BF a few hours, that's is NOT what the article is portraying. Kind of irresponsible to give out incomplete information like that IMO.



I was trying to find more information about the study and one of the links I saw mentioned up to 2 hours before and 2 hours after the vaccine. That's not quite what I imagined based on skimming the article that was posted.

ETA: Here's the link where I saw the time frame mentioned. I'm not sure about dates, though, b/c it looks like it references a study of the same name as in the linked article, but it's from 2010?
http://www.drugs.com/breastfeeding/rotavirus-vaccines.html



According to the abstract for the actual journal article (here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20442687, it was written almost two years ago), the researchers state that "Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated." This sounds like they're proposing a study asking breastfeeding mothers to wait several hours after being given the vaccine before nursing their infants again.

[AnnieW625]

Come on now, this isn't "the media" sensationalizing something to get attention, and it's not journalism. We're not exactly talking the NY Times here. It's an advocacy group with a website. It's not journalism. Just because somebody has a website and puts "news" in their name doesn't make them legit. Know your sources. I'm not saying the "real" media doesn't ever blow things out of proportion, but this is so far from journalism it's even funny

Very well said, which is why I just take things like this and all of the stuff on EWG with a grain of salt. It may not be a popular train of thought here but it is so true. Anyone who has a website and a little funding can do a study and then claim the results are news. Same thing with news stories linked from MSNBC.

[wellyes]

Very well said, which is why I just take things like this and all of the stuff on EWG with a grain of salt. It may not be a popular train of thought here but it is so true. Anyone who has a website and a little funding can do a study and then claim the results are news. Same thing with news stories linked from MSNBC.

I've not heard anyone say that EWG publishes inaccurate data. Big agra may take issue with their conclusions -- for example, by saying that pesticide residue isn't as harmful as EWG makes it out to be. But the basic science is sound. Whereas the article this thread is based on is flat-out false, and I would go so far as to say it's hyperbole with a deceitful intention.

[crl]

I've not heard anyone say that EWG publishes inaccurate data. Big agra may take issue with their conclusions -- for example, by saying that pesticide residue isn't as harmful as EWG makes it out to be. But the basic science is sound. Whereas the article this thread is based on is flat-out false, and I would go so far as to say it's hyperbole with a deceitful intention.

:yeahthat:

Catherine

[ast96]

Have any of your children actually had rotavirus, like diagnosed and everything? Because I have.

My first two children got it at the same time, when one had just turned 1 and was still breastfeeding and the other was 2. The vaccine was not available yet then. The 2 year old was hospitalized and the sickest I have ever seen one of my children. It lasted ten days, the first two-three with him vomiting almost nonstop, then moving into near-constant diarrhea. Even with multiple trips to the clinic for IVs, we couldn't get him to stay hydrated. He was limp, listless, febrile, and as he laid in his hospital bed, body fluids just oozed out of him. He had been exclusively breastfed for his first six months and weaned at 14 months. Never touched formula.

My middle child, at 12 months old, was not as sick as he was, but still had to go to the emergency room for IV fluids despite being exclusively breastfed until six months old and still breastfeeding. He too had it for ten days. It was not as severe, but it was very potent.

My third child acquired a stomach virus at two years old. He had the rota vaccine, and we didn't do the tests to determine if what he had was rota, but for those who have survived it -- it SMELLED like rota. He was hospitalized for four days and was as sick as my first. Also exclusively breastfed for six months, weaned at 13 months, never touched formula.

I take rotavirus very, very seriously. I don't live in a developing country unless you count Florida as one. But I can tell you that it is not something to be flippant about. I hope I never see my children that sick again. I also take vaccines seriously, but that is one I would never skip. Of course, we also get flu shots every year.

[mommylamb]

Very well said, which is why I just take things like this and all of the stuff on EWG with a grain of salt. It may not be a popular train of thought here but it is so true. Anyone who has a website and a little funding can do a study and then claim the results are news. Same thing with news stories linked from MSNBC.


I take EWG with a grain of salt too. But this news article and the site where it was found is more than a grain of salt if my mind. I'd venture a guess that pretty much everything on it is a bunch off paranoid, delusional propaganda, which I don't think is the case with EWG, even if I don't follow it the way many BBBers do. As for MSNBC, yes there's a bias, but not even in the same ball park as EWG, let alone something like this website.

[ladysoapmaker]

I'm glad you guys are here. A friend of mine posted this on her FB and I had to say hey look it's not the CDC and the fact that the site didn't post a link to the study made me very doubtful that this was true. and here's what the study was about. And the anti-vacciner (I have nothing against this view if you are willing to look at both sides and actually look at the studies and not jump on the bandwagon on someone's say-so) conceded that there may have been a problem with this article.

Jen

[AnnieW625]

I take EWG with a grain of salt too. But this news article and the site where it was found is more than a grain of salt if my mind. I'd venture a guess that pretty much everything on it is a bunch off paranoid, delusional propaganda, which I don't think is the case with EWG, even if I don't follow it the way many BBBers do. As for MSNBC, yes there's a bias, but not even in the same ball park as EWG, let alone something like this website.

EWG, and MSNBC were just two examples I use of journalism that is used to get people riled up and it bothers me when it isn't written well (which I don't care for along with the original article this post was started about). Without getting more off topic by stating what makes me not believe everything EWG says like the Bible before researching it further I will just say that I find that it comes across as elitist and that bothers me.

[mikala]

I just saw this update on the topic on FB:

http://bfmed.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/abm-president-responds-to-vaccines-and-breastfeeding/

[AshleyAnn]

Have any of your children actually had rotavirus, like diagnosed and everything? Because I have.

My first two children got it at the same time, when one had just turned 1 and was still breastfeeding and the other was 2. The vaccine was not available yet then. The 2 year old was hospitalized and the sickest I have ever seen one of my children. It lasted ten days, the first two-three with him vomiting almost nonstop, then moving into near-constant diarrhea. Even with multiple trips to the clinic for IVs, we couldn't get him to stay hydrated. He was limp, listless, febrile, and as he laid in his hospital bed, body fluids just oozed out of him. He had been exclusively breastfed for his first six months and weaned at 14 months. Never touched formula.

My middle child, at 12 months old, was not as sick as he was, but still had to go to the emergency room for IV fluids despite being exclusively breastfed until six months old and still breastfeeding. He too had it for ten days. It was not as severe, but it was very potent.

My third child acquired a stomach virus at two years old. He had the rota vaccine, and we didn't do the tests to determine if what he had was rota, but for those who have survived it -- it SMELLED like rota. He was hospitalized for four days and was as sick as my first. Also exclusively breastfed for six months, weaned at 13 months, never touched formula.

I take rotavirus very, very seriously. I don't live in a developing country unless you count Florida as one. But I can tell you that it is not something to be flippant about. I hope I never see my children that sick again. I also take vaccines seriously, but that is one I would never skip. Of course, we also get flu shots every year.

I agree. My niece had it when she was 4 and it nearly killed her. She was in the hospital for over a week on IVs. Roto was the one vax I was vigilant about following the schedule. The chance of her contracting the others is minima; but roto is out there. I would never skip it.