Setting the stage for a healthy immune system (Gut flora & birth)

[Ayla]

Let's talk about where we start for setting up healthy immune systems for our children.

As was already touched on in this thread (http://forums.beyondvaccination.com/showthread.php?t=104), birth and where it happens is the first most important factor for laying the foundations for a healthy immune system. As gut flora makes up 70% of our immune system, and a newborn's gut is sterile until it is born, where it is born dictates what bacteria colonises the gut. Birthing at home ensures the best outcome for gut colonisation.

Women who birth at home also have greater rates of breastfeeding, the second most important factor for healthy immune systems. Delaying solids and extended breastfeeding are important as well. My son is 15mths old, is still fully breastfed (he's had some tastes of food since 14mths old, but nothing that would constitute a meal, and never regularly), and he does not get sick nearly as often as his peers who were introduced to solids from 6mths old. An infant's gut is ready for food alongside breastfeeding at around the 12mth old mark, and reaches maturity at around 24mths. Extended breastfeeding until the child self-weans is optimal.

That's as far as my knowledge has taken me because this is where I'm at with my son. I'd love to hear from others!

[Quickening]

As was already touched on in this thread (http://forums.beyondvaccination.com/showthread.php?t=104), birth and where it happens is the first most important factor for laying the foundations for a healthy immune system.

Not to be picky but I think that thread shows nutrition would be the first important factor as nutrition come before birth. :) If you were looking for more information on how birth helps to groom the immune system for babies, I do have some extracts I can post here.

[Nirvana]

Quickening, it would be great if you post some links. I for one am still stumped as to how little I know regarding such an important issue. I feel we can keep the previous thread for nutrition and this one for birthing-related posts/queries. Or maybe we could merge the two and have a fantastic eye-opener for all.

[Janet]

I had no idea until after I'd had an unnecessarean that the damage to the gut is significant. No one told me, I never read it anywhere while spending many months constantly researching for my homebirth. I'm an academic by trade so research is my passion. Once I found out I was even angrier about the damage done to us which went well beyond the appalling emotional experience, dashed bonding and into the physical in such a major way. The week of his birth my milk didn't come in for 8 days and so because I also didn't know (and wasn't offered by the LC or my mw, both of whom knew plenty of lactating women) that expressed breastmilk could be available, he also had about 48 hours of artificial baby milk thus cruelling his gut further. Being in a total fog of PTSD I also had him vaxxed for the first lot on the schedule then realised I had thinking to do and he hasn't had another since. It's been a year now of trying to help his gut heal. Hard work emotionally and physically.

[Epona]

I thought i would post this link here, titled "The Robust Health of Vaccine Free Children".

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/unvaccinated.html

My son is the healthiest babe we have ever come across. I have never met a stronger healthier kid, he just never gets sick. I feel "lucky" but i also feel it has to do with not ever having any injections. We also feed him organic foods and plenty of fresh fruits.

I really cant contribute his health to long term breastfeeding because unfortunately, he was BF for a very short term and introduced to an organic formula within the first week of his life. Not ideal at all, but its the way it went. I also introduced solids early and he was on 3 full meals before he was 8 months. We also introduced him to all foods and placed no restrictions on nuts, seeds, honey, strawberries ect. We offered and if he wanted them, he got them.

The only thing i can put his supreme health down to, is luck, good food, good genes and no vaccines/medication.

There is also this article; http://www.powelltherapies.com/articles/vaccines/unvaccinated%20children-moskowitz.htm

And this health comparison study of unvaccinated vs vaccinated children.

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/Vacc%20vs%20unvacc%20results%20survey.pdf

:)

[Serephina]

Back to the gut flora issue, I would avoid antibiotics like the plague! Sure they will kill off the infectious pathogens but they also kill off the friendly bacteria that reside in the gut. Compromised gut flora = weakened immune system and greater susceptibility to infection in the future. Talk about a vicious cycle!

[Quickening]

Babies have no bacteria cultures at all. During the birthing process, they are exposed to the mother’s bacteria in the birth canal. Babies often ingest some birthing fluids, and as they are touched by their mother, they pick up her skin bacteria as well.

Breast milk is bifidobacterium dominant, and breastfed babies will be bifidobacterium dominant for as long as they are exclusively breastfed. After that, lactobacillus acidophilus takes over a larger role in the child’s gut than previously.

Here are some extracts to get you started. ALL BOLD EMPHASIS ARE MINE.


First, there is evidence that organisms initially colonising the gut at birth may establish chronic persistence in many children, in contrast to prompt clearance if first encountered in later infancy, childhood or adulthood. Second, there is a rapidly advancing basic scientific data showing that individual members of the gut flora specifically induce gene activation within the host, modulating mucosal and systemic immune function and having an additional impact on metabolic programming.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00952.x

Intestinal microbiota development begins immediately following birth. The composition of the infant’s evolving microbiota is initially defined by the mother, the source of the newborn’s first microbial inoculum. Colonising bacteria rapidly adapt to breast milk and epithelial mucins as sources of nutrients.

The results of this study, showing that clostridial numbers in normally born children seven years after delivery are significantly higher than in caesarean born children, demonstrate that abnormal development of the intestinal microbiota reported following caesarean section delivery may continue even beyond infancy.

http://gut.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/53/9/1388-a

full text available free here (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15306608)
The climax intestinal flora is attained in successive stages. The foetal intestine is sterile and bathed in swallowed amniotic fluid. Following delivery, multiple different antigens challenge the intestine of the newborn. The maternal intestinal flora is a source of bacteria for the neonatal gut. The bacterial flora is usually heterogeneous during the first few days of life, independently of feeding habits. After the first week of life, a stable bacterial flora is usually established. In full-term infants a diet of breast milk induces the development of a flora rich in Bifidobacterium spp. Other obligate anaerobes, such as Clostridium spp. and Bacteroides spp., are more rarely isolated and also enterobacteria and enterococci are relatively few. During the corresponding period, formula-fed babies are often colonized by other anaerobes in addition to bifidobacteria and by facultatively anaerobic bacteria; the development of a "bifidus flora" is unusual. In other studies the presence of a consistent number of bifidobacteria in infants delivered in large urban hospitals has not been demonstrated, whether the babies were bottle fed or exclusively breastfed. The predominant faecal bacteria were coliforms and bacteroides. According to these studies, environmental factors may be more important than breastfeeding in gut colonization after delivery.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/spae/2003/00000092/A441s441/art00009 no page found, but the pubmed extract here, says it all (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14599042)


CONCLUSIONS. The most important determinants of the gut microbiotic composition in infants were the mode of delivery, type of infant feeding, gestational age, infant hospitalization, and antibiotic use by the infant. Term infants who were born vaginally at home and were breastfed exclusively seemed to have the most "beneficial" gut microbiota (highest numbers of bifidobacteria and lowest numbers of C difficile and E coli).

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/2/511

full text download here. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14599042)
So we’ve learned that birth is important to establishing a healthy gut flora for our babies’ immune systems. Not only is vaginal birth important, but the environment in which we have a vaginal birth in, is also important. It is also of an obvious importance that the mothers are the first and only ones to handle their babies for as long as possible after birth, and that she breastfeed. The mother's gut flora health at the moment of birth is also important too as the mother is a source of gut flora for the baby.

[Ayla]

Interesting stuff Quickening, thanks!

[3monkeys]

Very interesting thanks Quickening.

Time for a story :D When Kate was born she developed this big pustules in her groin. They were awful. So I showed our local nurse when he came to see us. He rang a paed who suggested she go on anitbiotics ASAP. I told the nurse there was no way on this planet I was putting my week old baby on abs esp as she had no other signs of infection such as fever or discomfit. She was breastfeeding, she was sleeping. THe only thing wrong was these pusy lumps. Anyway..... he told me that if I didnt she would get scepteceamia (sp) and end up in ICU etc. Talk about trying to scare the crap out of me. Esp as my DH had just gone to sea so it was me and 3 children. Anyway I told him my babys gut flora was hardly established and there was no way I was going to destroy it like that. I took the ABs to keep him happy and they sat in the fridge until I threw them out. I rang him after a few days and told him one of them was about to burst could I have a swab and we would see what it was. Turns out it was a staph and enterococci infection. I think the entrococci got in the sampe from one of her nice explosive breastfed baby poos.

Anyway that was a long winded way of saying I am so glad I stuck to my gut (excsue the pun :) ) I couldnt imagine the damage that course of antibiotics would ahve done and it was so unneccessary. Talk about stand over tactics though, there is nothing worse than thinking your baby might end up in ICU. I am just glad I trusted myself.

[salsero96]

Very interesting thanks Quickening.

Time for a story :D When Kate was born she developed this big pustules in her groin. They were awful. So I showed our local nurse when he came to see us. He rang a paed who suggested she go on anitbiotics ASAP. I told the nurse there was no way on this planet I was putting my week old baby on abs esp as she had no other signs of infection such as fever or discomfit. She was breastfeeding, she was sleeping. THe only thing wrong was these pusy lumps. Anyway..... he told me that if I didnt she would get scepteceamia (sp) and end up in ICU etc. Talk about trying to scare the crap out of me. Esp as my DH had just gone to sea so it was me and 3 children. Anyway I told him my babys gut flora was hardly established and there was no way I was going to destroy it like that. I took the ABs to keep him happy and they sat in the fridge until I threw them out. I rang him after a few days and told him one of them was about to burst could I have a swab and we would see what it was. Turns out it was a staph and enterococci infection. I think the entrococci got in the sampe from one of her nice explosive breastfed baby poos.

Anyway that was a long winded way of saying I am so glad I stuck to my gut (excsue the pun :) ) I couldnt imagine the damage that course of antibiotics would ahve done and it was so unneccessary. Talk about stand over tactics though, there is nothing worse than thinking your baby might end up in ICU. I am just glad I trusted myself.

WOW.... That is an interesting story! There have been a few times in my 2 1/2 years of being a dad that we had to go against the doctor. But in the long run, I'm glad that we did. My biggest stance was the vaccinations. I truely think that our decision not to vaccinate our children was the toughest but best decision in my life. (Aside from marrying my wife. :p )
I just wish that I was more knowledgeable about these other health problems that arise. The search for knowledge is never-ending!

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Back to the gut flora issue, I would avoid antibiotics like the plague! Sure they will kill off the infectious pathogens but they also kill off the friendly bacteria that reside in the gut. Compromised gut flora = weakened immune system and greater susceptibility to infection in the future. Talk about a vicious cycle!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/the-sting-in-the-needle/2007/03/28/1174761570863.html (http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/the-sting-in-the-needle/2007/03/28/1174761570863.html)#

The sting in the needle

March 29, 2007

Doubts are emerging about the long-term effect of vaccinations on bacteria, writes Julie Robotham.

FOR a baby, it is a brief moment of anguish as the needle punctures the arm. For public health experts, the rapidly expanding Australian childhood immunisation program is presenting longer-term concerns that cannot be so quickly overcome with a cuddle and a feed.

They are balancing the attractions of preventing serious illness and death today against the unknown effects of mass vaccination on patterns of disease in future.

What if banishing one set of bugs provides a golden opportunity for others to set up shop in the body? What if bacteria that are only occasionally deadly serve an as yet unrecognised but beneficial function? How will we provide boosters if the protection vaccines afford turns out to diminish over time? If childhood diseases are deferred to adulthood, will they be more severe?

Mahomed Patel believes so little is known about the natural balance of microbes in the nose and throat that vaccines against bugs that reside there "must be regarded as an experiment in restructuring the local bacterial population".

Bacteria in the gut are known to be important for immunity and digestive health, says Patel, an epidemiologist at the Australian National University. "We don't understand the microbiology of the throat at all. My guess is that they must be doing us some good ... we're knocking out some bugs which relatively infrequently cause disease."

Many people carry meningococcal bacteria, for example, benignly in their throats. Only in about one in 100,000 does the bug invade the blood or brain to become a life-threatening infection. Meanwhile, the vaccine against the C strain of meningococcal disease has been given universally to children since 2003.

Mass immunisation against seven dangerous strains of pneumococcus - also part of the standard childhood jab schedule since 2005 - vastly decreases the amount of disease they cause by ridding the throat of any trace of the organisms.

Among Boston preschoolers the proportion who carried the vaccine strains fell from 22 per cent to 2 per cent during the three years after immunisation began. But colonisation by other pneumococcal strains - there are more than 90 - increased from 7 per cent to 16 per cent. Given time to evolve, those too might turn nastier.

"The prognosis for a lasting suppression of pneumococcal disease is guarded," Patel wrote last month in the Medical Journal of Australia, reigniting discussion of scientific uncertainties surrounding some aspects of Australia's immunisation program, even among its most ardent proponents.

Patel, who has worked in central Australia and Papua New Guinea, where infectious disease outbreaks are rife, believes vaccine technology offers too simplistic a technical fix to diseases that are more truly based in poverty, overcrowding and poor hygiene.

Robert Booy, the co-director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, is an enthusiastic advocate of immunisation programs, but readily agrees they raise consequences for the future that can only partially be foreseen.

Booy says the evidence to date suggests that no new disease-causing strains for meningococcal, pneumococcal or the meningitis-causing Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) bacteria - against which Australia has been immunising since 1993 - have arisen to take the place of those knocked out by vaccines. "Over 10 to 15 years we haven't seen replacement," he says.

Nevertheless, says Booy, there is clear evidence from studies of people with chronic lung disease that different bugs do compete with each other to occupy a susceptible respiratory tract, and it may be that now is simply too soon to breathe a sigh of relief. "[Strain replacement] is a very real possibility," he says. "It may be it's a function over time."

And there is also solid evidence that mass immunisation can lead to the still more serious scenario of so-called capsule switching - in which, for example, the disease-causing core of the C strain meningococcal bacteria might swap genes with another meningococcal strain, allowing it to spread more readily and evade vaccine defences.

Booy says such instances are so few and far between that they have not posed a health threat. "It's a hypothetical concern that in practice hasn't amounted to anything more than isolated cases," he says.

A more immediate worry - as the most immunised generation in history makes its way out of preschools and into middle childhood - is how long their turbo-charged immunity will last.

According to immunisation dogma, any "live" vaccine - based on an actual pathogen modified to stop it causing disease - creates a lifelong "memory" in the body, triggering a powerful immune response every time it encounters the real thing.

Experience has taught that this is only partially true, says Booy. Individuals vary in the degree of immune response that vaccines induce, and there is a gradual diminution of response as people age.

Yet another variable is the age at which a vaccine is administered, which also influences the strength of the immune response it provokes.

Australian babies who receive a single meningococcal C jab at age 12 months already have better protection from the disease than British infants, who receive three shots during their first six months of life. But their next time of peak risk will come during their teens, when adolescent socialising puts them back in intimate contact with other people's bugs, and there is no guarantee their immunity will still be sufficient to withstand the onslaught.

"We may get to the point of giving [a booster] at about 12 years, before they start snogging and smoking," Booy says.

Meanwhile, waning immunity to the chicken pox virus varicella - against which children are also now immunised - would pose a separate conundrum because infection takes a different form in older people, in whom it often appears as the phenomenally painful neurological condition shingles. Varicella vaccines for the elderly to prevent the shingles manifestation are under development.

For Peter Collignon, the director of infectious diseases at the Canberra Hospital, it is a question of proportion.

The organisms we vaccinate against are a relatively small slice of microbial life in the throat, and immunisation has proven extremely efficient at combating serious diseases they cause. The only other available option - treating disease after it occurs - may knock out many more bugs than just the culprit.

"I think we've got to keep a practical perspective," Collignon says. "If you take an antibiotic it's like napalming your throat."

[dressagemom]

When my first was 3, he developed a double ear infection. I took him to the ped. to have it confirmed (he was my first, I was still learning to trust myself!). Ped. said, yes it was an ear infection, here is a script for abx. I said ok, and off I went. I didn't fill the script, because I felt like there was a good chance the infection would resolve on its own. My ILs had a conniption fit, took the script, and filled it for me. The abx sat in the fridge until I threw them out months later. The ear infection resolved on its own within about 3 days. BTW, the ped. was perfectly fine with me treating the infection without abx; he cited statistics from Europe where most ear infections are not treated with abx. He had done his training in Pennsylvania amongst the Amish, and was comfortable with both restrained abx use and natural healing methods (although being a dr., he didn't really buy into the natural healing stuff; he thought that is mostly just BS/placebo effect).

All that to make the point that a perfectly healthy child with an intact healthy gut should be able to heal itself without the use of abx or other medications, in most instances. I think the problem is that most people are not comfortable with the wait and see approach, so they start medicating at the first sign of illness, whether the patient is an adult or child. Which, in the case of a newborn means that the gut is disrupted, or poorly colonized after birth, esp. if said baby is FF, not BF. It seems to me that a lot of the problems start with a baby and mama being exposed to abx during pregnancy and birth, which messes up the mama's gut, and therefore the baby's gut.

Not sure if I am making sense, as it is late, and I am tired.