Here's the problem - A year ago the CDC, Twitter Med, and a variety of news outlets promoted the vaccine to pregnant people specifically because a study found mRNA did *not* pass through the breast milk. This was the metric used to prove it was safe to breastfeed.

"No traces of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines found in breast milk: Research"


“We didn’t detect the vaccine associated mRNA in any of the milk samples tested,” said lead author Yarden Golan, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at UCSF. “These finding provide an experimental evidence regarding the safety of the use of mRNA-based vaccines during lactation.”


"We show here that the mRNA from anti-COVID BNT162b2 (Pfizer) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines is not detected in human breast milk samples collected 4-48 hours post-vaccine. These results strengthen the recommendation of ABM and WHO that lactating individuals who receive the anti-COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccine should continue to breastfeed their infants uninterrupted."


I always had the same question Krista O asked in earlier comment - "Why is mRNA in breastmilk (even if a small amount) a bad thing?

I propose that lay people would assume it must be a bad thing considering the studies set out to prove this did not happen, and argued it was safe specifically *because* "...mRNA from anti-COVID BNT162b2 (Pfizer) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines is not detected in human breast milk samples collected 4-48 hours post-vaccine."

Now that this has turned out to be incorrect, rather than digging into to how this was missed on the study which promoted this apparently false claim, concern is essentially dismissed as "well that's not a big deal anyway". Can you see how they may feel "gaslit"?

If this wasn't a concern in the first place, why was it pursued at all? Why didn't the original claim say "we don't find it so far, but even if it was present it doesn't matter because of x, y, z"?

Why isn't there more focus on how the original study could have missed this in the first place? Why do I have to read conspiracists to get a good understanding of the flaws of the original study and how they were avoided in an attempt to replicate? [1]

Covid vaccine enthusiasm has clearly plummeted among the general public. We saw this when the <12 kids never passed 30%. We saw this again when the <2 got stuck at 5%. Few countries even authorized for this cohort. The latest booster has far lower demand than expected. Switzerland is discarding unused doses, Denmark stopped offering to anyone under 50.

I don't think this reluctance can be blamed on "antivaxx" sentiment. I argue it is due to the erosion of trust in our scientific institutions, and this is just the latest example of why there is a breakdown in trust. It should have been communicated much better, with more humility.

[1] Example of the type of research and examination I would hope to see elsewhere: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/bill-gates-funded-scientists-found

Expand full comment

Katelyn Jetelina advocates giving what the FDA in 2020 considered experimental gene therapy to the most vulnerable members of our population.

In her article on the mRNA trials in babies aged from 6 months, she cites reasons other than protection from severe disease, even, bizarrely, the reduced requirement to socially distance.

Any product that doesn’t reduce transmission and requires repeated dosing is a therapy. The gold standard primary endpoint for any trial in any therapy is ALL CAUSE mortality and morbidity.

The MRNA drugs' original trials in adults didn’t show benefit in all cause mortality. The primary endpoint wasn’t even reduced risk of severe disease caused by Covid.

Any parent or prospective parent has a duty to discuss the data RCTs with an immunologist who knows their own or their child’s personal history. Parents should ask for clear evidence of efficacy in reduced risk of severe disease shown by blood work (T cell response) and how long the protection lasts.

Blood Work should be available for each participant and, in cases where the second dose wasn’t given, the reasons should be clear. That's why raw data is so important.

As for the evidence that the shots are safe for reproductive health, in pregnancy, for nursing infants…

the above article cites a meta analysis “pooling many of these studies'. Prasad et al. exclude many, whittling them down to just 23. One notable exclusion is the Shimabukkuro et al. study, which was touted early in the roll out as evidence the mRNA shots were safe in pregnancy. The authors' own data, however, didn’t support their conclusions and a correction was issued, although the paper hasn’t been retracted.

Prasad et al. say one of the strengths of their study is that they use “grey” literature such as government reports (Are we to trust government reports coming from bodies that pushed the covid shots so hard?)

The authors include one large Canadian study where the number of doses is unspecified (In Canada and the US, vaccination status is unreliable because many hospitals record patients as “unvaccinated” until two weeks after the second dose.)

Immunologist Dr. Male cites the study by Gat et al that DID find a negative effect on sperm. The authors’ conclusion is that it was temporary and therefore of no concern but the data do not support that:


How long was the follow-up? We were told vaccine-induced myocarditis was “mild” and “temporary” before we even had evidence from MRIs and subsequent studies have found fibrosis and fatal heart attacks from the shots.

Another major limitation of the meta analysis by Prasad et al. and the Swiss study by Favre et al. ( a poor quality study being “observational”) that the authors say themselves is that they don’t focus on health outcomes for infants.

What about the sexual health of the infants, comparing size of testes, incidence of myocarditis, respiratory and neurological conditions?

What about the long-term effects (such as cancer) for anyone? If a product is marketed as a vaccine then certain safety studies don't need to be done:



You can find reports in VAERS of severe adverse effects (including death) of nursing infants whose mothers had been jabbed. Kateyln Jetelina says these are not greater than normal. Does she know that VAERS is severely under-reported?

In the clip below, you can watch nurses giving evidence at a Health and Welfare meeting of the Louisiana House of Reps on the "terrifying" vaccine injuries they're seeing. The nurses (cardiac and general) speak at the one hour mark. They both say (and their testimony is consistent with other nurses and doctors from other countries) the injuries are not being reported to VAERS:


Katelyn Jetelina is keen to counter "misinformation". There are over 1000 peer-reviewed papers on AEs from the shots. I'd be interested to know what she thinks of the testimony of three participants (and the mother of another) in the original trials who say severe AEs such as paralysis, cancer, pericarditis, neurological were covered up?

Expand full comment

I’m increasingly conflicted about exposing my own body to mRNA. I would find it excruciating to make this decision for my newborn or child who was too young to have input.

The younger the child, the higher the bar should be set on “safe and effective.”

Expand full comment

This is a little off topic, but I'm surprised given the volume of discussion about intranasal vaccines that no one has discussed Ocugen getting the license for the Indian nasal vaccine. I know there's a ways to go (and the Indian vaccine is emergency authorized, hard data coming in the next few months) but this feels like a major step forward for mucosol vaccination: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ocugen-announces-agreement-washington-university-103000226.html

Expand full comment

Why is mRNA in breastmilk (even if a small amount) a bad thing? Wouldn't that offer the baby some protection? I'm confused.

Expand full comment

Great and timely article. Shared it with my lactation consultant and childbirth working friends. I appreciate the time and care you put into this endeavor!

Expand full comment

Thank you for this! I help breastfeeding moms, and also help direct the nonprofit organization through which I volunteer. We value evidence-based information, and it is so handy to have the risks and benefits laid out all in one place.

Expand full comment

Has any data been reviewed that addresses ideal timing of receiving a vaccine or booster, during pregnancy, in order to best protect mother during pregnancy and baby afterward? If I'm reading this correctly, anytime seems to be helpful for baby's protection after birth?

Expand full comment

I wonder which is better: vaccine while pregnant (I wouldn't be due for the new booster until about 36 weeks) or vaccine while breastfeeding. I'm struggling with that decision. Since there is no guarantee I will be successful with breastfeeding, I'm leaning towards while pregnant. Though I do like the possibility of 6 months of antibodies in breastmilk.

Expand full comment

Is this strictly about initial vaccination series or does this also include booster (3rd or 4th) shot during pregnancy? Do I create the same levels of antibodies with a booster to pass through the placenta as a person who completes their initial series during pregnancy?

Expand full comment