Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:44:14 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi, all,
This contradicts much of what I thought I knew. Can anybody shed
some light on it for me? (Especially, with relevant studies?)
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:59:30 -0500, Sara Kay Covington wrote:
>Studies from "WHO's Maternal Health" suggest that up to one-third of
>HIV-infected infants are infected through breastfeeding (Committee on
>Pediatric AIDS, 1995).
I thought I had read that the virus was only present in the milk of HIV+
mothers who had RECENTLY seroconverted. For mothers HIV+ more
than 6 months, the milk was virus-free, and babies seropositive at birth
were found to revert to seronegative after a few months of breastfeeding,
possibly indicating that the milk helped the baby fight off the virus. Does
anyone remember seeing this? Where?
> However, if children born to women with HIV
>can be ensured uninterrupted access to nutritionally adequate breastmilk
>substitutes, then they are at less risk of illness and death and so are
>instructed "not to be breastfed".
Has someone come up with a nutritionally adequate breastmilk substitute?
One which does not result in 5 to 6 times the risk of IDDM? One which
does not produce cognitive development deficits averaging 8 points
of IQ when measured in grade 2 or 3? One which does not carry high
risks of atopic diseases, otitis medea, necroterizing enterocolitis and the
other early diseases? One which does not carry greatly increased SIDS
risk? Please, what is it? I thought the only acceptable substitute for the
mother's milk was human milk from others.
Jonathan
Never does nature say one thing and wisdom another.
- Juvenal
Only G-d knows the formula for mother's milk
L. Jonathan Kramer, P.E.
[log in to unmask]
Graduate Breastfeeding Counselor
Student Lactation Consultant
Certified Medela Nursing Bra Fitter
|
|
|