> The case your were involved with, Virginia, does *not* prove the
> infection came from the breastmilk.  Could just have easily come from
> the amnionitis.

The time frame makes that unlikely:  the baby was about 6 weeks old when
he first went to breast (this was in the "old days" before we did kangaroo
care, so he hadn't had skin contact with his mother prior to that).  His
mom was in the midst of a full-blown, untreated, bilateral breast
infection when she first put her baby to breast--and THEN he got sick, and
THEN his septic work-up grew Group B Strep.

Of course I know this proves nothing...but I had read those published
letters allegedly linking Group B strep with bilateral mastitis and
subsequent neonatal sepsis.  This mother's mastitis was the first and only
case I'd ever seen of bilateral mastitis.  The fact that she'd had Group B
Strep amnionitis 6 weeks prior may be irrelevant.  Watching how sick that
baby became just made me pause and think.

I remain unconvinced myself, not seeing this pattern repeat itself, nor
ever reading any more published anecdotes.  So, yeah, it proves nothing.
But I would still be cautious if I ever saw bilateral mastitis again.

Ginna Wall, MN, IBCLC, Lactation Services Coordinator
University of Washington Medical Center, Mailbox 356153
1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle WA 98195
Voicemail: (206)548-6368, Fax: (206)548-7665