Carol Kelly wrote:
>>HIV is not transmitted casually and breastfeeding was the only possible
route
of transmission from Elizabeth to Ariel....>>

This is the part with which I have trouble.  A mother and baby--no matter
now feeding is accomplished--are an intimate couple.  HIV is not
transmitted casually--but the mother-baby dyad has lots more than casual
contact.  Seems to me that when a mother is breastfeeding, that is pegged
as the 'why' without (for me) thoroughly exploring other possible means of
transmission.  I always wonder how this would/could be explained if the
mother were *not* bf--like calling HIV seroconversion from negative to
positive in a non-bf child 'late onset HIV'.

Guess I am going to re-claim residence in Missouri (the 'Show-Me State'!)
for this very tough issue.

Also find myself cynically suspicious of how involved manufacturers of
artificial baby milks could be influencing the media on this one....

In my nearly 30 years of bf experience, breastfeeding has been considered
less than ideal for several issues (adequate iron and some vitamins &
environmental contaminants for example)--and later evidence refutes those
initial reports and re-establishes human milk as optimal nutrition.....

Karen Zeretzke, MEd, IBCLC
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
[log in to unmask]
http://www.prairienet.org/laleche/bfcost.html

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html