Kathy K, thanks so much for sending a copy of the Washington Post report of
the results of the PETRA studies, and for alerting us especially to the last
two sentences.
>Breast feeding increases a baby's risk of acquiring HIV from an infected
>mother by up to three-fold, depending on when the child is weaned."
What's with these people? This is a little play on words. It's true that
up until recently risk of transmission has been thought to be roughly 30%,
ie one-third in utero, one-third during delivery and one-third during
breastfeeding. That's one-third, folks, not "three-fold". However, even
this figure has recently been reviewed in the Leroy multi-centre pooled
analysis reported in the Lancet at the end of August l998, which showed that
only 49 out of 102 babies were believed to have acquired HIV through
*breastfeeding*. That's 5%, not 10% and certainly not three-fold. Why
choose to quote an earlier (larger) statistic and to omit a more recent
(smaller) one? At best this is selective reporting. At worst it's
deliberately misleading.
>A major moment of risk may occur in the first few days, when the child can
>take in more than 25,000 HIV-containing cells in the thick fluid known as
>colostrum.
This is unbelievable. Blaming infection on "HIV-containing" colostrum.
When it is *just as likely* that during delivery virus-laden maternal
secretions can infect the mucosal surfaces of the infants' eyes, mouth and
gastrointestinal tract, and the baby's skin, and gain access to the
bloodstream. Think about it. Until we have better tests, that can
*distinguish* between infection acquired during delivery and infection
acquired during the first few days/weeks of breastfeeding, then we CANNOT
say that colostrum is the culprit. Why not describe "birth" as "a major
moment of risk" instead? It interests me that the interpretation of risk is
reported to be that evil fluid colostrum, rather than labour/delivery.
Always the same message, Don't breastfeed. Aaarrrgghh!
Pamela Morrison IBCLC, Zimbabwe
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
