>    In the African studies she sited where the mothers (HIV +) that
>elected to breastfeed were compared to the mothers (HIV+) that elected
>to bottlefeed ABM the morbidity/mortality of bottlefed babies was no
>worse than those breastfed.  Apparently, this was even in the most
>impoverished areas where clean water was not readily available.  POOF,
>there goes that advantage.
With all due respect I simply do not believe this. I was a public health
volunteer in central  Africa. And it just isn't so. Babies who are not
breastfed die within a few months.
Is this study taking into account that ALL babies born to HIV + mothers
have poorer chances of survival because they are eventually orphaned.?
>New testing has been able to determine more accurately when babies have
>aquired the infection and we can be more certain of transmission that
>have been said to occur; in utero, during childbirth and through
>breastmilk.
Is there indeed this testing? How does it distinguish? This is something
I haven't heard about.
>
>In the US the two most common modes of aquiring HIV are blood
>transfusion and right there in the number 2 position is mother to baby!
This does not seem right to me either. The blood supply is safer than it
has ever been. Are they counting blood from contaminated drug user
needles as a transfusion.

>Within the mother to baby catagory, aquired through breastmilk is in the
>number one position of mode of transmission!!!!

Again, How does testing distinuish between in  utero and through
breastmilk?

> I'm left with disturbing feelings and wondering why
>it isn't being discussed more frequently online.

Yes it is disturbing. It is a complex global problem. Please check the
archives around June of 1997
Mary Graden  LLLL Idaho