In a message dated 11/27/0 3:22:26 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< I agree with Pat, however, that pacifiers have their place and better yet
believe that we need to be cautious about condeming their use based on the
results of the referenced studies. I believe we need much more evidence. >>

Pat and Lynn,
I am very surprised by your position that "pacifiers have their place", and
am especially surprised by Pat's comment about babies gaining weight too fast
with constant nursing. I actually thought you were joking when I first read
it, b/c it sounded like one of those myths I am always trying to get mothers
to let go of.
    My position is that anything which has the potential to #1) interfere
with breastfeeding, #2) interfere with attachment #3) interefere with proper
jaw and thus speach development and #4) contribute to the unknown medical
risks associated with ingesting the chemical by-products of artificial
nipples do not have their place at all. That is, unless good research (not
financed by AIM companies) proves they are safe *and* useful. Isn't this
assumption that we had best not condemn an artificial object w/o "much more
evidence" the backwards approach that has been taken w/ AIM--assume it is
safe until proven otherwise. Now, we can't seem to get rid of it, even though
we all have lots of proof that it isn't safe.
    Please reread the following post from the archives from David Page about
the very serious dangers of artificial nipples to *all* children.
    Lastly, I attended a partial, unplanned, in-service a couple of weeks ago
given by a German IBCLC about pacifiers (several others on this list were
also present--and I hope someone can post her name) in which the dangers of
pacifiers were discussed. One of the things she talked about was that b/c
babies draw the (mother's) nipple back to the suckling spot, this is the
position in the mouth that gives comfort (or pacifies). B/c artificial
nipples do not reach that far, unless they are terribly broken-down over
time, the result for the baby of *sucking* on a pacifier is *frustration*,
not comfort!

Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA

From David Page, DDS:

Infant Sucking differs considerably from Infant Suckling.
,
INFANT SUCKING places constricting forces on the jaws. The circular muscle
around the lips puts heavy pressure backwards---try sucking on a straw and
feel the force on the eye teeth area. Sucking is more of a lung drawing
force, which can be aided by gravity, depending upon feeding/bottle position.
Sucking places bad deforming forces on the dental arches which then translate
into forces which oppose natural jaw growth and development. Sucking a bottle
or pacifier can push back both jaws in various ways, thereby creating the
higher incidences and varieties of malocclusion and dental crowding.  NOTE:
The good work of Dr. Brian Palmer in showing the grand difference between
occlusions Pre-BOTTLE and Post-Bottle....OR...just think about what prevents
the jaw from growing properly and forming enough room for 3rd molars---wisdom
teeth. Soft diet, sucking, lack of jaw stimulation---suckling and heavy
chewing.

INFANT SUCKLING places down and forward growing forces on the jaws. Suckling
is an active jaw undulating forceful milking of the breast...whereby the
tongue pull on the breast and palate stimulates proper 3-dimensional growth
of the upper and lower jaw bones and reduces malocclusion and dental
crowding.  It also stimulates posterior dental arch width growth as the wider
extension of the breast (than a bottle nipple) forces lateral width to the
palate all the way back to the S-spot (as so named by Joanne Burke-Snyder,
LC.) which makes for better width to the human airway.

SUCKING A PACIFIER not only dramatically interpheres with and decreases
overall success and length of breast feeding, but it also dramatically
impacts the soft pliable infant palate by forcing the anterior section
(pre-maxilla) up and into the nasal passage...thereby increasing nasal
resistance and decreasing ability to successfully produce a NASAL
BREATHER....which is PARAMOUNT to overall Oxygenation, Health, and Longevity.

Sincerely,
DCPage,DDS

Next: NASAL BREATHING, NITRIC OXIDE, O sats of BF vs. FF, & BRAIN FUNCTION

             ***********************************************
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