Vaishali,
You wrote, "There might also be some potent medications derived from 
breastmilk that could be synthetically produced, without the toxicity for treating 
debilitating and deadly diseases."

Indeed, it would be wonderful to have potent medications derived from 
breastfmilk that would not create adverse effects.  But, I  believe that prevention 
should be the first issue in regard to diseases.  Breastfeeding is an essential 
step in creating a healthy immune system.  Thus this research should not 
compete against or sabotage breastfeeding in any way.  I don't see this happening. 
 Instead for example, in developing nations hiv/aids has created a "supposed" 
need for a safe infant formula.  Yet in the meantime hiv/aids researchers are 
investing in companies that are using genetically engineered components of 
human milk that inactivate hiv/aids. So what is it that these people believe and 
know?  Do they believe that these components inactivate hiv, yet they somehow 
don't work in the breastfeeding mother?  Has this belief been truly tested??  
Instead the knowledge out in the world is that breastfeeding is too dangerous 
for the hiv positive mother.  How much of what we know is tied to a science 
that has more interest in making money than finding out the truth?  How many 
mothers and babies have been sacrificed to ensure that certain industries make a 
profit? 

I think the correct term for "synthetically" produced is genetically 
engineered. And I think there are many scientists who believe that genetic engineering 
comes no where close to the natural component and in fact comes with a number 
of risks.  And the risks not only include personal risks for those taking 
these "synthetic" components but the production of these components creates 
environmental degradation and huge risks to organic farmers world-wide.

You wrote, "Why would anyone do research if there wasn't any money involved?" 
 Research whose main goal is to make a profit through creating a monopoly on 
a product is not science.  It is quite simply corporate game-playing.  
Certainly, people have to make a living.  Money is certainly a modern mode of 
exchange.  But when the only science acceptable in a society is one in which a 
certain few makes enormous profits, then we create a society that has chained its 
science to its industries.  When this industry exerts its money and influence to 
distort science and punish anyone who critiques that science, then we have a 
closed system and closed minds.  For instance a professor at  UC-Berkeley was 
fired for publishing a paper regarding the contamination of native Mexican 
corn varieties by genetically engineered corn.  He was fired due to pressure from 
Montsanto on the university's tenure review panel. His name is Dr. Ignacio 
Chapela whose article was published in "Nature."  Anyone interested in signing a 
petition to demand a review of Dr. Chapela's tenure denial, see:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/uc.htm

I believe the only reason for science cannot be the making of profits. There 
are some scientists who have a joy and questioning spirit in regard to life's 
mysteries.  Science is their soul and its not about money.  We need to allow 
these people an opportunity to do what they love.  One way of thinking is not 
knowledge it is a monopoly and a monopoly that cripples the sciences.
Valerie W. McClain, breastfeeding advocate

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

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

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