>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.

I am not an expert in this area, but I have done some reading recently
on this topic. While we cannot say for sure that colostrom is a major
factor in passing HIV to baby, it would not surprise me if, in fact,
it was a part of the problem.

It is essential to promote and protect breastfeeding, and it
is very important to pursue research that will answer our questions
about breastfeeding and HIV, however, we must also not reject the
fact that there are rare occasions when breastfeeding, like
childbirth can cause serious problems. On those occasions we
must seek alternatives. The catch is making sure that the
alternatives are used only when bf and "natural childbirth"
pose a threat and not to use the few cases of problem to
alter the "gold standard."

I think we have to be careful not to assume that every article
or paragraph that questions something about breastfeeding is
dangerous, undermining bf etc. That kins of "ranting" undermines
our credibility and makes it difficult for others to take us
seriously. Besides, we should have more confidence
in breastfeeding, ourselves, and mothers the world over than that.
  Naomi Bar-Yam