Hi Kim:
I've been saving my Lactnet postings in a sort of filing system here in my
Macintoch...and this is the first time that I call on these magic
collections and see that maybe I've actually done things efficiently!
Here's what I have saved over the past months re: HIV on Lactnet:
(I've done a bit of editing for brevity's sake)
Recently a buddy in Calif. asked me about the effects of Depoprovera on
BF...and I copied my Depoprovera stuff for her, too. Neat, huh?
---------------------------
>Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 11:48:45 EST
>From: Sheila Evans <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Babies with Aids who become negative
>
>For Ann Perry and any others who may be interested, there was an editorial
>in JAMA, October 1988 Vol. 260(13) p. 1830 which addressed this issue.
>Many of the babies who test HIV positive are not infected and will not
>develop AIDS. The authors said that only 30- 50% of babies who test HIV
>antibody positive at the time of birth are actually infected. The
>remaining infants test positive because of maternal antibodies. The
>infants who test positive but who are not infected will test negative
>after a year or so. They are trying to learn why the virus is not
>transmitted to all children of infected moms. Therefore, the 5 year old
>born with AIDS, probably never had it and that is why he tested negative
>at the age of 5.
>
>Many of the HIV positive babies are infants of moms who are IV drug users
>and often remain in hospital as border babies. Many people don't want to
>adopt them because they may die. The cost in terms of denying these babes
>a good home, not to mention the cost of care is tremendous. An equally
>important question may be: How many babies are kept in hospital, treated
>with universal precautions during most of their infancy, and essentially
>isolated from love on the basis of a false positive test? We need a test
>which will sort out the false from the true positives.
>
>Unfortunately, there still remains the concern that babies who are
>breastfed may become infected through breast milk. If many HIV positive
>infants are *not* infected at birth, then much as we all support and
>promote breastfeeding, we probably shouldn't encourage breastfeeding in
>this group.
>
>Hope this helps; although, my final comments will probably stimulate some
>reaction.
>
>Sheila
>
>Sheila J. Evans (519) 661-3395
>Faculty of Nursing Fax: (519) 661-3928
>University of Western Ontario email [log in to unmask]
>London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C1
>-----------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 20:19:16 -0400
>From: Janet Simpson <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Babies with Aids who beco...
>
>Hi All,
>Watched a talk show about HIV and babies. What the Dr.s said was this;
>1/3 of the babies will stay HIV positive forever
>1/3 of the babies will lose their HIV positive within 1-2 years
>1/3 of babies will lose their HIV, but then it will spontaneously reappear
>later in life
>Breastfeeding is NOT reccommended because the HIV antibodies will go directly
>into the breastmilk and infect the baby permanently.
>Does anyone out there have any other info that agrees with what these Dr.s
>were saying? I'd love more info on it, myself.
>Janet
>Novice in the field but learning quickly :)
>---------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 18:08:23 -0400
>From: Deena Zimmerman <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: HIV
>
>An attempt to clear up the confusion about HIV antibodies in newborns.
>The easiest test to do for HIV is an ELISA test for the antibody (this is
>then confirmed with a second ELISA test and or Western Blot test also for the
>antibody). In adults, if your body is making the antibody, you were exposed
>to the disease and thus are presumed to have the HIV virus in your blood as
>well. However, the tests for the virus are expensive and not very sensitive
>(they are known as HIV culture and PCR for fplymerase chain reaction which
>is a method that they amplify the minute amount of virus that they find.)
>The complicated thing about newborns is that they receive antibodies from MOM
>via the placenta. Thus if baby has a positive test for the antibody it means
>that mom is infected with the HIV virus and has made antibodies. Almost 100%
>of babies born to HIV+ mothers will have positive antibody tests (principle
>in Medicine - never say never). However, only about 1/3 of this infants
>really contracted the virus.
> Babies loose maternal antibodies in the first 18-24 months. Thus if a baby
>becomes negative ("seroreverts) it is felt that the baby got the antiboides
>from mom but not the virus. If baby continues to have antibodies in after 2
>years it is felt that the baby is starting to makes his/her own and truly is
>HIV infected. The reasons some babies become negative and then later become
>positive (shich does ocassionally happen is due in part because no test is
>100% foolproof (false negative, false positives etc) Hope this helps
>
>* Deena Zimmerman MD MPH *
>* Department of Pediatrics *
>* UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School *
>* 1 RWJ Place *
>* New Brunswick, NJ 08903 *
>* *
>* phone (908) 235-7248 *
>* fax (908) 235-7345 *
>* email [log in to unmask] (internet) *
>-------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 22:21:00 CDT
>From: "Kathleen G. Auerbach" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: HIV and breastfeeding
>One of the areas I try very hard to stay up on is that pertaining to HIV
>and breastfeeding. More and more articles are coming out with data
>suggesting that far fewer than 50% of babies breastfed by HIV+ (but
>healthy) mothers are NOT seroconverting. So, what is said in the US about
>risks of contracting HIV thorugh breastmilk and what is reality in other
>countries varies greatly.
>We need to be VERY CAREFUL about wehat we recommend as a result. Also,
>keep in mind that the HIV virus is very fragile as viruses go and is killed
>with pastueruizatino. This raises the question. If a mother knows she is
>HIV+ and WANTS very much to bbreastfeed, could she not do so using her own
>milk that has been pasteurized?
>Comments by MDs would be helpful here.
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 08:40:38 -0400
>From: Deena Zimmerman <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: HIV in poor women
>
>What your neonatologist is probably referring to is the fact that the WHO
>feels that in underdeveloped countries, this risk of dying from artificial
>breastmilk is greater than that of dying from HIV contracting via
>breastfeeding and thus in this context they do recommend breastfeeding. Very
>poor segments of our country are probably analogous to the underdeveloped
>world (sorry for this insulting terminology for important parts of the
>world). However, in the US the mother's should be able to get WIC or other
>nutritional help. Maybe one day we will know that BF is OK for all babies but
>in the meantime as HIV is a fatal disease, MDs in the US are cautious.>
>
>* Deena Zimmerman MD MPH *
>* Department of Pediatrics *
>* UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School *
>* 1 RWJ Place *
>* New Brunswick, NJ 08903 *
>* *
>* phone (908) 235-7248 *
>* fax (908) 235-7345 *
>* email [log in to unmask] (internet) *
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 12:58:16 -0700
>From: "A. Montgomery" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: HIV inhibition
>
>Just found a blurb in a newsletter--I'm pulling the original paper, but
>thought I'd share it. Breast milk apparently inhibits HIV infections,
>especially milk from uninfected mothers. The effect somes from a specific
>component of human milk called chondroitin sulfate. Seems to invite a
>study of donor milk for babies of HIV infected moms...Reference is J. Nutr.
>125:419-24, 1995.
Hope this helps you, Kim. It is certainly more up-to-date than the 1991
BREASTFEEDING ANSWER BOOK.
Take care,
Roberta
|
