It is interesting that Western pediatrics differs so from third world
pediatrics. For a sick 11 month old, BF should be viewed as part of the
therapeutic regime - no, make that for any age BF infant. BM *IS* living
tissue - with live antibodies, live white blood cells and active
macrophages, all of which have significant roles in fighting foreign
protein (bacteria and viruses). This is why fresh BM makes such great
nose drops and eye drops incidentally. The WHO recommendations for
treatment of diarrhea and dehydration is to return to fulltime BF and/or
continue BF for the duration of the illness. This must *NOT* be confused
with the formula model, when to continue feeding formula would cause
many more problems for biochemistry reasons (of osmolality, osmolarity,
and the function and changes of the gut during illness). A similar setup
holds forth for respiratory infections as well. It is good pediatric
medicine to stop formula during illness; yet, it is good pediatric
medicine to continue breastmilk. Milk is not milk is not milk, but our
peds either forget or don't really know the research. IMHO, too many of
our western pediatricians do not enjoy "extended" breastfeeders (how
ironic that 11 months is considered "extended") in their practices and
therefore have not been able to appreciate the medicinal qualities of
mother's milk (especially since so few of these kidlings ever get sick
and then when they do, it's relatively mild).

Last winter I worked in a PICU in town that admitted two 6 week old
infants with severe RSV - both ended up on ventilators, and full cardiac
drips to support their little systems. One had been breastfed, the other
had been formula fed. After 3 weeks of very critical touch'n'go care,
the formula fed baby died. The BF infant recovered. A sad, sad, tragic
demonstration of the significance of a decision and the significance of
BM as supportive therapy.

Katharine West, BSN, MPH
Sherman Oaks, CA