I'm with you Jack on this. I believe breastmilk presents attenuated viruses
and viral fragments to babies all the time, and in the case of CMV has even
been talked of by researchers as "primary immunisation."

But what is the safer option, in the absence of proof: to expose a small
vulnerable infant to a proven risk of everything from NEC to diabetes, or
to risk an exposure to agents that are probably at lower levels than they
would be if the mother were infected, for which there is little proof of
infant harm? Is breastmilk guilty until proven innocent and formula
innocent until proven guilty yet again? Which is the physiologiclally more
reasonable course of action? I suspect that in countries other than America
this would not be an issue. And if it has not been, why is there no proof
of harm in a world literature that just LOVES to denigrate women's milk?

A personal request for help: anyone have LLLI's order department fax
number? The numbers on the invoices are not in service according to the
phone companies, and there is no directory listing for fax according to the
international operator.

Cheers, M


Maureen Minchin, IBCLC
5 St, George's Rd., Armadale Vic 3143 Australia
tel/fax after March 1: 61.3.95094929 or 95000648