> Unless we're seeing a different rate of nipple infection from 20 years ago.
> Certainly we're seeing more thrush.  Are we also seeing more damage-related
> bacterial infections?  And if so, does that mean our treatment of "typical"
> damaged nipples needs revision?


Since the Livingstone article, I'm thinking about this too. I'm wondering how
univeral this is. I tend to think that these research findings cannot be applied
everywhere, since antibiotics regimes can be so different.

Eg I've read in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago that the rate of infections
with resitant bacteries of a certain  kind (sorry I forgot the details) in
hospitals is much much lower in the Netherlands than in surrounding european
countries and the US (1% here, and 20-30 % elsewhere). This is caused by the
reluctance to prescribe antibiotics (In the netherlands antibiotica are
signifgicantly less prescribed than in other european countries), and the strong
regimes that are taken once the MRSA is found.

For instance: people who are transported out of hospitals in South Europe into a
dutch hospital are allways put in quarantaine until it is proven they do no carry
resistant bacteries with them.

Based on this I'm wondering how the findings in these research and the treatments
that follow these findings can be applied here in The Netherlands.

This is also a question I have with some treatments that are given in 'Clinical
therpay' of Tom Hale, when it comes to antibiotics.


regards, Annelies Bon
Lay counsellor of the Dutch bf organization "Borstvoeding Natuurlijk"

Breastfeeding postcards: http://www.borstvoeding.com/shop/english.html
Ordering from US: http://www.attachmentscatalog.com/gifts/notecards.html

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