dear kathryn,

and i thought babies couldn't get into those concerts . . . it seems to me it
might be a good thing, however, to test samples of whichever, colostrum or
milk, so that "they" won't just begin telling all the women there to not
breastfeed. my thought was, isn't breastmilk (and therefore also colostrum?)
constantly being reabsorbed and recreated by the breast until it is consumed?
so wouldn't pumping and dumping be of no effect if there is indeed a constant
environmental source?

also, there is the old (at least i remember first hearing it a long time ago)
advice about not encouraging drastic weight loss during lactation because it
would dump these sorts of things into the milk. i always had an impression of
toxic sludge being liberated from those nasty old fat cells.  does this, if
true (and we certainly in LLLL still tell women this) imply that these things
are not readily available in breastmilk but are rather stored in fat cells,
which sounds contradictory?

and last on this subject, could colostrum not be collected in tiny amounts
before delivery? a request of this nature would make me hesitate, but this
would not interfere with its availability to baby after delivery.

my latest worst reason to wean story comes from the pediatrician who must
have trained with the dental professor. mother is going on a trip, and baby
must be able to take a bottle to unblock his ears during takeoff and landing.
my friend at the milk bank tell me this is not a new reason. the mother
actually didn't call me about this, but about the pain in her breast after
being bound for four days, as the pediatrician's nurse advised to do. luckily
she was anxious to resume breastfeeding with some proper information and i'm
trying not to contemplate revenge fantasies involving the pediatrician and
the nurse. the mother reports that the pediatrician said, quote, you've
nursed three months, that's enough, unquote. too bad his professional group
disagrees; i love to hoiset'em by their own petard.

llllove, carol