Someone objects to this statemen:
>[It is] quite clear that bf does not prevent a child from contracting >the
>diseases that we immunise against
and the objector writes:
"This is not correct information. Breastmilk contains protective
antibacterial and antiviral factors for the very same diseases."
Perhaps it's just a matter of carefully reading what has been said, and the
semantics thereof, but the original statement IS CORRECT.
I think we all already KNOW that breast milk contains many antibacterial and
antiviral factors for many of the diseases that there are also immunizations
for. Nonetheless, that does NOT mean that breastfeeding PREVENTS the child
from contracting the disease. Breast milk may DECREASE the risk of the
child contracting the disease (or you can say that formula feeding increases
the risk). Breast milk may DECREASE the level of infection (or you can say
that formula feeding allows the bacteria/virus to replicate unhindered, and
therefore to higher levels than in a breastfed child). Breast milk may make
RECOVERY more likely and faster (or you can say that formula feeding
prolongs the course of the disease and increases mortality). All of these
are accurate statements.
The bottom line, however, is that breast milk/being breastfed does not
PREVENT children from getting diphtheria, polio, tetanus, measles, mumps,
rubella, hepatitis B, chicken pox, or many other disease.
It is clearly better to be breastfed if you are exposed and infected with
these or other bacteria/viruses. But breastfeeding absolutely will not give
you 100% prevention, or 100% protection, or 100% guaranteed recovery. You
are clearly in the best position to combat typical childhood diseases if you
are both breastfed for a long time, and fully immunized on time.
I seriously urge people who remain confused or skeptical about the value of
immunizations to travel to places where all the children are breastfed for a
long time, but where immunizations are not available, such as Mali, West
Africa, where I have spent 2.5 years doing research on child health and
feeding practices. There are many other places in the world just like Mali
in these regards -- all the kids breastfed for a long time, few/no
immunizations available.
Spend some time observing the children who were breastfed for several years,
but who now must drag themselves around or crawl or duck-walk using hands
and feet due to polio (no wheelchairs are available in these places either).
Talk to the women about the exclusively breastfed babies they lost to
neonatal tetanus. They can give you a really good description of the
spasms, jaw-clenching, and back-arches that precede death. Get a grieving
mother to describe in detail for you what it is like to watch a
fully-breastfed child slowly suffocating from diphtheria, and finally
finding peace in death. And note that it there are NO families that have
not lost at least one breastfed child during a measles epidemic.
It remains my mantra that scientific evidence must be our touch-stone for
discussing breastfeeding on LactNet. Yes, breast milk is wonderful, and
full of all sorts of amazing antibacterial and antiviral substances, many of
which are probably still awaiting discovery. Breastfeeding is wonderful,
for many reasons. But it absolutely cannot prevent 100% the diseases for
which immunizations have been developed, and it is irresponsible to imply to
parents that as long as they are breastfeeding, their children don't need
immunizations.
Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
***********************************************
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
|
