Hi Kim: I've been saving my Lactnet postings in a sort of filing system here in my Macintoch...and this is the first time that I call on these magic collections and see that maybe I've actually done things efficiently! Here's what I have saved over the past months re: HIV on Lactnet: (I've done a bit of editing for brevity's sake) Recently a buddy in Calif. asked me about the effects of Depoprovera on BF...and I copied my Depoprovera stuff for her, too. Neat, huh? --------------------------- >Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 11:48:45 EST >From: Sheila Evans <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Babies with Aids who become negative > >For Ann Perry and any others who may be interested, there was an editorial >in JAMA, October 1988 Vol. 260(13) p. 1830 which addressed this issue. >Many of the babies who test HIV positive are not infected and will not >develop AIDS. The authors said that only 30- 50% of babies who test HIV >antibody positive at the time of birth are actually infected. The >remaining infants test positive because of maternal antibodies. The >infants who test positive but who are not infected will test negative >after a year or so. They are trying to learn why the virus is not >transmitted to all children of infected moms. Therefore, the 5 year old >born with AIDS, probably never had it and that is why he tested negative >at the age of 5. > >Many of the HIV positive babies are infants of moms who are IV drug users >and often remain in hospital as border babies. Many people don't want to >adopt them because they may die. The cost in terms of denying these babes >a good home, not to mention the cost of care is tremendous. An equally >important question may be: How many babies are kept in hospital, treated >with universal precautions during most of their infancy, and essentially >isolated from love on the basis of a false positive test? We need a test >which will sort out the false from the true positives. > >Unfortunately, there still remains the concern that babies who are >breastfed may become infected through breast milk. If many HIV positive >infants are *not* infected at birth, then much as we all support and >promote breastfeeding, we probably shouldn't encourage breastfeeding in >this group. > >Hope this helps; although, my final comments will probably stimulate some >reaction. > >Sheila > >Sheila J. Evans (519) 661-3395 >Faculty of Nursing Fax: (519) 661-3928 >University of Western Ontario email [log in to unmask] >London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C1 >----------------------------------- > >Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 20:19:16 -0400 >From: Janet Simpson <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Babies with Aids who beco... > >Hi All, >Watched a talk show about HIV and babies. What the Dr.s said was this; >1/3 of the babies will stay HIV positive forever >1/3 of the babies will lose their HIV positive within 1-2 years >1/3 of babies will lose their HIV, but then it will spontaneously reappear >later in life >Breastfeeding is NOT reccommended because the HIV antibodies will go directly >into the breastmilk and infect the baby permanently. >Does anyone out there have any other info that agrees with what these Dr.s >were saying? I'd love more info on it, myself. >Janet >Novice in the field but learning quickly :) >--------------------------------- > >Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 18:08:23 -0400 >From: Deena Zimmerman <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: HIV > >An attempt to clear up the confusion about HIV antibodies in newborns. >The easiest test to do for HIV is an ELISA test for the antibody (this is >then confirmed with a second ELISA test and or Western Blot test also for the >antibody). In adults, if your body is making the antibody, you were exposed >to the disease and thus are presumed to have the HIV virus in your blood as >well. However, the tests for the virus are expensive and not very sensitive >(they are known as HIV culture and PCR for fplymerase chain reaction which >is a method that they amplify the minute amount of virus that they find.) >The complicated thing about newborns is that they receive antibodies from MOM >via the placenta. Thus if baby has a positive test for the antibody it means >that mom is infected with the HIV virus and has made antibodies. Almost 100% >of babies born to HIV+ mothers will have positive antibody tests (principle >in Medicine - never say never). However, only about 1/3 of this infants >really contracted the virus. > Babies loose maternal antibodies in the first 18-24 months. Thus if a baby >becomes negative ("seroreverts) it is felt that the baby got the antiboides >from mom but not the virus. If baby continues to have antibodies in after 2 >years it is felt that the baby is starting to makes his/her own and truly is >HIV infected. The reasons some babies become negative and then later become >positive (shich does ocassionally happen is due in part because no test is >100% foolproof (false negative, false positives etc) Hope this helps > >* Deena Zimmerman MD MPH * >* Department of Pediatrics * >* UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School * >* 1 RWJ Place * >* New Brunswick, NJ 08903 * >* * >* phone (908) 235-7248 * >* fax (908) 235-7345 * >* email [log in to unmask] (internet) * >------------------------------------- > >Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 22:21:00 CDT >From: "Kathleen G. Auerbach" <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: HIV and breastfeeding >One of the areas I try very hard to stay up on is that pertaining to HIV >and breastfeeding. More and more articles are coming out with data >suggesting that far fewer than 50% of babies breastfed by HIV+ (but >healthy) mothers are NOT seroconverting. So, what is said in the US about >risks of contracting HIV thorugh breastmilk and what is reality in other >countries varies greatly. >We need to be VERY CAREFUL about wehat we recommend as a result. Also, >keep in mind that the HIV virus is very fragile as viruses go and is killed >with pastueruizatino. This raises the question. If a mother knows she is >HIV+ and WANTS very much to bbreastfeed, could she not do so using her own >milk that has been pasteurized? >Comments by MDs would be helpful here. > >------------------------------------------------------ >Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 08:40:38 -0400 >From: Deena Zimmerman <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: HIV in poor women > >What your neonatologist is probably referring to is the fact that the WHO >feels that in underdeveloped countries, this risk of dying from artificial >breastmilk is greater than that of dying from HIV contracting via >breastfeeding and thus in this context they do recommend breastfeeding. Very >poor segments of our country are probably analogous to the underdeveloped >world (sorry for this insulting terminology for important parts of the >world). However, in the US the mother's should be able to get WIC or other >nutritional help. Maybe one day we will know that BF is OK for all babies but >in the meantime as HIV is a fatal disease, MDs in the US are cautious.> > >* Deena Zimmerman MD MPH * >* Department of Pediatrics * >* UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School * >* 1 RWJ Place * >* New Brunswick, NJ 08903 * >* * >* phone (908) 235-7248 * >* fax (908) 235-7345 * >* email [log in to unmask] (internet) * >--------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 12:58:16 -0700 >From: "A. Montgomery" <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: HIV inhibition > >Just found a blurb in a newsletter--I'm pulling the original paper, but >thought I'd share it. Breast milk apparently inhibits HIV infections, >especially milk from uninfected mothers. The effect somes from a specific >component of human milk called chondroitin sulfate. Seems to invite a >study of donor milk for babies of HIV infected moms...Reference is J. Nutr. >125:419-24, 1995. Hope this helps you, Kim. It is certainly more up-to-date than the 1991 BREASTFEEDING ANSWER BOOK. Take care, Roberta