"Human Milk" ffs

Tin foil hat time! To add to GrumpyPanda's post; the FGM clinic used to be the national centre for female genital reconstruction in the UK, but closed when its funding was removed.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/2835340-fgm-community-support-system-having-its-funding-withdrawn

The fact that our apparently cash strapped NHS can waste resources on bollocks like this is a national scandal.
Men do not produce breast milk. A man putting a frock on does not make him a woman he's just a man in a frock. Pumping him full of stuff to fulfill his fantasy that he really is a woman just panders to his mental disorder.
If the NHS has spare cash to spaff around then spend it on mental health support for the poor buggers who think they were born in the wrong sex

I had posted this about the interactions of drugs that I could find

What is interesting is that this male that did this for 6 weeks exclusively was taking 50 mg twice a day of Spironolactone and in that documentation for this study I could find that this was lowered. However, the study authors did mention a study of women taking 25 mg and THAT the canrenone component that was considered risky only being 0.2% and considered ‘safe’. So this male still seemed to be taking double and the level of Spironolactone in the milk had NOT be assessed as safe. There seems to be a hand waving away of this fact in the study.

This is from this study linked below.

”At the time of our first visit, she was taking spironolactone 50 mg po bid, estradiol 2 mg po bid, and micronized progesterone 100 mg po bid. “

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779241

The study they quoted the 0.2% from says:

“The major metabolite of spironolactone, canrenone, was measured in the serum and milk of a 17-day postpartum woman who was taking 25 mg of spironolactone four times daily. Milk canrenone levels 2 hours after the dose were 104 mcg/L, and 47 mcg/L at 14.5 hours after the dose. The authors estimated that the nursing infant would receive about 0.2% of the mother's total daily dosage in the form of canrenone.1] Active sulfur-containing metabolites were not measured.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK501101/

I have now found this to be considered a ‘no’ effect on the infant written up.

https://www.drugs.com/breastfeeding/spironolactone.html#

It is notable (I might have missed it though) that I was unable to find the sex of the male fed infant. Because spironolactone has been noted for causing development issue for male sex organs on male foetuses in pregnancy.

Yes, I too want to continue to draw reader’s attention to this part of the study whether the male exclusively fed for six weeks.

”After three months of treatment, this increased to 227 grams of breast milk per day. Once the baby was born, she was able to exclusively breastfeed the infant for six weeks – during which time a paediatrician confirmed the baby was growing and developing normally and healthily.”

“Although significant, this is below the average of around 500 grams that a baby consumes by the time the it is 5 days old.”

Something is not adding up here.

I am going to plop some links and other stuff I have added to threads over the past years. Some may be repeats from what Eresh posted in lascap's work.

Testosterone

academic.oup.com/humrep/article/16/2/244/649618?login=false

I found a study that looked at the hormone levels in women breastfeeding. A breastfeeding women without PCOS has the following testosterone levels at 4 weeks and 8 weeks of breastfeeding :

Ng/ml
4th wk 0.13
8th wk 0.11

A woman with PCOS (ng/ml)
4th week 0.21
8th week 0.26

The male who fed exclusively for 6 weeks started with 2.56 ng/ml. That was with the suppression drug that was not noted to change in dose throughout this period. And that suppression is known to be unreliable so the level of testosterone may have fluctuated during the feeding time.

No testing of testosterone was done on this substance being fed to the infant from what I can see either. In fact, there was NO testing noted on that substance in this study!

What was the sex of the infant? What was the effect on that infant? What is the future effect on that infant?

@SecondUsername4me
According to Sussex NHS term 'human milk' includes drug induced secretions from father.

This manifests in even worse - in fact heartbreaking - manner regarding FGM survivors. Turns out many of them could be helped by reconstructive surgery yet they're routinely fobbed off by the NHS and/or have to go abroad as there's supposedly no domestic know-how around this (11 European countries now perform FTM reversals.) Yet as this Guardian (!) article argues there are in fact multiple British surgeons specializing in labia construction- they're just reserving their skills for frankenfannies. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/dec/21/how-the-nhs-is-failing-fgm-survivors

BeautifulViews · Today 11:34

The baby was exclusively fed for 6 weeks and was reported to be healthy and growing normally though.

What did you mean by "exclusively"? Do you mean by the father? If so, you're incorrect, because it was mainly the child's mother, with the father only able to produce 150 ml daily, for a few weeks.

The amount of lactate was only mentioned to be 8oz two weeks before the birth of the baby, it does not say this was the maximum ever produced. The subject did become concerned and started to mix feed at 6 weeks.

I don't think analysis of the lactate produced by trans women is unethical. I'm sure you agree that anything fed to a baby should be analysed first but nobody has shared any of those studies yet claim they exist and show that the lactate is inferior.

I'm sure the Tavistock said something about how a significant proportion of young people they saw were the children of sex offenders (linked to what @Chariothorses posted). Were those children trying to transition out of being dad's favoured sex, or (worse) INTO it? Were the sex offender parents pushing their kids into transition because it gave them carte blanche to be overly familiar with their child's genitalia in a legitimate way - i.e using their child as a prop for a sexual perversion?

I’d like to know if the TW and other supporters of chemically induced male nipple secretions for defenceless and totally dependent human infants would drink the chemically induced product squeezed out of a bull’s nipple when the bull was given drugs to induce lactation?

Thanks Eresh.

I remember reading the study itself and feeling sick with the number of glaring omissions it had. The complete lack of analysis and integrity of the information.

Yep, the NHS breastfeeding guide I got with DS used the words “human milk” and “Mummy milk”. I found human milk far less offensive!

@Ereshkigalangcleg
'why was a trans-identified man held to a drastically different standard of infant care than actual mothers?'
Yes exactly. Children of transpeople should be safeguarded like every other child. If the drug induced secretions were better for babies than natural or formula milk every child would be given them. But it's only Cots as social workers are too scared to raise safeguarding concerns in this situation - as per the SWE/ Rachel Mead case.

There was absolutely no follow up on that infant reported. So who know what future issues that the infant had.

And the case study seems to be factually inconsistent. It has been recorded that the amounts that these male people produce is too small, yet that one case study stated that the infant was healthy. How? Either the infant was not healthy, or was receiving additional nutrition or the maximum quantity recorded is incorrect.

While I understand you are saying there should be more studies, to do so would have to be considered unethical because of the unknown interactions of all the drugs with breast milk. Including testosterone. Because it isn’t just testosterone, it is the testosterone suppressants, it is the potentially different ability of the male body to screen out other drugs and hormones. And then there has to be a human infant to then be tested, and checked for their life for unexpected negative side effects.

And all for what? All to centre a male experience?

None of this about centring the infant with their own mother’s milk. And the next best thing is milk from a screened female donor. Using any child as a guinea pig for centering a male experience surely cannot be ethical.

A key takeaway

That this experiment was conducted by a Transgender Clinic, which neither had licence, nor expertise, to oversee the breastfeeding of a newborn, only adds to my concerns regarding ethics, safety and bias in this study.

The baby was exclusively fed for 6 weeks and was reported to be healthy and growing normally though.

From the review I posted:

Breast milk is the unique nourishment lactating mothers produce in order to sustain their own babies and protect them from disease in the weeks and months after birth, when the infant immune system is still not fully developed. First milk is called colostrum (birth – 4 days), which is a thick, yellowish fluid full of fat, vitamins and particularly rich in antibodies. Colostrum changes to a more calorific transitional milk (4 days – 2 weeks), which is high in fat and vitamins, and after that it becomes mature milk which is 90% water.
Maternal antibodies are first passed via the placenta to the baby during the last three months of pregnancy, and after the baby is born, he or she continues to receive antibodies through breast milk. As mother and baby share both the genetics and the environment, these antibodies are customised by the mother’s body to offer an individually tailored passive immunity and protection from the pathogens the baby is most likely to encounter.
Therefore, I found it strange that Reisman & Goldstein made no attempt to analyse the composition of their male patient’s drug-induced nipple discharge, considering that they talked at length about the benefits of breastfeeding on mother and baby, none of which were applicable to their male patient or indeed the infant he, allegedly, fed.
Be that as it may, as a consequence of a cocktail of drugs and a breast pump, this patient started to “lactate”, eventually producing 8 oz of nipple discharge daily, two weeks prior to the birth of the baby.
Although we have no further details about the volume, the study claims that whatever fluid was produced, it was the sole source of this baby’s nourishment for 6 weeks. After this time, the patient reportedly started to supplement with 4–8 oz of Similac brand formula daily.
The authors gave no indication that they observed this alleged “breastfeeding”, or that they met the mother or the infant. They did state that “the child’s pediatrician reported that the child’s growth, feeding, and bowel habits were developmentally appropriate”, but offered no corroborating evidence.
Considering that a 5 lb baby needs about 12 oz of breast milk or formula a day, and more as the baby’s weight increases, it is extremely unlikely that any infant would survive for 6 weeks on 8 oz alone. Furthermore, mothers who are unable to breastfeed know only too well how important it is to use adequate amounts of baby formula. Failing to do so can result in serious harm to the baby.
I have no evidence that the baby who was allegedly subject to this experiment was harmed in any way. However, there are so many omissions, unknowns and missing data that I cannot help but ask, why was a trans-identified man held to a drastically different standard of infant care than actual mothers?
That this experiment was conducted by a Transgender Clinic, which neither had licence, nor expertise, to oversee the breastfeeding of a newborn, only adds to my concerns regarding ethics, safety and bias in this study.

The complaint was from the children of transitioners group, the support group for children of transpeople. They raised safeguarding concerns for babies whose dads have sexual fetishes
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/2023/07/15/six-children/ child protection from sexual grooming, the drug content of the secretions and NHS failure to address the safeguarding risks in the policy. Fathers are never mums -it's a child welfare issue(note to mumsnet -UK supreme court and ECHR linkhttps://childrenoftransitioners.org/2023/04/10/paperwork/

Isn't this essentially medical experiments on infants?

I'm not saying they should but nobody is saying that have been either. The retired dermatologist writing the article was concerned that the testosterone level of the subject was not tested regularly so may have been an issue, they had no idea. It's also doesn't appear to be a study that tested the the milk which seems a bit lax. The baby was exclusively fed for 6 weeks and was reported to be healthy and growing normally though.

The most vulnerable human beings who cannot advocate for themselves and need doctors and their parents to do it for them.

Yes, why are human beings being used in these kinds of experiments?

To what end?

Why should any baby be potentially subjected to high doses of testosterone to find this out?

Who benefits from that? The infants?

I'm just saying that most of the men who struggle to accept their sex are just getting on with it. Not trying to enter women's spaces, not trying to be in sexual/domestic abuse centres etc

But the scary minority are ruining one for women. :(