Aibu? to be pissed off at this: "The cost and social implications of using an infant milk should be considered when deciding how to feed your baby."

[Selyna]

WTF do Hipp mean by social implications?

Both methods of feeding a baby are acceptable so fuck off with the whole acting like ff is poison! my dd is perfectly fine but i hate this constant making me feel like a failure because i failed to bf although i tried so so hard!

OUTRAGE Breast Feeding Causes Staphylococcus. Increased risk of mastitis and abscess, Babies at risk. 25% of all mothers carry this deadly bacteria on their skin.

Now that is a true statement.(Surprised Daily Fail hasn't had it as a headline, :)) However we all know that it is a tiny risk and so is the use of formula in a western society with adequate plumbing, fresh water available, etc etc. The formula feeding mothers are doing what they deem to be most suitable for their child and are not putting them at excessively increased risks. Indeed probably less risk than running around outside on a summers day with high air pressure, bad air quality in a large urban environment.

??????

Of course there is staph on mother's skin and a whole load of other stuff, too. But unless formula fed babies are never held or touched by their mothers ever, then they will come into contact with staph (and the other stuff)from the mother as well. I don't know of any documented risk to bf or ff babies of catching staph from their mothers...so there is no elevated risk to bf babies. They certainly don't get staph from the milk. Happily, bf babies are protected from the 'stuff' on mother's skin because of antibodies in the milk.

Staph is often present with mastistis and abscess, true enough, but that won't harm the baby.

What a strange example!

How are you getting on with understanding the pregnancy-fat stores 'thing'?

"Indeed probably less risk than running around outside on a summers day with high air pressure, bad air quality in a large urban environment."

Got a reference for that statement, norvak?

Staph lives in the noses and often skin of 30% of the population

Maternal-infant transmission of staph happens at delivery - nothing to do with feeding.

Staph can be present in the milk if it is expressed and contaminated by breastpump/equipment/nursery handing - just as formula can be contaminated in less than hygienic conditions - and can infect babies. It is not transmitted by direct bf.

Of course you knew that, though, didn't you, novack? You just made something daft up and though you were being cute :)

We'll take not to sneeze on our babies, then, dropdeadfred :)

take = take care

Tiktok - like you pointed out, regardless of method of feeding babies have normally come into contact with staph if not from their own parents than from other people within days of birth

So mention of bf causing staph infection, in babies, is ridiculous

I can see you need to have the last word on this Tiktok

How tiresome...you seem obsessed with the subject and ramming your POV down others throats (whether they want it or not)

No baby's are not protected from stuff on the mothers skin due to antibodies in the milk, not if the stuff you are talking about is staph.

As is the nature of an Internet discussion marmalade surely? If you don't want the pov why bother reading it?

Trouble is, sausages, when people say something

i) stupid
ii) wrong
iii) in denial of good evidence
iv) as a result of a refusal to read the evidence
v) self-delusional

I respond.

I don't have an 'obsessional' point of view, actually, or an obsession with having the last word, and have never been known here or elsewhere to ram any views down any throats - evidence of this is that I only respond to points others have made. I don't raise any arguments myself - at least I might have been known to do it once in a blue moon, that's it! 'Ramming views down others' throats' doesn't fit with this, does it? 'Cos that means taking an active stance that's as delusional as some of the posters here.

Do you get the difference?

Wrong, moomins.....protects against staph, too :)

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7500198 - read the whole paper for this mentioned specifically.

(You see, sausages - someone says something incorrect; I have the info that shows this. Whachagonnado??? :) )

I never knew that breast milk could protect against crohns disease and ulcerative colitis.... And I've studied those diseases recently (blush) - is there any more info on that aspect of immunological benefit Tiktok??

Well I looked at it and all I could find was that cases of MRSA have been passed on to babys in neonatal wards through infected bm

Ooooh, ooooh! I've just remembered a potential financial saving from breastfeeding. A saving on sanitary towels, and (possibly) painkillers (if bf is not painful itself). In my direct female line, lactational amenorrhoea (sp?) seems to run in the family. Well, either that, or we all eat crap, and we're too malnourished to ovulate and breastfeed. I shouldn't rule it out. If you are still breastfeeding and you happen to have a similar diet/ genetic inheritance to me, periods get suppressed up to 3 years. Obviously, as many MNers will point out, this does not work for everyone, and you should not rely on it for contraception! But hey, I hate periods, so I think it's a wonderful potential side-effect, however minimal the financial saving.

Bigjessie - good point!

Moomins, it is there - you need to read the whole paper. It is on the web in full - for example in table 2, Organsisms Affected by Anti-infective Factors in Human Milk, there's a whole long list of bacteria and viruses, and Staphylococcus aureus is there.

Yes, as I said, staph has been passed on to babies in NICUs, because expressed breastmilk has been handled unhygienically, or the pump has been infected, or something. The milk has picked up the staph that way. As the paper says, "guidelines for pumping and storing maternal milk for the high-risk infant in the hospital are more stringent than are recommendations for storing milk for the healthy infant during maternal absence." It's the same with formula - vulnerable babies need extra protection, because the most 'germy' places on earth are hospitals :(

Fred, if you have studied these bowel illnesses, then you'll have as much if not more access to the papers. There's quite a literature about it.

EVERYONE STOP!

You've all made your point and blown this well up!

Jessie, the absence of periods (most women have at least some suspension of 'em when bf) is one of the benefits to maternal health, as well - it keeps iron levels higher (good thing for health) and is probably one of the mechanisms that helps protect against breast cancer.

Selnya, if you don;t want to read this or be aware of it, there's a handy 'hide this thread' option :)

Although I think what novack is talking about is the transmission of staphylacoccus aureus through infected cracks in the nipples which can happen if the baby has a scratch, cut or like my son eczema that sometimes is open and weeping.

I second Big Jessie.

FWIW - I have eaten my own body weight in a ready made lasange today so probably am eating more.

However, I expressed yesterday as I'm WORKING. I noted my EBM was 85% water and 15% full fat cream as it had separated so we are only making 15% top quality milk and the rest is water and water is very low cost so shut up whatmeworry you delusional old fool!

Well, moomins, if that's what she means, no doubt she will provide a reference for it :) I won't hold my breath, though.

Loads of us have staph on our skins, in our noses, our mouths - this is a non-argument, as ff and bf babies, with or without eczema, will be in contact with it, every time they are held, kissed, breathed on, cuddled by their mothers (or anyone else).

Why is it important to you to dig out some way that breastfeeding passes on staph, however small the risk, moomins???? It doesn't!