Better Behavior for Breastfed Babies?

Here is another study done on breastfeeding that suggests that breastfed babies grow up to have better behavior. To be honest, I am highly skeptical of this study. Not of the results but at their conclusion. I wouldn’t be shocked if babies that are breastfed for extended periods of time are better behaved but I think the reason for this is probably less because of the breast milk that they consume and more because of their extended period of time in direct contact with their mothers.

It is difficult to breastfeed a baby for an extended period as a working mother. It happens but it requires a lot of time and commitment from the mom and cooperation from her body and her work. Unfortunately, those combined factors result in most working mothers having to switch to formula shortly after returning to work.

My point being is that most babies that are breastfed for long periods of time have mothers who stay home with them. They typically (though not always) receive more one-on-one care as compared to being in a childcare facility and they tend to form better attachments than their daycare counterparts. I’m no scientist but I would guess that this has a bigger bearing on behavior than on the breast milk. That and other factors that would be linked to the relationship of breastfeeding and not the milk itself. This is coming from a mom who breastfed her daughter for nearly 3 years so I’m not trying to advocate that it isn’t worth it. And who knows maybe there is some magic behavior bullet in the milk. If so, perhaps I should begin nursing my daughter again because let’s just say her behavior is not all peaches and roses lately. She is a very typical obnoxiously disobedient three year old. :) And yes, I’m joking. There will be no more nursing for Camden.

Here is the article and here is the source.

Breast-Fed Baby May Mean Better Behaved Child

By Serena Gordon
HealthDay Reporter by Serena Gordon
healthday Reporter – Wed Oct 29, 7:03 pm ET

WEDNESDAY, Oct. 29 (HealthDay News) — Add yet another potential benefit to breast-feeding: Fewer behavioral problems in young children.

Parents of youngsters who were breast-fed as infants were less likely to report that their child had a behavior problem or psychiatric illness during the first five years of life, a new study found.

And the likelihood of mental health issues decreased in proportion to the duration of breast-feeding, meaning that a child who had been breast-fed for a year was less likely to have behavior problems than a child who had been breast-fed for just two months.

“This is an early finding, but it suggests that breast-feeding during infancy could have an effect on behavior during childhood,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. Katherine Hobbs Knutson, a resident in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

She was to present the findings Wednesday at the American Public Health Association‘s annual meeting, in San Diego.

Previous research has shown that breast milk offers numerous benefits for babies and that breast-feeding can benefit both mother and infant. Babies who are breast-fed are less likely to suffer from ear infections, diarrhea, pneumonia, wheezing, and bacterial and viral illnesses, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Research has also linked breast-feeding with a reduced risk of obesity, diabetes, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and certain cancers, according to the AAP.

For mothers, breast-feeding helps the uterus quickly return to its pre-pregnancy shape and helps burn additional calories, which can help get rid of extra pregnancy weight, the AAP reports. Additionally, breast-feeding is believed to help nurture the mother-child bond.

The new study reviewed more than 100,000 interviews of parents and guardians of children between the ages of 10 months and 18 years who participated in the National Survey of Children’s Health. Parents were asked about breast-feeding and about their child’s behavior and mental health.

Examples of questions included: Are you currently concerned a lot, a little or not at all about how your child behaves? How he/she is learning pre-school or school skills? Has a doctor or health professional ever told you that your child has behavioral or conduct problems?

Parents of children who were breast-fed were 15 percent less likely to be concerned about their child’s behavior, compared to formula-fed infants. And the breast-fed children were 37 percent less likely to have a medically diagnosed behavioral or conduct problem, according to the study.

And, Knutson said, the effect of breast-feeding appeared to be cumulative, with those who were breast-fed for a longer duration even less likely to have behavior problems.

She also said the study found “a correlation between breast-feeding and cognitive development.”

“These findings are certainly intriguing,” said Dr. Debra Bogen, a pediatrician in the division of general academic pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

The study adds to the “overwhelming evidence that women should, if they can, offer breast milk to their babies,” she added.

Both Bogen and Knutson said the nutritional composition of breast milk might have an effect on the way a baby’s brain develops, and that better nutrition could explain the behavioral differences. But both experts felt it was too soon to know for sure the exact cause of the potentially protective effect.

More information

For more on the benefits of breast-feeding, visit the National Women’s Health Information Center.

Read Full Post »

Study Reveals How Breastfeeding Transfers Immunity

A combined research team from BYU, Harvard and Stanford have conducted a study on how breastmilk transfers immunity from mother to baby. The study is set to appear in the November 1st issue of the Journal of Immunology. They have identified that a molecule by the name of CCR10 helps to direct antibody producing cells to the mothers mammary glands thus entering her milk and transferring to the baby.

The research gives amazing insight but once again I am flustered at the reasoning behind the study. Vaccines. I’m sure the formula industry will try to hop on this once they find a way to utilize it. All of these things aren’t inherently bad, I just find it frustrating that the information is not being used to convince more women to breastfeed or the importance of breastfeeding. Rather, the mentality is how can we reproduce the results?

I do have to say that the idea of vaccinating the mom to transfer the immunity to the baby is a fairly fascinating idea. I certainly wouldn’t volunteer to be the test case but it is interesting to think about.

Here is the article. Original source from HERE.

How Breastfeeding Transfers Immunity To Babies

ScienceDaily (Oct. 27, 2008) — A BYU-Harvard-Stanford research team has identified a molecule that is key to mothers’ ability to pass along immunity to intestinal infections to their babies through breast milk.

The study highlights an amazing change that takes place in a mother’s body when she begins producing breast milk. For years before her pregnancy, cells that produce antibodies against intestinal infections travel around her circulatory system as if it were a highway and regularly take an “off-ramp” to her intestine. There they stand ready to defend against infections such as cholera or rotavirus. But once she begins lactating, some of these same antibody-producing cells suddenly begin taking a different “off-ramp,” so to speak, that leads to the mammary glands. That way, when her baby nurses, the antibodies go straight to his intestine and offer protection while he builds up his own immunity.

This is why previous studies have shown that formula-fed infants have twice the incidence of diarrheal illness as breast-fed infants.

Until now, scientists did not know how the mother’s body signaled the antibody-producing cells to take the different off-ramp. The new study identifies the molecule that gives them the green light.

“Everybody hears that breastfeeding is good for the baby,” said Eric Wilson, the Brigham Young University microbiologist who is the lead author on the study. “But why is it good? One of the reasons is that mothers’ milk carries protective antibodies which shield the newborn from infection, and this study demonstrates the molecular mechanisms used by the mother’s body to get these antibody-producing cells where they need to be.”

Understanding the role of the molecule, called CCR10, also has implications for potential future efforts to help mothers better protect their infants.

“This tells us that this molecule is extremely important, so if we want to design a vaccine for the mother so she could effectively pass protective antibodies to the child, it would be absolutely essential to induce high levels of CCR10,” said Wilson.

Speaking broadly about the long-term applications of this research, BYU undergraduate Elizabeth Nielsen Low, a co-author on the paper, said, “If we know how these cells migrate, we’ll be able to hit the right targets to get them to go where we want them.”

Daniel Campbell is a researcher at the Benroya Research Institute in Seattle, a nonprofit organization that specializes in the immune system, and was not affiliated with this study.

“The molecular basis for this redistribution [of the mother’s cells] has not been well characterized, but Dr. Wilson’s work has begun to crack that code and define the molecules responsible for this cellular redistribution and passive immunity,” Campbell said. “It is important work that fundamentally enhances our understanding of how immunity is provided to the [baby] via the milk. Dr. Wilson’s study will certainly form the basis for many other studies aimed at uncovering how the immune system is organized, particularly at mucosal surfaces.”

To conduct their research, the team used so-called “knock-out mice” that had been genetically engineered to lack the CCR10 molecule. Whereas normal lactating mice had hundreds of thousands of antibody-producing cells in their mammary glands, the BYU team found that the knock-out mice had more than 70 times fewer such cells. Tests verified that the absence of CCR10 was responsible for the deficiency.

Surprisingly, the research also showed that CCR10 does not play the same crucial role in signaling antibody-producing cells to migrate to the intestine. Another molecule is their “traffic light.”

The findings will be published in the Nov. 1 issue of the Journal of Immunology.

The study was supported by Wilson’s grant from the National Institutes of Health, funding which continues for another 18 months and supports his and his students’ further investigation into the cells behind transfer of immunity in breast milk.

Wilson’s other students who are also co-authors on the paper are Yuetching Law, Kathryn Distelhorst and Erica D. Hill. The Harvard Medical School co-authors are Olivier Morteau, Craig Gerard, Bao Lu, Sorina Ghiran and Miriam Rits. The Stanford University School of Medicine co-authors are Raymond Kwan, Nicole H. Lazarus and Eugene C. Butcher.

Read Full Post »

12 Babies Die During a Vaccine Trial

Twelve babies have died during a vaccine trial over the last year. So why haven’t you heard about it? Well, for one it is because the trial has been conducted in Argentina on impoverished individuals who have no resources to raise their voices. What’s more telling? The first one to break the story in the United States was a stock market investment website. The story wasn’t being told to raise red flags or warn the public, to investigate the morality or integrity of the company’s practices, or to spark further research. The article was newsworthy only from a financial perspective. To protect those who have an interest in whether or not to purchase stock from GlaxoSmithKline. Anyone who doesn’t believe that the driving force and bottom line of vaccination programs is about money is sorely mistaken.

Argentina was one of the countries chosen by GlaxoSmithKline to test the effectiveness of a vaccine against pneumonia. They use children from poor families who are “pressured and forced into signing consent forms.” Juan Carlos Palomares, who works for the Argentine Federation of Health Professionals, also known as Fesprosa, said that “in most cases these are underprivileged individuals, many of them unable to read or write, who are pressured into including their children” in these trials. Does anyone else catch the irony in that? How are those who are unable to read and write able to give appropriate consent when they cannot even read the consent forms they are signing? Why is this acceptable in another country but not in our own. This is after all an American business so why would we tolerate this type of behavior? Why do we turn our heads and shrug? Perhaps as long as the unethical business practices are not in our own back yard they are acceptable. Since GlaxoSmithKline can’t perform these types of studies in the United States or Europe, “they come to do it in third-world countries.” I find this completely wrong and I’m not afraid to say so. If we, as Americans, want and feel that a vaccine program is so life saving and so necessary to appropriate health care (which is the general consensus) then we need to be willing to conduct the studies on our own children and reform the laws to do so. But who will push forward their children and raise their hands for a vaccine trial. Would those working for GlaxoSmithKline? Would you? What does your answer tell you?

Many of the parents in the Argentina program have tried to pull out of the program only to find that those conducting the trial “force them to continue under the threat that if they leave they won’t receive any other vaccine,” said Julieta Ovejero, great aunt of one of the six babies who died in Santiago del Estero. Not only are the consent forms often illegitimate but the families are then threatened if they change their minds about participating. Yet, there is no outrage. There is no one sitting on the Dave Letterman show telling this story. There are no capitol marches. These are silent victims because they have no way to tell their stories and would anyone care anyway even if they did? This is the untold story of our vaccine program and this is just one vaccine trial in only one country. There are many, many more.

In the end, it is only twelve babies, right? Isn’t that within the realm of acceptable deaths? What is the number of acceptable deaths that we will tolerate? Despite the deaths that have all ready occurred the program continues on and GlaxoSmithKline accepts the number of deaths as a necessary part of the numbers game. They count on you accepting that as well. In fact, they spend quite a bit of research trying to determine exactly what the number of deaths the American public will accept in order to reach a 90% acceptance rate. Keep in mind that we only have the reported number of deaths. How many side effects have occurred or are yet to occur? Will these trials be an accurate reflection of the outcome we’ll see when this vaccine makes it to the general public? Or will there be yet another vaccine fallout like the one being experienced with the Gardasil vaccine which is quickly becoming a ticking time bomb?

Take a look at the most recent Gardasil statistics, a HPV vaccine recommended for young girls and women. The statistics were gained from HERE.

The Judicial Watch Special Report, Examining the FDA’s HPV Vaccine Records, dated June 30, 2008, reviews records obtained from the FDA under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Those records paint an even grimmer version of this dangerous vaccine, whose side effects now include:

· A total of 8,864 reported adverse events

· A minimum of 18, but possibly 20 reported deaths. 11 occurred less than one week after vaccination, and 7 within two days

· 45 cases of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions

· 78 outbreaks of genital warts, plus additional cases of facial warts and warts on hands and feet, even in patients who had tested negative for HPV and genital warts prior to vaccination

Additionally, Merck correspondence included in these records state that Gardasil has NOT been evaluated for its potential to cause carcinogenity or genotoxicity, AND, they were permitted to use an aluminum-containing placebo instead of a standard saline placebo.

Since Gardasil contains 225 mcg of aluminum, using an aluminum-containing placebo may paint an entirely inaccurate picture of its level of safety.

For reference, here is the original article on the pneumonia vaccine trial being conducted in Argentina that first appeared on TradingMarkets.com

Buenos Aires, Jul 10, 2008 (EFE via COMTEX) — HPFS | Quote | Chart | News | PowerRating — At least 12 babies who were part of a clinical study to test the effectiveness of a vaccine against pneumonia have died over the past year in Argentina, the local press reported Thursday.

The study was sponsored by global drug giant GlaxoSmithKline and uses children from poor families, who are “pressured and forced into signing consent forms,” the Argentine Federation of Health Professionals, or Fesprosa, said.

“This occurs without any type of state control” and “does not comply with minimum ethical requirements,” Fesprosa said.

The vaccine trial is still ongoing despite the denunciations, and those in charge of the study were cited by the Critica newspaper as saying that the procedures are being carried out in a lawful manner.

Colombian and Panama were also chosen by GSK as staging grounds for trials of the vaccine against the pneumococcal bacteria.

Since 2007, 15,000 children under the age of one from the Argentine provinces of Mendoza, San Juan and Santiago del Estero have been included in the research protocol, a statement of what the study is trying to achieve.

“Only 12 have died throughout the country, which is a very low figure if we compare it with the deaths produced by respiratory illnesses caused by the pneumococcal bacteria,” pediatrician Enrique Smith, one of the lead investigators, said.

In Santiago del Estero, one of the country’s poorest provinces, the trials were authorized when Enrique’s brother, Juan Carlos Smith, was provincial health minister.

According to pediatrician Ana Maria Marchese, who works at the children’s hospital in the provincial capital where the studies are being conducted, “because they can’t experiment in Europe or the United States, they come to do it in third-world countries.”

“A lot of people want to leave the protocol but aren’t allowed; they force them to continue under the threat that if they leave they won’t receive any other vaccine,” said Julieta Ovejero, great aunt of one of the six babies who died in Santiago del Estero.

Fesprosa’s Juan Carlos Palomares said that “in most cases these are underprivileged individuals, many of them unable to read or write, who are pressured into including their children” in the trials.

According to Fesprosa, “the laboratory pays $8,000 for each child included in the study, but none (of that money) remains in the province that lends the public facilities and the health personnel for the private research.” EFE

hd/mc

For full details on Glaxosmithkline Plc Adr (GSK) click here. Glaxosmithkline Plc Adr (GSK) has Short Term PowerRatings of 4. Details on Glaxosmithkline Plc Adr (GSK) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.

Read Full Post »

Changing The Tide: AAP to partner with DAN!

In a very pleasing announcement yesterday on World Autism Day the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) announced that they will be partnering with Defeat Autism Now! (DAN!) in order to more efficiently diagnose and treat children with Autism. It is one of many pleasing partnerships that the AAP is making that is sure to change the tide in getting parents and their pediatricians to be better able to assist one another and to get them to be on the same team, so to speak. I can just hear parents of autistic children shouting for joy over this announcement. Something I’m sure many of them thought they would never live to see the day when this occurred. It also makes me wonder what the ramifications on this type of partnership will be on insurance companies that often refuse to cover treatment for DAN! doctors. With the AAP and DAN! working in partnership I could see the possibility of change in that regard, as well.

Ironically, in the not so distant past, DAN! was viewed with very little regard and often ridiculed and touted as medical “quacks” for their approaches to the treatment of autism despite the countless children that had benefited from DAN! research and treatment.

You can view the article at the American Academy of Pediatrics and it is also pasted below. I learned about this announcement through Adventures in Autism. DAN! is a program that the Autism Research Institute offers. You can also visit the Autism Research Institute to learn more about the DAN! program.

ARTICLE HERE:

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS RECOGNIZES WORLD AUTISM DAY

---

For immediate release: April 1, 2008CHICAGO – The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports World Autism Day (April 2) as a way to bring together groups that are committed to finding the causes of, and successful treatments for Autism Spectrum Disorders, which now affect an estimated 1 in 150 children in the United States. Thousands of children, parents and families are coping with what can be a devastating diagnosis with lifelong consequences.

Pediatricians care for children with autism and their families every day. They are passionate advocates on behalf of these families and recognize that autism is a significant challenge to the health of the nation’s children. Pediatricians emphasize that early diagnosis is critical. The AAP promotes regular screening for autism at the appropriate well-child visits, as well as treatments tailored to meet the needs of an individual child. In 2007, the AAP published the Autism Toolkit, which includes clinical guidance to help pediatricians identify and manage children with autism, to refer them to therapeutic services, and to provide parents with information and resources. The AAP also offers a host of resources for parents on its Web site, Autism Health Topics Page.

“We know many parents are searching for answers,” said AAP President Renee R. Jenkins, MD, FAAP. “The AAP has supported research into the causes of autism and will continue to do so.” Pediatrics, the Academy’s peer-reviewed, scientific journal, has included dozens of studies on the associated factors, management and impact of Autism Spectrum Disorders.

The AAP recognizes the best way to address the needs of children with autism and children overall is through a partnership among pediatricians, parents and researchers. The AAP has met with leaders of advocacy groups, such as Autism Speaks and the Autism Society of America, which include parents of children with autism. Most recently, the AAP met with representatives of Defeat Autism Now! (a program of the Autism Research Institute) in an effort to facilitate communication between pediatricians, parents and researchers about the diagnosis and treatment of children with autism. All advocates for these children agree that further research is needed regarding causes as well as safe and effective treatment.

“We are pleased the AAP reached out recently to Defeat Autism Now! in order to better understand the treatments and interventions that we have found beneficial to children with autism,” said Stan Kurtz, executive council member of Defeat Autism Now! “We are full of hope that this is the beginning of a thoughtful partnership that will further explore factors that might cause or contribute to autism, as well as examine safe and effective treatment approaches for families coping with this condition.”

For more information about autism, visit www.aap.org.

# # #

The American Academy of Pediatrics is an organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults.

The Autism Research Institute (ARI) is a non-profit organization established in 1967 that fosters scientific research on autism triggers as well as diagnostic, treatment, and prevention methods. Through its Defeat Autism Now! program, ARI provides research-based information to parents, clinicians, and researchers worldwide, through its Web site (autism.com), call center, parent groups, conferences, science-based publications, and think tanks.

Read Full Post »

Rear Facing a Preschooler

I thought I would post and update with pictures of my three year old rear facing. She is 3 years and 3 months old. Weighs 28.5 lbs and is 38 inches tall. The Britax Marathon that we purchased for her allows her to rear face until she is 35 lbs or until she outgrows the seat in length (when her head is less than one inch below the top of the shell). With how fast she is growing I have a feeling that she will outgrow rear-facing in length before she reaches the weight limits.

We have had her both rear and front facing depending on the situation in the car. She does well in both situations and doesn’t care about riding backwards. She thinks it is fun and knows we do it because it keeps her body safer. She has never complained about leg room or being uncomfortable. She likes to ride cross-legged or with her feet on the seat and her legs bent(like in the above picture). In our Jeep she loves to put her feet up on top of the seat back because the seat back is short (like below). She actually loves sitting backwards more than forwards because she can look out the back window and see out the side windows as well.

My favorite part about the Britax seats is how great of an install you can get with them no matter what type of car you drive. We have older cars (91 Honda Accord and 95 Jeep Grand Cherokee) it is difficult to get a tight install unless you are using the middle seat with the lap belt. This worked okay when we only had one child to put in the car but is very difficult now that there will always be two and sometimes three in our back seat. The seat belt lock-off’s make it very simple to install and I can not budge the seats one little bit. Because of our seat belt problems we wound up splurging and getting a Britax Companion for the new little one. When our baby outgrows this seat he/she will transition to the Marathon we have and we will purchase Camden a Britax Regent. That should be all the carseats we’ll ever need.

For research and links regarding the importance and safety of rear-facing a child past the one year and 20 pound standard please see HERE.

Read Full Post »