Nestle loves breastmilk....

Ah....yes, I thought the title would get ya!   They actually do like...love breastmilk, the product.  Great stuff that breastmilk, good for what ails ya.  But don't tell parents or for that matter, mum's the word at Breastfeeding Conferences.  Heaven forbid, my god, what would happen if women and men really understood the significance of all this discovery and flag planting.  I will use thee in the name of Nestle, our bluebird of happiness.  Our provider of food, pharmaceuticals, and whatever else they wish to own--like water.
So lets get to the patent.  It is US Patent # 8,012,509 called, "Milk fractions and milk preparations for treating and/or preventing COX-2 mediated diseases."  Owned by Nestec (Nestle of Switzerland) and invented by Lionel Bovetto, Joerg Hau, and Catherine Mace and published at the patent office on September 6, 2011.  Listen to the bluebirds chirping outside my window.  Oh wait, its the bluejays and they are having one mean convention.
I digress, sorry I am easily distracted by birds....
I know that the first question is: what is COX-2 mediated diseases?  This patent states that those diseases are inflammatory diseases (I think for example they mean diseases like arthritis).  They will be using a milk fraction as a COX-2 inhibitor.  But we are to guess from what species this milk fraction may come from:  human, cow, or buffalo or a possible mixture.  Hey, your guess is as good as mine.  A raven is cackling outside my window...shut up you-you carrion species, you small vulture of the world.  This "invention" will be a nutritional and pharmaceutical product.

In the body of the patent the inventors state:
"Particularly, high cycloxygenase-2 inhibiting activity are provided by sweet whey from human milk and by several fractions from cow milk...."

The inventors see this as a possible replacement for NSAIDS without the side effects that NSAIDS generate.   But the inventors also believe that COX-2 inhibitors reduce the formation of tumors.  Wow. don't tell your mothers this one.  Who would believe it?  Nestle, you are so funny.

So how did these inventors get human milk?
"Human breast milk was obtained from healthy mothers who agreed to donate breast-milk samples in quantities that did not jeopardize the nutritional supply of the baby (10-60 ml). Samples were obtained up to 70 days postpartum by breast pump expression or occasionally by manual expression and were processed within 2 hrs after collection."

Donor milk.  Yes, momma, you gave it to them.  How kind of you.  Yes, keep'on donating because babies around the world need.....Nestle. (for those who don't know me, this is sarcasm). 
Copyright 2011 Valerie W. McClain 

A human milk product for treatment of immune deficiency (hiv/aids)

"At the center of this invention, is the intent to solve the worldwide shortage of gamma globulin."  patent #7914822

Presenting another Prolacta Bioscience patent, invented by Elena Medo dated this March 29, 2011.  This patent is called, "Method of producing nutritional products from human milk tissue and compositions thereof."

Supposedly gamma globulin injections treat immune deficiency diseases, such as agammaglobulinemia, common variable immunodeficiency, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia, bone marrow transplant, and hiv/aids.  Intravenous gamma globulin has been given to children with symptomatic hiv infection while receiving Zidovudine.  Clinical trials through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) were done for for hiv-infected children ages 3 months to 12 years of age who were receiving oral AZT with intravenous gamma globulin or placebo.  The researchers believed that the rate of bacterial infection would be reduced in hiv-infected children given gamma globulin,an immunoglobulin derived from blood plasma proteins.  I do not know what the outcome of this trial was but I can imagine that none of these children were breastfed because of US policy that has pushed infant formula feeding for infants diagnosed with hiv/aids.  Thus, some of these children got injected with antibodies derived from blood plasma to combat bacterial infections.  I look at that as rather scary situation in comparision with getting natural antibodies through breastfeeding. Injecting antibodies into the blood stream is not without some risk.  But, yes this is science and research.
Now we have a company, Prolacta Bioscience, who would like to provide a more natural treatment for immune deficiency.  Although it isn't breastfeeding but, "The present invention discloses a prophetic inclination, based upon a 15-year study of human milk, that a new form of gammaglobulin referred to here
in as 'panaglobulin,' 'mammaglobulin,' or 'lactopanaglobulin' may replace the current gamma globulin."

"Because higher levels of IgA and IgM are present in human milk and colostrums, and a more diverse form of IgG as well, panaglobulins may provide protection beyond the scope of current gamma globulin therapy."

One of the more interesting connections that I see between Prolacta's interest in providing gamma globulin from human milk is that many of the BOD of Prolacta as well as their executive management have worked at Baxter, a manufacturer of intravenous immune globulin (from blood plasma) among many other healthcare products.  The CEO of Prolacta, Scott Elster worked for Baxter for 13 years in the plasma products area.  Scott Eaker, VP, Quality, is also from Baxter, having worked with Baxter's first recombinant Factor VIII manufacturing facility.  Joseph Fournell, VP, Operations for Prolacta,  worked as a director of global logistics for Baxter.  David Rechtman, Chief Medical Offider, also worked for Baxter responsible for prodcut safety.  He helped start an AIDS care team at SUNY-Health Science Center at Brooklyn.  John Bacich Jr., chairman of the Board of Prolacta was also employed by Baxter.  So Medo's patent for Prolacta does not seem like some far-fetched inventor's dream.
I am curious about our so-called knowledge of immune deficiencies.  We institute policy in which women who are hiv positive are not allowed to breastfeed their babies.  Yet, we will create a product made from the human milk to treat those babies.  What do we really know about building immunity?  Is denial of breastfeeding circumventing health for these infants?  What makes us believe that hiv/aids is transmitted through breastfeeding?  Wouldn't proof of transmission through breastfeeding require that infants be exclusively breastfed?  If given formula or foods or water, where is the proof that breastfeeding transmits this "virus?"  None of the studies done on transmission back years ago defined breastfeeding.  So now mothers will pay for a product to help her infant's immune system.  And no one questions the original studies done on transmission through breastfeeding.  No one questions the tragic twist of fate in which an infant will be denied breastfeeding but will need the milk of other mother's to build an immune system.  I guess we can applaud the ingenuity of men in a capitalist system in which we can be convinced that the natural development of immunity must not happen and we can readily replace it with injections of products "donated" from other mothers.  
Copyright 2011 Valerie W. McClain

IBCLC, concerns about a profession...

The IBCLC Code of Ethics  will be changed to a Code of Professional Conduct effective November 1, 2011.  I guess I shouldn't be concerned since at that date I will no longer be an IBCLC.  It's kind of ironic to see this proposed document and realize it coincides with my departure in the profession.  It makes me more at peace with my decision.  IBCLCs will no longer be obligated to follow the WHO Code, they will only be "encouraged."  So we are witnessing a profound change in a profession whose job was to promote, protect, and encourage breastfeeding.  It should make industry, particularly the infant formula industry happy.  And it lets human milk researchers (who sometimes are IBCLCs) off the hook.  They can happily continue doing human milk research for the infant formula industry and feel not a twinge of guilt.  For an understanding of the direction the IBCLC profession is going, I'd encourage readers to access the IBLCE website.  (http://www.ibcle.org)  I can't seem to access it anymore (it must be down right now-guess cause of the impending hurricane--Irene?  or IBCLCs?).  If one looks at the history of the IBLCE Board members, one is struck by the backgrounds of previous and current board members.  Many are nurses, doctors, and human milk researchers.  One year, I remember looking at the list and almost all board members were human milk researchers.  Does that present a problem?  Maybe.  It could explain the direction in which the profession is headed.  Non-medical educated people need not apply unless they want to get medical training.  I knew this was coming back in 1985.  I was told at a Florida LLL Conference that eventually the profession would not be easily accessible to LLL leaders and now was the time for LLL leaders to get this credential.  So I am surprised by other IBCLCs who are surprised by these "new" requirements.  This was the intended direction from the get-go by the leadership then and now.
What amuses me (sorry, in a cynical, sarcastic way) about the IBLCE's new Code is that they watered-down an IBCLCs obligation to the WHO Code but they did not change "respect for intellectual property rights" (which includes copyrights, trademarks, service and certification marks-certification marks was not on the old Code of Ethics), and patents.  This obligation is still there.  Why?  The IBCLC certification is a trademark, yeah a certification trademark.  But listed in the US Patent & Trademark Office.
Serial # 74631001  Registration # 2042667
Typed Drawing

---

Word Mark	IBCLC
Goods and Services	IC B . US B . G & S: independent lactation consultant services. FIRST USE: 19850308. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19850308
Mark Drawing Code	(1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number	74631001
Filing Date	November 23, 1994
Current Filing Basis	1A
Original Filing Basis	1A
Published for Opposition	December 17, 1996
Registration Number	2042667
Registration Date	March 11, 1997
Owner	(REGISTRANT) International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners CORPORATION VIRGINIA 7245 Arlington Blvd. #200 Falls Church VIRGINIA 22042
Attorney of Record	PAUL E. HODGES
Type of Mark	CERTIFICATION MARK
Register	PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text	SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20070427.
Renewal	1ST RENEWAL 20070427
Other Data	The certification mark, as used by persons authorized by applicant, certifies the quality of the services performed by those approved by the certifier.
Live/Dead Indicator	LIVE

So, I suppose if your profession depends on a trademark for credentialing purposes, then it is imperative that we "respect" ownership of a credential.  Luckily I don't have to worry about my BA credential.  Its bought and paid for a long time ago and I will never lose it.  But the IBCLC credential trademark is just a rental property.  I suspect there is more to the IBCLC respecting intellectual property rights than just the fact that IBCLC is a trademark, albeit a certification trademark.  I believe that having had alot of human milk researchers on the IBLCE Board may have influenced the views of the Board on patents and patenting issues.  The direction the profession goes is important.  It looks like the direction is headed down the road to hell but who am I to say anything?


Here's another patent that we can thank human milk researchers for, in particular Alan Lucas.

Patent # 7998501, "Newborn infant formulas and feeding method"
Inventors:  Atul Singhal and  Alan Lucas
Assigned to University College London (Cambridge, GB)

"It has been observed, however, that formula-fed newborn infants might benefit from a feeding having a lower energy density, and perhaps more importantly from a feeding that provides fewer calories during the initial weeks or months of life than would otherwise be provided from a feeding with a conventional infant formula.  We have found from our long term infant studies that rapid early growth achieved in large part from nutrient enriched feedings from conventional infant formulas,  may result in long term adverse health effects in individuals later in life, particularly with regard to long-term vascular health relevant to the development of atherosclerosis and to the later propensity to insulin resistance and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM)..."
The patent mentions that slower growth achieved by human milk (note:  breastfeeding? where be thee?) and a modified infant formula had better results regarding these diseases that cause adult morbidity.
And the patenting goes on and on.  And you, IBCLCs, are obligated to respect the business of patenting of human milk.  I call that an ethics dilemma that the profession has chosen to avoid.
Copyright 2011 Valerie W. McClain

Breastfeeding: the new morality play

Breastfeeding advocates are enthused by an article in Psychology Today called, "Breastmilk Wipes Out Formula:  Responses to Critical Comments." I am not so enthused.  In fact, I am deeply troubled by this article.  The author writes about her students and herself presenting a series of blog posts on breastfeeding vs. formula.   The article reads like the current one-mind set PR program from the US Health Department.  So we have a associate professor of psychology from Notre Dame (a Catholic University) and her psych students posting on a blog (blogs?) learning how to create just the right piece of evidence to convince readers about "breastfeeding."  Wait...wait....is it to convince readers about breastfeeding or breastmilk?  How does the public like having a psych professor and her students using their research knowledge of the human mind to "share" information on blogs?  Did they identify themselves as researchers to blog readers?  Interestingly, psych professors are being hired by the US Government (CDC) to write blogs, to attack alternative viewpoints on health (from hiv/aids to vaccinations).  The author, Darcia Narvaez, PhD is a researcher on teaching moral character has received funding at various times from the Department of Health in Minnesota (when she lived there) and is applying for grants from the NIH.  Does funding from US government agencies influence what you say and don't say?  Why is this article in Psychology Today focused on breastmilk?  In bold letters the article states, "We must face the fact that there is no comparability between breastmilk and formula."  Where is breastfeeding?  Words are important, we aren't talking about breastfeeding in this article.  This article is a promotion of breastmilk by a researcher who is often funded by the US government.  This article was written under the title, Moral Landscapes.  So I find myself wondering, are we going to make infant feeding a morality decision?  I thought breastfeeding was biology:  like walking or giving birth.  Oh yes, we aren't writing about breastfeeding.  It is breastmilk, a product that this article is promoting.  The author quotes Jim Akre writing that "milk sharing, a longstanding practice in human history is taking off through the internet."  What????  Wet nursing was and is a long standing practice not milk sharing.  Are we piggybacking another article to promote milk sharing over the internet?
This article states that the next step (in bold) is "establishing breast milk banks and milk sharing opportunities."  Yes, lets get women to share their milk as the US government, medical research institutions, the infant formula industry continue to patent human milk components.  Lets make it a moral, ethical imperative for women to "donate" their milk.  Anyone else think that there is something basicly unethical in promoting breastmilk sharing while keeping silent about patenting of human milk components?  Is anyone else troubled by the fact that a psych professor and students are writing to blogs, influencing the content, researching responses to content so that they can influence readers?  
I have gotten the impression over the years that various blogs are just propaganda efforts and some commentators to various blogs are part of various industries, infant formula in many cases involved with infant feeding.  Maybe psych professors need to study the influence of industry on blogs and blogging.  Or better yet, how the US Government influences content on the Virtual.  How many of those wonderful bloggers out there are really paid by the CDC to promote a viewpoint that sells vaccinations, pharm drugs, condoms to the public--now breastmilk feeding?  Yeah, all is fair in love and war....so the moral imperative is breastmilk feeding...God, what a world.
Copyright 2011 Valerie W McClain 

Mining human milk components

I really don't get it.  I really, really don't get it.  I don't get the lack of understanding or concern regarding the "mining" of human milk components?  Wake up?  Anyone there?  The media has a stranglehold on the reality of milksharing. So this is dedicated to my friends.

http://www.dairyreporter.com/Markets/Danes-unite-to-mine-infant-formula-prebiotics

or
http://www.alfa-editores.com/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3583&Itemid=31


It's a news article from the Dairy Reporter on Danisco and Arla and their "project to develop human milk components-oligasaccharides for use in infant formula.  Read it.  Then ask how does the infant formula industry acquire human milk?  How?  Yes, maybe they advertise in newspapers and mothers get money in exchange for donating for a scientific cause.  Do mothers really not care that their breastmilk helps the infant formula industry make money??  Oh yes, I forgot, the world is a business arrangement and people will do anything for money.  But what about the mommies who donate their milk to those non-profits, who also believe that research of human milk is part of their mission?  Yeah, I know close your eyes, ears, and mouth because this is what human existence is about, BUSINESS.

Let's get to business.  How about buying some human breast milk (raw colostrum) from a company that sells human and animal proteins for research.
http://www.leebio.com/breast-milk-human-colostrum-P548.html

Or better yet let's learn about available technology for licensing on Human Milk Oligosaccharides.
http://techtransfer.universityofcalifornia.edu/NCD/11224.html

Okay and now tell me why donor milk banks and milksharing organizations do not mention this possibility to mothers and fathers.  Informed consent?  Does it exist regarding human milk donations? 
Copyright 2011 Valerie W. McClain

Is HM4HB a grassroots organization or astroturf?

Remember astroturf, that fake grass in football stadiums?  Well, that's what they call fake grassroots organization that are run by public relation people who may represent industry, organizations, or government.  They have an agenda, often political.  They create the illusion that there are many people involved in an issue.  Astroturf operations has been known to sway legislators, our lawmakers into believing that they are witnessing genuine grassroots organizations.  The thing about astroturf operations run by public relation companies is that some people involved with these fake grassroots organizations are honest citizens who have no idea that the organization was developed by public relations.  

My question has been whether HM4HB is a grassroots organization that just sprung up within the last year.  Or whether HM4HB is astroturf, an organization that Is public relations and has another organization's agenda.  HM4HB stated mission statement is, "to promote the nourishment of babies and children around the world with human milk.  We are dedicated to fostering community between local families who have chosen to share breastmilk."
http://www.hm4hb.net/about.html 

If one goes to the above website, words pop out at you in wonderful technicolor, "think globally share locally, transparency, honesty, solidarity, consensus..."  We see these words, we are engulfed by these words and we presume that the words are the substance of the organization.  But for words to have substance, we have to have a structure in which those issues become reality. What governing structure does HM4HB have in creating their policies?  We are told that 300 administrators decide on policy.  Sounds very chaotic to me and very difficult to obtain consensus.

Transparency?  Facebook pages of HM4HB suggest donating to HMBANA milk banks, the very organization that has publicly stated that mother-to-mother internet milk sharing is risky.  What is the relationship between HMBANA and this organization?  One-sided?  All fluff and no substance?

Why do administrators of HM4HB contradict themselves?  Why do they not know that HM4HB is suggesting to donate to HMBANA milk banks in various Facebook pages?  Who creates HM4HB policy?  All 300 administrators?  It seems like someone is creating policy for HM4HB without informing all their administrators of that policy (suggesting mothers donate to HMBANA).  Yet the public has no knowledge of who is guiding this organization and it seems that even some of their administrators are left in the dark regarding policy.


If this is a astroturf operation, what organization is behind HM4HB?  Is it HMBANA, who from the year 2000 was contacting the FDA because of their concerns about internet milk sharing?  Is this a way to prove to the FDA that milk sharing is becoming widespread and worthy of regulation?  And why would HMBANA want internet milk sharing regulated?  If mother-to-mother milk sharing was regulated, who benefits?  Is there really risks to milk sharing?  Or is the risk about control of a natural resource?  Is HMBANA faced with a critical donor milk shortage?  Why is their no public discussion of where some of HMBANA's donor milk goes, to the research community?  How much of donor milk for HMBANA goes to human milk researchers who are funded or employed by the infant formula industry?  Several patents, mention HMBANA donor milk as a source of their research.


Why are organizations that are involved with women donating their milk, not willing to fully disclose to mothers and fathers the widespread patenting of human milk components for various industries-infant formula, food, supplements, drugs, and vaccines.  The commercialization of human milk components means that human milk is not some "yucky" substance but considered by commerce to be valuable, worthy of patenting.  It means that mothers and fathers, too, need to be aware that donating may not be about giving their precious milk to some poor premature baby.  What it may mean is that mothers are giving away a valuable resource to various industries who will profit from that donation.  I call that exploitation.  I believe that every organization that is involved with donor milk/mother-to-mother milk sharing ought to fully disclose this possibility, so that mothers are truly informed and understand the possibilities of their donation. 
Copyright 2011 Valerie W. McClain

"the mystical public relations people you speak of..., said "R"

Music fills the cab of my truck.  I hear, "I want it all, I want it all, I want it all.  And I want it now."   Reminds me of the last few days and having several commentators to my blog pushing for an immediate publication of their comments.   And the accusations of one administrator to HM4HB that because I only responded to "the professionals,"  I was showing my disregard (disrespect) for the moms who administrators of HM4HB.  Yikes blasted again and again, what's an old lady to do?  Yes, yes, must defend myself.  How could they not know me and my life? The premise is that the internet encourages community and transparency.  So how come they don't know me?  

Okay for those of you who don't know my schedule, here it is.  I am employed outside the home.  Sometimes I work 12 hours in one day.  My employment is not related to breastfeeding.  Some weeks I work 6 days.  I am tired and blurry eyed and I am 60 years old.  So immediate responses to my blog are limited by how long I have worked and how tired I am.  I realize that is no excuse because there are no excuses in the Virtual.  This is for Agustina, who believes that I only responded to "the professionals."  Hm... Yesterday I started to respond to the comments.  The first comment I received was from Karleen Gribble and second comment was from Jodine Chase.  By the time I finished my comments to each of them, I had to go to work.  I know a likely excuse.  I had planned to respond to each and every comment.  But...heck this is the internet and your impression of me has to be right.  I am an elitist and only respond to "the professionals."  Funny thing is that I was a stay-at-home mom myself until my divorce.  Then I became a single parent with 3 kids and I had to find employment or live on the side of the road.  I don't believe that a mom who stays home with their kids lacks intelligence, diligence, creativity, etc.  If I did, then I would truly not believe in my own values.  

My understanding from the flow of the comments is that almost all administrators to HM4HB deny that anyone at HM4HB is employed in the field of public relations.  So either they did not know that Jodine Chase was employed (I believe her own company) in Public Relations or they lied.  I believe that they did not know.  I don't think they lied.  Which makes me question the whole belief by HM4HB that the internet is community and transparent.  

I find it strange that Jodine right from the start of her comments did not say that she no longer volunteered for HM4HB.  It would seem to me that that would be a key statement to be made from the start.  Someone says the organization has a PR person in it, then it would seem that one would immediately dispel that notion.  Only much later, is this brought up.  And brought up after comments by other administrators who declare that there are no PR people in their organization.  So Jodine is no longer in the organization, except for one project, HM4HB Week.  

I know Jodine from some time back.  I knew she was in public relations.  In fact I thought she did PR work for HMBANA.  So I was somewhat confused by her involvement with HM4HB/Eats on Feets.  Because I believed that HMBANA is absolutely opposed to moms milk sharing over the internet.  In fact in 2000 HMBANA met with the FDA to suggest that regulation of milk sharing is needed because of the internet.  I believed that HM4HB was opposed to organized milk banking.  Wrong.  I happened to browse the Facebook page of HMBANA and a Facebook page for HM4HB page and both organization do not seem adverse to helping each other through HMBANA's critical donor milk shortage.  Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at a Facebook page on HM4HB is a suggestion to moms that "if you have milk to share, you might want to see if you are close to a HMBANA milk bank.."
To see HMBANA's comments about HM4HB
http://www.facebook.com/HMBANA?ref=ts

Will the real mystical public relation people stand up?  Nope, it's the Virtual and nothing is as it seems.  
Copyright 2011 Valerie W. McClain