"If you insist upon fighting to protect me, or 'our' country, let it be understood, soberly and rationally between us, that you are fighting to gratify a sex Instinct which I cannot share; to procure benefits which I have not shared and probably will not share; but not to gratify my instincts, or protect either myself or my country. For, the outside will say, in fact, as a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman, my country is the whole world..." --Virginia Woolf
"The mother of all bombs, the mother of all bombs, the mother of all bombs, the mother of all bombs;" the words echoed in my brain and I changed the news channel. But the mother of all bombs echoed and re-echoed on all the news stations. I shut the news off but the words continued to haunt me. The words bounced around in my mind till I wanted to scream. It's just words. Yet words have meaning and the ability to describe a reality; not my reality but a reality.
Mothers bring forth life. Bombs destroy life. Why do most men thrill to the missile launch of deadly weapons? The description of missiles and bombs seems to play upon a male's erotic or is it sadistic view of the world? Death and destruction while enjoying one's dinner. Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. Oh wait bombs don't have any guarantees other than destruction, capitalism at its finest. Bombs are like the bully at the beach who gets enormous satisfaction from stomping the castle you built into oblivion. Only these kind of bombs not only stomp out the castle, they blow away lives into oblivion. And while it supposedly blows away the enemy, it also causes "collateral damage." Yes, collateral damage means it also kills civilians: men, women and children who are just bystanders in a world gone mad.
Normally a mother does not destroy others unless her babies are threatened. One never gets between a mother bear and her cubs because mothers protect their young. Bombs do not protect, they destroy. Are we humanizing an object to make it more palatable to the American public? Or are we using the word in a fit of rage, like how males tend to use the word, mother f-ker? Do Americans hate mothers so much that they equate mothers as a force of destruction or an epitaph to be thrown at others in fits of rage?
Maybe this imagery explains in some ways, why women, as mothers, are treated so poorly in our society. Pregnant women are expected to be employed until the day they go into labor. And then afterwards expected to go back to their jobs as soon as possible. They are expected to work 8-10 hours a day, go home take care of children and do a mountain of housework. Should we wonder why women get postpartum depression? Having had the luxury of staying home when my children were little, I can't imagine doing all that and coping with for example a baby that is up all night from teething or fevers. What man would put up with such demands on their life?
Women have become slaves to a society that gives them little to no value as contributing members of society. Our society does not even value women enough to give them equal pay. It is usually women who give up a job to stay home with the kids. And they pay for that economically, in lower social security payments when they retire. When they go back to employment they have lost seniority and many benefits that are derived from steady employment.
But more to the point of this blog regarding human milk component patents, our society is now collecting human milk from women. Compensation is pitiful, a mere token of its value in the biotech marketplace. Women donate their milk because marketing campaigns explain that premature infants need donor milk. No one asks why their mothers are not providing that milk or why its not enough milk? Nor do mothers ask how much of their donated milk goes to premature infants, how much for research, how much for products and patents that enrich industry. The breastfeeding community through social media continues to exhort mothers to donate their milk without regard to what this really means. And US breastfeeding organizations seem unaware of patenting or unwilling to make it part of any real discussion. Heaven forbid women question donating human milk. Yet to me this represents a form of female slavery and an invasion of privacy (because what some researchers are after is DNA, genes to manipulate, to patent, to own, to monopolize in the marketplace).
Like the Mother of all bombs, we mothers are destroyed by the actions of a society who believes that life is to be manipulated. We are used to self-destruct as well as to destroy others. But that isn't mothers. We are not the destructive force on this planet. We are used to promote a viewpoint of world domination through the pillaging and rape of our planet. Dismissing the ability of women to sustain life through their milk, creates the need for a substitute product. We are the ultimate natural resource that this culture is destroying.
Copyright 2017 Valerie W. McClain
The Pharm Woman Patent that started the mad race to genetically engineer human milk components to improve infant formula.
Patent #4977137 owned by Baylor College of Medicine, filed in 1987 and entitled, "Lactoferrin as a dietary ingredient promoting the growth of the gastrointestinal tract."
The patent states, "A substantial growth of the intestines of newborn animals takes place in
the first one to three days after birth. For example, in newborn pigs
who are nursed by the mother, there is a substantial growth,
approximately eight to ten inches, of the
intestines of the infant within the first few days after birth. In a
large number of human newborns, who are not nursed by the mother but are
placed on an infant's formula, this growth of the gastrointestinal
tract during the first few days may not
occur, and, as a result, the infant is predisposed to chronic
intractable diarrhea which must be managed for a period of three or more
months at considerable expense and discomfort to the infant."
And the patent goes on to explain:
"The present invention is based upon the discovery that milk lactoferrin
as a dietary ingredient promotes the growth of the gastrointestinal
tract when added to infant formula or given separately from the formula
and thus reduces the occurrence of
chronic diarrhea and may assist in the management of short-gut syndrome
and avoids, at least to some extent, chronic intractable diarrhea of the
infant. The lactoferrin may be from a nonhuman animal or human source.
The milk containing the lactoferrin
should not be processed, such as by pasturization or the lactoferrin
processed, extracted, or purified by a process which destroys the
effectiveness of the lactoferrin."
In the year 2000 Baylor College of Medicine filed another patent called, "Production of recombinant lactoferrin and lactoferrin polypeptides using cDNA sequences in various organisms." patent # 6635447
From the patent (recombinant means genetic engineering-recombining genes):
"The recombinant LF being a protein derived by recombinant techniques can
be used in a variety of applications. The human gene can be
transferred to mammalian systems such as cows and other agriculturally
important animals and expressed in milk.
The incorporation of a human lactoferrin gene and expression in the milk of animals can combat an iron deficiency typical in piglets. The inclusion of the human lactoferrin gene with expression should improve an animal's disease resistance to bacterial
and viral infection. The tissue specific expression of human lactoferrin
in mammary glands, for instance, would impart the bacteriocidal and
virucidal benefit of the expressed gene to young feeding on the milk and
would provide a production means for
the secreted protein for therapeutic use."
"The search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions."
--Dwight D. Eisenhower
(Forward Note from Valerie: In 1992 I was 9 months pregnant, when my son, was stillborn. During a weekly routine check prior to labor, my midwife could not find a heartbeat. I went to the hospital for an ultrasound and was told that my son had died. The grief I felt was overwhelming. I do believe that one never gets over grief, one learns to live with it. I am deeply saddened for other mothers who have lost their children, their babies. Reading the recent articles regarding the mom whose baby died and believes that the cause was due to exclusive breastfeeding, was upsetting. I feel that this mom's situation needs more discussion to correct some misconceptions. I do not want to add to this mom's grief. Exclusive breastfeeding is the standard, global recommendation by various health agencies. Blaming a mother or mothers for following those recommendations is victimizing, not only to this particular mother but to all mothers who wish to exclusively breastfeed their babies. My sincere sympathy to Jillian and Jarrod Johnson at the loss of their son, Landon.)
The headlines in the Washington Post read like the National Enquirer, "She listened to her doctors--and her baby died. Now she's warning others about breast-feeding." (3/8/2017) On the day before this article, the USA Today had similar scary headlines, "Breastfeeding mom didn't know she was starving her baby to death." (3/7/2017) I am finding it harder and harder to read newspapers this year and these two articles were particularly gut-wrenching. Both the news articles were about the Johnson family whose full term newborn had died at 19 days old. The infant, Landon, was born by c-section weighing 7lb., 7oz in February of 2012 in a Baby-Friendly hospital.*
*Baby-Friendly Hospital Intiative began in 1992 as a result of the Innocenti Declaration to promote hospital practices that promote exclusive breastfeeding. While exclusive breastfeeding is promoted. The 6th Step states, "Give newborn infants no food or drink other than breastmilk unless medically indicated." see http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/bfhi/en/
The American Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, protocol #3 regardingthe use of supplementary feedings in a healthy term breastfed infant dated revised 2009 states, that an infant's physician should be notified if an infant weight loss is greater than 7%. It also states that an "8-10% weight loss may be within normal limits,...indication for careful assessment and possible breastfeeding assistance."
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/bfm.2009.9991
C-sections (medscape article) and IVs (Journal of Perinatal Education) can cause significant weight loss in some babies.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/835626
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20514125
Jillian, mother of Landon, felt pressured to exclusively breastfeed her infant by the hospital personnel. The mom states in both newspaper articles that Landon lost 9.7 % of his birth weight by day 3, when they were discharged. Twelve hours later he became unresponsive at home and his father did CPR. He was taken to the ER and hospitalized on life support and died a few weeks later. According to the Washington Post coroner records state that Landon, "died of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, or brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation; cardiac arrest; and hypernatremic dehydration." The article also states that Dr. Christie del Castillo-Hegyl, physician and founder of Fed Is Best related that Landon, "was born by emergency c-section because he was not getting enough oxygen during labor."
The question I have is: was exclusive breastfeeding the cause of this tragedy? The parents believe this to be true. And the organization, Fed Is Best, obviously believes that exclusive breastfeeding is the risk. Where is the evidence that exclusive breastfeeding is a risky practice? Will promoting the use of infant formula in the early days for all breastfeeding newborns, save more infants? Or are there far greater risk factors in demonizing exclusive breastfeeding?
Media articles will never tell us the full story of events that lead to this infant's death. Laws of privacy, prevent the medical community from commenting on this situation. So there is a lot we do not know and the information provided in these news articles may or may not be accurate. But the information that was provided by these articles (at least 3 articles that came out around the same time), have me questioning the premise that exclusive breastfeeding was the cause of death.
In one of the articles Jillian states that the best advice she received was from a NICU doctor, who said to her, "breast is best but follow with a bottle." (People Bodies interview, 3/3/2017) The mother again mentions a NICU doctor in the Washington Post who told her that, "...he suspected Landon was so severely dehydrated that his heart had stopped beating." She asked the NICU doc what he meant by severely dehydrated since she was exclusively breastfeeding. She had been told in the hospital that, "her latch was great" and, "she was doing fine." In another article she stated that she had sore and bleeding nipples.
The implication by the NICU doctor's statements appears to me to be a subtle passing of blame for the death of the infant onto the mom. The mom in another article states that had she "only" given her baby one bottle, then he would still be alive (usatoday). We cannot know whether just one bottle would have saved this baby.
No physician should ever state or imply to a parent that a parent's positive action (exclusive breastfeeding is a well established positive action, promoted world-wide) is the cause of death of a child. Unjustified blame becomes undeserved shame and guilt. Over the years, I have heard various comments by medical professionals who have made some oddball statements about breastfeeding. One doc stated to a mom that the cause of pyloric stenosis is breastfeeding. What?? A physical defect one is born with is caused by breastfeeding? Really? So hearing that a NICU doc in a Baby-Friendly Hospital implied that exclusive breastfeeding caused this infant's death is not so surprising.
From my perspective having worked with breastfeeding mothers for some 26 years, I think the articles suggest to me that this mom did not get the assistance and care needed. Preventing problems requires a knowledge of how certain interventions or lack of intervening increase risks of infant morbidity and mortality and maternal morbidity and mortality.
Like nutrition education, breastfeeding education in medical schools is not a requirement. Unless the person going to medical school has an interest in nutrition or breastfeeding, it means that there is a huge knowledge gap in those who are medically trained. Most hospitals hire licensed nurses who will support breastfeeding in the postpartum period. Most times those hired do not just work with breastfeeding moms, they also maybe required to fill in other duties on the hospital floor. I was told by various hospital-based lactation consultants (who had varying credentials regarding breastfeeding support from IBCLC, CLC, to no credentials) that they had about 10 minutes to spend per mom who had given birth. I was floored by their time limits. I did home visits as a WIC Breastfeeding Peer Counselor Coordinator and in private practice. The least amount of time spent per mom was 1 hour, and the most was 2 hours (for complicated situations) and there was follow-up phone calls and even follow-up home visits. With assembly line care instituted by health care institutions, how can a standard 10 minutes spot serious problems? All breastfeeding assistance in medical facilities is not equivalent and often dependent upon experience and knowledge. Most moms do not know what the credentials mean nor the fact that anyone can call themselves a lactation consultant (although this may change, as various states consider licensing of IBCLCs). Although I question whether licensing will remedy situations like this.
If the media articles are correct and the mom's recollections are accurate (this happened 5 years ago), then I see some very obvious red flags. A first time mom or a first time breastfeeding mom is at higher risk for breastfeeding problems. Moms who are in this category often need more support and one on one time from an experienced breastfeeding assistant. Moms who have had c-sections are at higher risk for various problems. For example, babies of c-sectioned moms lose more weight than babies who are born vaginally. Standard hospital practice in 2012 would have been that a 7% or greater weight loss would mean that infant's physician would be notified and steps would be taken to observe whether interventions were needed. Maybe this was done but not mentioned in any of the articles.
Mothers who have sore and bleeding nipples always require an evaluation. It can be a simple fix, changing the position of babies or moms. It can also be very complex situation. Unrelenting soreness can cause weight loss in babies because pain slows the let down reflex (and milk release may be minimal). Nipple pain can be excruciating (lots of pain nerve endings). Engorgement can be part of the problem. IV's used in labor and delivery can cause edema in the nipple and breast making a baby's latch on impossible or very painful. Engorgement is never normal. Yet many people (as well as medical professionals) believe it is normal. What engorgement shows is mother/infant separation and/or an IV overload. C-sectioned moms are more likely to have longer mom/baby separations as well as lots of IV solutions. Certain drugs for pain relief in labor and delivery may cause a newborn to be excessively sleepy or uninterested in nursing. How a mom gives birth impacts breastfeeding either positively or negatively.
The Washington Post article stated that Dr Christie del Castillo-Hegi. co-founder of Fed is Best, stated that Jillian, the mom, had an emergency c-section due to oxygen deprivation. The mom stated that she had sore and bleeding nipples and 14 hours of marathon (nonstop) breastfeeding. The baby had 9.7% loss of birth weight on day 3. Mom was released from the hospital on day 3 and went home only to return to the ER "fewer than 12 hours later." (usatoday). The mom had found her baby not breathing and her husband performed CPR and baby Landon was rushed to the ER and died several weeks later. According to the Washington Post, the LA County Coroner records state the cause of death was hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, or brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation, cardiac arrest and hypernatremic dehydration.
It appears to me that it is possible that this baby might have been physically in trouble before the mother started exclusively breastfeeding, that lack of oxygen during labor may have damaged the infant. But that is speculation not facts. The reality is that, if there is any blame to give, it has to be placed on a medical staff who did not see all the red flags. The mom did what was expected of her by the institution, exclusive breastfeeding. And the institution's staff failed the mother by not recognizing the need for interventions.
Yes, it is easy after-the-fact to recognize those red flags. And that recognition may not have prevented this tragedy. But we cannot presume in a society that all parents have enough information and support to exclusively breastfeed their newborns. We cannot even presume that all medical communities have enough information to create a supportive breastfeeding environment in hospitals. Exclusive breastfeeding is not the problem. Blaming mothers for exclusively breastfeeding masks the real issues that surround current birthing and breastfeeding practices in medical environments. After all, breastfeeding like birth is not a medical issue, except for a small subset of women who have medical problems that complicate birth and breastfeeding. Blaming exclusive breastfeeding for tragic medical outcomes is an alternative fact. It is a big lie that may destroy breastfeeding and create a nation of mothers who already fear birth and now will fear breastfeeding.
Copyright 2017 Valerie W. McClain
"Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness." Martin Luther King, Jr.
I heard the calls of the Red Shouldered Hawks that live down the road. They have lived here as long as I have or so I like to believe. Maybe they are descendants of the original pair. But they seem to be arguing politics lately in loud, raucous voices that carry in the wind entangling me in their drama. Today they are riding the wind, yelling at their newest baby who is flying like a bat out of hell. Watching momma and poppa chasing this baby reminded me of the days not so long ago, when my little ones ran ahead of me. The toddlers ran without fear, headlong and fast into the unknown. And, we the adults ran after them, trying to keep up. Fearful, ever fearful, scared that my treasured babies are too naive to run so fast. Into the future they run without fear, soaring and singing their songs. I stand back, breathless and tired and admire their strength and courage. The pair of hawks seem to be yelling at their baby to stop but their little one throttles forward moving faster and faster like a race horse out of the starting gate.
It was fun watching the Hawk family and wishfully making their behavior relevant to me. Pure escapism on my part because the world appears to be getting more and more troubling. I am feeling fearful for the future, my children and grandchildren. I have always kept that fear on the back burner of my mind. Yet that fear, that darkness that seems to be enveloping our world seems to be growing. I wonder whether insanity is contagious? Greed and hate and more greed and hate. The sad history of humanity with brief moments of peace and loving kindness.
Breastfeeding advocacy has been so much a part of my life energy that it is upsetting to see it being infected by profits. patenting and distorted science. When human milk science plays to the tune of corporate values, then it creates the victimization of women. Not that, we as women find anything new about being victims. Its that I believe women are tired of being victims.
For example, the other day I read in Breastfeeding Medicine an article dated in January of last year, "Relationships of Maternal Stress with Milk Immune Components in African American Mothers of Healthy Term Infants." (funded partly by Medela) After reading it, I was appalled. Why? The authors state that, "race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status were associated with increased stress and health disparities." And, "Historically African American have been at risk for health disparities; however recent evidence suggests that chronic stress may also play a role in health disparities such as hypertension, diabetes, and adverse birth outcomes." They mention that African American infants have the highest infant mortality rate and lowest breastfeeding initiation rates.
The authors decided to measure cortisol levels as an indication of stress. They would take breast milk and saliva collections (measuring cortisol levels) on Day3, 9, and 14 post delivery. The collection of breast milk was to monitor MIC (Milk Immune Components): IgA, milk cytokines, chemokines and growth factors. The instructions for mothers regarding these collections were amazing. For example with the saliva samples; it was to be done upon awakening, 30 minutes after awakening, and 60 minutes after awaking. No food or drink 30 minutes prior to collecting the saliva. With breast milk collection they were to collect 1 tsp of hind milk using either hand expression or breast pump. Samples were to be frozen and mothers had to transport those samples to the principle investigator. Mothers had to do a self report survey on physical and environmental stressors in their life. These mothers were recovering from childbirth (34% of the mothers had c-sections and were on antibiotics), taking care of their babies and then having to fill out questionnaires, pump-obtain hind milk, saliva collections, no food or drink prior to the saliva collections. Are the researchers kidding? How to stress out moms that were already stressed out? I find this ethically irresponsible. Not surprising that many moms weaned or did not do the samples. I remember after my first baby and how difficult it was to even eat or go to the bathroom and I didn't have a c-section. The whole concept of interfering with moms and their babies time together in the first weeks postpartum is just wrong. But to do this specifically with African American moms and babies who are at the most risk for stress and health disparities seems unethical. Mothers who returned all the surveys and milk and saliva collections received a $25 gift card. I suppose that represents 3 hours of work for minimum wage. It seems small compensation for such interference.
Of course, what makes this whole study more upsetting is that one of the authors, Maureen Groer is a listed inventor to patent #9345249 entitled, "Method of supplementing cytokine, chemokine and growth factors in donor human milk." filed 6 months before the above study. The study stated that there was no competing financial interests. So having a patent is not considered a financial interest? The patent is owned by the University of South Florida and it is probably available for licensing.
The patent states the problem of pasteurization of donor milk (Holder method) which is thought to "destroy the immune properties in milk and denature many other proteins." The patent proposes to supplement donor milk with chemokines, cytokines and growth factors. For this patent they boldly state that donor milk was provided from a single non-profit milk bank in Northern Texas. Since this particular research had government funding, the US government has certain rights to the invention.
Inventor and researcher, Maureen Groer, was quoted in the Tampa Bay Times in January of 2014 in regard to the media blitz about unsafe milk sharing over the internet. According to the article she stated, "Breast milk sold over the Internet is creating a very dangerous situation."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/local-moms-join-national-trend-of-selling-breast-milk-online/2186085
I wonder which is more dangerous? Breast milk sold over the Internet or patenting to create a "better" donor milk? Is this about controlling a natural resource or safety? Who wins and who loses in the drive to create a better donor milk? Who are we sacrificing on the altar of invention?
Copyright 2017 Valerie W. McClain
