Breastfeeding

Magdlyn

Moderator
Staff member
Yes there are cells (and with the cells DNA) in breast milk but drinking the breast milk doesn't incorporate that DNA into the child's system. The cells are simply digested and become nutrients for the child.

Derby, are you a La Leche League Leader or lactation consultant (IBCLC)? I am both. Just my credentials.

I have seen research which is very compelling. Many siblings took part in a study where one sibling was an organ donor to another. In all the cases, the 2 sibs who both breastfed from the same mother had much better success with the recipient not rejecting the donated organ. The conclusion was 2 breastfed siblings had more in common genetically than 2 sibs born of the same mother but not both breastfed by her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Derby, are you a La Leche League Leader or lactation consultant (IBCLC)? I am both. Just my credentials.

This is off topic, but let me address your post. I have seen research which is very compelling. Many siblings took part in a study where one sibling was an organ donor to another. In all the cases, the 2 sibs who both breastfed from the same mother had much better success with the recipient not rejecting the donated organ. The conclusion was 2 breastfed siblings had more in common genetically than 2 sibs born of the same mother but not both breastfed by her.

I'm a public health nurse. Siblings tend to be fairly similar genetically anyway, usually closer than to either of their parents. All the DNA that you're ever going to have you get at the moment of conception. Breast milk contains lots of antibodies that do no end of good for someone's immune system and it doesn't matter who the source of the breast milk is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a public health nurse. Siblings tend to be fairly similar genetically anyway, usually closer than to either of their parents. All the DNA that you're ever going to have you get at the moment of conception.

This does not hold with current research.

You disagree with the findings of the organ donation study that found mutually breastfed children were more genetically similar than 2 non-breastfed siblings? How would you explain it then? Just a rhetorical question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This does not hold with current research.

You disagree with the findings of the organ donation study that found mutually breastfed children were more genetically similar than 2 non-breastfed siblings? How would you explain it then? Just a rhetorical question. We can further discuss in PM if you'd like.
I believe Derby was saying that the study might simply have proven that being breastfed is beneficial and helps your body accept organ donation better, and have nothing to do with their DNA being more similar. Stop me if I'm wrong here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The study showed that even if the recipient was breastfed, they accepted the organ better if the donor was also breastfed by their shared mother.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK OK. A mod can split these posts out. The study showed that even if the recipient was breastfed, they accepted the organ better if the donor was also breastfed by their shared mother.

Was the recipient being breastfed during the organ transplant period? I can see how the organ could be better accepted. I'm just having a hard time understanding how it would still happen years after the children had both been weaned.
 
So I read the article last night. Here are the points that I got out of it.
1. Organ rejection is an immune response which the body initiates when it identifies "forign" material.
2. If a baby is breastfed they are exposed to the mother's antigens early in life and their immune system becomes hyporesponsive to them.
3. If that baby (once grown) then has an organ transplant from someone who has those same antigens (someone related to them maternally) they are less likely to reject the organ.
4. There isn't enough evidence to say whether or not it matters if the donor is also breastfed as in most families all children from the same mother are breastfed (in the study there were only 2 out of 39 where the recipient was breastfed and the donor was not therefore statistical significance couldn't be shown).

All in all another fabulous reason to breast feed your children, but it doesn't change your basic genetic makeup.
 
Yes, I stand corrected. As I said, I first heard of that study over 10 years ago (if it is the same study). I see it was done in 1985. Is it possible no further studies were done in the 25 years since?

I also slogged through those findings yesterday. So, it's an immune response thing, not a DNA thing.

Oddly I first joined La Leche League in 1985. In the years since I have worked with dozens of mothers who did not breastfeed their first child (or only did for a day or 2), because of lack of education or support, but went on to nurse subsequent children for much longer. It would be easy to find families like that for more research.

Anyway, my first point was that if babies are breastfed in a tribal situation by women other than their biological mother, they will then become more like those other women, immunologically at least (if not genetically)... The implications are enormous if you think about it.
 
Oddly I first joined La Leche League in 1985. In the years since I have worked with dozens of mothers who did not breastfeed their first child (or only did for a day or 2), because of lack of education or support, but went on to nurse subsequent children for much longer. It would be easy to find families like that for more research.

Anyway, my first point was that if babies are breastfed in a tribal situation by women other than their biological mother, they will then become more like those other women, immunologically at least (if not genetically)... The implications are enormous if you think about it.

It's a little more difficult to find these families though where the second child has recieved an organ transplan from the first child (and a little unethical to perform unnesecery(sp?) organ trasplants on healthy individuals.

I was also wondering if the risk of rejection would go down further if a child was to recieve breast milk from a paternally related woman as a baby if the risk of rejection would go down even further in sibling to sibling transplants. I think I'm going to look into this some more and see if there has been any further research done because this is really interesting.

Maybe in the future they might be able to look at people who were fed with banked breast milk from a variety of sources to see how that impacts organ rejection. Although I don't know how often you would get a case that would fit those parameters.
 
unnesecery(sp?)

Unnecessary.

It's all extremely interesting. I don't know much about breastfeeding, except for the fact that even though I don't want biological children, if I adopt a child who is still young I want to breastfeed them, so I looked into inducing breastfeeding without a pregnancy a bit. But that's pretty much as far as I went.

That, and until fairly recently, I actually thought the only cases when babies weren't breastfed were when they were allergic to breast milk (my younger brother was so we fed him formula instead).
 
A baby can have a heart condition that prevents them from sucking hard enough to 'order' their rations of milk from the boobies. That's at least how I understood the trouble in one family I know.

Also, for whatever reason, not all women really produce enough milk. Can Magdlyn or Derbie or someone else in the know explain why?
 
A baby can have a heart condition that prevents them from sucking hard enough to 'order' their rations of milk from the boobies. That's at least how I understood the trouble in one family I know.

Also, for whatever reason, not all women really produce enough milk. Can Magdlyn or Derbie or someone else in the know explain why?

Well, what I meant is, I used to think formula was only for babies who couldn't breastfeed for whatever reason (allergy being the one I was most familiar with). Then I learned that the huge majority of non-breastfeeding had nothing to do with that. A bunch are because the mother doesn't want to for whatever reason (the most stupid I've heard was "that would be incest!") ranging from practicality (the mother works full-time and doesn't want to stop or pump her milk out for someone else to feed the baby) to some weird things ("formula is better for the baby because it's artificial!" lolwut?)
 
Well, what I meant is, I used to think formula was only for babies who couldn't breastfeed for whatever reason (allergy being the one I was most familiar with). Then I learned that the huge majority of non-breastfeeding had nothing to do with that. A bunch are because the mother doesn't want to for whatever reason (the most stupid I've heard was "that would be incest!") ranging from practicality (the mother works full-time and doesn't want to stop or pump her milk out for someone else to feed the baby) to some weird things ("formula is better for the baby because it's artificial!" lolwut?)

Or they don't want their breasts to sag, or have breast implants, which I believe is not good for breastfeeding, or just believe that breastfeeding isn't necessary if there's formula that does the "same" thing. When I was 19, I remember my boyfriend's sister putting ice packs on her breasts because they were so swollen and heavy with milk but she wasn't breastfeeding. I never knew why not.
 
Right, there is a whole variety of reasons, some based on the child, some on the mother, some on both. I used to think of breastfeeding as happening unless there was a medical reason not to, then realised it was often down to personal preference.

I learned something similar about C-section. There again, I thought it only happened when there were going to be complication with a natural birth, but learned that it is most commonly used for completely different reasons without being medically required at all.
I learned about that completely by accident, by the way, when seeing figures that in pretty much all western countries, there is a higher death rate for both the mother and the kid if the birth happens in the hospital vs in other contexts such as home. The main reason turned out to be that C-section are more likely to result in the death of the mother, kid or both than natural birth did, with the paradoxical result that parts of the countries that didn't have as much access to hospital had a lower death rate when giving birth.

Note that it's a comparison in western countries, where the pregnant woman still had access to medical attention throughout the pregnancy, lived in an environment less prone to infections and usually had a midwife, doctor or nurse around for the birth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know much about breastfeeding, except for the fact that even though I don't want biological children, if I adopt a child who is still young I want to breastfeed them, so I looked into inducing breastfeeding without a pregnancy a bit.
Still, I can't help but to wonder - is it easy for women who have not given birth themselves to induce lactation? I'm super-sensitive to all sex hormones, so are there strong side affects to taking whatever it is you need to take for that to happen?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I learned something similar about C-section. There again, I thought it only happened when there were going to be complication with a natural birth, but learned that it is most commonly used for completely different reasons without being medically required at all.

I believe we've gone off-topic enough to split the thread, at this point.

Maybe a 'Pregnancy and Breastfeeding' thread?

C-section up here is proscribed to women who have severe anxiety related to giving birth. I have only heard really horrible pregnancy and giving birth stories, so I think I would qualify at this point :eek:.
 
Still, I can't help but to wonder - is it easy for women who have not given birth themselves to induce lactation? I'm super-sensitive to all sex hormones, so are there strong side affects to taking whatever it is you need to take for that to happen?

Not everyone will be able to, and not everyone who does will produce enough milk. The main goal though is to create more skin contact between the adoptive mother and the child, since the kid had to go through being abandoned and needs to recreate strong links. The breasfeeding becomes a very bonding experience even when it's supplemented with other sources (either formula or other breastmilk from someone else).

You can actually induce lactation without hormones at all, although it's even less likely to succeed. The breast needs to be constantly stimulated (I don't mean non-stop, I mean several times a day) and will eventually start producing the milk.

When the adoption is going to be on a newborn, typically you're given hormones during the bio-mom's pregnancy so you can start breastfeeding right away. It's apparently easier if you've been pregnant before. I assume it would also be easier if you have breastfed before, whether you were pregnant or not, but nothing I read stated so specifically.
 
I learned something similar about C-section. There again, I thought it only happened when there were going to be complication with a natural birth, but learned that it is most commonly used for completely different reasons without being medically required at all.
Yes, usually to accommodate the doctor's schedule. Can't let a birth interrupt a golf game! :p
 
...if I adopt a child who is still young I want to breastfeed them, so I looked into inducing breastfeeding without a pregnancy a bit. But that's pretty much as far as I went.

Many women can nurse an adopted baby. the factors that make it more successful are having a younger baby (since older ones will have become accustomed to bottle nipples), and pumping one's breasts frequently in the months preceding the adoption (ie: every 2 hours around the clock, with one 4 hour rest at night).

That, and until fairly recently, I actually thought the only cases when babies weren't breastfed were when they were allergic to breast milk (my younger brother was so we fed him formula instead).

Babies can't be allergic to breastmilk, it's much more likely he was sensitive to certain foods your mom ate, that passed into her milk.

A baby can have a heart condition that prevents them from sucking hard enough to 'order' their rations of milk from the boobies. That's at least how I understood the trouble in one family I know.

Ill babies, or premies, can have trouble being strong enough to suckle properly, but can be taught to as they grow. The mother can pump milk and give it by another method (syringe, spoon, small cup) until the baby grows stronger. A heart condition would be a really good reason to breastfeed, or provide the mother's pumped milk at least. If he needs surgery, human milk will greatly speed recovery.

Also, for whatever reason, not all women really produce enough milk. Can Magdlyn or Derbie or someone else in the know explain why?

Actually it is much more common to have an oversupply. Rarely a mother may have this or that condition, a congenital abnormality, or breast reduction, or retained piece of placenta, which can reduce supply. It's much more likely she thinks she doesnt have enough, because you can't measure it as you can with bottles. But you can weigh a baby before and after a feed to see how much he took. Also sufficient diaper output can be checked.

Giving bottles of formula or pacifiers can of course, reduce a good supply.

Or they don't want their breasts to sag, or have breast implants, which I believe is not good for breastfeeding,

Actually it's fine to breastfeed with implants, esp the way they are done nowadays.

or just believe that breastfeeding isn't necessary if there's formula that does the "same" thing.

sigh...

Still, I can't help but to wonder - is it easy for women who have not given birth themselves to induce lactation? I'm super-sensitive to all sex hormones, so are there strong side affects to taking whatever it is you need to take for that to happen?

It's very rare women take oxytocin nasal spray. As I said above, to make milk, stimulate your breasts as frequently as the baby would nurse. Google Supplemental Nursing System, which can deliver a supplement while the baby nurses. Most adoptive moms do not produce a full supply, but will produce some. Every drop of white gold helps!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top