Mothering Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well, we know that baby has germs in saliva and mucus which transfer to mom while breastfeeding. Mom's immune system then makes antibotties, which are fed to baby in the milk. I read somewhere that from sneeze to milk is less than six hours.<br><br>
I was wondering if the germ receptors on the aereola still function when not BFing? What about men? Maybe thats why men have them?<br><br>
Since there would be no way to market and package it, I know that the medical industry would not persue this. What about folk remedies? Has anyone heard about deliberately putting germs there when not BFing, just to help your body heal? <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/notes.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="notes">:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,052 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>stockingup99</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Has anyone heard about deliberately putting germs there when not BFing, just to help your body heal? <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/notes.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="notes">:</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
The question is, would that produce antibodies more quickly than simply being exposed? Or are you thinking that if say, your dh has the flu, you could have him cough on your breast and you'd have the antibodies develop and not catch the flu?<br><br>
It's possible the antibodies only develop in bm, in which case you'd have to induce lactation and drink a cup a day or something :LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,841 Posts
I don't know, but I just wanted to jump in and say I think that's one of most freaking amazing things about breastmilk. I'm embarrassed to say I'd personally been breastfeeding for over 3 years before I read this fact, and I still remember the physical head rush I got when I read that. Freaking amazing, I tell you! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/thumb.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="thumbs up">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>stockingup99</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I was wondering if the germ receptors on the aereola still function when not BFing? What about men? Maybe thats why men have them?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/offtopic.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="offtopic">: Men have nipples because nipples/areolas develop before the sexual characteristics in a fetus. We all develop the same in the beginning of gestation. Then later the sexual organs mature. So a penis and clitoris develop from the same structure, as do the scrotum and the labia. Likewise, all fetuses develop nipples. But in a female, when puberty hits, the breasts develop because of the female hormones. From what I understand, some men even have plumbing.<br><br>
I'm a nursing major so yeah... :LOL Continue on with your discussion! I have no idea IRT the OP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
I learn something every time I log on to mdc! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/rocks.jpg" style="border:0px solid;" title="mdc rocks">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,009 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>sapphire_chan</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">The question is, would that produce antibodies more quickly than simply being exposed? Or are you thinking that if say, your dh has the flu, you could have him cough on your breast and you'd have the antibodies develop and not catch the flu?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
I recently brought this up at an LLL meeting. I was saying that I wondered if you got passive immunization to a lot of germs from your baby. My reasoning is this - you don't catch a cold because a cold virus lands on your areola. A virus has to actually end up in your respiratory tract or your gut before it can make you sick, simply landing on the skin won't do it. We don't touch all the nasty things our babies touch and we don't put our sick friends' toys in our mouths or lick all the way across the mirror in the Old Navy dressing room (seriously, DD just did this a few weeks ago) so we don't get the extensive exposure to germs our kids do. They get said nasty germs in their mouths, then nurse, transferring them to our nipples, where our body immediately begins manufacturing antibodies, without the germs ever having to enter our respiratory or digestive tracts. Then, if/when they do end up there, we've already got antibodies ready to react to them, possibly preventing us from getting sick. I certainly believe the antibodies would circulate in our body as well, not just in our milk. Nature doesn't make stupid mistakes or absentmindedly forget important things, and it would be important for mothers to stay healthy and keep some of those antibodies in our own blood. Just my two cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
Very cool idea.<br><br>
What I had always heard about exposure to baby's germs was related to the reason moms are compelled to kiss their baby all the time (in addition to them just being scrumptious)--all those kisses at all those germy spots (face, hands) increase her exposure and facilitate anitbody production.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,052 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Plummeting</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I recently brought this up at an LLL meeting. I was saying that I wondered if you got passive immunization to a lot of germs from your baby. My reasoning is this - you don't catch a cold because a cold virus lands on your areola. A virus has to actually end up in your respiratory tract or your gut before it can make you sick, simply landing on the skin won't do it. We don't touch all the nasty things our babies touch and we don't put our sick friends' toys in our mouths or lick all the way across the mirror in the Old Navy dressing room (seriously, DD just did this a few weeks ago) so we don't get the extensive exposure to germs our kids do. They get said nasty germs in their mouths, then nurse, transferring them to our nipples, where our body immediately begins manufacturing antibodies, without the germs ever having to enter our respiratory or digestive tracts. Then, if/when they do end up there, we've already got antibodies ready to react to them, possibly preventing us from getting sick. I certainly believe the antibodies would circulate in our body as well, not just in our milk. Nature doesn't make stupid mistakes or absentmindedly forget important things, and it would be important for mothers to stay healthy and keep some of those antibodies in our own blood. Just my two cents.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Yet another argument for EBF <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/thumb.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="thumbs up">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,696 Posts
There's a story that I heard on Lactnet, of a pediatrician (male) who never had a sick day, until his wife weaned the last of their 4 children.<br><br>
wink, wink, nudge, nudge, he was getting all those extra antibodies from his wife.<br><br>
Janice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
I also read about the connection between the desire to kiss our babies and the production of antibodies in our breastmilk in response to the particular needs of our babies. I found it to be so fascinating. I had to have a hospital birth and they thought I was nuts because I wouldn't let them bathe or touch my baby while I was in the hospital. I didn't wanted any interfrence in the natural process of the production of antibodies in my breastmilk in response to her particular needs.<br><br>
You know...last week my whole family got the stomach flu. Nasty, highly contagious virus. They puked for days. I cleaned up more yuck than I care to admit, yet I was the only one who stayed healthy. May I mention I am also nursing my youngest? Hmmm...<br><br>
Makes sense, really. I'll have to experiment with this theory. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/orngtongue.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Stick Out Tongue">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,270 Posts
I'm confused. I thought that the mom produced antibodies because she was exposed to the same germs, not in reaction to the germs she gets via the baby nursing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,496 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Plummeting</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">My reasoning is this - you don't catch a cold because a cold virus lands on your areola. A virus has to actually end up in your respiratory tract or your gut before it can make you sick, simply landing on the skin won't do it.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Now that is truly fascinating! I feel like I've been sick much less since BF and was wondering HOW that could be - I'm not eating much better, and I'm certainly more tired. You might be on to something! The body is amazing!
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top