Kimberly Sherwood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Here is a quote from "The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding":  "Protection against
> allergy is one of the many advantages a baby receives from his mother's milk.
>  Your baby will not be allergic to your milk; you can count on this with
> certainty.  It is a law of nature that infants never become sensitized to
> their natural food.
> Proteins make the critical difference.  The protein in your milk is totally
> compatible with your baby.  The proteins in cow's milk and in formulas based
> on cow's milk are potential trouble makers for the human infant."

The only problem with this "law of nature" is that it ignores the
complexity of the immune system.  _If_ it were true, there would never
be a case of autoimmune disease in humans...and we know that isn't true.
We'd also never see transplant rejection, tissue type incompatibilities,
rh incompatibilities between mother and infant, or anti-phosolipid
antibodies (which almost always cause miscarriage unless carefully
managed).

The question in this case is more one of technical nomenclature.
Would a reaction to breast milk count as an allergy, a sensitivity,
or an autoimmune reaction?  The answer depends on what part of the
immune system is involved.  True allergy only involves IgE response.
Anaphalaxis involves leukotrene cascade and is technically termed
a sensitivity reaction.  Autoimmune reactions technically only involve
self-tissue...which is a blurry area when talking about pregnancy and
infancy.  However, the END RESULT is pretty much the same.  Avoid the
offending substance like hell.

Lee M.Thompson-Herbert        KD6WUR                  [log in to unmask]
Member, Knights of Xenu (1995).  Chaos Monger and Jill of All Trades.
"There are some people who will argue whether the flames are blue
or green, when the real question is that their arse is on fire."