June 2000

For more than a decade publications have been addressing
the possibility that AIDS can be transmitted through breastfeeding. The
United Nations' agencies UNAIDS, UNICEF, and WHO have suggested HIV-positive
mother stop breastfeeding to avoid the transmission of HIV/AIDS from
mother to child.

In the USA some states have gone further and have regulated
the matter, making HIV testing mandatory for all pregnant women and their
babies. Mothers and babies who react positively on tests for antibodies to

HIV are medicated with anti-retrovirals, and mothers are forced not to
breastfeed their babies. Cesarean section and cleansing of the birth canal with
antiseptic solutions are also suggested (1,2). Additionally, effective on June 1st
2000, the State of New York passed a new law by which every person who
reacts positively on the "tests for HIV" has to be reported to the health
authorities (name and address is required) (3).

Regarding the underdeveloped countries, UN agencies have
engaged in a great deal of speculation upon these maters (4,5).

However, there is no objective evidence for the hypothesis
that HIV/AIDS can be transmitted from mother to child through breast milk.

This is an assumption without any scientific validation. Careful analysis
of the entire body of research on HIV/AIDS shows a great deal of bias. The
trials conducted to test HIV transmission through breastfeeding are no
exception; they contain serious bias as well.

Let me analyze briefly some reports of experiments that
are often referenced:

1. Bobat R, Moodley D, Coutsoudis A, Coovadia H. Breastfeeding
by HIV-1-infected Women and Outcome in Their Infants: A Cohort Study From

Durban, South Africa. AIDS 1997; 11: 1627-1633.

In this study the authors were able to follow 133 infants
that were born HIV-negative to HIV-positive mothers. 21 infants (16%) were
fed exclusively on formula, 36 infants (27%) exclusively breastfed, and 76
(57%) received both breast and formula feeds.

The South African researchers concluded "it was found
that infants who were exclusively formula-fed had a lower transmission
rate (24%) than those who received either mixed feeding (32%) or were
exclusively breastfed (39%); the relative risk for infection in the exclusively
breastfed versus those on formula only, was 1.63 (Cl, 0.71-3.76; P = 0.24)."
And "there was a stepwise increase in the transmission rate with duration
of exclusive breastfeeding of 1, 2, and 3 months (45%, 64%, and 75%,

The researchers also concluded "Deaths occurred only
in the HIV-infected infants. Of the 17 infected infants who died, seven
were exclusively breastfed and 10 had mixed feeding. No deaths occurred in the
exclusively formula-fed group during the study period, compared to a
mortality of seven out of 36 (19%) in the exclusively breastfed infants, and of 10
out of 76 (13%) in the infants receiving mixed feeding." And "we found
mortality to be highest in the exclusively breastfed infants; seven out of
14 (50%), compared to 10 out of 24 (42%) in the infants receiving mixed
feeding and 0 out of 5 (0%) in those infants receiving formula only"

"Among the infected infants, seven out of 14 (50%)
of those exclusively breastfed, 13 out of 23 (54.1%) on mixed feeding, and
none out of four (0%) on formula only, developed AIDS during the study

However, following are two of the more evident biases
present in this report:

a) This study is strongly influenced by the researchers'
beliefs. The authors believe that AIDS is an infectious disease caused by
HIV, that AIDS is a transmissible disease, that a positive result in tests
for antibodies to HIV is indicative of infection with HIV, and that once
positive on these tests the individual will develop AIDS, to mention just some of
their most evident assumptions that are easily seen on reading the paper.

The authors craft definitions according to their beliefs.
In this way they declare "Infants were regarded as infected if they were
antibody positive at 15 months or had an HIV-related death". And "They
were classified as non-infected if the antibody test was negative from 9
months of age, or if death was non-HIV-related"

The authors tested for antibodies to HIV in both maternal
and infant blood by ELISA and immunofluorescent assays. "Samples were
considered positive if a second ELISA or the IFA was positive."

The authors defined "transmission of HIV" from
HIV-positive mother to infant through breastfeeding as an infant reacting
positively on tests for antibodies to HIV after having reacted negatively
at birth on the same tests."

However, if one defines as "intoxicated" individuals¾
in this case infants¾ those that react positively
on the tests for HIV, and "non-intoxicated" the ones that react
negatively; and if one assumes that the only source of intoxication is
breast milk, the conclusion would be that what is being "transmitted" from
mothers to infants are toxins rather than HIV. But this conclusion would
also be wrong since it negates the possibility of becoming intoxicated from
exposure to external agents while being breastfed. The source of intoxication could
be environmental toxins that have nothing to do with breastfeeding.
Breastfeeding would be a practice that happens at the same time that infants are being
intoxicated. The longer the time of breastfeeding, the longer the exposure to toxins,
and so the greater the possibility of becoming intoxicated and testing
positive on the so-called tests for HIV. The intoxication would occur independently
of breastfeeding, formula feeding, or mixed feeding.

Also, since it was assumed that breastfeeding could be
a source of transmission of the virus that supposedly causes AIDS, the
South African researchers did not search for exposure to chemical, physical,
biological, or nutritional immunological stressors, as risk factors for reacting
positively on the tests for HIV and for developing AIDS. They did not feel the need
to search for other risk factors. For them "HIV antibodies" explain
everything. It sounds as if these researchers do not know the immunotoxic
properties of hundreds of stressor agents that South African families are
being exposed to from the very moment of their birth (6,7).

Neither do the South African researchers describe in their
article the financial position of the families involved in this study.
do not consider the possibility that mothers who fed their babies only
formula enjoyed better financial conditions (they were able to afford
and therefore would have less exposure to immunological stressor agents
therefore the risk that their babies would react positively or would
AIDS was lower.

The researchers also "found that infants who were
exclusively formula fed had a lower transmission rate (24%)" However,
researchers did not give any explanation of how these 5 infants got
with HIV. Since the researchers assumed that infants were infected with
through their feedings, this could be interpreted to mean that these
got infected with HIV from the formula itself or from the bottles in which

the formula was placed.

Bobat and coworkers do not consider the possibility that
babies who became positive on the tests for HIV months after birth, and
developed AIDS, did so probably due to having been exposed, like their
to more immunological stressor agents than the ones that did not (6,8),
that this has nothing to do with breastfeeding.

b) The researchers did not use controls. They state: "As
the benefits of breastfeeding were well established, we did not include a

control group of HIV-negative pregnant women and their offspring". And
"the women were not randomly allocated to breastfeeding versus
groups; they self-selected their feeding method. It has been argued, among

key research scientists, that randomized studies in poor countries will be


It is amazing that the South African researchers did not
consider it unethical to come to conclusions on breastfeeding based upon a

non-controlled study.

In the light of these biases one cannot accept the conclusions
from this study as being scientifically valid.

2. Becquart P, Garin B, Sepou A, et al. Early Postnatal
Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV-1 in Bangui, Central African Republic.

Abstract 242/Session 33. 5th Retrovir Oppor Inf. 1998 February
1-5; 124 (Abstract No. AIDS/98929169). Viromed

In this study reported at the 5th Conference
on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, the authors concluded that
of 43 [48%] children were not infected at 6 months, and were therefore at

risk for late postnatal HIV transmission. 14 [32%] children were infected

perinatally, and 8 [19%] children postnatally". The authors conclude:
"These results underline that about 20% of children born from
mothers are becoming HIV-1-infected by breastfeeding before 6 months.
breastfeeding after 6 months, as previously proposed, could not reduce
postnatal HIV transmission; bottle-feeding or stopping breastfeeding
than 6 months should be more convenient."

This study was carried out by African researchers together
with researchers from the laboratory on retroviruses at the Pasteur
in Paris, including Dr. Barre-Sinoussi, the principal author of the paper

that in 1983 reported what was supposedly the first "isolation"
of the virus currently known as HIV (9).

This research upon "Early Postnatal Mother-to-child
Transmission of HIV-1 in Bangui, Central African Republic" is also replete

with bias. It is strongly influenced by the researchers beliefs. They
"Breastfed children born to HIV-positive mothers are known to be at
risk of late postnatal HIV transmission." However, the researchers do
not provide scientific evidence for stating that infants "are known to
be at substantial risk of late postnatal transmission." They ignore the
dictum that science is built on facts, not on "known" beliefs.

The African and French researchers employ definitions
in accordance with what is "known" or believed about HIV causing
AIDS: "HIV-1 infection was assessed by a positive PCR"; "HIV
transmission was defined by a positive HIV-1 PCR at birth or 1 month";
"it was further confirmed by genetic relatedness between viral strains
from PBMC's child and those from breast milk."

The African and French researchers ignored all scientific
publications documenting that PCR is not specific for HIV infection
They do not know that the reactivity of the PCR test for HIV can also be
as part of the response of cells to exposure to a variety of stressors or

oxidizing agents, rather than due to an infection with a virus named HIV
The authors also ignore the immunotoxic properties of malnutrition,
parasites, and other consequences of poverty from which many African
suffer. They prefer to place the blame on HIV. They cannot see the real
of AIDS in Africa. HIV does not permit them to see it.

3. Lewis P, Nduati r, Kreiss JK, et al. Cell-Free Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Breast Milk. J Inf Dis 1998; 177: 34-39.

In this study carried out by researchers at the University
of Washington, Seattle and University of Nairobi, Kenya, 75 samples of
milk from "HIV-1-seropositive women" were analyzed by quantitative
competitive reverse transcription¾ polymerase
chain reaction¾ and "HIV-1 RNA was detected
in 29 (39%)." Also they found that "the prevalence of cell-free
HIV-1 was higher in mature milk (47%) than in colostrum (27%)"; and
mature milk is consumed in large quantities, these data suggest that
HIV-1 in breast milk may contribute to vertical transmission of HIV-1."

Again, this study is biased: no controls were used. Doctor
Lewis and his colleagues did not match their breast milk specimens with
milk from HIV-1-seronegative women. They do not consider possibilities
than HIV infection to explain the PCR positive reactions to breast milk.
seams that they do not know that the PCR test can react positively in the

absence of HIV (12,13).

Dr. Lewis and his group believe that the only reason for
reacting positively on HIV-1 PCR is infection with HIV-1. It seams that
do not know that both antibody tests and amplification tests (PCR) for HIV

can react positively to more than 70 different common conditions
all related to oxidative processes (14,16,17). Neither did they consider
possibility that the reactivity for HIV-1-QC-RT-PCR was higher in mature
than in colostrum simply because mature milk may contain a higher amount
free radicals¾ oxidizing agents¾
than colostrum, as happens in most human processes (18-21).

4. Dunn DT, Newell ML, Ades AE, Peckham CS. Risk of
Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Transmission Through Breastfeeding.
1992; 340: 585-588.

In this review article from the Unit of Epidemiology and
Biostatistics, Institute of Child, London, the authors came to the
that "based on four studies in which mothers acquired HIV-1 postnatally,
the estimated risk of transmission is 29%". And this analysis of five
studies showed that "when the mother was infected prenatally, the
risk of transmission through breastfeeding, over and above transmission in

uterus or during delivery, is 14%"

It is amazing that these authors who should be familiar
with epidemiology did not realize that all of the studies that they
are biased by the belief that reactivity to the tests for HIV is due only

and exclusively to an active infection with HIV. None of the articles that

Dunn, Newell, Ades, and Peckhman analyzed consider the possibility that
and infants can react positively on the tests for HIV due to the exposure

to stressor or oxidizing agents not related to HIV (6,8,11). They did not

consider "human immunodeficiency virus type 1 transmission through
to be a strong epidemiological confounding factor.

In this review article it is easily seen that the authors
were strongly influenced by the mainstream beliefs that HIV is the cause
AIDS, that it is transmitted through body fluids, and that testing
on the tests for HIV means active infection with HIV. HIV does not permit

the authors to consider other possibilities. HIV is by itself a source of


In one of the articles analyzed in the above review study,
one which is frequently cited as proof for of the transmission of HIV
breastfeeding, the authors consider the presence of "HIV antibodies"
so specific to HIV infection that they define: "in an infant or child
with HIV-1 seroconversion after earlier negative PCR result, postnatal
infection was considered possible if seroconversion occurred in the first

three months of life and proved if seroconversion occurred after that
(22). With this definition the Rwanda, French, and Belgian researchers
able to come to the conclusion that "HIV-1 infection can be transmitted
from mothers to infants during the postnatal period. Colostrum and breast

milk may be efficient routes for the transmission of HIV-1 from recently
mothers to their infants" (22). They do not consider the possibility
that exposure to external stressor agents could cause the tests to react
in both mothers and infants. Again, breastfeeding could perfectly well be

an epidemiological confounding factor for "HIV transmission".

The above studies on AIDS and breastfeeding provide excellent
examples of the profound crisis in the scientific method that surrounds
entire field of AIDS research.

Possible trial to check if breastfeeding is a real risk
factor for AIDS

The only objective way to confirm the hypothesis of the
transmission of HIV/AIDS through breast milk is by searching not only for

HIV but also for all other potential risk factors for testing positively
the tests for HIV and for immunodeficiency, in at least four different
of people:

a) One group of HIV-positive mothers and their infants
living in a variety of African conditions; b) one group of HIV-positive
and their infants living in a variety of developed conditions; c) one
of HIV-negative mothers and their infants living in a variety of African
d) one group of HIV-negative mothers and their infants living in a variety

of developed conditions.

In each group there has to be a significant number of
mothers that breastfed, formulafed and mixedfed their babies.

Retrospective trial: each mother will respond to a questionnaire
with questions looking for past voluntary and involuntary exposure to
stressor agents.

Prospective trial: all groups should be followed up for
several years to try to find out if seroconvertion to HIV-positive or the

development of AIDS is secondary to exposure to immunological stressors.
mothers and children should be subjected to periodic clinical and
evaluations of their health status.

All conclusions on breastfeeding and AIDS originating
from non-controlled surveys are simply subjective speculations and have
to do with science.

Until objectively proven to the contrary, even during
the AIDS era breastfeeding is still the best choice!

This article was written in June 2000
and posted during the Internet Discussion
of the South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel


State of New York, Department of Health Memorandum.
Maternal-Pediatric HIV Prevention and Care Program: HIV counceling and
voluntary testing of pregnant women; routine HIV testing of newborns.
AI 99-01. Effective on August 1, 1999.
State of Connecticut, Governor John Rowland. Law Public
Act No. 99-2. Hospitals' administering tests for HIV infection and/or
other HIV related tests to pregnant women and newborn babies. Effective
on October 1, 1999.
State of New York Department of Health. Public Health
Law, Article 21, Title III, Section 2139. HIV/AIDS Testing, Reporting
and Confidentiality of HIV-Related Information. Effective June 1st
Giraldo RA. Milking the Market. Will mothers, dish
out the W.H.O. formula? Continuum (London) 1998; 5(4): 8-10.
Farber C. HIV and Breasfeeding. The fears. The misconceptions.
The Facts. Mothering Magazine 1998: No. 90: 66-71.
Giraldo RA. AIDS and Stressors: AIDS is neither an
Infectious Disease nor is Sexually Transmitted. It is a Toxic-Nutritional

Syndrome Caused by the Alarming Worldwide Increment of Immunological
Agents. Medellin, Colombia: Impresos Begon, 1997a: 205.
Giraldo RA. Papel de Estresantes Inmunologicos en Inmunodeficiencia.
IATREIA (University of Antioquia, School of Medicine, Colombia) 1997b;
10: 62-76.
Giraldo RA, et al. Is It Rational To Treat or Prevent
AIDS With Toxic Antiretroviral Drugs in Pregnant Women, Infants, Children,

and Anybody Else? The Answer is Negative. Continuum (London) 1999; 5(6):
Barre-Sinoussi F, et al Isolation of a T-Lymphotropic
Retrovirus from a Patient at Risk for AIDS. Science 1983; 220: 868-871.
Johnson C. The PCR to Prove HIV Infection. Viral Load
and Why They Can't Be Used. Continuum (London) 1996b; 4: 33-37 &
Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. et al. The Isolation of HIV:
Has It Really Been Achieved? The Case Against. Continuum (London) 1996;
4(3): S1-S24.
Boriskin YS et al. HIV Primers Can Amplify Sequences
of Human Satellite DNA. AIDS 1994; 8: 709-711.
Defer C et al. Multicentre Quality Control of Polymerase
Chain Reaction for Detection of HIV DNA. AIDS 1992; 6: 659-663.
Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. et al. Is a Positive Western
blot Proof of HIV Infection? Bio/Technology 1993; 11: 696-707.
Johnson C. Whose Antibodies Are They Anyway? Continuum
(London) 1996a; 4(3): 4-5.
Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. Reappraisal of AIDS. Is the
Oxidation Induced by the Risk Factors the Primare Cause? Medical
1988; 25: 151-162.
Papadopulos_Eleopulos E. Looking Back on the Oxidative
Stress Theory of AIDS. Continuum (London) 1998/9 5(5): 30-35.
Frei B. Natural Antioxidants in Human Health and Disease.
San Diego: Academic Press; 1994: 588.
Pryor WA, Godber SS. Oxidative Stress Status: An Introduction.
Free Radicals Bio Med 1991; 10: 173.
Sies H. Oxidative Stress: Oxidants and Antioxidants.
London: Avademic Press; 1991: 507.
Slater TF. Free Radicals: Formation, Detection, Reactivity
and ytotoxicity. In: Lachman PJ et al. Clinical Aspects of Immunology.
Fifth Edition. Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1993: 377-393.
Van se Perre P, et al. Postnatal Transmission of the
Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 From Mother to Infant: A Prospective
Cohort Study in Kigali, Rwanda. NEJM 1991; 325: 593-598.