I guess my point in discussing the TRIGR study is that mothers may be  
encouraged and supported to breastfeed to a greater or lesser extent but  the 
protocol for the US states that if and when mothers decide to supplement or  wean 
before 8 months of age their baby will be randomly assigned to a formula  with 
partially hydrolyzed protein that still has the punch to provoke diabetes  in 
susceptible infants or an extensively hydrolyzed formula with a much lower  
capability to trigger diabetes. The assignment is random so the parents do not  
know if the formula puts their baby at a higher risk for diabetes. 
 
Why not take the $50 million dollars and help keep mothers breastfeeding  
exclusively for 6 months and continue providing human milk for the rest of the  
first year (at least). What this leads to is Mead Johnson being able to market  
Nutramigen as a formula that reduces the risk of diabetes in susceptible  
families. This usually extends the use of the product to people who think they  
might have diabetes in the family tree and maybe should use it just in  case.
 
Formula supplementation in the hospital in the US is now about 23%. How  does 
the study account for the wanton supplementation with formula containing  
intact cow's milk protein? Do they tell the hospital not to supplement these  
babies? 
 
Still skeptical and discouraged.
 
Marsha Walker, RN, IBCLC
Weston, MA

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html