I'd like to take a minute to thank Barb for pointing out some crucial and
important aspects of the reported study that I neglected to address.  Most
specifically, my comment related to whether or not the fortified formula was
more hazardous than standard formula, what I failed to explicitly state is
that *this study* does not demonstrate a greater hazard.  I wholeheartedly
agree that the paltry sample size used in this study is inadequate to draw
any generalizations about risk beyond the existant study population.
Further, this study is an example of how research such as this is typically
conducted, which is, in my opinion, wholly inadequate for determination of
safety for feeding incredibly vulnerable population.  Unfortunately, the
standard for clarity of scientific language is not incredibly high.  While I
agree that the language used in the study is confusing, I am sorry to say
that I have myriad examples on hand of equally confusing and poorly written
research conducted from the other side of the fence, as well as from fields
entirely unrelated.  Thank you Barb for pointing out some of the problems
with this study in the bigger picture.  These are indeed serious problems.

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

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(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html