> Tony, no, I was not assuming that you had not read Hoefer and Hardy.  I
> replied with more info on their research in response to someone else who
> posted about how the formula from 1929 was probably not as good as modern
> day formula -- a point with which I fully agree.  Since the person didn't
> seem familiar with the 1929 research, I elaborated.  It had nothing to do
> with you.

I believe Kathy is referring to me.  :-)

Thanks for the info on the 1929 study.  I was not familiar with it, but
my feeling was that it was not really relavent to compare adults fed a
formula in 1929 with the people who will be adults in 20 years who are
fed a 2001 formula...because I was sure the formulae had changed
(hopefully for "the better") drastically since 1929.  If it had been
1999's formula compared to 2000's formula it might not have been such a
big deal.  ;-)  I realize there are times when something is "discovered"
and that discovery is not really ever "de-bunked".  Like maybe the
"discovery" of gravity (or at least the mathematical equation to it).
Once discovered, it stays the same unless our own earth's rotation
changes.  However, there are "discoveries" that will eventually be
de-bunked, either because one of the variables changes, or because the
so-called discovery was not really done properly (like perhaps that
everyone was sure the earth was flat 600 years ago!).  As for the
variables changing...this is what could happen with the formula, as it
could well be the case that infants fed formula in 1929 had 20% lower
IQ's than those who were bf (I'm not quoting the real numbers here...I'm
just giving an example) but that today's formula-fed infants will have
IQ's that are only 18% lower than those who are bf.  And you know what
else is possible...perhaps something else in the mix will go up!  Who
knows what the 2000's will bring us, in terms of GMO's and all that.
Maybe people fed 2001's mix of formula with GMO'ed soybeans will grow
green horns on their heads.  ;-)  But in all seriousness, it is possible
that things change drastically from one study to the next, and still to
know that bf will always be best.  :-)

By the way, Tony...Kathy's research on the natural weaning age is VERY
interesting...you should read it.  I ordered her book back in May for my
birthday and got it about a week ago (finally!)...and it is very
interesting.  I would say my only "complaint" (minor one at that) was
that most of what was in the book I had already read about, given that I
had read the other sources of the information!  There were a couple of
new tables that I hadn't seen that were in that chapter, but most of the
information was stuff I'd seen.  :-)  But that's ok...that just goes to
show that I had been well-educated on the subject of natural weaning
already.  ;-)  Ha ha ha.

I think Kathy has done some marvelous research, and whenever people ask
me now, what age they should wean...I ask THEM what or who they think
they should base themself on.  Their paediatrician who has modern-day
medical school (including what was it that was mentioned...a 1/2 day
lecture on bf?)?  Their neighbour who never bf?  Their Mother in law who
never bf?  Their own mother who bf for 7 months (as was the case of
mine...)?  I eventually point out that the animals that are the most
similar to us humans would be the logical ones to look to for references
about how and when to wean...because they act much more upon instinct
than we poor humans do (we who use our "logical" brain far too much!).
:-)

Fio <a big Kathy-D.-fan ;-)>

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