In einer eMail vom 19-7-02 6:22:51 West-Europa (zomertijd) schreibt
[log in to unmask]:


> Much as we may not like it, every one of these statements is correct, based
> on current research.
>

Yes, they may be theoretical correct, but what do they mean? And are they the
whole thruth?

>  "We have no
> idea whether sending them home breastfeeding is beneficial or not."

What about all evidence of the hazards of artificial infant foods? Do they
not apply to babies who where born prematurely and now are well enough to go
home?


> "There is really no difference in growth between breastfed and bottle fed
babies-
> in fact the bottle fed babies may even grow better."

Is more growth undoubtely always the better option? Is growing harder the
ultimate goal? Or is wellbeing and good health, including sufficient growth
the purpose?

> "Since babies aren't meant to be born too soon, we really don't have a good
> way to feed them, so (get this): if it turns out that human milk meets
> their
> needs it is almost a coincidence.""

It might be as thrue that doing well on formula is a coincidence. Many
baby's, both healthy as ill do not well on whatever formula. And what about
the known hazards of not breastfeeding in the long rum?


Warmly greeting,

Gonneke
==================
Gonneke van Veldhuizen  =+=  IBCLC, LLLL, MOM  =+=  primairy school teacher

EUROLAC
breastfeeding information centre and lactation consultant practice
http://www.users.skynet.be/eurolac




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