I was alerting to language use, not actually saying anything about the
study.  I was just translating the way it had been pitched, into
removing the 'breastmilk causes...' part of the equation.  So it was a
simple translation of the study.  Whether or not you believe the study
is another issue.  But in discussing it, it's more useful to stick to
its main premise.

Which I nearly spelt out, but didn't, as I thought it was obvious, and
of course should have!  It's exactly the same intervention we make with
lots of things - turn the language around to make it clearer about
breastmilk... such as not saying 'breastmilk is deficient in Vit D' but
in saying, "the sun here is too weak for darker skin tones." etc

Breastmilk is not what was being studied here - it was introduction of
solids.  Hence, the introduction of solids should be the key element of
the language in discussion.  :-)

Morgan Gallagher
(Who has to tell y'all, the animatronic T_Rex at London's Natural
History Museum is _scary_! )

 Magda Sachs wrote:
> So there is a window of opportunity on solids,
>> post six months, and prior 9 months.  Miss the window, and you
>> increase risks!
>
> This caught my eye -- can I urge caution on this interpretation?
> There may indeed be a window of opportunity on the introduction of
> appropriate complimentary foods. Or it may not be that simple.  I
> don't think we know.  I think it makes sense not to use this phrase
> until we are sure it describes something useful.

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

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome