I'm wondering about the 3.3%.  It seems like a small number to me, compared
to things like a doubling of risk for diabetes faced by infants who don't
grow on human milk.  Is 3.3% really considered 'significant' in the world of
research?  

Ingrid
LLLL, IBCLC
British Columbia
Canada

Main outcome measures Results of serological screening tests performed on
potential donors. Results Of 1091 potential donors, 3.3% were positive on
screening serology, including 6 syphilis, 17 hepatitis B, 3 hepatitis C, 6
HTLV and 4 HIV.

Conclusions There is a significant incidence of positive serology among
women interested in donating human milk. This implies that there may be
significant risk associated with peer-to-peer distribution of human milk
from unscreened donors.

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

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