I would like to thank everybody who responded to my message on 1/23/01.
Your comments were all very appreciated and welcomed.  For everyone who
asked for my permission to post my letter on various other web bullitin
boards and discussion groups, please do so.  (I don't have time today to
respond to each of your requests for permission individually - you know,
with kids, wife, kids, work, kids, house, and kids to play with).  You have
my permission to post that letter, this one, and any future letters.  Your
help in distributing these is much appreciated.  Some of you had some very
detailed questions I will try to address in the next few days.

ONE QUESTION THAT SEVERAL OF YOU ASKED IS THIS:

WHY DOES DR. BILL NEED TO PROMOTE DHA IN FORMULA?

It seems to me that there are two basic approaches to this issue:

1.  either we continue to make formula so bad (as aweful as it already is!),
that eventually everyone will stop using it and will only use donated
Breastmilk from milkbanks.  Wouldn't this be nice?  Our world would be such
a much better place if all adopted babies and all other babies whose moms
can't or won't breastfeed would use donated breastmilk instead of ABM.
This, of course, would all be our ideal for the world, and the increased use
of breastmilk banks should be a goal.
BECAUSE WE DON'T LIVE IN AN IDEAL WORLD,WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION -
FOR THE BABIES WHO UNFORTUNATELY ARE FED ABM, DO WE DOOM THEM TO A LIFE OF
LOWER IQ'S AND MORE DISEASE? Or do we try our best to give them some chance
of getting nutrition that is even slightly close to adequate?  Now
obviously, ABM will never, ever, no matter what goes into it, be even close
to real Breastmilk.  But, because we know of one possible ingredient (DHA)
that may give these babies some chance of intelligence that they otherwise
wouldn't have, can we ignore that?  This leads us to our second choice.

2.  we try to improve ABM by pushing formula companies to add those
substances that we know should be added.  If we take this approach, we must
do so very carefully.  We should push the FDA and formula companies to not
put such labels as "now new and improved formula with DHA" or "now, closer
to breastmilk than ever".  We should continue to publicize that ABM, even
with DHA in it, is still not even remotely close to breastmilk.  That is
where the WHO code would come in, when (we should think when, not IF) it is
adopted by the U.S. One good aspect is that if all ABM companies add DHA to
the formula, none of them can use DHA as an advertising tool to promote
their own specific brand.

SOME OF YOU HAVE ASKED "WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE DR. SEARS THAT PROMOTES THE
USE OF DHA IN ABM?  Many are worried that his name would add credibility to
ABM in this way.  (and unfortunately our recent web site advertising
mistake contributed briefly to this) I think the answer to this is two-fold.

1.  No one else with his credibility was pushing DHA.  Dr. Bill took over
this task from Dr. Oski.  Once Dr. Bill heard about the benefits of DHA, he
was almost obligated to try to get it added to ABM.
2.  Only someone with his credibility could get the ABM companies to listen.

Now that DHA is probably going to be added to ABM in the US, like it is
worldwide already, Dr. Bill, myself, and all of you should not breathe a
sigh of relief that finally ABM is better.  On the contrary, we will
continue to tell the world how horribly deficient ABM is (yes, I know our
Web site mistake did not help this one bit), and look for the next
ingredient that can we added to ABM so that some day it may be one step
above the @^#%@%#^@%# that it really is.

Thank you for your input.  I will try to answer several other areas of
concern that were e mailed to me in the near future.
Thanks again.
Dr. Bob

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