Hello Lactnetters,
In response to Kathy Dettwyler's post on this topic earlier today, the
Tyson's attorneys were advancing several propositions in their arguments.
 First, quantification of the risk according to the mainstream medical
literature.  They argued that because of insufficient research and flaws
in the research available, that the risk of transmission is not
quantifiable.  Oregon law defines threat of harm to a child as
"subjecting a child to substantial risk of harm".  The attorney stated
that the use of this language (substantial) implies likelihood, which is
a chance of 51% or greater, according to his arguments.  he then referred
to Dr. Lewis' testimony, which cited a 14% increased risk of transmission
with bfdg, and pointed out that 14% is less than 51%, therefore the risk
of harm is not substantial, according to his line of reasoning.

Second, transmissibility.  They questioned the evidence that HIV can be
transmitted via bfdg.

Third, they contested that the existing tests for HIV (ELISA, Western
Blot, and PCR) are all inaccurate.

And finally, they did argue, as Kathy D. thought, that even if HIV IS
transmitted through bfdg, it doesn't cause AIDS.

I probably should have included all of this is my earlier post.
Martha Johnson RN IBCLC
Eugene, Oregon
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

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