Maybe I am getting my exercize by jumping to
conclusions this morning...help me out here.

The abstract of this article states the mothers had
"no other factors of HIV infection".  Yet these
mothers, who had been pregnant and given birth, had
had **unprotected sex**, at least once, around nine
months prior...;)  Is this no longer considered a risk
factor for HIV?  Did the researchers also test the
fathers of the infants, as well as *all other sexual
contacts* of the mothers, for HIV?  Had the mothers
been screened for HIV prior to pregnancy?

I realize that, in the interests of brevity, article
abstracts do not always include the details of a
study. However, abstracts can be *incorrectly*
interpreted and lead to incorrect information being
disseminated to the general public.  The last thing
the bfing/lactation field needs is MORE incorrect
information and flawed studies!  Perhaps this abstract
lost something in the translation...

I am trying to be diplomatic (it's hard in the early
AM). I apologize if this has offended anyone.

Carole


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

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

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

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