Dear all:

I've attended at least one of Wolf and Glass' seminars (and forgive me I can't remember if 
it is Wolf or Wolff) and watched the fluorscope studies and listened to the rationale for 
adding thickeners.  I remember that I asked point blank for evidence that showed that 
thickeners really worked because my training in nutritional sciences was such that all the 
evidence I saw prior to that showed that it doesn't work and it caused harm.  They could 
provide no evidence to show that it didn't harm the breastfeeding relationship and no 
research-based evidence that it helped.  It was merely anecdotal clinical observations.  

Now, in dealing with the small subset of babies that have serious problems, I think it is 
difficult to establish benefits of ANY treatments in a rigorous epidemiologic manner because 
everyone is so desparate to solve the problem that they start using the "spaghetti against 
the wall" approach.  But I do believe that there is usually something behind anecdotal 
observations.  It may not necessarily turn out to be the same interpretation when we have 
an opportunity to do much more in-depth research.  I would say that there is a plausible 
rationale for why it MAY help some specific infants, but whether or not it really does help 
will need further research.

Best, Susan

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

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