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