Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:33:44 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|