Norman Skrzypinski <[log in to unmask]>:
>Carol wrote:
>
> Norman wrote:
> > I think, too, that a five month old infant has no
> > requirements that can't be met with breast milk.
>
> Breast milk is not a single thing, always the same from woman to woman
> or even from day to day in the same woman.  A woman who eats poorly
> will have poor breast milk.  A baby's diet is not automatically
> adequate just because it consists of breast milk.
>
>No, not automatically.  But, it does remain very consistent both from woman
>to woman and in times of plenty or famine.  Quantity is more subject to
>environmental influence than quality.

You are wrong. There are lots of studies on breast milk composition.
It is not constant. It usually changes in composition from the beginning
of lactation to the end. It can vary with the mother's diet.
Lots of factors are involved. The scientific literature here is
quite large, so you will need lots of free time to investigate.

>This is an extreme case, though.  The mother was a raw vegan with four other
>children, ages 1½ to 6, all of whom were, I presume, breast fed.  It's
>possible that 6 years of continuous breast feeding while on a raw vegan diet
>had left the mother so depleted that her milk was deficient.

This is a possible hypothesis. Her B-12 stores were probably depleted,
unless she supplemented.

>There isn't enough information in the article to allow for more than
>speculation, but Tom should have known that, too.  What do you suppose he
>might have been trying to say?
>
>There seems to me to be a lot of irrationality on all sides of the various
>food debates.

Your claims re: breast milk are wrong, and you overlook the fact that
a sick child was apparently denied proper medical care because the parents
believed anti-MD raw/natural hygiene dogma. The child might be alive
today if the parents were rational and provided medical care. Consider
things more carefully before making claims of irrationality.

Tom Billings