Cathy O'Connor wrote:

> Iron isn't really at issue here
> anyway.    Afterall, there is more than enough iron in various foods that
> toddlers eat, not to mention the availability of iron supplements.   So,
> it's all a moot point, really.

Yet You want to quote long sources on the iron content of milk.  And I have
responded with my source that there is not iron in milk (the label).  I still hold
to that for any and all relevant purposes.

> Well, I still disagree with you.  There are some very good, very valid
> reasons why these researchers disagree also.  I'd tend to go with the
> researcher's opinions vs. those of lay people.  Afterall, they are the
> ones who are studying the subject. Empirical evidence carries the weight,
> whereas the opinions of a few people is IMHO are just that, opinions.

And I quoted you Published Medical Sources on this subject that you label
the opinion of lay people.

> I really
> think that unless these kids are in study groups or are being disected
> (sorry to be morbid) then parents can't really make claims as to the
> success of a diet.  Call me obtuse, but I'll take, "just the facts
> please."

Everyone on this list does many different things.  The point here is to try and
be supportive in the ideas that are offered.  If we can only offer ideas that
have been proven on kids in study groups or that have been disected, than
the value of this group would be greatly diminished.  All you have wanted to
insist upon is that unless kids are receiving cows milk or infant formula they
aren't getting "complete nutrition".  IMO this is only argumentative and not
supportive.

> PS:  I will be unsubscribing from this list after posting this message
> because I have been "reprimanded" twice by the list owner for "excessive
> quoting.

That is fine.  I don't wish to be pulled into this any further.