What has that got to do with a baby aspirating on bm, which is a foriegn substance to the lungs?
ALL I'm saying is, foreign substance or no...it causes fewer ear infections, fewer infections elsewhere in the body, why shouldn't the same be true of the lungs?
It might help the lungs, but not by aspiration, which would have a high chance of resulting in death or other extreme illness regardless of what the substance is.
Prescribed antibotics kill lots of bad things that cause lung problems....should that be aspirated too?
The above link is about rabbits.
My dentists office was running an hour and a half behind, so she hadn't had anything to eat or drink for 3 and a half hours. I wonder where the 2 hour mark for bm came from. Will have to talk to my LLL leader friend!
Here is a link to my post on the board that has another link in it re: the information with anesthia:
I think it would highly unlikely that there are any studies comparing the death rate of aspirating bm compared to other substances.
They said in the study that more studies actually need to be done wrt bm before surgery because they don't have enough to go on wrt how it desolves in the stomach.
I really don't "understand" all of it, but I do know that clear liqueds disolve faster, thus leaving less of a chance to asphixiated then cloudy or solid liqueds.
Maybe this will clarify something???