PBA & gregaaron -I now understand your point, but last night I looked at the study. It seems to my limited knowledge of statistics that there was never a Hava Mina that there can be any other cause besides the mother. I can understand why they wouldn’t think food (“that they all used the same brand of baby food”), but what about other family members?
To perhaps to understand where they are coming from – perhaps they believe that if other family members were HSV pos. then it would be next to impossible for the mother to be HSV -neg. The mother has the most contact with the baby, so if the baby got it from another family source it stands to reason the mother would also get HSV from the same family member, but both the mother and baby tested HSV -neg. A recent source such as MBP would explain HSV -neg in the baby. There has to be a source for the HSV.
This study is not similar to cases in NY were family members testified that some other kids in the family had cold sores.
Again, I’m not an expert in Statistics and perhaps there is an entirely different reason why they came to this conclusion, not the theory I posted above.
But the AAP who accepted this article are experts in Statistics and they wouldn’t have accepted a flawed study.
All I can tell you to answer your questions is to go and review the whole article again. And if you still have Kashas contact the Medical Doctors who published the study.
But as of right now, the AAP’s study stands as current medical practice.
You have not Upshlogged it, even if you make some points. I & e/o else have to assume there are answers to these points, just you didn’t completely understand the study.
Try rereading the study and if this doesn’t work contact these Doctors. I’m sure they thought of anything you could possibly ask.
If in the one-in-a-million chance they can’t answer you, then go ahead and submit your questions and their ridiculous answers to the AAP for publication.