Interesting stuff, Chandra!
The reason why health professionals do not/should not make brand recommendations is that they can't do it from an evidence base. They can tell you what they have noticed from their own experience ( but I would want to know that their experience amounts to hundreds of babies at least). There is no independent comparison of baby formulas. Formula education of HPs comes from the manufacturers themselves. They are in the business of selling stuff, naturally enough.
Goats milk formula on sale in the UK has to meet government requirements for nutrients. This is the law.
LCPs are 'flavour of the month' but if you really look into it, the research supporting their use is thin. Ingredients of infant formula chop and change according to an economic, marketing-led agenda.
I have said before, that if I had to use formula for some reason or if someone asked me what brand to choose, I would always go for the brand that's been around longest - you can't be sure it is the same as it always was, but I would be a bit suspicious of anything promoting itself with 'added XYZ' or "New!!' I would prefer something that has been around a long time. Anything that's 'New!!' can't possibly have had any long-term effects (good or bad) noted. OTOH, if something has been popular for 20 to 30 years, one might at least hope that any serious defects (over and above the fact it isn't breastmilk!) would have been spotted.
One drawback of the tendency to chop and change by manufacturers is the fact that you might find one brand appears to help a particular condition (like eczema, or constipation) but it may not work for another baby (or even the same baby months later) because the formulation is not the same. This, I think explains why mothers will report quite different effects with the same brand. The ingredients of formula have to fit a range specified in law, but it is a range....the precise amount is up to the maker.