Naomi wrote:
 " Here's my question. How would one design a study to determine
whether the findings of these "tainted" studies really are
not as good as studies paid for by more objective sponsors,
like the government? I think that before we take further steps
that question has to be addressed."

What makes people think that US Government research is more objective?  It
isn't.  The pharmaceutical industry, the dairy industry, the meat industry,
the infant formula industry, etc.;  all have major financial stakes in
influencing the outcomes of research.  They do this in a variety of ways.
They bury the research that shows that maybe their product isn't so hot.
They use their foundations to fund graduate students interested in
research--Burroughs Wellcome Foundation (does major-major funding of young
people to help them through the financial pain of graduate school).  The
Nestle Foundation does the same thing for many young people in the medical
field.  Our government researchers often work for the government on a project
and then are hired by the industry to finish the project.  Then they go back
to their government job.  I can't remember which department of the NIH I was
in but it had pharmaceutical banners on it.  One department at the NIH has
the slogan "Got Milk."  Burroughs Wellcome Foundation has government
scientists and university scientists on their advisory committees to
determine which studies get funded by them. (Burroughs Wellcome is an
offshoot of Glaxo Wellcome and the Burroughs Wellcome Foundation makes a big
deal about saying that they are no way connected to the pharmaceutical
company of the same name--but all their directors are Glaxo people) Glaxo
spent in 1996 in 6 months $2.1 million in lobbying the US Senate to pass a
bill to delay the availability of lower cost generic drugs. The bill got
attached to a defense spending bill and was passed helping Glaxo hold on to
their premier position with Zantac (an extra $2 billion for them). Just an
example of the money that is thrown around to influence the government and
the payoffs.

It was our US Government researchers that did the clinical research on the
rotavirus vaccine and then tossed it to Wyeth to develope and make a profit
on.  The very same vaccine that they had to recall because it was not safe.
Why didn't they encourage breastfeeding instead?  Human milk prevents
rotavirus (well-known fact) in vitro and in vivo--in fact the basis of a
gentically engineered vaccine!

Our Institute of Medicine whose purpose is to help the government determine
health policies is made up of the very same people whose companies will reap
a profit by certain health care policies.  Now tell me how come someone from
Monsanto is one of the Institute members?  And remember Monsanto has merged
with American Home Products (Wyeth is part of American Home Products and
Wyeth merged with Nestle in Canada).  I would not count on government studies
to be objective.

Don't count on universities to be objective either.  Most universities are
heavily invested in the biotech industry.  Researchers are often part and
parcel of that industry or have lots of stock in companies that use their
research.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all need to look at any and all
research in the same way--carefully.  Mostly we need to read it and read it
carefully (my error in regard to the Lucas study has made me very aware of
taking care in reading and writing).  We need to ask questions.  Some
research is so obviously biased that one can only come to the conclusion that
their must be some vested interest in the outcome--alot of the hiv and
breastfeeding research is like that.  All the research that is considered
acceptable to the CDC comes from either Family Health International (whose
many executives have ties to Burroughs Wellcome/Glaxo or from the Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (the Seattle Times just did a
well-researched expose on them in regard to breast cancer research that is
horrifying to say the least) who are heavily invested in monoclonal
antibodies.  Many thanks to Judy Ritchie for this information!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/uninformed_consent/

Objective studies are around.  There are some scientists doing good work.
It's just they don't get the publicity.  They don't get the funding either.
Valerie W. McClain, IBCLC

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html