>Heather, you said:
>"Our next stats will be out next year.
>They're pretty reliable stats, and come from impeccable academic research."
>
>I was surprised to see this -- in what sense are these impeccable academic
>research?


Magda, I was contrasting this with commercially-backed  research, or
research from the formula manufacturers, or research supported by
people wih a monetary interest in infant feeding.

I don't think the questions are perfect. But no one has any
industrially-motivated axe to grind from their publication or
suppression.

So maybe 'impeccable' is not what I meant to attach to every aspect of it ; )



Some of the weaknesses in the questions are historic. That is, they
continue to be asked because they have always been asked, to allow a
comparison. They fail to allow for the fact that patterns of
maternity care have moved on (eg mothers are discharged from hospital
much sooner than 25 or even 10 years ago).

>  I have always wondered who the authors of the reports
>are -- I never hear of them in any other bf context, so always assumed that
>they are stats bods.


The same department, and the same personel in some cases, do (or did)
the maternity stats 'Birth Counts' for the DoH.

>  Maybe you mean the stats is impeccable academic stuff?


Yeah...probably ; )

You could make a reasonable argument for not letting any of the likes
of us anywhere *near* the collection and publication of these stats -
we'd be far too untrustworthy...selectively massaging them here there
and everywhere, and reading into them all sorts of pro-bf stuff.

Better that a few dry-as-dust Civil Service statisticians do the whole job.



Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc Newcastle upon Tyne UK

             ***********************************************
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