Dear all:

In thinking about my reactionary tirade about the BMJ article, the two areas that trigger frustration which then leads to anger are the paucity of truly investigative scientific journalism and naivete on the part of researchers.  

Most reports about "new science" do not refer to the prior work upon which the supposedly (which is only sometimes really) new findings.  A single study may bring about a paradigm shift, but it seldom enough to confirm that shift.  In thinking about the first vitamin A study that showed a 30% reduction in child mortality when deficient populations of children were supplemented --- it took 10 years to really confirm this to the satisfaction of the public health community.  And that research was important for understanding why and how vitamin A was so crucial to child survival -- and health.  It led to lots of studies hashing out the details of how to implement interventions in sustainable and cost-effective way ''

And most reports about "new science" often seem to be supported by someone with a vested interest in the product.  Some news media are better than others.  The worst news channel in our area had an infomercial about the safety of cosmetic procedures almost every single night. These were often coupled with "economic reports" about how it was easier to get a job if you were laid off if you had these cosmetic procedures.  One of the surgeons looked as scary as Joan Rivers -- and I think she was actually a young woman --- but it was hard to tell because her skin was stretched so tight it no longer looked like real human skin -- and it looked like it might hurt when she tried to blink.  

I think there may be a naivete on the part of some scientists.  I have read some of the work of the authors of that journal and found some of their work to be of good quality.  Nevertheless, I did not find that their review rose to the level of what I would consider a review.  At Cornell, they really emphasized setting up a systematic framework before you did the review.  So, by my very narrow definition of reviews, that review didn't qualify.  By Karleen's broader definition it does.  

What I find troubling is either the scientists were incredibly naive in how they thought the news media would respond -- which was with the typical over the top scare story that went well beyond anything actually said in the review --- or naive about what some of those companies that sponsored their research would SPIN this to the news media.  Or, they may be naive in thinking that they are not influenced to think ever so slightly differently because of the funding they receive.  It may not be conscious -- but it should be.

My frustration is not limited to breastfeeding by any means.  It is incredibly difficult to get to the bottom of the latest in the news about the new miracle nutrient that has just been discovered -- or the new diet that promises perfect nirvana and weight loss. 

And Karleen -- my frustration was not with you at all -- just with the SPIN the news media put on this piece. 

Best regards, 

Susan Burger.

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

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome