LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:54:25 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (68 lines)
I disagree.
 
"According to the US CDC data half of babies
breastfeeding at 6  months of age have never been exposed to infant formula,
not once in  their life....that's an impressive stat, does that gel with  
your
experience?"


Yes, it does gel with my experience that half of  the very small number of 
babies breastfeeding at 6 months of age have never been  exposed to infant 
formula
At least not to their mothers' knowledge....
 
We are not talking about one half of all  babies, or even about one  half 
of all breast fed babies...
we are talking about one half of the babies breastfeeding at 6  months...
 
I suspect that we could come close to that number if we only counted LLL  
Leaders' children. and there are mothers who are not LLL Leaders and who do  
breast feed, and who do not use formula.
 
However, I also suspect that of those half,  at least half were given  
formula by a non-family-member, without the mothers knowledge, or consent.
 
Laura Goodwin-Wright
Mississippi
 
Date:    Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:29:34 -0500
From:     Elizabeth Brooks <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Medela, Advertising  and commercialisation [and BF studies]

Hmm.  Karleen asks,  "According to the US CDC data half of babies
breastfeeding at 6 months of age  have never been exposed to infant formula,
not once in their life....that's  an impressive stat, does that gel with 
your
experience?"

I'd have to  say:  No, it does not.

I don't know what the "real" number is  (bearing in mind that whatever 
number
"it" is, it is no where near what it  should be).  I can see
how studies using data collected under  retrospective methods present
veracity challenges.  Yikes -- this is why  I am not a researcher and
statistician; these factors easily escape  me.

The original poster sought information to share with a colleague who  asked
about studies showing BF rates.  It is perfectly valid to question  any
study's methods, and conclusions drawn based on data derived by  those
methods.  But where are you getting 5% -- or is the number just  arbitrary,
and offered to make your point?

Liz Brooks JD IBCLC  FILCA
Wyndmoor, PA, USA


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

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2