> > That pacifier study that said they were not related to early
> >  weaning...does anyone have a clue who funded it?
>
> Without knowing the answer, let me just correct the question.  They did NOT
> say that pacifiers were not *related* to early weaning.   On the contrary
> they said that pacifiers *were* related to early weaning but that it appeared
> to be a *correlation* not a *cause.*

I was specifically asking only because I wasn't really aware of the ins
and outs of it all, but someone in our monthly meeting last thursday
commented on this study (obviously it must have been announced all over
Québec on TV or something, where we are one of the provinces with the
lowest bf rates!  :-().  I said to her I hadn't (yet) had the pleasure
(or dis?) of seeing it, but would be curious to see who funded it...she
said "oh."  Kind of startled, obviously hadn't thought of that.  Funding
aside, there are now things I can comment on about it to her, if it is
brought up again, luckily.  :-)  Interestingly, her son (3 months) does
not have a pacifier, but she brought it up anyhow.

So, to translate that it is a correlation not a cause (just so I
understand clearly)...I assume that means that perhaps there is a bf
problem already, the baby is perhaps nursing more than mom wants him/her
to, etc, so he/she gets a pacifier.  Then weans earlier...maybe because
of problems not related to the pacifier, but because of the problems
this is why s/he got given the pacifier to begin with?  I'm
hypothecizing here...

Thanks for the information...I hadn't quite read it slow-ly enough to
realize it didn,t outright say that there was "no relation to pacifier
use and early weaning".  :-(  Next time I'll read more carefully.

Fio.

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