Very interesting further dissections of this paper by Rachel and 
Jessica - thank you, both!

Seems to me that really quite elementary 'errors' to put it kindly, 
politely and legally,  were made in the recruitment to this study, in 
the execution of it, in the selective writing of it, in the writing 
of the abstract.

There seem to have been no researchers who knew about normal infant 
feeding and normal infant needs.

I find it actually quite unnerving that the control group "was 
provided with 15 minutes of learning how to soothe a fussy baby" as 
Jessica points out....that's not a control, that's an *intervention*. 
In addition, the control group (see my post earlier this week) were 
permitted *uncontrolled* amounts of suppment and had up to almost 
four times of it. That's not a control, that's *another* 
intervention.  Either or both these interventions would be sufficient 
to explain any outcome differences.

Rachel has pointed out some significant discrepancies between the 
subjects recruited each group - each one easily enough to explain the 
difference in results, too.

Most unnerving of all is the hint it all gives to the way media 
outlets are courted and manipulated, and how not even respected 
outlets challenge and explain properly.


Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc, tutor, UK


-- 

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

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