>Any other comments on this study from you wise ones on research?

An author on Public Radio, talking about research funding, said that a
company with vested interests will begin the funding of a study that they
think will be in their favor (of course), and as the research goes along,
they are in on the data (They aren't supposed to be, but there are always
"spies."). When all is in, if it looks as if the outcomes aren't favorable,
the funding stops and this research is aborted. And the researchers are
bound to keep the negative findings to themselves.

She said that a lot of research is begun and never brought to completion.
Also, when researchers know the source of their income, there is an
"unconscious" desire to re-pay the donor with a favorable outcome. We all
know how statistics can be used to prove almost any angle of an issue.
Even if a researcher doesn't *know* who is paying, she will certainly know
that "Mothers Milk International" doesn't spend much on research. :)

The US national study that is going on now with menopause and women's
health (I think that it is called Women's Health Iniative), which is out of
the National Institute of Health, is being funded by the makers of
Premarin.  NIH has no funds for such a large project but their name is the
only one mentioned in most public information. I have asked several of my
friends and relatives who are participating in the program where the
funding is from and they all say NIH.

The study is set up to prove that Premarin prevents many ills of aging and
that any side effects are a benefit over the risk of *not* taking it.  For
example some women are given calcium and some are not.  But they *aren't*
given magnesium along with their calcium, an omission which will cause poor
absorption.  This study will show that calcium does not aid in the
prevention of osteoporosis, but Premarin does. They are not advised to take
any other steps in promoting good health--nutrition, exercise, etc. Even in
recommending the calcium supplement they are manipulating the outcome.  If
*I* know that we need mag along with our ca, I'm sure that the designers of
the study know it too.

Research money is very tight in the US so researchers have to go to where
the $$$ is, and with health issues it is the pharmaceutical companies. And
even the most honest of researchers are subtly influenced by the source of
their financial support.

I consider myself a woman of integrity, but when I received an expensive
text book from a breastfeeding-related company, I felt more inclined to
consider their product.  I was surprised at myself, but it was an important
eye-opener.

Another issue is getting the study out into the popular press.  This is
BIG.  I read the health news on Reuters internet news service.  There is a
lot of stuff reported there, some sound some not. But it is clear that when
there is a study that shows a strong benefit of breastfeeding or attachment
parenting it seldom makes the daily newspaper. When a research "outcome" is
favorable to the pharm. company, they have funds to promote the wide
publicity of the study.

So, if this study had shown that there was, in fact, a reduction in
breastfeeding with the discharge packs, we would not have heard anything
about it. And no one who accepts the outcome of this study is asking, "Then
why are the formula companies giving all of these things away? What's in it
for them?"

If the women in LLLI had waited for research ($$$???) to "prove" that
breasfeeding nourishes babies better than formula, we would not be on this
lovely list today.

Patricia Gima, IBCLC
Milwaukee


mailto:[log in to unmask]