Fiona writes:

> 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 don't think that they "went on to OK pacifier use," in June's phrase, but
rather that the AP report, on which lots of the other reports seem to be
based, has summed them up that way.

It's certainly always good to know who funded what, and it's certainly OK to
be critical of methodology.  But I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that
someone who analyzes dynamics that we care about is not on our side --
whether or not one is persuaded by the particular analysis.

Evidence based doesnt' mean only when the evidence matches our intuition,
after all -- we've all had to contend too much with non-bf-friendly providers
who say, "I'm not persuaded by those studies about the benefits of bf."

Elisheva

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