Talk

Advanced search

To share with you all the UNICEF response to today's BMJ article Re: weaning.

(26 Posts)
AtYourCervix Fri 14-Jan-11 22:06:18

UNICEF

bet it won't get as mch publicity as the original article has.

bibbitybobbityhat Fri 14-Jan-11 22:07:49

oh lordy can we please have a break from this?

StealthPolarStuckSpaceBar Fri 14-Jan-11 22:10:16

Thanks AYC

Just a quote:

"When considering this analysis it should be noted that three of the four authors have declared an association with the baby feeding industry. Less breastfeeding and earlier introduction of solid food will lead to greater profit for this industry."

AtYourCervix Fri 14-Jan-11 22:11:20

sorry bib - please feel free to rant on my other and more ranty thread.

PacificDogwood Fri 14-Jan-11 22:11:50

Thank you for posting that link - it is printing as we speak.

My heart sank at the way this was announced on this morning's news... biscuit.

TCOB Fri 14-Jan-11 22:15:01

So in other words - nothing has changed. SO how in God's name did this 'research' get so much press time and attention, causing so much upset and confusion? There must be some pretty huge strings being pulled behind the scenes hmm

PacificDogwood Fri 14-Jan-11 22:18:32

'Money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go aroung....'

<<taps nose knowingly>>

angry

StealthPolarStuckSpaceBar Fri 14-Jan-11 22:20:59

?

putthekettleon Fri 14-Jan-11 22:21:17

thanks for posting, that has actually put my mind at rest as I was fretting a bit about iron levels. I had no idea about early cord cutting reducing iron stores though! I'm assuming they don't do that in uk hospitals...

AtYourCervix Fri 14-Jan-11 22:23:40

you think? that jab to 'help with the placenta'? (also minimises risk of PPH) that most women have? along with early cord clamping.

hoovercraft Fri 14-Jan-11 22:23:47

Have you understanding of research?
it is entirely normal for research to be funded by companies...this isnt a weird conspiracy. The authors declared , no issue.

AtYourCervix Fri 14-Jan-11 22:24:59

yes i have understanding of research.

StealthPolarStuckSpaceBar Fri 14-Jan-11 22:25:34

but hoover - it wasn't research. And are you saying this fact will have had no impact on the reporting?

hoovercraft Fri 14-Jan-11 22:26:51

My research is funded by glaxo. Whatever result i get will be reported. The money has to come from somwhere. Its transparent - the authors declare in the BMJ. It shouldnt be made out as if its some groundbreaking find of a conspiracy.

wannaBe Fri 14-Jan-11 22:27:00

biscuit biscuit biscuit

PacificDogwood Fri 14-Jan-11 22:27:28

Of course funding influences research - that is why scientists have to declare their funding.

Also this is not new research - rehash of old information.

hoovercraft Fri 14-Jan-11 22:27:40

No itn wasnt research...weird paper actually. Not a systematic review either. id like to see more info on what they did tbh.

PacificDogwood Fri 14-Jan-11 22:28:15

My too

hoovercraft Fri 14-Jan-11 22:28:35

ditto pacificdogwood

PacificDogwood Fri 14-Jan-11 22:28:39

ME too, even blush

<<off to bed>>

AtYourCervix Fri 14-Jan-11 22:29:11

could we have irate ranty bits on the other more irate ranty thread and leave this one for people to read UNICEFs respose please? rather than rehashing the same ranty bollocks over 2 threads which was notmy intention when i did this separate one for the UNICEF link.

Udderly Fri 14-Jan-11 22:29:54

Thanks for posting this.

hoovercraft Fri 14-Jan-11 22:30:55

I get cow and gate updates sent to me (research updates) and this hasnt been in the bulletins. Id blame the media .

dessen Fri 14-Jan-11 22:32:42

Thanks for the link

corblimeymadam Fri 14-Jan-11 22:33:32

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now