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

[AtYourCervix]

UNICEF

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

oh lordy can we please have a break from this?

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."

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

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... .

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

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

?

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...

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

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.

yes i have understanding of research.

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

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.

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

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

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

My too

ditto pacificdogwood

ME too, even

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.

Thanks for posting this.

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

Thanks for the link