tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422299.post2528561439466031071..comments2023-08-23T23:53:58.164-04:00Comments on <a href="http://paulstokes.blogspot.com">The Stokes Kith and Kin Community Blog</a>: Dr. McDougall and "the Best Baby Formula"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422299.post-42843216527658015362011-04-03T19:11:58.838-04:002011-04-03T19:11:58.838-04:00See my latest post on this issue.See my latest post on this issue.Paul Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02905961019293417243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422299.post-29822621830633322382011-04-03T19:06:00.129-04:002011-04-03T19:06:00.129-04:00I looked at those references prior to posting. He...I looked at those references prior to posting. He does not link to any research regarding SIDS. And this seems like such a radical claim to me. He's saying, essentially, that children more often die in their sleep because they don't breast feed. This is so absurd on the face of it that I have a hard time taking anything below it seriously.<br /><br />He does not reference anything on hospitalization, IQ, behavioral/speech &/or ear infections, either. These are the things that, like SIDS, look to correlate strongly with generally poor parenting &/or people who can't afford to do good parenting things. Let's see a study that controls for that, and the absurdity might go away to the claims.<br /><br />His reference (2) is to diabetes. And that reference checks out, which is why I didn't dispute it in my first post. <br /><br />But his other claims in this paragraph sound like pure quackery to me. <br /><br />Which is a shame! Because the first paragraph stands on its own. He didn't have to pile on and so overstep his own ability to reference & have good science.Maconhttp://un-related.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422299.post-63741844896555239612011-04-03T18:32:10.544-04:002011-04-03T18:32:10.544-04:00McDougall cites to authorities for many of his pro...McDougall cites to authorities for many of his propositions. He does this for several of his points in the I quote that I post (as you know, because I left them in the quote).<br /><br />I don't know about the SIDs issue. I don't know whether he has already given reseach citations in previous articles on SIDs that he wrote. Yet I don't think he is making this idea up from whole cloth. But the point you make is a good one, of course. McDougall's statements are not holy writ and should be the beginning of one's own careful consideration of the issue.Paul Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02905961019293417243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422299.post-15730539859669033522011-04-03T08:40:39.288-04:002011-04-03T08:40:39.288-04:00"Bottle-feeding is known to cause an increase..."Bottle-feeding is known to cause an increase in the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (crib death), pneumococcal pneumonia (occurring 60 times more frequently during the first three months of life), hospitalization (occurring 10 times more frequently during the first year), reduced IQ, behavioral and speech difficulties, and an increase in ear infections."<br /><br />As you know, we are fans of breast feeding, but these claims are quite serious and detract from his very important point. First, from a credibility standpoint, not having links to substantiate these claims makes me immediately suspicious that this is merely rhetoric. Second, "causes" SIDs? Really? Last I read, SID was still called that because there were no known causes, only suspicions and correlations. Finally, these other things seem to correlate so strongly with socio-economic levels that to state causation with no backup looks like wishful thinking to me. <br /><br />I want to believe. But this doesn't seem to me to be McDougall's best work.Maconhttp://Un-related.comnoreply@blogger.com