Milwulkees awful anti cosleeping ad - Page 5

[alittlesandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThinkGlobalMama 

I don't know if this is the right thread to respond to this question or not- you might try to search some of the other threads on Mothering to find out if others are talking about the AAP.  However, I will share what I found in a quick 8 minute trip over to their website.

Advertisements for the following:

• Merck vaccinations
• Sanofi Paseur Vaccines
• Norditroprin (growth hormone)
• Coca-Cola
• Pfizer (also drugs/vaccines)
• McNeil (hospital equipment I think)
• Unilever (this is interesting as Unilever products are very high on the toxicity scale according to Environmental Working Group Skin Deep Database)
• American Dietetics Association (also interesting as a major proponent of licenses, etc and prohibiting naturopathic docs from advising patients on diet)

Also, the "latest news" section is 6 different stories all drug-related; either pro-vaccine or stories related to recalls or safety of drugs. I'm not one to say that the AAP is a boogey-man at all- but I like to read between the lines and take any information I find with a grain of salt.  You are correct to start asking questions- one of my professors in college always said, "Follow the money!" If there is a money trail from any so-called authority for information, especially to do with your health, I get really suspicious. At my military health clinic I started asking about alternative vaccine schedules (my son is currently not vaxed at all.) The answer I got was a bit shocking, but is related to the CDC and AAP and drug-company relations: I can't do an alternative schedule because they do not know what vaccine they will be getting from x, y or z company. It is "whatever company sends us the most." So if drug company A sends 100 doses of the first shot of the Y vaccine, then the clinic is hooked into purchasing the second and third shots of the same brand- with colorful posters to hang all over the office with the AAP, CDC and drug names all over them. I don't throw all the information they provide out the window, because some of it is good and relevant. But I have serious ethical questions too.

Just to play devil's advocate, the Mothering website has had ads for Bounty Paper Towels, Coca-Cola's Family Game Night, Tostino's Pizza Rolls, Pop Tarts, Fanta Soda, etc.

I'm no huge fan of the AAP, and take what they say with a grain of salt, but just out of curiosity, who should fund research? The government can little afford to fund all research, and when they do they are accused of having an agenda. I work at a university and the scientists I know are desperate to have their research funded. There are few people out there stepping up to do it, so if Merck offers a grant, most scientists I know will jump at the opportunity. And I know for a fact that they are not given the money on the condition that their findings reflect a certain bias.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by alittlesandy 

Quote:

Just to play devil's advocate, the Mothering website has had ads for Bounty Paper Towels, Coca-Cola's Family Game Night, Tostino's Pizza Rolls, Pop Tarts, Fanta Soda, etc.

I'm no huge fan of the AAP, and take what they say with a grain of salt, but just out of curiosity, who should fund research? The government can little afford to fund all research, and when they do they are accused of having an agenda. I work at a university and the scientists I know are desperate to have their research funded. There are few people out there stepping up to do it, so if Merck offers a grant, most scientists I know will jump at the opportunity. And I know for a fact that they are not given the money on the condition that their findings reflect a certain bias.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by alittlesandy 

Quote:

Just to play devil's advocate, the Mothering website has had ads for Bounty Paper Towels, Coca-Cola's Family Game Night, Tostino's Pizza Rolls, Pop Tarts, Fanta Soda, etc.

I'm no huge fan of the AAP, and take what they say with a grain of salt, but just out of curiosity, who should fund research? The government can little afford to fund all research, and when they do they are accused of having an agenda. I work at a university and the scientists I know are desperate to have their research funded. There are few people out there stepping up to do it, so if Merck offers a grant, most scientists I know will jump at the opportunity. And I know for a fact that they are not given the money on the condition that their findings reflect a certain bias.

Seriously.  Grant money is not conditional on reaching a specific conclusion. And the results aren't usually published by the company or organization that provides the grant, its usually published by a scientific journal.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by alittlesandy 

Quote:

Just to play devil's advocate, the Mothering website has had ads for Bounty Paper Towels, Coca-Cola's Family Game Night, Tostino's Pizza Rolls, Pop Tarts, Fanta Soda, etc.

I'm no huge fan of the AAP, and take what they say with a grain of salt, but just out of curiosity, who should fund research? The government can little afford to fund all research, and when they do they are accused of having an agenda. I work at a university and the scientists I know are desperate to have their research funded. There are few people out there stepping up to do it, so if Merck offers a grant, most scientists I know will jump at the opportunity. And I know for a fact that they are not given the money on the condition that their findings reflect a certain bias.

To counter your anecdote about your university experience, my scientist friend just left her PhD program feeling discouraged and disenchanted.  The reason: Her advisor made her run an experiment repeatedly until she came up with results that were satisfactory to their corporate grantor. 

This problem doesn’t exist in an anecdotal vaccuum.  You stated:

And I know for a fact that they are not given the money on the condition that their findings reflect a certain bias.

But most of the evidence out there is stacked against this “fact.”

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding

http://www.experiment-resources.com/publication-bias.html

http://www.center4research.org/2010/04/ghostbusting-exposing-drug-company-hired-ghostwriters-in-medical-journals/ (scroll down to see citations backing the stories of ghostwriters hired to yield favorable results for drug companies).

http://www.jabfm.org/content/18/5/414.full.pdf

The end result: among even the highest quality

clinical research (included in Cochrane reviews) the

odds are 5.3 times greater that commercially

funded studies will support their sponsors’ products

than noncommercially funded studies.

And some more specific—and fascinating—case studies are in this position paper from the American Association of University Professors, who are deeply concerned about corporate funding compromising academic freedom:

http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/488F7EE3-1A5D-466E-9556-878B36650844/0/CorporateFundingonAcaResearch.pdf

You should also read this scathing piece by an insider and former NEJM editor.

http://bostonreview.net/BR35.3/angell.php

Now while I agree with the concept of evaluating studies on their merits, given the aforementioned links, it’s more than fair to call into question the “objectivity” of corporate-sponsored research.

I also agree that MDC has tons of ads that don’t reflect the values of this site.  But Fanta and the others aren’t directly or even knowingly funding MDC; they turn up based on Google’s word-search algorithms.  For example--sadly—Google may pick up words like “parents” and “children” and post a Fanta ad to market to the latter.  It's a rotten practice that I think needs to stop.  But that’s an apples-and-Orange Soda comparison to the case of a corporation directly and knowingly funding research on a topic relevant to its products, services, and profit margin; to my knowledge, MDC didn't run off and apply for a grant from Fanta.

So to bring this back around to the topic of this thread, if the allegations are true that the Consumer Products Safety Commission and AAP are receiving crib industry funding (and I'm honestly not sure that they are; I need to look into that), then yes, MDC moms have every right to raise a skeptical eyebrow at anti-bedsharing statements.

If given the choice between junk science and no science, sign me up for the latter.  It is better to have unanswered questions than questions answered with spun data, deception, and ulterior motives. 

[PseudoDiva]

Turquesa, thank you for these articles.  Bookmarking them for reading...