Outlandish statistics....and stupid stories..

[kijip]

deleted deleted

[christic]

There's a website you might like:

www.stats.org

It's an organization that monitors the use of statistics by the media, pointing out when samples are too small or results have been twisted for a sensational story. I don't think there's much there on breast/bottle in particular, except for a look at the still inconclusive IQ studies, but there is quite a bit that I found interesting and informative as a parent. Stuff like the conflicting statistics about effect of daycare on children, critical development in the first three years, and recent vaccination scares. Lots of general health topics too. Perhaps a place to find ammunition for future battles :).

[km]

I am SO with you on this one!

My big beef was one of the magazines that they give you in the big 'hospital packet of junk'. It was one of those mother magazines (dont recall the exact name) that was very adamantly supporting breast feeding as the only choice for real mothers who care about their babies. It was full of so many loosely defined statistics. One article was about breastfeeding beyond the first year, etc. There was a sidebar that discussed what to tell people who react negatively to long term breastfeeding (you know, those people that say 'youre STILL breastfeeding that child?!'). There were maybe 7 responses they endorsed/suggested and at least 3 of them were outright lies!!!

The one i recall most vividly was to respond "well, you know (insert name of celebrity here) was breast fed until they were 4 years old!" as in 'you know Michael Jordan was breast fed until he was 4 years old ' (or albert einstein or whomever).

Come on people, isnt there enough good statistics that can support an argument that this magazine had to endorse outright lies in addition to poor statistics and the correlation/causation logic mentioned above?! And the fact that this was provided by a hospital was just amazing to me.

Note, my purpose is to support the original poster's point and not to start a debate on feeding choices...

EDITED TO ADD - I apologize i dont remember the 3 or 4 blatant examples that have been questioned...and i knew they would be brought up by the breastfeeding zeolots (it was over 3 years ago...). The ONE that stuck with me was described above (perhaps i wasnt specific enough the first time...this is the only one i recall verbatim). It literally said "INSERT NAME OF FAMOUS PERSON WHOM THE QUESTIONER ADMIRES HERE". I SO knew people would respond to my post with "well breastfeeding is great and the hospital should send home lots of breastfeeding stuff"..and that wasnt at all my point. The post is about providing outlandish statistics and such. There is no way i can insert whomever's name i choose into the statement and know it will be truthful (some may consider these 'excellent facts', but i would differ)and this was being encouraged. Ahhh...the reasons i rarely post!

[Rachels]

Hmm. The average age of weaning worldwide is 4.2, so it's certainly possible that what you read was actually true.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[stillplayswithbarbies]

what were the three lies? If it said Michael Jordan was breastfed until he was 4, that is incorrect. He was actually breastfed until he was 3. No need for them to stretch the truth, the truth is impressive enough.

What were the other lies?

...Karen
Jacob Nathaniel Feb 91
Logan Elizabeth Mar 03

[MinnieMouse]

Actually the fact that 95% of all new moms leave the hospital with formula along with gear stamped with formula manufacturer's names and handful of coupons... THAT drives me absolutely NUTS.

Nature gives moms what they need to feed their babies...I'm all for choice...if a mom wants to formula feed by all means go ahead...but they should go out and buy it and not get a "kick start" with it from day one.

Sorry if it was harsh but there is such an inundation by the formula companies pushing it down our throats that it is "just as good" that I applaud a hospital that hands out a magazine that gives out excellent facts such as you stated. I didn't see any lies in your quotes at all. AND...the sample responses are a good idea....many new moms are pressured by family and friends to stop nursing earlier than they are comfortable with and having responses like that I'm sure is helpful.

I don't want to start a debate about ffing vs nursing....just that there ARE studies...good ones that document all the good things about nursing, that prove that it is definitely superior to any man made formula available. Just because you have been running into poorly crafted ones don't discount them all.

Unfortunately our current culture sees formula feeding as the "norm" and if you nurse "bonus"....it should be that nursing is the norm and if you choose to formula feed you do so with the understanding that you possibly are not doing the "best" for your child.

Steps down from her soapbox.

Christine

[nathansmom]

I have a very hard believing most stats that are thrown around by both formula companies and breastfeeding groups. Email me off the boards and I'll share why with you. I'm not posting them as I do not want to start a war or possibly offend someone.

[stillplayswithbarbies]

I was ready to post and ask you why you wanted to call us names, but then I took a trip through the dictionary to look up "zealot" and that lead me to "zealous" which lead me to "zeal", and the definition of "zeal" is this:

"Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance"

So, thanks for the compliment. :) That is exactly what I strive for, to be enthusiastic and tireless. I'm pleased that someone noticed. :) I believe in breastfeeding, I believe that all babies have the right to be breastfed, and most importantly I believe that all women have the right to be educated about breastfeeding, and I try to be enthusiastic and tireless in helping to educate women about breastfeeding.

I'm feeling all warm and happy now. :)

...Karen
Jacob Nathaniel Feb 91
Logan Elizabeth Mar 03

[nohomama]

I imagine it must be incredibly frustrating, among other things, to feel accosted by numbers and unsupported by your community in your choice to bottle feed. There are many parents on this board, both bottle feeding AND breast feeding, who I'm certain can relate to how you feel.

The issue of how one chooses to feed their child tends to be a very volotile topic, even here in this online community. And your right, there IS plenty of bad science (and bad interpretations there of) out there. It's important, I think, not to throw the baby out with the bath water though. There are plenty of well designed, well interpreted studies out there that do document the benefits of breastfeeding.

I believe, your observation that people manipulate data to support their opinion is more to the point. While it's fine to use statistics to support an arguement, it's not fine to use them as a weapon to attack an individual's choice. While I would not ever presume to think that your choice to bottle feed is open to debate (it's your choice...it's what's best for you and your child) I am perfectly happy to debate what I see as the very real benefits of breastfeeding over formula feeding. There are many people that have a difficult time seeing that distinction.

[km]

"If it said Michael Jordan was breastfed until he was 4, that is incorrect. He was actually breastfed until he was 3. No need for them to stretch the truth, the truth is impressive enough.

What were the other lies?"


I think Karen's point can somewhat be viewed as a demonstration of misleading statistics suggested by the original poster...presuming the statement is accurate (Ive heard it many times, but never checked authenticity. though i have no reason to doubt it i would also never quote it without caveat)

(1) It is a sample size of one (not statistically significant)

(2) the 'impressive enough' comment implies that there is a cause/effect relationship between breastfeeding and superior athletic talent

If someone were to say 'jeffery dahmer was breastfed until he was 4 years old' we would not presume breastfeeding to a certain age causes people to become serial killers (sorry for the poor reference, my mind couldnt come up with much on the fly for deplorable characters that wouldnt get people too excitable)...again, my point is not a breastfeeding argument (switch all the words around to be bottle feeding, and i reject the statements with identical lack of credibility)

[flagger]

This is why we can never ever recommend anyone going to an LLL meeting. The militancy offered by the leaders of the group at the one session we attended before Cocoa was born turned us off for ever. The woman actually said that mothers who could not breastfeed were failures and how evil formula was. Well my child would have died had we not had that safe alternative to feed her since my wife was such a "failure".

We were happy that she got the EBM that she did and when Cocoa decided to wean before nine months that was it. She made the choice and quite frankly Ms. Flagger was just as happy.

[Rachels]

Hmm again. The Michael Jordan thing wasn't cited as a way to say, "Nurse for three years so your child will be a basketball star." It was just cited as a comeback for folks who aren't educated enough about breastfeeding to realize that there are benefits to nursing past the age of one or two. And the "impressive enough" comment didn't strike me as having anything to do with cause & effect, either. In a culture that is so phenomenally unsupportive of breastfeeding (to the extent that we insist on squelching well-executed research to maintain everyone's comfort), it IS impressive to nurse until three if the child wants to do so. It requires a going-against-the-grain for the sake of the baby's wellness that is bound to be frowned upon from time to time. So I think Karen's comment was pretty reasonable.

And I know she's okay with the observation of her zeal (which I share), but I'll remind everyone before this goes further that name-calling is not permissible here. You can question and disagree without hurling insults, whether they're taken as such or not.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[dotgirl]

Did I miss the part where someone got called a zealot .. ? I did a CTRL+F for the word "zeal" and only find it in your post, and another post which says "Why would you want to call us zealots?" but I can't find where anyone called anyone anything .. can you please point me? :)

Thank you!

(Edited to add: I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I genuinly can't see it, and I'm wondering if my mind is going.)

(Edited to add, Part II: Ok, found it! Someone directed me, and boy do I feel like an oblivious dork. When, exactly, do I get my prepregnancy brain back?)

[stillplayswithbarbies]

>
>(1) It is a sample size of one (not statistically
>significant)
>

I don't think anyone intends to convince anyone to breastfeed just because one particular person was breastfed. Heck, I don't think the "everyone is doing it" argument makes sense for anything, let alone breastfeeding.

>(2) the 'impressive enough' comment implies that there is a
>cause/effect relationship between breastfeeding and superior
>athletic talent
>

It is "impressive enough" that any one particular person breastfed until the age of 3. That it is a "normal" person that mostly everyone has heard of is the important thing. It doesn't mean to imply that if you breastfeed that your child will be a successful athlete, it simply implies that some normal people breastfeed until the baby is 3 years old, and here is one example.

If a family member is saying to a mother "you need to wean, it's not normal to breastfeed this long", well, the Michael Jordan example is one piece of data that may make them more comfortable with it. Yes, people do breastfeed "this long" and that long too.

>If someone were to say 'jeffery dahmer was breastfed until he
>was 4 years old' we would not presume breastfeeding to a
>certain age causes people to become serial killers (sorry for
>the poor reference, my mind couldnt come up with much on the
>fly for deplorable characters that wouldnt get people too
>excitable)...again, my point is not a breastfeeding argument
>(switch all the words around to be bottle feeding, and i
>reject the statements with identical lack of credibility)

Right. That is not the point at all.

...Karen
Jacob Nathaniel Feb 91
Logan Elizabeth Mar 03

[stillplayswithbarbies]

I went to church once and the pastor was so boring that I never went back to that church.

It's a good thing I didn't judge an entire organization on the personality and actions of that one man within the huge organization.

...Karen
Jacob Nathaniel Feb 91
Logan Elizabeth Mar 03

[kijip]

I am sorry, it just cracks me up to see examples of the statistics that I am bitching about in the first place contained in this thread. I really wish people would quote the studies that they are citing. And as a group we don't- currently Americans just say "I heard...." A LOT. Even the AAP website and other reputable sites do not quote the journals specifically- just "Top 10 Reasons to Breastfeed" type lists. In looking for exact info that is first hand I have found very little to support the statements I hear about either formula or breastmilk. My standards are HIGH. I don't want propaganda garbage for the formula companies or propaganda garbage from breastfeeding organizations or trite articles in baby magazines. I want the info straight up from a journal and I am not finding a lot of info. One example- where can I find out that "95%" of hospital load parents down with formula info? I would challenge that assertion until I saw the hospital survey. My hospital and most of the hospitals in my fair city are Baby Friendly, which means no formula info or samples. I did not get a single sample or flyer at the hospital. Once breastfeeding was not working, I started a combo diet and I had a hard time finding info on formula. I live in a city area of 4 million. We have a lot of hospitals.

Also the assertion that only formula feeders or only breast feeders are pressured is ABSURD. There was a huge amount of breast feeding pressure in my liberal city. There is a huge amount of pressure the opposite way in more conservative parts of the country. No one side is more maligned on a national level. It's not about who is better or whatnot. It is a matter that misinformation is flying everywhere.

FYI- I did not make a choice to use formula, my body made the decision not to lactate.

In in effort to find some truth, I am undertaking a survey (not a study) on people's experiences with all sorts of baby info (NOT JUST FEEDING). I will have it written within a month or so, I post info if people are interested in responding. I am afraid that my sample will be tilted towards just my location if I don't make it available on the web. Strictly unscientific. But I will tell people that when publishing the results. So I get to put my math and stats to work. The last survey I did and published was on sexual harassment and rape so I am making a leap to babyland with this one.....who hoo!

[kijip]

I hear you Flagger...in my area LLL has a lot of pressure around going to work. Stay at home dads (my husband's goal in life) were laughed at by the member I spoke with AND she also suggested that I not finish my coursework right away (I stayed out of school for 6 months but that was not good enough...). I know that LLL is great in many places but my area was not cool for me...

[flagger]

It is a common problem at many LLL meetings from many of the mothers I have talked to. And we do judge entire organizations by our first impression. I cannot tell you the numbers of chain restaurants that have lost our business forever because of the actions of one of their employees/managers.

LLL made a lasting enough impression on us to discourage anyone from ever seeing their help and going with a private LC.

[egoldber]

As a statistician, I definitely feel your pain when it comes to poorly designed studies or study results that get quoted out of context.

"Even the AAP website and other reputable sites do not quote the journals specifically- just "Top 10 Reasons to Breastfeed" type lists."

But there is a reason that the AAP and other sites don't list that type of info, and that's mainly because it would turn off far more people than it would convince. To make a grand generalization with no quoted stats to back up the statement :) , most people don't really want that type of detailed information. Having given many a presentation to executives with glazed looks in their eyes, I feel these agencies' pain too. It is a tough job to provide information to the public in a format that is palatable for the average information consumer.

And honestly, I think it would really bog down a message board like this if folks truly felt the need to post footnotes for each article or piece of info they share. But lots of times, folks DO reply back, with "wow that's really interesting, where did you read that, I'd like to know more". Or say "You know, those stats may be true, but here's why that didn't work out for me, and here's why I feel OK about it". I think its great to be able to have those kinds of discussions and meaningful interchanges, and we can do it without hostility and with respect for each other.

But when you want to know the detail, it can be frustrating, I agree. And there's nothing like being able to quote the actual ACOG guidelines and the real statistics on VBAC back to your non-VBAC friendly OB. (It can also really tick them off.)

[mommd]

Have you tried a search on pubmed for articles on formula and breastfeeding in medical journals? Granted, you still need to examine the statistics as well as who funded the study to determine if the claims are accurate, but at least you would have some scientific data to look at. The popular press tends to grab onto whatever they want to from these articles and twist the facts or cause an uproar about nothing, as we are now seeing with the whole MMR/autism "link". I for one would be intersted in reading the results of you survey.

[sntm]

Just wanted to make a few points:

1. There are excellent research studies out there which support breastfeeding as being the healthier option in general. I would be happy to compile a bibliography if anyone is truly interested, though give me a while as I am trying to get my work done also.

2. Most clinical studies evaluate associations. Causation is difficult to prove outside of a lab. That said, any good study is going to minimize confounding (as in the ice cream example) and attempt to demonstrate a temporal relationship so that causation can be inferred. Is it absolute? No, but then again, most of health science is based on this kind of research.

3. Any survey that is put together and not distributed randomly with checks to ensure that it reaches a statistically representative sample of the population is going to be majorly flawed. It may be interesting, but as a quality study, it is way below any that you will find published. There are entire graduate level epidemiologic classes devoted to the science of surveying --

4. Many people find it comforting to know of someone, particularly a celebrity, who has been in the same situation as them. I have told patients with bicuspid aortic valves that Ahhhh-nold had one, patients with dyslexia that Albert Einstein may have had it, patients with rheumatoid arthritis that Kathleen Turner has it, and they appreciate the fact that something that seemed strange and unusual is actually more familiar than they thought. Extended breastfeeding may seem like something that no one (or only those d*** hippies ;)) does, but Michael Jordan is a familiar and normal person to people and using him as a reference allows people to feel that it is normal.

5. Increases/decreases in small risks may not influence some people's decisions, but there are few things in life that make drastic changes in people's health. And on a population basis, increasing a risk of some hypothetical illness from 0.001 to 0.003 in the US with a population of 281,421,906 in 2000 mean an additional 562,000 people affected. Doesn't seem as small now (particularly if you are one of the people affected.)

6. As Sarah put it eloquently, good statistics should be discussed as a means to inform and help people, not to hurt people. I don't know the motivations of the random strangers who have quoted statistics to you -- it is possible they meant well and wanted to educate you about something that you may have not known. It sounds like they did it in a tacky way, though. But let's not blame the statistics, okay, but how they were used? No one should be trying to make others feel bad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
shannon
not-even-pregnant-yet-overachiever
trying-to-conceive :)
PREGNANT! EDD 6/9/03
mama to Jack 6/6/03

edited to finish a sentence

[Melanie]

Karen, that is outstanding! Where did you find that info?

[Melanie]

"LLL made a lasting enough impression on us to discourage anyone from ever seeing their help and going with a private LC."

That's too bad. They were invaluable to me and I was not even a member. Perhaps it's a regional issue.

[kijip]

Since it is a volunteer based organization it stands to reason that it would vary from place to place, given the beliefs of the individual volunteer. I am glad that LLL was helpful in your area.

[sntm]

same for me -- I think it is very dependent on what chapter you go to. I've heard of others that I even I wouldn't feel comfortable at.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
shannon
not-even-pregnant-yet-overachiever
trying-to-conceive :)
PREGNANT! EDD 6/9/03
mama to Jack 6/6/03

[kijip]

deleted very old post.

[stillplayswithbarbies]

Here is an interesting webpage that lists various celebrities that were breastfed, and includes a quote from Michael Jordan's mother. I wish they had included the cite for it, I know I have read that interview but I can't remember where I read it.

...Karen
Jacob Nathaniel Feb 91
Logan Elizabeth Mar 03

[jesseandgrace]

Hmm. Well, I think this is really two different posts. The original post about misleading statistics (I agree, I see it all the time), and a post on breast feeding. I wanted to respond to the breast feeding topic not to start an argument, but because I feel so strongly about it. I BF both of my kids, and am still BF DD who is 9 months. I think it is the best thing for me, and for my kids, but I have to agree with Flagger. The LLL turned me off to the point that I almost did not BF DS. I had incredible pain, mastitis, bleeding nipples that were black and blue. I sought out the LLL for support on what to do and was told that if I were BF correctly it would not hurt. That is total BS!!!! For someone like me who is fair with light red hair and fair skin I think it can often be painful (I'm not sure why it is more so for fair skinned people, and I'm sure that is not always the case, but it is what I have discovered). I think if I had been told the truth, that yes it can be very painful but you will adjust (for me it was around 5/6 weeks in) I would have felt better. All I was told was to continue through the excrutiating pain, that it didn't matter that DS was drinking blood from my bleeding nipples. Well, excuse me if I think that is bad advice! I was a wreck for the first month of his life thinking he would not be smart, get sick all the time, etc. I thnk an organization can promote BF but also be realistic about the challenges and drawbacks. Nothing is entirely perfect, including BF. I know it is not all LLL chapters, but I do think if training were provided there could be some consistency so that many people would not have to have such a bad experience. I know it is hard when faced with the money the formula companies put in to their campaigns, but I know that I was lied to about BF by LLL.

I am definitely a BF advocate, but more importantly I think people need to do what is best for themselves and their babies. My cousin was unable to BF and her DD ended up in the hospital because she was malnourished after my cousin kept trying. To this day she gets upset because the BF advocacy groups have made her feel like she is not a good mother. On the flip side, I don't see the formula companies saying that you are a bad mother if you BF. I know this is long, but I just get really worked up about it. I think everyone should try to BF but I don't think we need to judge those who don't.

[MelissaTC]

Me too! I attended meetings for almost a year and the help I received was invaluable! But like all things, it is the bad ones we hear about, not the large number of supportive and valuable chapters.... :(