“Here, let me kiss it and make it better.”

— moms from time immemorial

In a recent post on wellness and woo, a commenter pointed me to one of the most interesting articles I’ve ever read about medicine: Placebos Are Getting More Effective. Drugmakers Are Desperate to Know Why. The most interesting part of the article (for me) was the idea that — rather than dismissing the placebo response as gullibility and a nuisance to research — it’s an effect that scientists can research, to benefit patients.

One finding was that the health-care practitioner’s empathy can give the placebo response a huge boost:

Volunteers in the third group got the same sham treatment from a clinician who asked them questions about symptoms, outlined the causes of IBS, and displayed optimism about their condition. Not surprisingly, the health of those in the third group improved most. In fact, just by participating in the trial, volunteers in this high-interaction group got as much relief as did people taking the two leading prescription drugs for IBS. And the benefits of their bogus treatment persisted for weeks afterward, contrary to the belief—widespread in the pharmaceutical industry—that the placebo response is short-lived.

That immediately reminded me of this cartoon discussion of Homeopathy. Despite being just a cartoon, it’s correct that people derive benefit merely from talking to a practitioner about their symptoms.

There’s one big obstacle to using the placebo response in a clinical setting: by definition, the patient has to believe that s/he is getting a real treatment in order for it to work. If the practitioner is intentionally lying, that raises real ethical questions. And if the practitioner is not lying (and believes the bogus treatment is real), that’s even more dangerous. The intentional liar (like the mom who kisses the boo-boo), knows to get a real doctor if the condition is serious. As outlined in the cartoon above, a Homeopath will often continue to recommend only placebos, even in cases (eg. cancer, vaccines) where that advice is totally inappropriate.

Even aside from the danger, there’s the ethical question of selling goods and services through deception and fraud. Here’s a personal example of what I mean:

A couple of years ago, one of my kids came down with pink-eye (conjunctivitis). So I went to a local pharmacy (here in Zürich) and asked the pharmacist to recommend a treatment. I bought the one she recommended. When I brought it home to my husband, he pointed out something I hadn’t noticed — the product was marked “Homéopathie” — and he told me that means it’s just a placebo.

Now, I consider myself to be a relatively well-informed and well-educated person. But a couple years ago (when I bought this product), I had no idea what “Homeopathy” was. As soon as my husband told me it was a placebo, my immediate reaction was that that can’t be. A professional pharmacist isn’t going to recommend me a placebo when I ask for a medicine for my sick child, right? Homeopathy sounds so homey — I figured it must just be another word for “home remedies.” You know, like herbal tea, which might potentially have a physical effect (even if it’s not the same as medicine).

Nope. Homeopathy is not “home remedies.” I later learned that Homeopathy is water. It is placebo pills whose active ingredient is water. (For details, see this earlier post on Homeopathic teething remedies.)

Once I found this out, it pissed me off that the pharmacist would take advantage of my ignorance like that. I know that I’m not an expert on medicines, which is why I went to a professional — and I expected ethical, professional advice. I won’t call it fraud because I’m not 100% certain she didn’t say the word “Homeopathy” at some point when she was pulling this choice off the shelf for me. But since I had no idea what Homeopathy was, the word would have gone right past me without my notice. She certainly didn’t make it clear that she was suggesting an “alternative” or “complementary” medicine. If pharmacists’ professional organizations don’t have guidelines about this sort of unethical behavior, they should.

So the question remains: Is it possible to use the placebo response ethically and responsibly? It’s quite effective and useful in a lot of cases — it seems a shame not to use it. Based on the findings in the above-linked article, I think the following would work:

Create a class of medical practitioners who have enough medical training to dispense basic advice and (important!) who know how to identify symptoms that are serious enough to require referral to a doctor. This practitioner would listen carefully to the patient’s symptoms and offer appropriate suggestions. For example: “Take an aspirin, and if the fever doesn’t go down in a few hours, call a doctor,” or “If you get plenty of rest, your condition should go away in a week or so — come see me again in a few days, and we’ll see how it’s progressing.”

Logically, this should yield the benefits of the placebo effect without the disadvantages. It wouldn’t give any money to “big pharma” — or to the big business of Homeopathy — but it might help some patients. Thoughts?

IVF is very expensive and often not covered by insurance.  It can be $10,000 or more for a treatment with varying odds of success, depending on the individual case.  Acupuncture sessions might be $50-$100, and a practitioner might recommend them weekly, before starting IVF and during the IVF cycle.  Considering the enormous outlay for just the IVF cycle, anyone might reasonably think, “Well, if I spend just a little more, it will increase my chances, so I won’t have to go through another cycle.  Really, it might be cost effective to go ahead and do this alternative treatment to give me a better shot this time.”

But what if IVF is simply a waste of money?  Novella’s post says the studies have shown mixed results and concludes:

Acupuncture remains an implausible treatment, and lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that it works for any specific indication. The history of acupuncture research is following a familiar pattern. Initial research is mixed but trends positive. Basic science research shows non-specific anomalies, but no consistent pattern that accords with scientific theory of mechanism for acupuncture. For each indication, as better and more rigorous studies are designed, the effects shrink until the best studies are negative.

Proponents then engage in special pleading to dismiss the evidence, while simultaneously citing poor quality or pre-clinical evidence, secure in their faith that acupuncture works.

In the rational light of day, having a kid who’s napping in the next room right now, I can safely say I absolutely don’t believe that acupuncture helps IVF at all. Women experiencing infertility who try acupuncture are most likely wasting their money. But I have so much compassion for their plight. When you’re trying to conceive, and failing, and you hear anecdotal evidence (which you definitely will) about acupuncture working, you’re just willing to do anything. And you need to feel that you are doing something so you can feel some sense of control. There is so much waiting involved in assisted reproductive technology, and meanwhile, kids don’t stop being born all around you. Birthday parties happen, baby showers get planned, coworkers put adorable pictures in their cubicles. If you think you can’t have a kid, you will suddenly be surrounded all the time by families and kids. So you want to just feel like you’re trying you’re hardest to get there yourself. I get it.

My hope is that as acupuncture is proven to have no effect, clinics and fertility doctors will stop advertising it. I believe it’s an ineffective treatment that only exploits a very painful emotional situation.

I danced with several girls who had their PhD’s, Masters etc and it’s our obligation to share this duality with the public in an effort to help young girls feel comfortable following all of their dreams (and to help them understand how important education is and frankly how much fun science can be).

I couldn’t agree more.

Many people are shocked when sexy women are also smart. In fact, the woman in the article said she almost didn’t get hired at a science job because of the NFL cheerleader line on her resume.

It’s a pervasive stereotype in our country. Admit it–you laughed at the idea of Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist in The World is Not Enough. (Well, her character’s name of “Dr. Christmas Jones” didn’t help.) So it’s nice to see some non-Hollywood examples of real brains and beauty.

[Via BlagHag]

To sum up the following pages, the vaccine is similar to the seasonal flu vaccine and yes, multi-dose vials do contain thimerosal.  There is a single dose vial available which does not contain thimerosal.  Thimerosal is a preservative that has been removed from most vaccines because of concerns about a link to autism, but no such link was ever proven.  Because the flu vaccine has to be manufactured quickly in large batches, it requires some kind of preservative in multi-dose vials so it doesn’t become contaminated with bacteria and fungi.  (Yech.)  Links:

General Questions and Answers on the H1N1 Vaccine from CDC

General Questions and Answers on Thimerosal from the CDC

And now let’s get to straightening out some of the lies.

Harriet Hall on Science Based Medicine does a great takedown of the fear mongering surrounding the H1N1 vaccine.

A favorite quote:

Claim: People should be allowed to “self-shield.” For self-shielding you go home lock the doors and stay there. Then you can try to further protect yourself with nano-silver, homeopathic remedies, cold packs, vitamins, flavonoids, zinc, astaxanthin, magnesium, and other stuff.

Fact: A self-imposed quarantine is better than nothing, but I question whether it would be effective in practice. The suggested (untested) remedies might conceivably keep people entertained so they are more willing to stay home.

Hee hee.

“More on flu woo” on Science Based Medicine explains some other misguided thinking about the flu.

And finally, an “Influenza Primer” on Science Based Medicine explains why this flu is different from normal seasonal flu.

If you just read or even skim these articles, you should be reassured that the benefits of the H1N1 vaccine outweigh the risks.  And you can make an educated decision about who in your household should get the vaccine.  We’re definitely getting our 15-month-old son vaccinated, and I will probably get vaccinated myself.  I am not among the groups listed as high priority, but I work in a public school, and I’d like to minimize the chance that I will get swine flu.

If I were pregnant or trying to get pregnant, I would not hesitate to vaccinate myself against H1N1. So far, the 2009 H1N1 virus has affected pregnant women more severely than the general population.

So that’s the real information.  Next post, I’ll muse about some of the misinformation I’m hearing in my neck of the woods.

duncan @ five minutes

By Dean Cameron

This past August 1, 2009 at 10:45am, my son, Duncan Huxley Cameron was born.

Not only is he quite a bit bigger now than he is in that photo, his ability to melt me with a look, has increased.

We are raising him as rationally as possible. Obviously, he’ll make his own decisions about how to interact with his world, but we’ll tell the truth as we see it and let it go. There’s plenty of woo out there for him to encounter and deal with on his own, so we don’t need to burden him with more at home. It’s going to be intersting as, even before he was born, people I consider rational were saying really weird and irrational things.

It makes sense, I suppose. There’s so much about having a child that is completely out of ones control that, like the rest of life, we tend to look for patterns to apply to random things. Here in the west, where we have an abundance of food and nutrition, once you’re out of the first trimester of pregnancy, if you’re not behaving like an idiot, your kid is probably going to come out just fine.

But… because that stuff is out of our control, people start making up rules to follow. Sure, some of ‘em might make sense and actually keep you healthy, but, again… as long as you’re not being an idiot, that kid is going to come out and, most likely, come out fine.

Childbirth as an Extreme Sport
Extreme Sports came about because of great medicine and the boredom of practice. Back in “ye oldene tymes” no one, except for inventors, had the time or inclination to go hang gliding because a) broken bones meant death or worse, suffering and disfigurement for the rest of one’s life and 2) life already had enough fucking terror, what with everyone dying because of disease and war.

Here in the future, if you survive a hang gliding crash and break your legs and crack your spine, the worst part is your drunken friends driving you to the hospital in the back of the 4-Runner. After that, it’s 6 weeks off of work, Fentanyl Patches and 150,000 hits on YouTube. As far as skill goes, it’s a matter of being able to buy the gear. The wealthier you are, the more three day weekends you can spend hang-gliding and the better gear you can buy. You can’t buy the skill that comes spending 4 hours a day doing boring tennis drills for your entire youth.

So, like extreme sports, unless there is a rare complication, the sheer terror of having a child is gone. Western Infant mortality rates are extremely low and mothers dying in childbirth is almost non-existent so, to shake things up, we make it exciting by having a kid at home or with people beating drums or standing up in the shower or in a hot tub with your family there or in a dumpster behind chuck e. cheese. If something goes wrong, you’re a quick ambulance drive away from the hospital and all is well.

(A side note… We had our son at Cedars Sinai here in L.A. Our hippie friends told us that it’s a bad place to have a child because they have such a high record of emergency births. We aksed (yes, aksed) the doctor about it and she said the emergencies were mainly home deliveries gone haywire and since Cedars has the best Natal Intensive Care Unit, the botched home births are rushed to Cedars.)

“Pitocin is Evil!!!”
Because we wanted to feel like we were “doing something”, the bride and I went to a Lamaze class. I made it through the three hours without having an episode. I’m not sure why; perhaps it’s the extreme sports thing, but we encountered quite a bit of anti-science bias associated with having a baby. The point of the Lamaze method is to have the baby “naturally”. Since we’re living in the future and having the baby at a hospital “natural” really just means “without an epidural”. This is fine, if that’s how you roll, but there was no reason for it. The instructor hinted, quite strongly, that it’s better for the baby if it’s “natural”, but wouldn’t come out and say as much (because it’s not true). She made the claim that medical students today aren’t shown “natural” child births. When I questioned her about this; pressing her for a source for her claim, she said she learned the med student facts from “articles”. The larger subtext was that women who chose to receive epidurals were less woman than those who went without because they weren’t completely experiencing the delivery. Not only that, it is, somehow, better for the child if it’s “natural”.

Yep, after a full term of pregnancy what’s really going to have an affect on junior is that final few hours.

We were told “don’t let them give her any drugs!!!” a couple of times. One of the drugs that the bride was given was Pitocin, a drug that induces labor.

Back in the “good old days” one of the many ways a woman could die in childbirth was bleeding to death after being ripped open by a too large baby.

Duncan was full term and ready to come out, but the bride’s body wasn’t ready to let him go. Instead of waiting another two weeks and getting a Caesarian, or worse, a drip of Pitocin induced labor and we were on our way. (Before you say “body knows best”, aks yourself if cancer is the body knowing best?)

When you google Pitocin, the very first result is an anti-science web page, childbirth.org. It’s so sad. It looks official, but it’s just some anti-science people picking and choosing their facts and scaring people.

We were told that Pitocin keeps the mother from producing milk. Once the bride had the epidural she was able to calm down, as she didn’t realize how freaked out she was. It was only a matter of minutes after the Pitocin kicked in until she began pushing. Duncan was born within the hour. The bride was breast-feeding almost immediately. So much for the horror stories.

(I know, personal experience is one of the worst ways to come to an understanding of how the world works. I’m just saying that our experience with Pitocin and the epidoodle was aces! )

The bride is a genius. She made the point that people now use bleeding edge science to get pregnant; in vitro pregnancies are so common now, and that is, rightfully, considered a beautiful and excellent thing. BUT, using science for the delivery cheapens the experience. If someone is of the mind that “nature knows best” then why take the shortcut around nature and go in vitro? Hmm?!?!

Genius, I tell you. Genius.

Infants as Unemployment Insurance
Since the turn of the century (I love saying that!) I was fortunate enough to have a nice career doing voice overs for radio and television. I began the century writing front end code at an online games web site. I also helped a friend develop a web service, Tightcircle.com, which he later patented and sold to an “unnamed company in Mountain View, California”. My main income was voice overs and I would, occasionally supplement it by doing web work.

About two years ago, the voice overs began slowing down. Thanks to strikes and technology, fewer people were needed to do voice overs. Finally, the work seems to have dried up almost completely. I had been averaging a couple of gigs a month. At this point, I haven’t had a VO gig since early 2008.

Once we discovered the bride was with child, I began looking for web work in earnest. Thanks to technology, I found myself a bit behind the curve as far as front-end coding goes. I’ve been on all the tech job boards for years so I started scouring those and other resources and by January of this year started sending out at least 2 resumes a day and doing tutorials online on the stuff I’d missed.

Our plan had been that by the time the bride finished her latest editing gig, I would either have some foot back in showbiz or a web coding gig. Unfortunately, that wasn’t happening and it began getting hairy.

I kept hearing “babies bring luck” and it only pissed me off more. What is the method? How does it work? Gravity? Hmm. The week before Duncan was born, I received two job offers. Some poor soul on MyFaceSpaceBook wrote “babies bring luck!!!” and I kinda/sort jumped down her throat. See… by saying that not only are you simply being an idiot, unaware of confirmation bias, you are discounting the work I did to get those jobs. If a baby is born every minute, wouldn’t there be more “luck” in the world? I can’t even begin to start deconstructing this…. The week before he was born, I had to put a new radiator in my car. Lucky? As Linus Van Pelt often said: Aaargh!

Pisces Virgo Rising is a very good siiiiignnnnnn
Racism is just lazy. Instead of investigating cultural differences, racism just lays down blanket statements about large groups of people. The only criteria is how they were born. Not who they are. People are different through their cultures, but it’s more about geography than biology. But, even then, I realllly hate it. It makes me so sad when I hear someone describe themselves based on their race. “I’m Italian, I can’t help being jealous!” Well, you were raised to think that. It has nothing to do with you being Italian, except everyone you know who is Italian has told you that you can’t help but be jealous. There are lots of Italians who aren’t. I bet there are Italians at swingers clubs.

The worst manifestation of racism is astrology. Because of the date and time of your birth, you are endowed with personality traits that are inescapable.

I think this is so maddening to me because I’m a Taurus.

duncan y bride @ one minute

But seriously… This country was created so we can be free. We are free to try to do whatever we want and be whoever we want. We are free to choose our own identity and make our own lives and yet people voluntarily yoke themselves with zodiac signs, shrug and say “I can’t help that I’m clumsy, I’m a gemini”.

Obviously, you are absolutely free to do this in this free country. You’re totally free to hamstring yourself or create excuses based on your deep misunderstanding of the gravitational effects of the planets. Please don’t do it to my son. Please don’t tell him how he is before he can walk. Please don’t make up your mind how he is before he can walk. Let him find out who he is and how he is. It’s going to take a long time and, this is important: it will change. Duncan may start out shy and become an extrovert, but let’s not keep him one way by telling him it’s preordained. It may be. But it’s not because of the moon and jupiter. As William Shakespeare wrote: “I should have been that I am, had the maidenliest star in the firmament twinkled on my bastardizing.” (Edmund has a great deconstruction of astrology in King Lear.)

There are so many real mysteries and phenomenon, both explained and unexplained, associated with infants. When does he begin recognizing us? Is he thinking abstractly? How does language happen? The nature/nurture question. All of those things. They are fascinating, vexing and beautiful. Why throw crap in there like ass-trology, babies bringing luck and anti-science? I loved him before he was born. Isn’t that enough?

Daniel Loxton, the editor of Junior Skeptic, addressed this exact topic back in March. He gathered input from 13 leading skeptics on what they think people can do to be involved, and the result is a wonderful, in-depth guide called “What Do I Do Next – Leading skeptics discuss 105 practical ways to promote science and advance skepticism“(pdf). I encourage you to read that detailed discussion, or at least his distilled version “What Do I Do Next – Quick Reference Guide“, and just skip my discussion below!

My handsome skeptic husband, Rob T., and I went to Dragon*Con last weekend. It was amazing, fun, informative, exhausting, educational, and weird. (The SkepTrack was all of the first five superlatives, but the costumes were the sixth!) We met many of the skeptic superstars listed above, and we were so energized by the experience, we spent the entire drive home coming up with ideas of how we can become more involved. I know that every one of you reading this can do at least one of the things on the list below. I want to be your cheerleader here, and help you get involved!

Attend a local skeptics group:Meeting other people who have the same worldview as yourself can help you realize you are not alone, and give you hope that this skeptical thing might really take off! There are skeptic clubs, societies, and meetups popping up all over the country. You can find out if there are any skeptical events scheduled in your area by checking out the calendar on GrassRootsSkeptics.org, and DrinkingSkeptically. There may be a Center for Inquiry near you, with activities every week. You can search for a local meetup on Meetup.com, using the search terms “skeptic” or “rational thought”. You can check for groups being advertised under the Community section on Craigslist. Also try Google, with search terms that include the word “skeptic” and the name of your nearest city. If you find a local group, try it for a few months. Each meeting or activity will probably be different, so try several to get an idea of the membership and the tone of the group. Plus, if you return several times, you will get more comfortable, and get to know more people. The benefits are many, including learning about skepticism, making friends, and even making professional connections.

Start a new local skeptics group: If you can’t find any groups in your area, start your own! I’m not just suggesting  it, I’m here to say it can be done. I searched, and found that the nearest skeptical group to our area is an hour and a half away. Yet we live near a large metro area. I checked Meetup.com and while it said there were no skeptics groups locally, it said there were many people on Meetup who had indicated that they wanted to be notified if someone started a skeptics meetup! So, for a low $12 a month, I became a Meetup organizer, and almost immediately had 30 people on the mailing list. We had our first meetup in August, and were overwhelmed by the 45 people who attended. Our mailing list has increased to more than 65, and we have high-hopes for the future of our little club. Our current goal is to have at least one meeting a month which features a professional giving a presentation on a skeptical topic, and perhaps one other meetup a month that is purely social or that is family-friendly. We don’t know these people very well yet, but we expect to make some very good friends. Step one was creating the meetup group at Meetup.com, step two was finding a speaker (I emailed college professors until one said “yes”), step three was finding a venue (we chose a local brew pub), step four was setting the date and scheduling it on Meetup.com, then the final step was to advertise. I placed an ad for the meetup on Craigslist, and I emailed everyone I knew who might be interested. I created a Facebook page for the club, and invited my skeptical Facebook friends to join it, even if they aren’t local, just to show support. Several people blogged about it for me as well. The entire process really didn’t take very long, and most of it was done on my laptop. You, as the organizer, can decide what kind of group you can start. It can be Skeptics in the Pub, or a lecture series at a local library or college, or a series of meetups at local museums, or a book club at a bookstore, or a coffee clatch at a coffee shop. Meeting new people can be nerve-wracking, especially if you are paralyzingly shy like me, but if I can do it, you can, too!

Donate to a national skeptical organization: It is helpful to join or donate to one or all of the national skeptical organizations, for your own personal growth, and also to help the organizations to thrive and grow. Rob and I are “friends of the center” at CFI, we donate to the James Randi Educational Foundation, subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer magazine,  subscribe to Skeptic magazine, and donate to the Foundation Beyond Belief. Our philosophy is that we are dedicated to giving some of our income to charity ever year, and we feel strongly about the good works that these organizations do, including educational outreach and furthering the cause of skepticism. We feel we get more back than we are currently able to give, but maybe in the future we can turn that around.

Attend a convention: There are now three major conventions for skeptics: The Amazing Meeting in Los Vegas, the SkepTrack at Dragon*Con in Atlanta, and NECSS in New York.  There are other activities, such a cruises, that CFI and the JREF offer as well. Local skeptical groups have begun to host SkeptiCamps, which are like mini-conferences put on by the attendees. These have the benefit of being cheaper, shorter, and closer than a national convention. So far Rob and I have only attended one convention: last week’s Dragon*Con. We had a great time meeting other skeptics who up to now have only been email or Facebook friends. We also learned many, many new things about a huge range of skeptical topics, from UFOs, to ghosts, to teaching skepticism, to skeptical parenting. It was expensive, and we had to take time off work, but it was a great vacation.

Get to know the skeptic superstars: I am lucky in having met many of my heroes in person, but even if you can’t afford to travel to a convention, you can befriend these people over the Internet. You can and should read and comment on their blogs, but you can also follow them on Twitter, friend them on Facebook,  and even email them. I’m not advocating that everyone in cyberspace start forwarding funny emails to Phil Plait (please don’t, he’s busy), I just mean that you can, via cyberspace, get to know the movers and shakers in the skeptical community. By doing so, you will learn so much and be motivated and energized!

Teach skepticism: It seems that the average American  does not know much about skepticism. So it is your challenge to educate as many people as you can! Talking about skeptical topics in a friendly, enthusiastic, way to friends and family is a great start. The Bad Astronomer Phil Plait recently expressed the need for skeptical passion very well. Teaching your kids how to think critically is crucial. You can blog if you want to, but be warned that you’ll mostly be preaching to the choir. A better idea might be to share articles on Facebook that demonstrate skeptical themes. When you share on Facebook, or Twitter, you are reaching all your friends, not just your skeptical ones. If you are able, you can go so far as to volunteer at your child’s school to teach a science topic, or offer free lectures on critical thinking at a library.

Becoming part of the skeptical community is something you can do. How hard you want to work and how much time you want to dedicate is your choice. But you can start today!

Now I’d like to open this up to you commenters. What ideas from Daniel Loxton’s booklet did you find most helpful? What ideas do you have that we missed?

http://skepticdad.wordpress.com

The cartoon network is currently testing out three new live action shows. One of the shows is called The Othersiders which is best explained as Teen Ghosthunters and is aimed at kids.

I’ve seen the first episode and some of the promotional material online and my main issues with this show are 1) that it assumes the existence of the paranormal as fact and 2) passes off sloppy thinking, “weird feelings”, and logical fallacies as critical thinking and true investigation.

This show claims to be “skeptical”, “scientific” and to conduct “thorough” investigations but in reality is credulous and obviously pro paranormal. Critical thinking is practically non existent. It wouldn’t bother me so much if they didn’t claim to be skeptical critical thinkers. If kids are watching this as an example of critical thinking they will be misinformed.

They say they do extensive research on the internet to find the most “credible” locations to investigate. KC, the team’s case manager, explains their decision to investigate the Lincoln Heights Jail in Los Angeles on their first episode, “The jail seemed credible because, so much stuff went on in that place there has to be paranormal stuff left over.”

Sam, the web master, explains why they use thermal cameras, “Paranormal energy is heat and our thermal detectors will pick that up.”

In the research they did about the location the kids read that when people entered a particular part of the jail they started to feel claustrophobic and dizzy. When two members of the team enter that part of the jail, surprise surprise, they also start to feel claustrophobic and dizzy. They consider this evidence of the paranormal. There is no mention that they may have fallen prey to the power of suggestion, that there may be a gas leak or that there may be any other explanation.

Check out the show and see what you think. If you, like me are not happy about this sort of stuff being marketed to kids, please write to the Cartoon Network and let them know what you think.  

Because this show is so new and they are still testing is out we can make a difference. 

Rational parents of the world unite!

One short year ago

My son turned one June 10th!  He is walking like a pro and can say six words:  mommy, daddy, ball, bubble, water, and, “Wow.”  (I don’t think he really understands what he’s saying with that last one, but it’s adorable.)

I have looked forward to this milestone for many reasons, and I can’t deny that one big reason was the promised end of nursing, as the AAP recommends breast feeding for one year.  I don’t know if I 100% buy this recommendation, but hey, I made it a year, which is something of an accomplishment.  So I’d like my certificate and my prize money, please, and then I’d like my old bras back. The only problem is that my son absolutely, positively hates cow’s milk.  The first time he tried it, he threw the sippy cup right off the highchair table.  I offered it again a little later, and he gave me a look that said, “Puh-lease.  As if I don’t remember what that is!”

Nowadays it is in vogue to breast feed into toddlerhood.  Women who have done this think it’s the greatest.  Apparently, it’s quite moving to hear your kids tell you about how much the boob means to them.  And hey, isn’t it “natural” to breast feed for several years?  I keep hearing that all around the world, weaning takes place later than in the US.  The WHO recommends breast feeding for two years, after all.

I have no hard and fast plan for weaning at this moment, and I have no answers about when it’s best to wean or how to do it.  I have no judgement against people who accomplish extended breast feeding–as many of my friends have done–or against anyone who decides to switch to formula immediately–as many other friends have done.  Heck, I don’t even judge this woman:

I’m not out to post the final decision on these questions, or even to dispel any popular myths on what is best.  In this post, I just wanted to share some interesting information I’ve come across that’s informed my thinking about weaning.  I hope that anyone reading this will take this post in the spirit of meandering intellectualism–or at least meandering Googlism.

First, it is always fascinating to think about what we’re “supposed” to be doing, biologically speaking.  If we weren’t driving around in cars, sleeping in nice comfy beds, and having babies in hospitals (er, most of us anyway), what would be the age we’d “naturally” wean?  I’m not saying I am a person who in any way tries to adapt my life to what’s natural.  I like my iPhone and a grande iced latte, thanks.  It’s just interesting to contemplate what is “normal” for us as human animals.

What would this mother do?

So I Googled “when to wean” and came across this article on BNET, originally from the Natural History Magazine, in which Kathy Dettwyler attempts to extrapolate, based on research into primate behavior, what the appropriate age of weaning for humans might be:

Studies of nonhuman primates offer a number of different means of estimating the natural time for human weaning. First, large-bodied primates wean their offspring some months after the young have quadrupled their birth weight. In modern humans, this weight milestone is passed at about two and a half to three years of age. Second, like many other mammals, primate offspring tend to be weaned when they have attained about one third of their adult weight; humans reach this level between four and seven years of age. Third, in all species studied so far, primates also wean their offspring at the time the first permanent molars erupt; this occurs at five and a half to six years in modern humans. Fourth, in chimpanzees and gorillas, breast-feeding usually lasts about six times the duration of gestation. On this basis, a human breast-feeding would be projected to continue for four and a half years.

Taken together, these and other projections suggest that somewhat more than two and a half years is the natural minimum age of weaning for humans and seven years the maximum age, well into childhood. The high end of this range, six to seven years, closely matches both the completion of human brain growth and the maturation of the child’s immune system.

I think it’s pretty obvious to point out that apes and monkeys do not use iPhones; therefore, it is difficult to make decisions about my life based on what a chimpanzee or a gorilla might do.  As much as I enjoy nursing, the idea of doing it for four years makes my heart sink.  Two?  Okay, maybe I could make it to two years.

I don’t doubt the veracity of Dettweyler’s nursing statistics.  However, the rest of the article gives more than a hint that it is biased towards breast feeding:

Substantial evidence is already available to suggest that curtailing the duration of breast-feeding far below two and a half years — when the human child has evolved to expect more — can be deleterious. Every study that includes the duration of breast-feeding as a variable shows that, on average, the longer a baby is nursed, the better its health and cognitive development. For example, breast-fed children have fewer allergies, fewer ear infections, and less diarrhea, and their risk for sudden infant death syndrome (a rare but devastating occurrence) is lower. Breast-fed children also have higher cognitive test scores and lower incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The copyright on this information is from 1997, which is a little dated by now, and as I posted once here, while breast feeding is great, to say that not breast feeding is “deleterious” is a specious claim.  To claim that it’s harmful to cease breast feeding before two and a half years–that’s crossing the line into annoying.  I mean, come on.  Just come on.

Okay, okay, I know I’m always sending readers over to Mainstream Parenting Resources, and I’m like some little devotee of Esther.  It’s always, “Well, Esther says this, and Esther says that.”  But what can I say?  She just says it so well.  So while I was writing this post, I wondered what Esther had to say about natural weaning, and guess what?  She is all over Ms. Dettwyler:

See, what Dettwyler’s overlooking is that it’s an inseparable part of human nature to create cultural rules – about weaning and everything else. Therefore, trying to extrapolate what humans would do if they were driven solely by biological forces is about as useful as speculating what humans would breathe if they had gills.

One of Dettwyler’s assumptions especially rankles in that regard: she claims that since the human immunological system isn’t fully developed until age 6 (true to an extent), some humans breastfeed until that age and beyond. However, if breastmilk were necessary to boost children’s immune system until it became fully functional, we’d expect all human societies – especially primitive ones with no access to antibiotics or modern hygienic practices – to nurse that long. The fact that the overwhelming majority of the world’s children don’t should be evidence enough that this assertion is bogus.

I would also submit that just because certain things may be “biologically correct”, doesn’t mean they’re actually the correct thing to do. For example, most girls in the western world develop reproductive ability between the ages of 8-16 years. Would any anthropologist be so bold as to suggest that girls as young as 8 should be reproducing, just because they can? It’s also biologically correct to walk around naked – after all, nobody is born clothed – but except for a handful of nudists, nobody actually walks around without clothing. Especially not outside, in mid-January!

I submit that it is possible, although not preferable, to walk around outside nude in LA, where I live, in mid-January.  And I’ve seen people do it.  But that aside, Esther’s rebuttal is solid.

Esther can’t stop picking on Dettwyler.  She posts three times on Mainstream Parenting Resources about Dettwyler’s paper.  The second post is what led me to this scholarly article by anthropologist G.E. Kennedy.  And yes, I read the whole paper.  Okay, I skimmed some of it.  But I did make it through the entire thing, and in essence, there’s a slight problem with calculating a natural weaning age based on analogs to monkeys.  See, we have bigger brains than they do:

If selection had targeted only the survival of the child, then humans would have continued to nurse long and wean late, like the other hominoids. Yet doing so would have prevented not only the development of our large brain, but would also have prevented increasing population numbers and the vital genetic diversity that accompanies population growth. It has been argued here that selection favored early weaning because the early shift to adult foods, despite the hazards to the weanling, supports the child during a critical period of neurological development; thus, selection in humans has favored not merely the survival of the child, but the intellectual potential of that child. The evolutionary tradeoff is harsh, but it was the only way we could have attained our large brain.

Esther’s third post on this subject (really, I had no idea she was so prolific on natural weaning age–and so irritated with Kathy Dettwyler–until I started this post)  lists many sources that delve into rather morbid studies of the corpses of young children:

It appears that one can use the different proportions of various nitrogen, carbon and oxygen isotopes in teeth and bones to determine the diet of a person, in infancy and at the age of death (i.e, plant-based, animal-based, or mixed). When you have the remains of a large population at the same site and of varying ages, you can estimate the age of weaning by looking at when the children’s bones showed a shift from a breastmilk-based diet to an adult food-based one according to the different isotope patterns in rib bones, which have a high rate of material turnover and reflect the proteins (the source of the nitrogen) ingested by the individual close to death. As infant mortality rates in the past were abysmally high, you can often find the bodies of babies and young children at such burial sites.

I found a bunch of studies done on various populations all over the world and at different historical periods which attempted to determine the weaning age in those population on the basis of stable isotope analysis.

And then, she lists the studies.  It looks like between two years and four years is about average for weaning age in most of the populations studied.

You know, I could maybe deal with two years.  We’ll see.

Another big question of mine:  how to accomplish said weaning?  I know some babies give up the breast on their own.  I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that my son will not be one of them.  He is a mad fan of the boob.  He latched on first try, and he has been a champion nurser since then.

On the plus side, I can eat a pint of American Dream Ice Cream with absolutely no fear of gaining weight.

On the minus side, my son has six teeth.  Need I elaborate?

I admit I am not that great at being strict or setting my own boundaries as a mom.  I think I’ve lapsed into what many might call Attachment Parenting practices, but it’s more out of being a softy than based on any kind of philosophical standpoint.  I posted here about sleep training.  I should recant that whole post.  We sucked at sleep training, as it turned out.  One more bout of croup, one more rough night of teething, and the whole thing slid down the drain.  We’re back to night feedings, and we put up with early morning wakings.  We’re exhausted.  We might be teaching our kid he can manipulate us.  Hey, what can I say?  We’re just improvising over here.

So I don’t think I’m going to be very good at denying the breast.  I keep hearing about child led weaning, and I really do hope things work out that way.  I remember the swaddling thing sort of ended peacefully like that.  I can’t quite remember the last time we swaddled.  One day, I just realized we hadn’t done it in a while.

But it looks like in the animal kingdom, things don’t always go smoothly.  I got this from Esther’s blog as well–just a little something about my cousin the rhesus monkey:

At about four months of age, rhesus mothers begin to resist the attempts of their offspring to nurse, and young rhesus macaques are fully weaned by the birth of their next sibling (Fooden 2000).

And it looks like the weaning thing is no picnic for rhesus moms:

Infants have their own repertoire of vocalizations which include “geckers,” which are harsh staccato sounds heard during weaning conflict. It is usually heard along with convulsive jerks of the body, and looks and sounds much like a human child’s temper tantrum (Lindburg 1971; Partan 2002).

Poor little monkey dudes.  That’s harsh.

Then, Esther touches on the Gusii of Kenya.  From Our Bodies, Ourselves:

Once weaned – a process that is assisted by painting the breast with bitter herbs, ignoring the pleas of a hungry child, or even slapping it when it reaches for the breast – the child is expected to contribute to the household. (p.95)

That’s the spirit.  Quit your freeloading, hands out of my shirt, and get to work.

So far, that’s my Google weaning journey.  I did hope to be done with breast feeding by now, but I’m still nursing, and it’s working out.  I’ll keep you posted.

I thought it would be cool to have a Rational Dad post here every now and then. I asked SkepticDad to do one, and got back to us about the Facebook group he just created for us.

I’d love to do something with a bit more substance in the future when I have more time, but for now, I’ve taken the liberty of creating a Facebook group for us….Here’s the group description that you can publish on your blog if you wish….

Parents are constantly bombarded with suggestions for techniques, services, and products, many of which don’t meet the minimum standards of scientific evidence.

We all want to do the best for our children, to keep them safe from harm and protect them from potential dangers. But in the stressful years of raising an infant or toddler, the innate instinct to keep our kids safe may trump critical thinking. Even the most rational of us may believe an extraordinary claim simply because we want our kids to grow up smart and healthy, but we must remember to question these claims and insist on adequate evidence. That is why it’s so important to create a community of parents that allows us to share ideas and promote skepticism.

This is the group for skeptical moms and dads who are knee deep in an ocean of parenting woo. Whether it be our constant battles against vaccine conspiracies, chiropractic for kids, or Baby Einstein, we stand as advocates for science and reason.

Join us at:
http://rationalmoms.com
or
http://skepticdad.wordpress.com

On Twitter:
@RationalMoms
@GlowdarkOur mission: to unite as parents and skeptics, advocate against pseudoscience and quackery, and pass on the love of science and reason to the next generation.

I know Laurie already posted below about the Facebook thing, but I just thought I’d throw this up anyway, because I really love the wording.  In fact, when I try to describe what we’re doing to people who might not be skeptics, I stumble for words, so I think I’m going to memorize this.

And also, where the heck did he get that picture?  Cute but creepy, really.