home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.activism:19765 sci.med:22957 misc.kids:31001 talk.politics.medicine:416
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!pitt!geb
- From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
- Newsgroups: alt.activism,sci.med,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine
- Subject: Re: AMA Calls for Ban on Infant Walkers
- Message-ID: <17874@pitt.UUCP>
- Date: 22 Dec 92 16:51:57 GMT
- References: <1992Dec10.011855.27590@r-node.gts.org> <1992Dec11.150624.26020@news.media.mit.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.pitt.edu
- Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
- Followup-To: alt.activism
- Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1992Dec11.150624.26020@news.media.mit.edu> stanzi@media.mit.edu (Constance "Stanzi" Royden) writes:
-
- >>actually hamper walking development. Studies show that children
- >>who use walkers often bypass the crawling stage, retarding
- >>development of certain cognitive skills, such as reading.
- >
- >I agree that walkers can hamper walking development (babies apparently
- >use different muscles and coordination to move a walker around), but I
- >wish they hadn't tagged on the assertion that skipping crawling could
- >hamper cognitive development. I think this is rather ireesponsible
- >reporting. I understand from what I've read that it's moderately
-
- Well, the original poster said "studies show" that such skills were
- retarded. Now perhaps the studies were faulty, but it was not necessarily
- irresponsible reporting if there really were such studies, is it?
-
-
-
-
-
- --
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Gordon Banks N3JXP | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
- geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu | to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-