Sentences with phrase «available scientific evidence does»

Not exact matches

Some barriers include the negative attitudes of women and their partners and family members, as well as health care professionals, toward breastfeeding, whereas the main reasons that women do not start or give up breastfeeding are reported to be poor family and social support, perceived milk insufficiency, breast problems, maternal or infant illness, and return to outside employment.2 Several strategies have been used to promote breastfeeding, such as setting standards for maternity services3, 4 (eg, the joint World Health Organization — United Nations Children's Fund [WHO - UNICEF] Baby Friendly Initiative), public education through media campaigns, and health professionals and peer - led initiatives to support individual mothers.5 — 9 Support from the infant's father through active participation in the breastfeeding decision, together with a positive attitude and knowledge about the benefits of breastfeeding, has been shown to have a strong influence on the initiation and duration of breastfeeding in observational studies, 2,10 but scientific evidence is not available as to whether training fathers to manage the most common lactation difficulties can enhance breastfeeding rates.

Abstract In this article, I consider social class and reading performance, outline a non-categorical approach to reading disability, describe the reading intervention program we have developed for older low - progress readers, and seek to demonstrate how students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds can, and do, make substantial progress when offered effective reading instruction based on the available scientific research evidence.

There is no reputable scientific evidence that raw foods are better for your pet - but we do know that cooking can make available more food energy from the meat protein your pet eats.

Myths about Hyperthyroidism The expert panel also did some myth busting based on the currently available scientific evidence.

«Whittling down guesses or extrapolations from limited observations by a factor of 10 or even 100 does not make these estimates any more credible, and the fact that they are the best available data is not sufficient to justify their use when the consequence may be extermination for cats... What I find inconsistent in an otherwise scientific debate about biodiversity is how indictment of cats has been pursued almost in spite of the evidence, and without regard to the differential effects of cats in carefully selected, managed colonies, versus that of free - roaming pets, owned farm cats, or truly feral animals.

«Alternative scientific views» must take the evidence into account and be able to explain the observed direction, magnitude, and pattern of trends (or potentially be able to do so as more data becomes available) at least as well as the prevailing hypothesis to be considered true alternative explanations.

Then there's the one that people «believe in» in order to do things — like being a farmer — that depend on the best available scientific evidence.

The home page of the petition project (http://www.petitionproject.org/ — no longer available) did provide a paper published in a purportedly «peer - reviewed scientific journal» (the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, OISM) as evidence in support of its stance.

They don't start from the political viewpoint that the consequences of an acceptance of CO2 are unacceptable, therefore conclude it must therefore be wrong, and work backwards through the available scientific evidence to try to justify an initial «instinctive reaction».

Understanding the way scientific conclusions are drawn from * available * evidence — as opposed to things that do not exist — is essential if you are going to get anywhere at all.

I am betting you can't do it, because the best scientific evidence available is that the lag exists.

The bottom line from the new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) knew, but didn't highlight, the fact that the best available scientific evidence suggests that the earth's climate is much less sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide input than the climate models they relied upon to forecast future global warming portray.