Published online October 1, 2007
PEDIATRICS Vol. 120 No. 4 October 2007, pp. 927-928 (doi:10.1542/peds.2007-2132)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bernard, A.
Right arrow Articles by Carbonnelle, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bernard, A.
Right arrow Articles by Carbonnelle, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Office Practice

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Criticism of Infant Swimming Practice Is Political, Not Scientific: In Reply

Alfred Bernard, PhD
Marc Nickmilder, PhD
Sylviane Carbonnelle, MD
Unit of Toxicology,
Department of Public Health,
Catholic University of Louvain,
B-1200 Brussels, Belgium

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

We were a mite surprised by the letter from Dr Reich stating that our article on the respiratory effects of infant swimming1 had a "number of epidemiologic and statistical problems" and had been published mainly for "political rather than scientific purposes." At the reading of Reich's letter, it seems, however, that the "number of epidemiologic and statistical problems" is reduced to 2 points. First, he wonders why the risk of a positive exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) test was adjusted for parental smoking but not the risk of doctor-diagnosed asthma (DDA) or of DDA and/or EIB test. Actually, if . . . [Full Text of this Article]