@soccermom7573:
Where is the proof that Baby Plus is harmful?
The evidence is purely anecdotal---Scan over Amazon's negative reviews. Consistent autism reports, which might have some merit. Some deafness reports appear to have been deleted now. I am not saying that these reports are believable---everything has to be investigated. However, when you see dozens of similar reports, they may indicate something. This is why I said "could".
You state music and meditation has little to no help towards an unborn baby, and then say that it does? Yor opinions keep opposing each other. Therefore I think is the trouble we are all having with trying to understand what you are truly saying.
I have been saying that there's little to no support of prenatal music or meditation to the baby (but there may be sizable benefit to the mom). When you read dozens of articles on, say prenatal music exposure, and found half supports and the other half contradicts PL, what do you conclude? Especially so, when the paper I quoted above said "it is methodologically complex,
has not been reliably confirmed as a method for the fetus, is non-physiological, and has been reported to occur in
anenchepalic fetuses 2."
You talk about baby plus one second and then the concept of prenatal learning.
I am talking about both. Baby Plus is absurd. The concept of prenatal learning is absurd until it is proven otherwise, given the many difficulties, as the scientific paper I referenced says (and a lot more).
@MamaOfWill:
So you've fine combed the entire internet on this topic, every language, all restricted documents and also went back in time just to check on the Egyptians and Mayans did you? That's wonderful! I hope (for your part) that you've not been doing your research the same way as you've been reading posts here because that would mean you've wasted a lot of your time. (You can do a lot of research on any given topic and still only cover a fraction, so one should be careful when assuming you know all of any given subject)
When you do research, you survey a sizable portion of *recent* articles (say, within the last 10 years or even newer). These articles *will* reference (a sizable amount of) older articles and summarize them to show that these authors do know their field and are not claiming things out of the blue. Such summaries are adequate most of the times and thereby saving the time of the researchers that come after these authors. The reference to older articles are useful to pull out details, whenever necessary. There is another class of scientific paper called "review papers" which summarizes ALL knowledge of the topic so far. There are review articles published every 2-3 year (depending on the field). So, you don't need to read absolutely everything. Just a good sampling and it will do. After all, PL is unlike archaeology, so no need to read ancient documents.
I already offered you the scientific articles I based my opinions on and you offered none. I am not sure why you are claiming me making hasty assumptions.
Digg
