Rather than seeing Preparation for Parenting and Parent Directed Feeding as a Biblically sound way to parent, I see the opposite. Mr. Ezzo has misused, twisted and stretched Scripture to support his own ideas of parenting and has ignored Scripture that contradicts it. I've noted a couple of the medical discrepancies this causes. Others have commented more thoroughly on them. Rather than summarize or repeat them, I refer you to the following links. A couple of these are statements by doctors and others are articles. There are some very serious concerns levied against Mr. Ezzo and GFI and I urge you to read them with discretion. 

	Babywise advice linked to dehydration, failure to thrive by Matthew Aney, M.D.
	According to Dr. Matt Aney, there are at least thirty five unsubstantiated and/or false medical statements in Babywise
	AAP ADDRESSES SCHEDULED FEEDINGS VS. DEMAND FEEDINGS
	~~ This statement is apparently in response to the media attention being given to the demand vs. schedule feeding issue generated by GFI materials

	The Brave New Baby by Thomas S. Giles; reprinted from Christianity Today
	A Tough Plan For Raising Children Draws Fire, 'Babywise' Books Worry Pediatricians and Others; Washington Post
	Getting wise to "Babywise"; Salon Magazine
	In God's hands?: Religious-based parenting program may endanger some infants by KELLY GRIFFITH; Bradenton Herald Internet Plus

As I have mentioned, Preparation for Parenting is not supported in the medical literature. As a matter of fact, the endnotes in the manual are sorely lacking. Of the 29 notes included:

• 18 are from the appendix, "The Secular Mystics." This section is a discourse on secular parenting philosophies, and although and interesting lesson on the history of secular view of human nature (ie the innate goodness of mankind), does not lend support to Mr. Ezzo's routine.
• 4 more are not actually references, but Ezzo's interjected comments:
• #4 is personal opinion on extended breastfeeding 
• #7 is an brief discussion on the development of infant immune systems. It could be accurate, but there is no actual study referenced. 
• #8 is personal opinion on the nonexistence of nipple confusion. Again, Mr. Ezzo's statement contradicts most other's. LLL and most pediatricians believe nipple confusion can be an actual problem. 
• #9 Is a refuted discussion of "normal" crying periods. Although it is based on studies, Mr. Ezzo provides no actual reference. See my footnote 2.

• #1 is related to feeding history, specifically "hyperscheduling" and does not support to PDF. This endnote also contains Mr. Ezzo's analysis of what the reference means.
• #2 is an extremist definition of demand-feeding. It does not illustrate the typical practice of demand feeding, yet Mr. Ezzo has chosen to use it as the basis for his rejection of this feeding practice. Rejecting this extremist view does not necessarily mean one must accept PDF.
• #3 is another reference to feeding history. It is a commentary on child-centered parenting and lends no support to PDF.
• #11 is a comment on the bonding theory and maternal behavior. I believe this study to have been refuted by more recent studies, but either way, it is a comment on bonding and not PDF.

• #5 is another historical reference, this time, trying to establish that infant feeding routines were the norm in Hebrew society. "According to the definitive work on the subject, a Hebrew mother did not carry her baby in a sling; instead, she swaddled her young infant and left him in his cradle when attending to her daily chores." This work is difficult to find, apparently not a major work, and is refuted by other sources. According to Lisa Marasco, IBCLC, Mr. Ezzo "misapplied it in neglect of statements on the next page." In Infant Feeding in Ancient Israel: A Commentary on the Ezzos, Katherine Dettwyler, Ph.D., an anthropologist at Texas A and M University writes,

The concept of scheduling infant feeding began early in this century with "scientific" approaches to mothering and the desire to raise children who could cope with factory work (I kid you not). . .Anthropological studies of breastfeeding frequency in "traditional cultures" shows that mothers may feed children earlier than they are indicating a want/need, because mom has something else to do, or they may try to placate the baby by tying them on their backs when they have something they have to finish (in other words, not everyone drops what they are doing to nurse the baby truly "on demand" in every culture), but that no one outside of industrialized/Western cultures nurses children on a schedule. People simply have no access to clocks, pay no attention to how long it has been since the child last nursed, etc. Kids are carried with the mother as she does her work, and her nursed very very frequently. My own research in Mali (West Africa) shows that women nurse their children while doing their work, and children are thought to have the absolute right to be nursed whenever they need/want. It is certainly true that Mary, and other women of ancient Israel, and around the world today, work very very hard and have lots of physical labor that they must accomplish each day. NONE OF THEM nurse according to a schedule, however, nor do they do much of anything else according to a schedule except perhaps prepare meals. They incorporate frequent and irregular nursing into their lives without missing a beat. Short of having a time machine to go back and watch, I think we can safely assume that Jesus was nursed several times an hour, around the clock, slept with his mother, was carried on her back, and nursed until he was 3 to 4 years of age, or older. 

Again, Mr. Ezzo has sought out the one piece that appears to justify his position while ignoring that the bulk of the evidence contradicts it.
• #7 is a La Leche League study pointing out the demand-fed babies wake "as often as every 2 hours on a recurring basis" and that they "may do that routinely for 2 years" (page 66). Mr. Ezzo's point is that his feeding plan will condition a child for continuous night time sleep, while demand-feeding interferes with it. Although demand fed babies do not sleep through the night as early as PDF babies, Mr. Ezzo fails to prove that this is harmful or ungodly, and as Katherine Dettwyler asserts in her article Sleeping through the Night, it may actually be good for a child to *not* sleep through the night.
• #10 is a reference to support his statement that "colic is very rare PDF babies but is intensified in demand-fed babies." (page 150). The actual endnote reads, "Pediatrician Leila Denmar believes that 'one of the most common reasons for crying and fussing is when a baby is fed too often and his stomach doesn't have time to rest, thus causing discomfort.'" Notice this doctor "believes." The true cause of colic is unknown. Studies have failed to prove a correlation between frequent feedings and the current stance of the AAP is that "The definite cause [of colic] is unknown. Demand-feeding is not cited as a cause nor is any relationship established between colic and demand breastfeeding."

Mr. Ezzo insists there is medical support for his position, yet he refuses to produce it stating, "Yes, the research is available. But you will need to take the time to pull it together, if you are really interested." I have not looked in the medical journals personally, but know some who have looked and could not find it. Mr. Ezzo further insists he's had peer review of his materials. When asked who these peers are, he responds, "Can you have our list? No, these people are too important to be bothered with the trivia served up by the critics." (Both quote taken from the Bradenton Herald Internet Plus, Q & A with Gary Ezzo KELLY GRIFFITH.) I have 2 problems with these answers. First, if I had uncovered some new medical evidence, I would be anxious to show them to the world. Mr. Ezzo has created an entire infant management program around these supposed new and better claims, yet refuses to produce them. I have to wonder "why?" and until Mr. Ezzo chooses to cooperate, I can only assume the answer is, "Because they don't exist." Second, I find these responses to be quite rude toward those who are looking for honest answers. Many of the questions have come from respected professionals attempting to resolve a controversy and get to the bottom of the issue in the best interest of infants around the world. Yet, Mr. Ezzo refuses to answer and puts them off with insults. I would think, for a man whose ministry goal is to instill godly character in Christian children, Mr. Ezzo could display more of the godly characteristics of cooperation and brotherly love.

 In summary, Preparation for Parenting begins on the right note and with the correct goals. However, in actual practice, this material is Biblically tenuous, medically inaccurate, and dangerous. I believe Mr. Ezzo has acted in a less than gracious manner towards brothers and sisters in Christ and that GFI has discredited themselves with multiple medical inaccuracies. I am deeply grieved that the secular world is beginning to see this program as a model for Christian parenting. I would not spend one penny on materials from a ministry that has acted in a manner which endangers infants and refuses to acknowledge their errors and I urge my readers to avoid GFI materials as well. But please, don't take my word for it. Examine the evidence yourself. Follow the links I've included in the article and check this page for more:

It contains links to the articles I've sited above as well as many others. You will also find the link to the GFI website where you can read their side of the story. Also, Dr. Aney, a pediatrician in California, has prepared a packet of information about the Ezzos' programs and GFI. If you would like to receive this packet, send him an email at ANEYBODY@aol.com. Include your snail mail address. 

	Endnotes