> We found that a history of breastfeeding was associated with a reduction in the risk of acute otitis media, non-specific gastroenteritis, severe lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, asthma (young children), obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, childhood leukemia, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and necrotizing enterocolitis...For maternal outcomes, a history of lactation was associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, breast, and ovarian cancer. Early cessation of breastfeeding or not breastfeeding was associated with an increased risk of maternal postpartum depression.
That's right. Associated, not causal. The problem is that mothers who are health-conscious, affluent, educated, etc are more likely to choose to breast-feed, as that is the recommended option by health providers. So, you can't say that the breast milk is the cause, simply that it correlates. Not a scientific proof, I'm afraid.
You're now suggesting that the authors of all of these studies failed to control the most obvious of outside factors?
I'm not sure why you are so resistant to these studies, but it's clear that no amount of scientific research is going to convince you that there are clear benefits to breastmilk.
"Even within the same social group, mothers who breastfeed are likely to be more health-conscious than those who do not breastfeed. This may also lead them to promote other healthy habits among their children, including prevention of overweight, promotion of physical exercise and intellectual stimulation. This may be particularly true in high-income populations. Because these maternal attributes are difficult to measure, it is not possible to include them in the analyses as confounding factors. Nevertheless, this possibility should be taken into account when interpreting the study’s results."
I'm not resisting studies - I'm reading them, rather than relying upon misinformation from other sources.
Also: "Early cessation of breastfeeding or not breastfeeding was associated with an increased risk of maternal postpartum depression."
That's what I am talking about as well - mothers can be made to feel irresponsible and guilty when they fail to breastfeed for whatever reason, which cannot be good for postpartum depression.
Sorry, are you now suggesting that someone being overly judgmental and perhaps not minding their business is a cause of postpartum depression?
That, my friend, is going to require a fuck of a lot of citations. You've managed at the same time to deny all of the science behind breastmilk benefits and significantly downplay a known medical condition as nothing more than feeling embarrassed.
> deny all of the science behind breastmilk benefits
I don't think I have done this. I have linked to scientific studies, and meta-studies, that indicate that the benefits are not clear and that more research is needed.
I think that you have denied all the science behind breast-milk not having significant advantages, by posting FUD about GlaxoSmithKlein being linked to all of those studies.
I'm not sure if you are picking up on the difference between association and causation.
I have not said that formula is better, and I don't believe it is. I think that the current dogma around breastmilk being worlds ahead is not justified by the scientific studies.
I am happy to change my mind and apologize for my truculence if I see the scientific data that the benefits are significant, causal, and proven. Got any links?
> significantly downplay a known medical condition as nothing more than feeling embarrassed.
I have linked to scientific studies, and meta-studies, that indicate that the benefits are not clear and that more research is needed.
Except that they don't. That's why I quoted your link right back to you. While they say that for certain areas like a link to intelligence (which you will note I have not ever raised), they fully support numerous health benefits.
I should note that your link was a study of studies; one giant peer review done right before your eyes. It's pretty conclusive.
There is - supported by links that you submitted yourself - significant scientific evidence to suggest that breastfed babies receive health benefits that formula fed babies do not.
Ergo, breast milk is a better option for a baby. You've presented nothing to support otherwise, beyond your own personal bias.
> Ergo, breast milk is a better option for a baby. You've presented nothing to support otherwise, beyond your own personal bias.
My claim was that breastfeeding should be encouraged, and that your claim of scientific proof was less solid than you might think. I agree that I have not presented evidence that breastmilk is not a better option - I don't think that, and I certainly haven't said that, hence my lack of presentation.
I've asked for causal evidence that there are significant benefits from breast milk. That study's conclusion specifically warns against inferring it.
You've now changed your claim from "proven" to "suggest". I'm happy with that - I agree that evidence suggests it is a better option, I disagree that there is proof that people who are breastfed are healthier due to the breast milk. I know it is often repeated, but it is not true.
> We found that a history of breastfeeding was associated with a reduction in the risk of acute otitis media, non-specific gastroenteritis, severe lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, asthma (young children), obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, childhood leukemia, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and necrotizing enterocolitis...For maternal outcomes, a history of lactation was associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, breast, and ovarian cancer. Early cessation of breastfeeding or not breastfeeding was associated with an increased risk of maternal postpartum depression.