to ask if you would use donated breastmilk if it was available rather than formula?

[bubbleymummy]

Inspired by another thread.

I personally would rather use donated milk. If you wouldn't - why not?

MrsSparkle, we're not saying it is guaranteed.

I know your not but your evidence is being stated as a fact, which it is not.

What is a fact is that more ff babies suffer from gastro-enteritis for example. The statisitics are there, that's not a theory.
We can't say that this one ff baby will develop it no. But it is a fact that's it's more likely.

"We can't say that this one ff baby will develop it no."

Confused? Which one ff baby?

The hypothetical individual who we can't clone to test on, just how I phrased it.

Mrssparkle - theories can incorporate facts and hypotheses - it is a very well supported theory with lots of evidence. If you would like to propose the opposite theory then you will need to have equal support and evidence in order to refute it,

I would, absolutely.

Right, so this proves that you cannot use average, more likely, statistics on individual cases. So by someone saying to me "I bf my dc so they will be healthier as they grow up then your ff dc" is nonsense isn't it. You have to take into account many different factors on an individual bases.

Rollitt / diarrhoea can be very dangerous for babies. It's not just 'a case of the trots'

bubbly unfortunatly we cannot clone people so until we do, and then do the relevant tests, we will never know the true results.

Glad you have stopped saying facts and started saying theories.

Not every smoker will get a smoking-related disease, but it's still a fact that smokers are more likely to get diseases such as lung cancer etc. I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp

NB I am NOT comparing ffing with smoking, it's just a health issue that most people seem to agree on.

I know a lady who had two boys under five and bf'd her new twin girls until they were two and donated breast milk! Another had immense problems bf so expressed for ten months and donated too

I would have happily taken their milk for my dc if I had had problems. I have always hated expressing so women who do, especially in circumstances like above are amazing!

By the way i am not saying there is another theory to this. I am merely pointing out that your theory can never be accurate with testing on indenticle people living in the same environment.

without testing on identicle people

but those "risks" are calculated based on a worldwide average. Taking into account the 3rd world where there is limited access to clean water and therefore the risk of gastro enteritis (sp?) is greater that means a 20% greater chance worldwide means that it's likely the percentage in the 3rd world is much, much higher, balanced out against the percentage in the developed world which is so low as to be almost insignifficant.

There is no study that says that babies in the UK who are ff are 20% more likely to develop gastro enteritis in the 1st year.

I don't like these "worldwide averages." In my case for instance, to say my ff child is 20% more likely to get X is very misleading. Some ff children may be 20% more likely yes,but not all ff children. I don't see how or why anyone would want to mislead parents like this? Tell people the potential risks yes, but to generalise just say if you ff your dc will be 20% more likely is very misleading indeed.

Mrssparkle - a theory CONTAINS facts and hypotheses. We are discussing a collection of facts and hypotheses that support the theory that bf children are healthier.

Bf babies who are exclusively bf and not on solids may be healthier yes. Once they get past that stage though, other important health factors come into the equation. So no, bf children aren't all healthier then ff ones.

mrs sparkle there will soon be a paper published which supports the recent one . It suupports extended bf but not exclusive until 6 months. Watch this space.

Mrs sparkle - studies done at uk level show the same thing. No one has said that you can take two random children and say which one is healthier based on whether they were bf or ff. You can say that one is MORE LIKELY to be ill but there are no guarantees. The studies look at the population as a whole not on a one to one basis!

I'll ask my colleague which uni she is publishing under when she gets back from her lecture

I don't think the science is settled rollittherecollette and i will quite happily challenge those that are so admant the science is fact. People seem to believe that as soon as they mention science and facts, you will roll over and call it quits.