To think breast fed babies are more intellegent

[thecatamongthepidgeons]

Because their parents tend to be more intellegent not because they were breast fed?
More intellegent parents are more likely to choose to breast feed regardless of any dificulties they face if they think it will benefit their children.

Was that to me ruby? If it was, can't you read? I said OFTEN NOT ALWAYS.

So FGS to you too.

Oops, no I see now it was to Milamae, sorry. Clearly I can't read [bliush]

or type!

? kungfupanda where exactly???

here perhaps: do you know, if the majority of women said, do you know what - i don't WANT to breastfeed. piss off. don't help me. i want nothing to do with it, then I wouldn't care. but that is not the case. they do care. a lot. which is precisely why people are getting so pissed off on this thread. because they do care. And that is what is unacceptable. mothers should be helped to achieve their breastfeeding goals whatever they may be. but they are not. and that is what is a tragedy. and that is why people like MilaMae saying it doesn't make any difference, matters to me. it matters alot.

or here: edkr i'm sorry i didn't reply to individual posters in the way you would appreciate - i read it all very quickly and had to rush off. but incidentally no one has acknowledged every single point i have made - indeed you chose to call me hysterical after a post which said that 'people keep saying why do the bfers bother about the way a mother feeds her baby, and the reason is because it bothers the mother. mothers want to breastfeed, and they are more often than not, failed by those that are supposed to support them. that is what makes me so angry'. you didn't acknowledge that point at all but there we are.

or here maybe: people keep saying why do the bfers bother about the way a mother feeds her baby, and the reason is because it bothers the mother. mothers want to breastfeed, and they are more often than not, failed by those that are supposed to support them. that is what makes me so angry and makes me post pictures of dying babies when other posters repeatedly post anecdotal rubbish about how they have the healthiest, slimmest, most able to read by the age of two children ever and they were fully formula fed. well that is great. but there are women who are devastated by failing at breastfeeding at those are the ones who deserve someone to get angry on their behalf. so go ahead, tell me i am being offensive. and i will say right back at you. it is offensive to all the people working tirelessly round the globe to try and turn the tide on infant feeding to hear that breastfeeding is inconsequential. it is not inconsequential to the baby. it is not inconsequential to the mother, and it is not inconsequential to this planet either, considering the amount of plastic and other materials that are used to box, distribute and manufacture billions of pounds worth of artificial milk for infants, and, toddler milk aswell.

u r talking rubbish

no liggers, twas to milamae

Selective highlighting does not prove your point. Don't be silly.

why don't you try some to prove yours?! evidence is important, no?

"irresponsible" how exactly?

Is challenging questionable stats "irresponsible" now then? Are mothers not allowed to have a brain,think for themselves?

Errrm we don't live in a police state where we're forced to believe every bit of publicity we're fed.

My baby,I decide what's best and I can challenge whatever stat twisting or scaremongering I like.

This total fury at stat challenging is a particularly worrying trait amongst booby gang members.

booby gang members

Important to who? Everyone posting here has read the thread. Everyone has seen the way in which you have responded to people's personal experiences. Everyone has seen the comment about breast cancer. Everyone has seen the comments about sub-standard formula. Everyone has seen both postings of a picture of a dead baby.

If you think your approach has been acceptable then that is a matter for you. Clearly you know you haven't taken a balanced approach given your comments about "going off on one".

Ruby you're repeating yourself again.

You haven't listened to a single thing anybody told you last time you posted those points.

oh my word this is ludicrous!

Milamae - I'm not loving the "booby gang members" thing. I don't think it is fair on those who have taken a balanced approach.

repeating myself hahaha

going off on one was simply referring to talking about someting other than intelligence, although others are doing the same

"However people like you seem to put forward every theory on the benefits of bf as uncontroverted fact"

Oh come on - that's not fair.

There's good, strong evidence from hundreds and hundreds of reliable sources that breastfed babies get fewer illnesses than formula fed babies, and this information is passed on to parents through reputable bodies like the Royal College of Midwives and the NHS.

I'm quite willing to accept that research on this issue can sometimes be conflicting and contradictory, but that doesn't justify all the voices on this thread insisting that there are no proven benefits to breastfeeding. If this really was the case then it would be bizarre and inexplicable that major health bodies like the NHS and the WHO were disseminating information to suggest otherwise.

I appreciate what you're saying about the weaknesses of observational studies, but if you'd read everything on the page you linked to you would have seen an update from 2010 (the original study you linked to was done in 2006)

"Reanalysis in light of Byelorussian trial
Warren J Dew, father
02144
Since this study was completed, the results of a controlled breastfeeding experiment on 17 046 infants was completed in Byelorussia (Kramer, et. al., Breastfeeding and Child Cognitive Development, Archives of General Psychiatry, May 2008). This experiment showed that encouraging mothers to breastfeed resulted both in increased breastfeeding and in a significant increase in infant IQ. Since this was a controlled experiment where infants were assigned randomly to either a control group or an intervention group, Maternal IQ could not have been a causative factor."

And this response to the original study from a doctor which is strongly critical of the methodology used by Derr:

"Der and colleagues show that the relationship between breastfeeding and intelligence (IQ) in children is strongly confounded (and almost eliminated) by the positive relationship between maternal IQ and breast feeding.1 The difficulty of defining ?breast feeding? in this study (acknowledged by the authors) is, however, a major weakness. Neither frequency nor duration could be measured. The term ?breast feeding? alone is not sufficient to describe the numerous types of breastfeeding behavior.2 Information about exposure, i.e. breast feeding frequency, duration and intervals plus other information (such as type, timing and amount of other feedings) are essential to evaluate the outcome of interest (IQ).

I was also disappointed by the editing of this paper. In my view, the conclusion of the abstract ?Breast feeding has little or no effect on the intelligence of children? seriously overstates the findings by omitting key qualifications. While at the end of the article the editors comments in ?What this study adds? are slightly nuanced, they again mislead.

How readers approach our research reports matter. There is variability in how journal articles are read.3;4 Practitioners may read them to advise social policies or to shape interventions with families. Many time-pressed readers only read the title and some of them will continue reading the abstract only if the title attracts their interest. Only, a minority read them from the first word of the title through the last word of the discussion. In the breast feeding and intelligence article, those who only read the abstract might be misled into considering that any kind of breast feeding pattern has little or no effect on intelligence in all children because they have missed key qualifications. You may consider this as an error of the reader, but the consequences pull out into family practice and policy with implications for people's lives. On the other hand, I argue that this is an error on the part of authors. There is a concern about how the authors of this article have not presented the finding of short duration of breast feeding in non-low birth weight children in the abstract. Furthermore, the misleading title could have been changed to a more reflective one such as: Effect of short duration breast feeding on intelligence in non-low birth weight children. I believe every effort should be made to ensure that each section accurately reflect the real concept behind the article.

Abbas Esmaeili, MD "

kungfu the only evidence you have for your assertion is in my first post on this thread and the cancer comment was misquoted too. see Wed 16-Mar-11 16:18:54
and the fact that you are using 'everyone has seen... everyone...' to add some authority to your accusation speaks volumes.

spudulike that IS interesting.

Just in case you miss this important point, I've highlighted it for you:

"In the breast feeding and intelligence article, those who only read the abstract might be misled into considering that any kind of breast feeding pattern has little or no effect on intelligence in all children because they have missed key qualifications"

and

"There is a concern about how the authors of this article have not presented the finding of short duration of breast feeding in non-low birth weight children in the abstract. Furthermore, the misleading title could have been changed to a more reflective one such as: Effect of short duration breast feeding on intelligence in non-low birth weight children"

Very, very important, given the 8 IQ point advantage that a number of studies have found associated with bf in low birth weight and premature babies.

Since I didn't quote the comment about cancer, it is a little hard to see how it could have been misquoted.

What speaks volumes is the volumes you have posted on this topic. We can all keep posting "you said...no I didn't, I said...no you didn't" but it is all there in black and white so it is a bit pointless posting and re-posting over and over again. If you want to do that then go ahead, but I don't think it is the best idea you have ever had.

Ruby - I think it's fascinating that people find the very idea that bf might be linked to better cognitive development in babies odd or unlikely.

Surely it's reasonable to hypothesise that the very real and extensive differences in the constitution of human milk and formula might have some impact on the health and development of a fast growing baby.

And that the idea that it doesn't make a difference has found a foothold in a population of women who are usually quite analytical and concerned about their own diets and the diets of their children - women who've been brought up to believe that there's a lot of mileage in the idea 'you are what you eat'.

Except of course when it comes to small babies.

"What speaks volumes is the volumes you have posted on this topic"

She's standing her corner for something she feels strongly about. Good for her.

Milamae - are you on another one of these threads spouting the same misinformation again?! Surely you must have learned something from the previous ones? The risks are very real and not minuscule by any means. You have been provided with facts and figures over and over again but you must read them or else you're just very forgetful!

Must not read them*