Aibu? to be pissed off at this: "The cost and social implications of using an infant milk should be considered when deciding how to feed your baby."

[Selyna]

WTF do Hipp mean by social implications?

Both methods of feeding a baby are acceptable so fuck off with the whole acting like ff is poison! my dd is perfectly fine but i hate this constant making me feel like a failure because i failed to bf although i tried so so hard!

That's the one! I read it years ago, it seems to have been cleaned up a bit but still has the bits in that I remembered so well:

Table 4 also raises the rarely discussed possibility of negative selection bias in estimates of the duration effects of breastfeeding. In this table, we see a shift in demographic composition for the longest durations. Compare, for example, mothers who breastfed longer than 12 months to those who breastfed 9?12 months. They have lower incomes, are less educated, are less likely to be white, and are more likely to be Hispanic, all factors correlated with worse child outcomes

So, the negative indications of EBF are being explained away by the wrong sort of mothers doing it :) . To which one would immediately say "hang on - if you say that, then all you have proven is that high demographic mothers have healthier, smarter kids than lower demographic ones" - ie the parents' genes and wealth predict the child's intelligence and health - which is hardly a revelation, and is BF/FF neutral.

And then this...

However, for 11 of the 15 indicators, the mean difference between breastfed children and others drops as duration increases beyond a year, as if it were harmful to be breastfed longer than a year. This conflicts with the generally held prior that breastfeeding is rarely harmful. One could imagine a causal factor to explain harm from prolonging breastfeeding beyond 12 months, such as increased exposure to environmental toxins in breastmilk

Which is of course a very odd statement, because if there are toxins after 12 months there are for sure going to be toxins before 12 months, especially when milk is the only food the baby is taking in. But explaining inconvenient truths away by a completely unverified and rather unlikely cause is all too common in BF "research", I have found.

And the killer line is this:

However, after taking sibling differences and estimating the within-family model (Table 5, last column), PVT score is the only outcome that remains significantly correlated with the duration of breastfeeding.

That is the actual, scientific, evidence based, conclusion of this report.

And remember, they were testing all sorts of things that BF supposedly helps - like BMI, diabetes, asthma, allergies, educational achievement, parent child bond, parent child interaction etc etc.

Ooops

The ending discussion has a far more positive spin than the report (as that is all most people will ever read), and tries to explain away these inconvenient truths by even more recourse to unlikely causes, but it now says (or at least I don't recall it saying before), that - buried in all the positive waffle of course - "Our results also suggest, however, that many of the other long-term effects of breastfeeding have been overstated"

That's an understatement if ever there was one - they found no causality at all :o

Whatmeworry - I did ask you several times further back on this thread whether you had a answer for the question of why, if it's so obvious for someone with little or no formal education in medical research and no formal knowledge of infant feeding (such as yourself) that breastfeeding has no benefits, all the major medical organisations in the UK and in the US are putting considerable resources into the promotion and support of breastfeeding?

I assume these organisations employ teams of researchers to do systematic reviews of a wide range of evidence. How can they do this and arrive at such a different conclusion to yourself?

Looking forward to your response!

Assume that, in theory, if you hadn't 'found' all the factors then one unknown factor could be causal for both 'breast feeding' and other identified benefits, so that could also explain a correlation between benefits and breast feeding? Not suggesting it could be, just interesting from the methodological point of view!

*Not suggesting it would be the case

Whatmeworry - I did ask you several times further back on this thread whether you had a answer for the question of why, if it's so obvious for someone with little or no formal education in medical research and no formal knowledge of infant feeding (such as yourself) that breastfeeding has no benefits, all the major medical organisations in the UK and in the US are putting considerable resources into the promotion and support of breastfeeding?

Actually, I think they are all backpedalling now (as per NCT "change of emphasis"). I think it will all be about a more "inclusive/holistic/lifestyle" (you name the smokescreen hiding the retreat) future "direction for all mothers"

After all, careers and reputations are at stake :o.

I assume these organisations employ teams of researchers to do systematic reviews of a wide range of evidence. How can they do this and arrive at such a different conclusion to yourself?

Well, I reckon they do know, but want to stay employed :o.

Ask yourself why that report's "Conclusion" and the actual findings have such a different emphasis....

"Actually, I think they are all backpedalling now (as per NCT "change of emphasis""

A change of emphasis from promotion to support doesn't suggest that the NCT has changed its position on the benefits of breastfeeding, only that they have redefined THEIR role.

Do you have any examples of any of the major organisations formally changing their position on the benefits of breastfeeding?

Or are you clutching at straws?

I'm not aware of any weakening of the view that bf is important for infant and child health.

If anything I think the NHS are strengthening their resolve to commit resources to enable more women to breastfeeding, and to breastfeed for longer.

"Well, I reckon they do know, but want to stay employed"

Whereas your motivation is the truth, and not in any way about justifying your own feeding choices?

chandelina consider yourself to have met a mother BFing a child under 1 and giving supplements....

whatmeworry WTF? After a whole thread of people saying that just saying breast is best is not only not enough but actively making people feel shit and what we need is more support, you are now claiming that the likes of NCT moving to a more support oriented role is backpedalling?

Ok entropy, glad to hear it. It seems to fall through the cracks with GPs, for pregnant women too.

Do you have any examples of any of the major organisations formally changing their position on the benefits of breastfeeding?.

"Last year, ministers pulled the funding for Breastfeeding Awareness Week and cash for the national breastfeeding helpline is now under threat"

Whereas your motivation is the truth, and not in any way about justifying your own feeding choices?

Meh, I'm a statistician, and I got curious about why the data didn't support the rhetoric.

Btw its wonderfully liberating when you realise that it doesn't really matter how you feed your baby, and that the important thing is to just to feed it.

you are now claiming that the likes of NCT moving to a more support oriented role is backpedalling?

The NCT is backpedalling from its strong "Breast is Best" stance to "support breastfeeding" and also embrace other forms of baby feeding now, it made a big splash about it all in January.

From NCT. In my opinion a very good thing.

"We're happy to admit that over the years we have perhaps been evangelical about breastfeeding because at that time, it was needed. Now we don't believe that that is the right approach.
Most women want to breastfeed and many stop before they want to because of external pressures such as a lack of support. We want to work with parents and remove any barriers that might be there"

whatme, NCT is not back pedalling - NCT emphsises and publicises its support role, rather than its promotional role....the official words are that we promote the conditions that best support breastfeeding (means things like cultural, social support for bf, employment, maternity rights) to differentiate from direct promotion of breastfeeding to individual mothers (which we never actually did). This is based not on any re-evaluation of the research into infant feeding but as a consumerist approach - women don't like being preached to, and want support and information. In fact, NCT's position springs from what mothers mainly want to do - breastfeed - rather than the (powerful) evidence that breastfeeding has positive health effects. It has always been thus, actually.

To suggest that the withdrawal of funding for the (useless, IMO) Breastfeeding Awareness Week is evidence of government seeing the light on infant feeding is daft - that was a political move in line with reduction of govt spending cuts in many areas of health promotion.

Discussing the sibling study is not very productive - you are still misrepresenting it, BTW, and focussing on one aspect which is not very relevant - and ignores the fact that overwhelmingly the research supports a public health position that enables more and longer breastfeeding.

To say there is some sort of conspiracy because agencies, researchers, governments, doctors etc etc etc really do know it it's all a big con, but as people want to 'stay employed' they shut up about it is crazy, it really is. The money, and the employment, is not in breastfeeding or supporting breastfeeding.

so the NHS is backpedalling from breastfeeding is it?
Seen the new Public Health Outcomes Framework?

Honestly I think Whatmeworry can carry on posting endlessly - it's easy when you are saying things off the top of your head.

I find the idea that there's a conspiracy among the top people in the NHS, the RCPCH and the RCM to hide the truth that breastfeeding has no benefits, well it's a bit bonkers isn't it?

Not just the RCM, RCPCH, NHS, Shagmund, but the WHO, UNICEF, NGOs the world over, the Indian Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Pediatrics, the Australian one, the Canadian one, the NZ one, all other health services and relevant professional bodies worldwide (at least, I have never heard of one that does not expressly mention breastfeeding as something that deserves support and protection - the ones I mention are just ones where I have read what they say )....it's an amazing, worldwide conspiracy of people and organisations who know the truth but are too scared to say it!

Sheesh.

sailor - "Its not a question of conspiricy; societies often reach a wrong headed consensus that some thing or other is "a good thing" or " a bad thing" without any real evidence and frequently at the expense of a particular group. Govenrments agencies doctors will simply reflect that consensus and fall in line." Example please? I mean, apparently you say this happens 'often'.....can you give examples, of a health-related consensus, that has been adopted worldwide without any real evidence?

stillor not sailor, sorry :)

In addition - you are making statements about bf research which are not true.

I have to do other things now, but there are many different types of study looking at breastfeeding and health outcomes.

You are overstating your case.

stillor, you ask why I asked you to limit examples to health....the answer is because I didn't want to go into fashion, or political movements, or dictatorships, or globalised financial movements. That's all.

I am still waiting for an example - after all, you very confidently said this sort of thing 'often' happened, so you must know of several.

I'm gonna be picky - lets leave Nazi Germany out of it, and lets have something that's happened in the last 70 years. Do share.

I am often asked the question you put here - very often. 'What happens if I decide to formula feed?' I tell the mother the truth.

My answer is usually something like 'the research tells us that the best health outcomes are seen in breastfed babies, and we know this from looking at many thousands of babies across many studies. In any individual baby, no one can predict the effect, and most formula fed babies grow up well and healthy - formula has to be made to internationally-agreed standards, and as long as it's prepared correctly, is the only safe way of feeding a baby who isn't breastfed. If you use formula you need support and information to do this."

If people ask me what are the health outcomes, I say the research is strongest with regard to gastro, ear, chest infections and much less clear with regard to allergies. I also have a view on the intelligence and diabetes research but dont go into it unless I'm asked. If someone asks about maternal health, I think it is right to mention breast and ovarian cancers, because for some women this is something they very much want to know about - and the research is consistent that not breastfeeding increases the risk, and there is a 'dose' response effect (the more breastfeeding = the more protection) .

I think many HCPs say something similar to me.