"Either way it would be wonderful if FF mums could not be constantly harangued that their baby has such and such because they were FF."
But where has this happened ??"
Quite.
It's part of our bizarre UK mythology around breastfeeding support and promotion.
At a population level there are sometimes small differences between BF and FF, but they can't even say for sure whether these are caused by other factors
Sorry - who's 'they'?
Every single major reputable organisation advising on the health of mothers and babies - including the NHS, the RCOG, the ACOG, the AAP, Unicef, you name it, is clear that breastfeeding reduces the incidence of minor and also serious ill health in BOTH mothers AND babies, and that advice is made on the basis of large epidemiological studies and meta-analysis of research which controls for a huge range of other factors which might affect outcomes.
*"It also distracts attention from the fact that breastfeeding reduces the incidence of SIDS, and results in significantly fewer GP visits and hospital admissions in babies under 6 months."
"I didn't think that was ever actually proven"*
Well if it wasn't, you've got to ask yourself why the NHS and the Lullaby Trust - the main UK SIDS charity is posting this on their website: (C&P)
here
"Breastfed babies have a lower chance of SIDS
As long ago as 1965 it was shown that babies under 3 months who died of SIDS were less likely to be breastfed than infants who did not die. Since then, numerous studies have supported the protective effects of breastfeeding, with one overview report concluding that breastfeeding reduces the incidence of SIDS by approximately half.
Even a brief period of breastfeeding can be protective for your baby. It has been shown that both partial and exclusive breastfeeding have been associated with a lower SIDS rate, but that exclusive breastfeeding was associated with the lowest risk."
I'm shocked and saddened at the level of ignorance on this thread.