To think breastfeeding has made no difference to my dd and is massively overrated in terms of benefits?

[Placeanditspatrons]

I've nearly driven myself to a breakdown feeding my dd. She is 16 months now and I'm still feeding. She has been ill more times and worse than my formula fed from four months son. She does not recover any faster and she catches anything I get and gets it worse, despite supppsedly the antibodies passing to her and either preventing or reducing the severity of the illness.

I know it's anecdotal and the studies say overall bf babies are healthier but how much healthier? I mean I we talking one less cold? One less ear injection? Statistically? Many of my friends have said similar. Again anecdotal but I can't help wondering - after the colostrum which is more important I guess - does it really make any noticeable difference?

And EVERY pregnancy increases risk. EVERY newborn is vulnerable.

People need to understand that having a baby is all about trying to make informed choices re risk/benefit.

Aloysha, you need to read the Blair study in the link.

The '10 per cent' referred to in the UNICEF leaflet you link to is the '10 per cent' of SIDS babies who did not die in known 'hazardous' situations ie the 90 per cent in known hazardous situations include unsafe sleeping arrangements, parents smoking etc. Bed sharing with parents is not mentioned as an unsafe/hazardous situation per se, as long as the bed sharing is done safely - unless I am misreading.

These 'unhazardous 10 per cent' are babies who would have died anyway....they were no more likely to be bed sharing than in a cot, so there was nothing that could have been done. That's my understanding of the leaflet, anyway.

Grey, yes, science does improve on what nature provides in certain circumstances....if we're talking about babies, then an incubator in special care for a baby born very pre-term is better than dying in utero (though being close to mother or father in 'kangaroo care' enhances the care).

But breastmilk is equivalent to blood or lymph or cerebral or spinal fluid....and breasts are equivalent to heart, lungs, liver, kidneys etc etc. Can't see science developing replacements for these, to be honest. But in theory, yes, I suppose it could happen :)

I always wonder if in the Star Trek universe they have managed to replicate BM. When molly got transported through time and kirayoshi was being looked after by Worf and Jadzia there was never any evidence of feeding him anything at all.

I don't think any replacement based on animal milk is going to be better than human milk TBH. Ingredients in formula have to compensate for the abnormality of feeding anything but human milk and TBH are really not that advanced in comparison to BM though they are a million times more advanced compared to say Victorian times relative to themselves rather than BM.

That's why the recommendation for problems with BF is to feed your own expressed milk first, donor milk second and then formula.

Tiktok, so you're basing this one study, vs. the 5 that were reviewed to give the lullaby outcome?

And you are misreading the leaflet.. "IN 2014, 212 BABIES DIED OF SIDS IN THE UK: 0.03% OF ALL BIRTHS7
Previous UK data suggests:
■ around half of SIDS babies die while sleeping in a cot or Moses basket.
■ around half of SIDS babies die while co-sleeping. However, 90% of these babies
died in hazardous situations which are largely preventable.#,8"

I.e. 90% of the deaths in bedsharing situations were preventable, 10% were not.

Offred...it's a very small risk. It's a small risk that's acceptable to take IMO, as you say it can be safer than the worst cot arrangements, but it's inaccurate to say that there's no risk, or that the risk is comparable to the "perfect Moses" sleeping arrangement. It's just misleading.

I didn't say there was no risk. There is risk with everything you do with a vulnerable baby. Just sleeping is technically a 'risk'.

I'm just interested why you have spent so long banging on about how it is legitimate to think that the (small) increased risks re FF and a number of health outcomes are insignificant but a small increase, that is debatable, of death re bedsharing is to be taken seriously?

It doesn't make sense!

90% of all deaths were preventable not 90% of the bedsharing deaths.... it is just written in a misleading way.

And TBF SIDS deaths won't include cases of bedsharing where the COD is crushing or suffocation by body/bedding I wouldn't have thought, so clearly and obviously on the flipside bedsharing at least present the risk of rolling onto the baby and that risk is completely removed by putting babies to sleep in their own cot/basket but even then there are other risks, it is not risk free and all parents need to know what the actual risks are of different parenting behaviours.

"See Bert's incredulity when women tell her they couldn't BF),

I am not incredulous at all. But I honestly can't be arsed to say what I think again because even if I say it 50 times you will still say I am "incredulous" when told that some women can't breastfeed.

SIDS deaths are deaths that cannot easily be explained. The COD may be unclear but there may be in those cases the presence of circumstances which are known to be hazardous.

The thing that scares me about SIDS statistics is that the "don't share a bed" message is so strong that people sit up with their babies and falling asleep in an unplanned way with a baby is so much riskier than co sleeping in a planned aware way.

Alyosha, no, I haven't misunderstood the leaflet....you have, sorry. See Offred's post.

Blair et al found that in safe conditions, there was no evidence that bed sharing with parents was any more risky than sleeping in a cot. This was different from Carpenter's paper which the Lullaby Trust used.

Both respectable sources, BTW - but read the papers (they're freely available on line IIRC) and the Infant Sleep Info link I posted.

SIDS data is difficult, of course. In some studies they do include accidental suffocation (with pillows, being crushed against a headboard, clothing trapped in cot bars, baby smothered on sofa by adult body - all that sort of awful thing :( ) and my understanding is that while 'sudden infant death syndrome' is not really accidental suffocation, it can be hard to distinguish at autopsy. Safe sleeping advice is largely concerned with avoiding accidental suffocation.

The death of a baby is only called SIDS if it is somewhat not understood. People are interested in better understanding what causes infant mortality so they are trying to explain the true COD re SIDS babies. As we try to understand infant mortality better SIDS should reduce but not necessarily at the same rate infant mortality reduces because some of the SIDS deaths will not be preventable. The Blair paper hints that 90% of SIDS deaths may have a preventable cause.

Bertrand on Victoria Derbyshire programme in March, they had a 'don't co-sleep' message as an item. The case study they used, with interview with the grieving mother, was a sofa sharing one :( :(

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39381265

Alyosha, the value of research is not judged by 'how big is the pile of studies used by the authors to come to their conclusion?' so questioning me for using one study (which used two case control studies) to challenge the Lullaby trust's reference (which used 5) is not helpful. Both studies are respectable. Both differ in how they slice the data and what questions they ask.

I pointed out that the Infant Sleep Information's info for HCPs showed that one study differed in its conclusions from another - which showed no increase in risk (but which comes down very clearly against sofa sharing, as it happens). Read it yourself journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107799 - the authors are well-known in the field, and I think Blair and Fleming have decades and decades of research experience.

They may not have the last word on this - research is ongoing. As it should be.

"Today 09:08 Sunshineandlaughter

And for what it's worth Ireland is even worse than the U.K. As regards it's attitude to bfing - it's such a conservative country you can even hold hands with your husband without a tut in some areas - there's no support at all for young mothers boob feeding in public! I think it's got the lowest rate of bfing in Europe. Times are changing there now though so hopefully that is something which will soon change too."

I am Irish and I don't recognise this at all. I know MEN who hold hands with their husbands (remember that referendum?) in public who don't get tutted at, even in rural traditional areas. I breastfed in city and country areas and nobody seemed to express an opinion either way.

Maybe though this is a good case study - if Irish infants are so woefully under-breastfed, what are the negative effects on Irish children and Irish adults?

Sycamore - it's a fact Ireland has one of the lowest bf rates in Europe. I don't know why you don't recognise what I've said.
m.independent.ie/irish-news/health/ireland-has-worlds-lowest-rate-for-breastfeeding-30912066.html
Yes you are right - maybe it would be good to study health rates in the population against say Sweden.

I think my DD benefited from breast feeding. Anyway your baby your choice on how you feed.

I don't recognise the hyper conservative attitudes that you claim cause this rate. Women discouraged from holding hands with their husband in public, as if it were Saudi Arabia or Iran? Completely alien to the Ireland I know, both North and South.

I don't dispute the figures for BF, I juat dispute your description of the circumstances and by implication, the causes.

Sycamore - Ireland IS a conservative society but yes it's becoming progressive. Outside of Dublin you do rarely see public displays of affection and yes I've been tutted at. You probably don't notice as you are so ingrained in the norm being the norm. I would feel very unconfirmed feeding in Ireland in public outside of Dublin (and therefore haven't).
Not saying it's the only cause - it was just relevant to the discussion about prejudice towards bfeers. As the article points out its lack of formal health care support that's the real issue - as it is in the U.K.

Why Sunshine?

The nation's health is based on a shed load more factor's than a few months of breast milk.

Diet from weaning and throughout life. Exercise,lifestyle,living conditions,genes,stress,pollution ........

Haven't read the whole thread

My personal belief is that 1) a lot of the benefits of BF are probably long term rather than immediate, and that 2) we haven't yet discovered a lot of the benefits but may do in the future. I have no scientific evidence for either, just my view.

Like anything though, the benefits have to be weighed against the downsides. If BF is making you unhappy that is a large downside and may well outweigh the benefits - especially by 19 months (I suspect BF has most benefit pre solid food).

Offred - I am willing to accept I'm wrong on the advice, but I'm not seeing where it says that 90% of deaths overall are avoidable rather than 90% of cosleeping deaths?

Offred...it's all about understanding the risks and making your own decisions. All I'm saying is that we should give parents the risks and let them make up their own minds.

"I'm just interested why you have spent so long banging on about how it is legitimate to think that the (small) increased risks re FF and a number of health outcomes are insignificant but a small increase, that is debatable, of death re bedsharing is to be taken seriously?"

The risks of FF are small, but signficant (statistically), I personally don't think the small benefits of BF warrant the huge public health attention it gets but whatever. The only thing I'm objecting to is people saying that co-sleeping is as safe as the ideal room sharing arrangement, which most evidence & advice says it's not.

Tiktok, of course studies can be of varying quality. Are all 5 studies the lullaby trust used of lower quality in your view? It seems the consensus view is that bedsharing is dangerous.

Of course you have rejected a couple of studies that have gone against BF research consensus - the BFHI study that showed excess deaths related to his initiative, and the study showing pretty much no benefit to BF when compared to family controls.

Bert - so you think that genuinely lots of women can't breastfeed then, as they tell you? Because it sounds like you are unwilling to countenance the idea that many women physically cannot breastfeed.