Children who are breastfed are less likely to develop neurological conditions, including autism, a new study found.

[EddyF]

Researchers studied 570,000 infants, about half of which were breastfed for at least six months.

They found exclusively breastfed babies were 28 percent less likely to be diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental condition (NDC), such as autism, ADHD and cerebral palsy.

Breastfed babies were also 18 percent less likely to have delays in language and social milestones compared to babies who were breastfed for less than six months.

Babies who were partially breastfed - possibly supplemented with formula - were 14 percent less likely to have delays.

The reduced risk even persisted among siblings, who would most likely have similar genetic risks if they have the same parents. Those who were breastfed for at least six months were nine percent less likely to have milestone delays.

Article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14531215/amp/Parenting-choice-slashes-childrens-autism-risk.html

Also having to sit for a long time. If you have adhd that is really hard. Having a partner take on a lot of the feeding os a huge help if you are ND.

The existence of research is not a personal attack.

The DM article hyped it up to be all about autism when it isn't. The actual study is about developmental delays in general and also looked at neurodevelopmental conditions in general. There were no conclusions about any one condition in specific which is where this article is bollocks.

But the study which PPs have linked did have a huge sample size and used sibling pairs to control for variables. They did find a significantly higher likelihood of developmental delays at 2 or 3 years old for a child who had never been breastfed compared to their sibling who had been breastfed.

No it was weak and vague. It was also looking at babies that bf exclusively for 6 months

Yes, about autism or any other specific conditions it's vague because it didn't separate them out in the results. Like I said the study is not about autism as the DM headline makes it out to be.

And weak for several other reasons

Which are?

Come on.

Not only is there lots wrong with the study you’ve posted (correlation does not equal causation for one), also ask yourself - is this helpful?

Or are you just taking potshots and trying to hurt parents who’ve done their very best to rear their children with the very best resources they could dependent on their circumstances and ended up with a child who is neurodiverse. Which could and probably would have happened no matter what. But now they feel even more guilty.

Bloody hell. Life’s hard enough.

(Largely undiagnosed) autistic mothers are more likely to have sensory issues that make breastfeeding difficult. They’ve also passed their autistic genetics to their children long before they start feeding them.

Just my theory on any correlation.

The original study is the Journal of the American Medical Association Network Open.
It’s a reputable source.

It’s clear from this thread people don’t want this study to be true I think. That doesn’t make it untrue. It’s a study at a population level. Individuals here who BF autistic children or vice versa can’t contradict the overall trend shown. You need huge numbers to do that.

It is obviously correlation only, so who knows about causation.

Exactly. I think people are immediately thinking "this study must be bullshit because it claims a benefit of breastfeeding" and then retroactively trying to find something wrong with it.

Definitely. Pretty sure my 2 older children are diagnosed ND because their dad and I most likely are. my youngest is just a baby still but wouldn’t surprise me if she is ND too. Again, because it can run in families.

Nope , we are just sick of snake oil nonsense that tries to convince the public that neurological conditions can somehow be caused or prevented by food/medicine/other.

Not only is this dangerous, because it can makes people think they can cure themselves/their children, it also helps the public feel less bad about themselves when they are cheering on removing support for people with neurological conditions because they can help themselves be better if only they are the right food/did the right exercise/took this oil .

Nope not at all- just calling out bullshit.

Can you provide a critique of the study please? Just calling it bullshit isn’t helpful - why do you think this?

The same thing happens on any threads about breastfeeding research. But with regards to the neurodivergence angle, the problem is absolutely with the daily mail and not with the study. See quote from the study:

"This work evaluated the potential contribution of breastfeeding to favorable development. The aim of this study was not to alter or reduce neurodivergence but rather to maximize each individual child’s abilities and minimize functional gaps, thereby promoting inclusion of neurodiversity in a world with a majority neurotypical population. We made efforts to define relevant variables while being constrained by the secondary use of data."

That the daily mail takes this study and says that breastfeeding could cut your child's autism risk by 30% is a grotesque misrepresentation.

Publishing in an internationally recognised medical journal is more or less the opposite of snake oil nonsense though?

I understand the dangers of public perception that you point out (I have a child with autism) but I don’t think that’s a good enough reason not to do these studies tbh.

It's weird to me that if people don't like the results of research then it much be wrong. Research isn't done to make people feel better about themselves as - bizarrely - a lot of people here seem to think it should be.

I have a child with ASD that was breastfed for 2 years, that doesn't mean this is wrong, just as it doesn't mean it's wrong because there are other people on here with children that were BF for 6 months + and are ND. The evidence of individual people's children doesn't prove or disprove this. It says there is a 28% increased risk, it's not saying every BF baby for 6 months + be fine and every FF baby will be ND. It's also not saying there isn't a genetic factor.

There are lots of studies suggesting a longer period of exclusive BFing is associated with a reduced likelihood of ASD diagnosis. You can just Google it and see. Just because people don't like it or don't find it helpful doesn't mean it must be untrue.

I think the reason research like this is met with eye rolling is because in every instance a small group of fairly vexatious breastfeeding advocates turn up to congratulate themselves under the guise of ‘just sharing the research’. However when the research is put in context (ie, a 30% higher risk actually means going from a 1% risk to a 1.3% risk) and that in the scheme of things it’s fairly negligible, suddenly they don’t like statistics as much and say you’re just being mean/jealous.

Plus, breastfeeding isn’t actually the biggest factor in gut health for babies. The biggest factor is whether or not they were born vaginally, and method of feeding is secondary to this. But that’s never discussed on here.

Exactly. MNers seem to think medical journals will publish any old nonsense. That's not how it works. The peer review process is extensive; it's not like writing to the Letters page of the TV Times in 1998.

My main takeaway from this thread is that schools need to start teaching the differences between anecdotes and data. The number of people saying "that can't be true, I breastfed my child and they have autism" is unreal. Imagine if someone posted "It can't be true that 1 in 10 mothers get PND, I've had three children and never had it". Everyone would point out how flawed that logic is.

No it's because it's yet ANOTHER stick to beat the mother with anything "goes wrong" with your child it's immediate "how did you eat during your pregnancy? did you take any medication? did you drink? did you smoke? how did you give birth? did you get baby blues? PND? your age weight during pregnancy family relationships even if you "bonded well" with your child did you co sleep? did you swaddle? Is dad involved?" That's just covering the early years it is fucking demeaning to go on and on how long I was in labour what medication I was given during labour birth weight apgar scores vaccines blah blah blah

It's exhausting and now apparently that means nothing if only I had breastfed

I suppose it makes a shorter assessment

BF cannot 'cure' conditions that are present at birth.

This reminds me of the doctor who claimed the MMR jab caused autism. That was total crap and this sounds the same.
Christ it's hard enough parenting a child with SEN without blaming mum for FF or having a c section. What exactly does this achieve? I mean apart from making parents feel like shit.

Well this is bollocks for a start. A child's brain continues to develop right through until the end of adolescence. Every experience builds new synapses and neurological connections which helps the brain develop. This is why babies and children need a lot of stimulation and new experiences, and children who lack it never catch up.

Someone forgot to give my 3, breastfed, autistic kids the memo 😂

In what way does it sound the same?

It’s not about blame. It’s about learning as much as we can so that people can make the best decision they can when it comes to feeding their child. Sometimes people have absolutely no option when it comes to the decision to FF or to have a caesarean etc. Sometimes they do have a decision to make. If they do have a choice it’s good to be able to make one that’s as balanced and informed as possible surely?

As for parents being made to feel guilty…for me that reminds me of my own situation with my allergic DC. It’s now known that feeding diluted peanut butter very early on to babies who are predisposed to peanut allergy can reduce their risk of developing the allergy by something like 80%. It’s not relevant to most babies but for affected families it is very good to know this.

I have a peanut allergic older child (young adult). This info was not in the public domain when she was a baby (quite the contrary in fact, late weaning of potential allergens was recommended then). Yes, I do feel guilty that I didn’t have this information and so didn’t try to protect my child. But do I think research shouldn’t have continued? That updated recommendations shouldn’t have been made to protect younger children in order to spare my feelings?
Of course not.
That would be ridiculous as well as unfair.

And the pp taking about snake oil merchants made me laugh. Who do you really think is most desrving of that title? The scientists doing this type of research or the huge formula milk industry. Come on.