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

It's a study! Studies happen so that we can learn things! We don't leave certain areas as a research black hole just in case it makes some people feel bad.
I had two c sections, one of which was purely elective. If I see research that says that children born by c section have more problems with gut health or something, I don't think that research should be suppressed in case it hurts my feelings! In fact I read up on stuff like that when making my decision and decided the risks were worth it for me. And if there were any consequences of that decision I would own those.

It’s a tiny weak Israeli study looking at a few medical records retrospectively ignoring many issues others have listed below.

Two pretty crucial factors I’ll pick out.

Having autism and adhd makes BFing harder- a lot, lot harder. For somebody who is autistic it’s a completely hellish scenario. Also sitting still for periods of time can be incredibly hard for many with ADHD.

There has been masses of good research and the prevailing evidence is autism is genetic.Scientists have been trying to identify which gene for many years.

The article and the “study” are complete bullshit.

Then it’s clear that given the shite that children and teens go on to consume a few weeks of BFing is going to have fuck all impact in the scheme of things.

This!!!!!

It involved 570,000 babies approx.
That is not a tiny study.

Yes there’s a huge genetic influence with things like autism (but it’s vanishingly unlikely there’s going to be just one gene for autism). However something can be genetic but still influenced by the environment. Nature and nurture can both have an effect sometimes.

@1vyBerry I don't know by what metric 500,000 is "tiny" and "a few medical records", I would say a strength of it is that it's so big. I also don't see the problem with it being retrospective given you can't do double blind randomised controlled studies on breastfeeding, or any aspect of parenting really.

To autism being genetic - yes the study doesn't deny at all that there is a genetic component. It's not 100% genetic though given that identical twins aren't always both ND or NT. And I refer you to where I quoted above that their aim was not to find ways to reduce neurodivergence.

The thing about finding it harder to breastfeed if you're autistic or ADHD is an irrelevant point because they studied sibling pairs. Kind of indicates you didn't think about this too hard, if you missed that aspect of the study.

Frankly though even if there was a study that showed that neurodivergent children aren't getting breastfed due to their neurodivergent mothers finding it difficult to do, wouldn't that be a useful finding in itself? Could suggest a need for targeted support?

This is only ever going to be one correlation among many.

Its not impossible. While autistic tendencies appear to have genetic links, its also clear that those tendencies can develop in different ways. There's overlap between tendencies that are common among the NT population and those that form part of the spectrum of autism, the difference is the degree to which you are impaired. We don't know yet whether external or environmental factors may contribute to a person being more impaired. That could include their home life, their parenting, cultural factors as to what is/isn't considered "normal", their educational experience etc

There has been masses of good research and the prevailing evidence is autism is genetic.Scientists have been trying to identify which gene for many years.

There's a massive spectrum of autism from people who are verbal, hold down successful jobs etc, to people who are totally uncommunicative, incontinent, stim constantly and require round the clock care. It's not going to be one gene.

Something can be "genetic" and it can still be valuable to understand the impact of external factors. You can have a genetic tendency to skin cancer, and wearing sunscreen & covering up may mean you never develop it.

I have a strong family history of heart disease but no heart issues - but it probably helps that I eat a very different diet, don't smoke, don't live in a heavily polluted environment, do plenty of exercise etc.

Alongside the other 20,000 reasons previously published.

People with autism are more likely to have been born prem. They are also more likely to have low muscle tone. Both of those make being able to be BF less likely.

Yes likely to be more than one gene which you have before you are born. You can’t give yourself autism. 🙄

So your dc were part of the 72% then

No not really as anything causing distress shouldn’t be pressured onto an autistic person. You don’t force autistic children/ people into situations and sensory difficulties they find excruciating when there are perfectly good alternatives .

Lol is my little afterthought at the end the only one of my points you can argue against? Cool.

Autism is genetic. It always was. It always will be. It wasn't invented by people in the 2000s. The sooner everyone accepts this and stops wasting time claiming it is new the better. I don't care if you think your cool grandad didn't have it. He did. That's why you have it too. Full stop, the end. Some mask more than others. There is no risk factor. You're born at a place on a spectrum. There is no 'have it' or not. Everyone is on a spectrum. At one end of it you would say you 'don't have it'. Past a point you notice it and do things differently. I say this as someone 'with it' and I see it in other people everywhere including family and friends.

It’s very clearly a huge study.

Other studies have previously shown that autistic women breastfeed at rates comparable to, or greater than, neurotypical women.

There is no denial of the fact that autism is very influenced by genetics. There may be other factors at play.

Of course there are risk factors.

So many on this thread who don’t understand how statistics work.

Also the phrase ‘correlation doesn’t equal causation’ is this threads ‘cancel the cheque’

Took a few pages to see any actual sensible responses

I will continue to be highly sceptical of this study until I see an explanation as to why the researchers are apparently claiming breastfed babies have a lower rate of cerebral palsy, a condition usually caused by brain damage before or during birth. By what possible mechanism could breastfeeding influence this?

The study didn't claim that, in fact they said there was no correlation between breastfeeding and cerebral palsy. So that's straight up misreporting by the DM.

Ive been told children who are breastfed are less likely to get diabetes - I fed all of mine and two are diabetic. All these studies do is make mothers feel guilty, without generally having any effect on children’s health

As @someladdersandsnakes said, the study didn’t say breast-fed babies had lower rates of cerebral palsy. That was a Daily Mail misrepresentation, which was unfortunately repeated by OP.

The study said the opposite.

Always go to the source if possible, or at least something more trustworthy than the DM.

This is what the study actually said -

“The odds of motor NDC did not significantly differ between breastfeeding groups.”

and

“There was no evidence for lower odds of motor NDC ”

and

“there was no association for the rarer outcome of motor NDC ” [sibling cohort]

NDC = neurodevelopmental condition; the authors listed cerebral palsy as one example of a motor NDC.

But being less likely to get something doesn’t mean you won’t get it?

It’s less likely at a population level. Individual risk factors will vary.

I'm a big supporter of breastfeeding.

How can you develop autism if it's a neurological disorder that you are born with?

Unless of course environmental factors play a bigger role than currently thought which is entirely possible.

Its not just genetic. Some of the leading experts acknowledge environmental factors also play a role. I guess the debate must be how big a role.