To demand a harder hitting campaign to promote breastfeeding?

[WashwithCare]

I?m sometimes taken aback to hear mothers gave up bf-ing because it was sore, or involved feeding for hours at a time? What did they expect? What did they think newborns do? Didn?t they imagine that anything chewing on your nipple for 10 hours a day was going to nip a bit?

But then again, who can blame them? Breastfeeding for the minimum WHO recommendation of 2 years is practically unheard of. Nearly everyone will tell you it?s absolutely your decision, and fine to stop. The public info campaign is fluffy and vague about the benefits, and the baby on the follow-on formula milk box looks decidedly peachy. Lots of women are so mis-informed, they believe that formula is almost as good as breastmilk.

Is it time for something a little harder hitting? How about this for a tv ad; (scene 1) mum feeding her newborn a bottle telling her mate how hard bf-ing was. Caption: Breastfeeding Hurts. (scene 2) same mum, but now older, bald and sick, hugs toddler. Caption: So does breast cancer. FADE to caption: "Breastfeeding significantly Reduces your Life Time Risk of Breast Cancer". Followed by cheesy inspirational slogan.

By Olifin Sat 16-Jan-10 22:30:48
Or even WWC!

WWC...how can you categorically say '17 months is too young for self-weaning'? Every child is different.

In the same way I could tell you 3 months is too young to start weaning to solids, or that 35 weeks gestation is too soon to be born.

WHO recommends bf-ing a MINIMUM of 2 years. 17 months is 7 months short. QED.

And yet some babies are born at 35 weeks (and even earlier) with no intervention from the mother or medical professionals. Doesn't seem a great leap that some babies might self wean earlier than is the norm.

Good point Allidon.

WWC, what about the fact that bfing to 2 years old is not possible/desirable for the vast majority of mothers in the UK?

Olifin, the breastcancer.org site might be more relevant on this, I posted this link earlier, check it out

www.breastcancer.org/risk/new_research/20090810.jsp

I'm reluctant to cut and paste particular sections of the article, at the risk of being accused of being somewhat selective, however,

"Breastfeeding May Cut Hereditary Breast Cancer Risk

This large study found that breastfeeding one baby even for as little as 3 months reduced the risk of breast cancer before menopause by 59% in women with higher-than-average risk compared to high-risk women who never breastfed.

Women in the study were considered high-risk if they had at least one first-degree relative (a mother or a sister) diagnosed with breast cancer.

Other research has shown clearly that women who have given birth to one or more babies have a lower risk of breast cancer than women who have never been pregnant. Other studies also have shown that breast cancer risk is lower among women who have breastfed one or more babies, but this link between breastfeeding and lower risk hasn't been found consistently in all studies.

In this study, the link between breastfeeding and lower pre-menopausal breast cancer risk was found only in women who were considered to have a higher-than-average risk. Breastfeeding didn't seem to lower pre-menopausal breast cancer risk in women who didn't have a first-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer. The researchers aren't sure why this is."

I don't think anyone is actually disputing that medical research has shown that bf might/may/can reduce the risk of breast cancer.

FWIW my own issue with this thread and some of the posts is the assertion that only thick, uneducated, selfish or lazy mothers don't bf their children for 2 years, or that they simply didn't try hard enough. I'm assuming you've seen the posts I'm talking about?

Olifin, I haven't said their isn't a link, what I have said through this thread, that when telling people dont make it a FACT, I have showed here that people were implying that it was, I have said that when people come on to get information, make sure its the correct information given, that it may reduce cancer, not "DOES" or it WWC comment, that its FACT.

thankyou also wubbly for showing the link, are we finally getting somewhere about the point I am trying to make? Can you not see by the above that it can and will come across as scaremongering? All I am saying is when giving the information out please state the truth that it MAY reduce all these things, not that it will.

standanddeliver no offence but Im sure you see everything I write as a dig at you, but I know what the information says on the NHS website, I haven't brought links to this thread as I am arguing about the scantly "truth" that some people have cited,

You tried to make a point in bringing the NHS website in to the discussion, when it was nothing to do with the topic we were arguing about. Please read what I have written instead of trying to nit pick and seeing it for what it actually says.

and I do owe you a apology as I forgot to insert WWC name, in the extended breastfeedeing comments, Im sorry for that.

So, following on from wubblybubbly's post, WWC's hypothetical advert clearly needs to be amended to "Breastfeeding significantly reduces your lifetime risk of breast cancer (but only if you were high risk to begin with)". So for a large proportion of women, their risk of breast cancer is unchanged whether they breat fed or not.

So, following on from wubblybubbly's post, WWC's hypothetical advert clearly needs to be amended to Breastfeeding significantly reduces your lifetime risk of breast cancer (but only if you were high risk to begin with). So for a large proportion of women, their risk of breast cancer is unchanged whether they breat fed or not.

Ive highlighted this, as that implies that it DOES reduce breast cancer, but that's not the case is it, as it MAY reduce breast cancer.

That the problem with me, it is giving out false hope and information to BREASTFEEDING MOTHERS.

I do honestly feel as if i AM banging my head against a wall, I honestly dont understand what is so difficult to understand the definition between the words DOES and MAY as their definitions are a big thing when putting the word cancer amongst the mix.

false information

LMH, I was using the direct wording from WWC's OP.

And the study wubblybubbly quoted says:

"This large study found that breastfeeding one baby even for as little as 3 months reduced the risk of breast cancer before menopause by 59% in women with higher-than-average risk compared to high-risk women who never breastfed."

Allidion, I know that, but if you look at the link provided by Wubbly, the very 1st sentence it says is

Breastfeeding a baby for even a few months may protect high-risk women from premenopausal breast cancer, researchers found.

which is extremely different from the quote provided.for me personally this has to be made clear. I support breastfeeding wholeheartedly, but I think when we are giving out information it needs to be the correct information were given out to people x x x

I didn't say it didn't. Once again, I deliberately used WWC's wording in my post. I was pointing out a flaw in WWC's arguement that breastfeeding (may) protect all women against breast cancer. It doesn't, it (may) protect those women who have a mother or sister who have had breast cancer.

Allidion, Im not getting at you, this is why I hate trying lol, as you cannot tell someones tone from a screen.

I do feel as if I am a broken record lol x

typing

LittleMrsHappy

I'm sorry but I don't find your posts to be consistent.

Yes, the evidence that is cited states MAY in relation to reducing risks. As explained a few times earlier, this is because it is impossible to state categorically that one thing causes another. Scientific studies ALWAYS talk about possible cause and effect, they cannot state anything as fact.

'I am arguing about the scantly "truth" that some people have cited'

We talked about this earlier...I asked you to find a post on this thread which cited any of the supposed BFing benefits as fact. You said you would but you haven't yet.

Olifin, how about this

"Breastfeeding significantly Reduces your Life Time Risk of Breast Cancer".

From the OP. Sounds pretty unequivocal to me.

YABU.

I have, if you take a look

You're right wubblybubbly, my apologies to LittleMrsHappy.

So how come the statement from the cancer research website also sounds unequivocal? They wouldn't be allowed to say it if it wasn't true, would they?

I would still say that evidence in support of BFing itself is not 'scaremongering'.

But their are not indicating whether it is true or false claim, they are indication that in scientific theory that it is a "MAY" if you have a look at wiki, and type in the definitions between scientific fact and also theory, you will get a better understanding of it.

Their is a massive difference between a fact and a theory even in the scientific world.

That what I have been trying to say all along, and that why I did not agree with your comments between the definitions, as it IS possible to cite it as a FACT or NOT, in terms of evidence, research etc....

I haven't read the whole lot as I tend to steer clear of these feeding rants but, to the OP, I have a lump in my boob- I'm waiting for my appointment to get it checked. I have a toddler and had no support with BFing and gave up pretty quickly. I got upset reading your views.

Then I read spongebrainbigpants post and I cried my eyes out. How awful to see a mum with cancer hold her toddler for the last time.

Clearly, OP, you've not come up against breast cancer or you probably wouldn't be posting such heartless rubbish.

Olifin, I read the cancer research website to and it does sound fairly certain, I can't explain that, I guess only they can say why they used that language.

I think it's fair to say that I accept the research that indicates that bf might help reduce the chances of breast cancer and believe the information should be more widely available in helping women to make a choice over feeding.

I also believe that women who choose not to bf or who cannot bf should not be called thick, uneducated, selfish or told they simply didn't try hard enough. It's insulting and, as far as I can see, intended to be provocative. (not including you in that Olifin, just to clarify, since it's all a bit tetchy round here )

TotallyAndUtterlyPaninied I wish you all the very best for your appointment and hope that your lump is nothing to worry about, as is very often the case.

LittleMrsHappy

I DO understand the difference between theory and fact, but I don't understand your post.

You say:
'it IS possible to cite it as a FACT or NOT, in terms of evidence, research etc....'

Well, the cancer research site seems to state a link as a fact.

Sorry wubbly, crossed posts there.

'I also believe that women who choose not to bf or who cannot bf should not be called thick, uneducated, selfish or told they simply didn't try hard enough.'

I agree wholeheartedly with you here.

I was lucky enough to be able to BF my two, not without some difficulty, but nonetheless able to. I am a passionate supporter of BF and work as a peer supporter when I can afford the time but I don't seek to insult women, make them feel guilty or question their choices regarding their feeding methods. I'm very much in the middle of this debate, really!

Ofin I am actually agreeing with you tbh, I believe that their is a possible link, and that, that link cannot be disregarded.

What cancer research is saying that it is a possibility their is a link between BF and reducing cancer. it not a false or a true claim, it is just a possibility.

Their is a difference between a link, its not a true or false link, its just a possibility and in effect a theory, and in NO way can be cited as a FACT and the evidence is not their to back this up.

But tbh, Im not sure we are on the same level of thinking lol, I also agree wholeheartedly about the silly comments about mother who cant or wont BF.

TAUP, I wish you the very best about your appointment and that its good news for you x x x