Cornishzulu, I'll respond best by copying bits of your post and pasting in my response.
"Firstly, an apology for the last post. Personal attacks are out of bounds..."
Accepted.
"1. Generalising from your own experiences with your child/children is not valid etc etc"
Of course. This is an obvious error. The other stuff you say about influences is obvious, too. The debates on mumsnet generally show an awareness of the importance of proper studies, too.
"Proper studies which sample and compare the effects of bottle and breast feeding on a large number of children in different settings is the only research that should be considered and results should always be assessed comparatively."
Er....yes! Like the Cochrane stuff and the rest of Kramer et al's work which largely informed the WHO's Global Strategy and recommendations?
"The posting that shows the composition of breastmilk only makes sense when compared with the nutritional composition of formula."
Not at all - understanding the composition of breastmilk 'reveals' that it retains its nutrtional and immunological value.
"2. Breastfeeding is NOT the norm. After the invention of formula, most women opted for bottle feeding."
NOT TRUE. NOT TRUE. NOT TRUE. I do not apologise for shouting. Did I say it was NOT TRUE?
Formula - infant food with a milk content - has been around commercially for about 150 years (in the West). It took a long time - about 100 years - before the majority of mothers (in the UK and the USA) opted for formula rather than breastmilk ( a trend that is now reversed). Many other countries, even in Europe, have never got to the stage where the majority of newborns are formula fed rather than breastfed. I think it's true that the majority of UK and US babies have formula at some stage in their lives, but this is absolutely not the case in some European countries. Worldwide, most babies do not have formula at all, though they may have other non-breastmilk nutrition - which is where, I think, you have made your fundamental error of understanding (see below).
"Breastfeeding has experienced a renaissance only relatively recently in the west where a powerful middle class lobby, strongly tied to a feminist agenda which sought to fight against the objectification of the female body."
There has been a woman-led (only partially feminist - early feminist writings regarded breastfeeding as a patriarchal plot to keep women in maternal mode) movement 'back' to breastfeeding, but the biggest push (IMO) has been the recognition of the health impact of infant feeding. This is what has influenced governments all over the world.
"For a long time breastfeeding was regarded as Non-U in Western countries."
???? Please read the literature on this. You have got it wrong. I suspect you are misunderstanding terms.
I also think you are confused by research that shows very few cultures breastfeed exclusively to six months and you think this means 'most women bottle feed' so 'bottle feeding is the norm'. I have been told by people in certain countries 'we have a breastfeeding problem, as only a few women breastfeed here' and when you find out what is really happening, virtually everyone breastfeeds, but they introduce other foods as well before 6 mths. But they are still breastfeeding!
" The main point is the neither breastfeeding nor bottle-feeding should be normative. It should be a choice and shouting about the relative nutritional/immunological benefits does not help mothers who are trying to make a choice"
I think it should be a choice, too, but this should not just be at an individual level. Whole societies have a responsibility to support happy breastfeeding, with changes in employment law, restrictions on unethical marketing of formula, acceptance of bf in public and so on.
"The is a subtlety in the semantics: I said no nutritional benefit not no nutritional value. A benefit, as I understand it is a particular good. My argument is breastmilk is not a PARTICULAR good after six weeks and that the nutritional and immunological outcomes of children who are bottle-fed after six weeks in the Western World are not significantly different from children who are exclusively breast-fed or mixed fed. "
This is NOT TRUE and again, I have many references for this - just ask!
" It is no good posting lists of research citations: anyone with an internet connection and the ability to cut and paste can post reams of research."
Ah! Lets not bother with references, then, shall we? We'll just make things up or speak to a couple of GPs and other experts and then say something, shall we?
"The point is to discuss and debate the merits and demerits of these pieces of research: how and by whom are they funded, are they peer-reviewed, are the findings methodologically valid? This is how research should be interrogated."
Er.....yes. Ad your point is? I can assure you that any research or references I post will be peer reviewed and methdologically valid, ok? I have them in abundance.
"For the record, I am a researcher with over 10 years experience in health economics in the developing world. My last work was about trying to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV in Africa and we worked closely with BF experts who were trying to promote six months exclusive breastfeeding in these populations. There are undoubtedly initial immunological and hygiene benefits in these cases but all cases are not equal and we should not treat them as such."
You will be aware of Coustoudis in this field, then, won't you? The reason why she and her colleagues have pioneered 6 mths excl bf for HIV is because of the putative immunological benefits to 6 mths, (not 6 weeks).
You are confused and not as well-informed as you think, sorry.