"What????? Why on earth do you think you are justified in saying that's how I think?! Papers vary. There are plenty of papers which show great outcomes for BF which I think are flawed. I am critical, sceptical and I know how to assess research, and that does not lead me to decide on the merit of a paper by looking at its outcomes for breastfeeding. "
Because every paper I've linked to which shows the benefits of BF are minimal or that efforts to promote BF can harm babies has caused you to say something like "This study is bad because it is bad. I think it is bad, and everyone agrees with me". I.e. the BFHI study on the risks of skin to skin contact - first you said it was a bad study, then you said it was OK because leaving women unattended is bad practice, so if that didn't happen there would be no problems.
"yes - and so what? The basic flaw persists - in none of the outcomes would you expect BF/FF (ill-defined in this paper, but that's another issue) to overcome a sibling effect."
Surely you would if you believed BF had some long term benefits beyond preventing infection? Which I believe you do?
"it was not a BFHI study. I was clarifying (as you did not) that the practice of skin to skin without monitoring (which is one small part of Baby Friendly) was negligent. "
It was a study on the BFHI, wasn't it? And it doesn't matter if it's a small part of BFHI or not - it's still something which hospitals will start to do as a part of taking part in the BFHI, which could cause excess deaths down the road without adequate monitoring. Given the state of the NHS, I think we can expect inadequate monitoring to be the norm & not the exception. Maybe you disagree though?
"there's 57 pages. Have you really read and assessed it? Never mind - it's a systematic review from a trusted resource. The findings will be robust, I hope. It shows 'significant though relatively modest long term effects of breastfeeding'.....and your point is?! I think that's a decent summing up of the evidence as I have read it. "
Busted! No, I haven't read every page. But that's not the point - there are some benefits (not every thing they looked had benefits - one of the main ones was blood pressure!) - but they are very small. Given the time and effort WHO is spending on BF promotion in Europe you might think they would bother with something with more of an impact! Early years for example...
"Oh bloody hell.....are you confusing mortality with morbidity? If you are, I'll have to throw in the towel. If you're not, then you're using 'mortality;' as short hand for 'short and medium term outcomes' - well, equally mystifying and wrong! "
No I am not confusing the two. Perinatal mortality, as I am sure you know, looks at death from 22 weeks gestation to 7 days post birth. So I would define perinatal mortality, either improved or worsened, as a short term outcome. Given it occurs within 7 days of birth. Infant mortality, as I'm sure you also know, is death up to a year. So any improvement (or not) of infant mortality could be seen as a medium term outcome. My point is, if increasing BF doesn't do anything for either of those factors - does it really matter for the health of babies in this country?
I agree that BF reduces morbidity.
"Look, Aloysha. I don't want to be rude, honestly. But you don't know this field well enough to be making these statements about the research or about me and my supposed opinions. There are indeed possible additional benefits not mentioned in that review - the lit. on infant feeding is HUGE. You, armed with Google, seem to think you can cherry pick your way through the studies and draw something out of the hat that will 'prove' the impact on health of infant feeding is negligible, false, over-stated, or not worth worrying about one way or the other. But it doesn't work that way. "
I think you are being very arrogant here. You are right that I am not an expert in the field. But there are other people who are just as invested as you are and have spent just as long as you have on this topic and have come to the conclusion that the impact on health in the West of infant feeding is indeed negligible, i.e. Amy Tuteur. You may disagree with them, but you cannot as an anonymous internet user (albeit one who is very knowledgeable about BF) throw your toys out of the pram and demand that I agree with you, especially on additional benefits that you have previously decided not to outline!
I agree that BFing in the west can a) reduce some infections and b) slightly reduce the risk of breast cancer.
"You talk as if you are the only person who is wise enough to know all this, and yet act as if the right study will finally prove you correct once and for all. "
Some projection here! The only one claiming to have enough knowledge to talk about BF is you! I freely admit that I have 0 medical training and my only qualification is a vague interest in the subject.
RE: hypoglycemia - yes you are right that I got that wrong. But it's a similar issue to dehydration - the baby isn't getting enough nutrition from BF.