Just a note re "I did x and mine are fine"

[hunkermunker]

If the children to whom you refer aren't 85 (at least), it's not all that bright a statement.

That's all.

You weren't told the guidelines then. It had been 17 weeks for over 20 years by then.

1992 1994 1996

I do think bottle feeders may find your tone harsh tinkerbellesmummy

breastfeeding does not reduce the risk of allergies. Sorry but that's a total red herring on this thread. No evidence at all that weaning at four months is a health risk. It is really early weaning for which there is evidence of harm. (I weaned at the rcommended ages btw, which meant six months for last child, and would do it again. Less hassle)

I don't care what anyone thinks of my tone, I stated my own experiences and feelings towards my experiences.

I know it's a bit of a semantic point but breastfeeding does not 'protect against' or 'reduce risk of' anything.

It is normal and correct and to deviate from that carries inherent risks.

Does it not mabanana?
So the antibodies in breastmilk that create on the immature gut creating passive immunity make no difference do they?

'but I made the choice to have her so it was my responsibility.' this is your reference to b/f ing

so by definition you are saying bottle feeders NOT 'responsible' ?

*a coating

"but I made the choice to have her so it was my responsibility."

"I stated my own experiences and feelings towards my experiences."

i do find a lot of the arguments on the preachy side

I feel for bottle feeders

I do not love breastfeeding but have done it for too long a few years in total now

these debates do get my back up

mabanana:'No evidence at all that weaning at four months is a health risk.'

As I posted on the petit filou thread: The DoH guidelines are very clear : "Weaning is not recommended before your baby is six months of age because the infant digestive system, and kidneys, are not usually developed enough to deal with solid food."

It not exactly ambiguous is it?

Unless you're a paediatrician I'd say that is exactly the sort of statement that this thread is trying to discredit.

Oh and can this thread not be turned into another bf vs ff debate? It's been done to death

Nope. No evidence at all that breastfeeding has any effect on allergies. re weaning after four months but before six, same thing applies. If anyone finds any evidence of harm, I'd be interested to see it, because I have looked and not found any.

good post

(meaning OP)

So are you saying that the DoH are lying? Or hysterical? They're not talking about allergies, they're talking about digestive systems and kidneys.

interesting posts mabana

Spicemonster, find me the evidence. I have searched and there is no evidence that I can find in any study of harm in post-four months solids. Pre-three months, yes, definitely. Post four months, no.

.. it has been shown in man and in several animal models that immunisation via the gut, and also the lungs, stimulates a special population of antibody-producing B lymphocytes. They appear in large numbers in special aggregations in the gut - the Peyer's patches. These lymphocytes leave the gut after having met bacteria and viruses there and move or "home" to exocrine glands such as the mammary, lacrimal and salivary glands, as well as glands in the mucosal membranes of the bronchi and the gut. As a consequence, human milk contains sIgA antibodies against all those bacteria and viruses which have been in the mother's gut. This gives the milk capacity to protect against those microorganisms to which the infant is exposed, because they are usually the same as those its mother has been in contact with.

source: L A Hanson et al. Breastfeeding protects against infections and allergy. Breastfeeding Review; Nov l988 , pp l9 - 22.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12839115?dopt=Abstract

Except that studies don't find breastfeeding is protective against allergy, except possibly in the first year or two - after which allergy rates are just the same.

linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0091674904020810
There are man y studies. Problem is unless you can access the right sites you cannot necessarily see them.

Sorry that last one should have been www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH4-4DGVTJT-11&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=sear ch&sort=d&view=c&version=1&urlVersion=0&userid=10&md5=bb653e62c65cc1953d031355ee8d1319

And that last one specifically mentions after four months

"Results

Exclusive breast-feeding for 4 months or more reduced the risk of asthma at the age of 4 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97), irrespective of sensitization to common airborne allergens (P = .72). Excluding children with wheeze during lactation tended to strengthen the risk estimate (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.88). A duration of 3 months or more of partial breast-feeding seemed to offer additional protection; exclusive breast-feeding for 3 to 4 months combined with partial breast-feeding for 3 months or more resulted in an OR of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.21-0.87). The effects tended to be stronger in children without heredity for allergy (P interaction = .36)."

I can't be arsed to research but I also can't fathom a) why the WHO would recommend waiting until 6 months on a whim and b) why anyone would want to wean early.