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.

Old study on asthma secondcoming. Bigger, more recent, peer reviewed studies show quite the contrary. Like this one.no link
I was talking about allergies however, and there is no good evidence that I have ever found (and really, there is no need to be patronising, as good recent studies are easily accessed) show no evidence of a link.

professors agree no evidence of link

I think breastfeeding is fab, but we must be careful not to make unsubstantiated claims.

and also must be careful to not PREACH 'my way or the highway'

Yup I agree. This kind of thread has the potential to make the parents of children with allergies feel terrible. Yes, I know, it can't "make" you feel terrible yada yada, but it does, and in the vast majority of cases, it's unjustified. And I say this as someone has breastfed for fricking years on end.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in that last link being a 'Nestle' study....

Not had time to read any of the research reports linked, but if we're talking about allergies increasing since the growing popularity of formula milk during the 1970s, then we need to look at what else has increased in use since the 70s. Immunisations have.

sits back and waits for the groans

breastfeeding may increase risk of allergies when mothers have allergies

Um, a lot of asthma is caused by allergy. Dh is a classic case - asthma, eczema, hayfever, reacts to fur, feathers, pollen. He's not unusual.

doesn't decrease risk

That study says it protects up to the age of seven.

"We found that breastfeeding in the first three months of life protected against asthma and allergic disease before the age of seven but it no longer protected against those conditions after the age of seven. Our study followed our cohort up until the age of 44 and we found that the risk of asthma and allergic disease continued to increase right up into middle age."

So that isn't exactly 'no protecting' is it?

Sorry, but that claim about b/f increasing the risk of allergies is rubbish.

That's not a link to the actual study so impossible to say how well-designed or plausible it is. However, if you read down to the bottom of your link, you'll see:

"David Thomas, Chair of the Child Youth Health Committee at the Australian Medical Association said, "Their study really needs to examine whether they've looked at all other external variables. Allergies later in life can be predisposed to by a number of other environmental impacts which are quite independent of breastfeeding. So, if they've found an association, they really need to look at all the other factors 'cause it may or may not be related to breastfeeding."

It's one study, the AMA say it's crap and not reliable and certainly NO basis for anything other than doing more research. No way this should be even a factor in anyone's decision.

You aren't reading to the bottom of your own links. In that last one, the lead researcher says:

""In the first phase of our project, we observed reductions in gastrointestinal infections and atopic eczema for the first year of life. I urge mothers to continue to breastfeed."

direct link to not-rubbish study
RESULTS: At age 7 years, exclusively breast-fed children with a maternal history of atopy had a marginally lesser risk of current asthma than those not exclusively breast-fed (odds ratio [OR], 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.0). However, after age 7 years, the risk reversed, and exclusively breast-fed children had an increased risk of current asthma at 14 (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.02-2.07), 32 (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.06-3.3), and 44 (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.15-2.14) years. Exclusively breast-fed children also had a reduced risk of food allergy at age 7 years but an increased risk of food allergy (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5) and allergic rhinitis (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.3) at 44 years. CONCLUSION: Exclusively breast-fed babies with a maternal history of atopy were less likely to develop asthma before the age of 7 years, but more likely to develop asthma after the age of 7 years. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The current recommendation to breast-feed high-risk infants for protection against early wheezing illness can be confirmed. However, the recommendation should be reconsidered for protection against allergic asthma and atopy in the longer term.

PMID: 17764732 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I find it interesting that people are so outraged by this.

and your first link, to the middle of some book, actually dismisses your most recent link to Kramer's research... I think you are clutching at straws here.

You can find odd little studies, studies that aren't designed to answer the question you are asking, all over the place, and quote a line here and a line there and ignore crucial points like study A criticising study C if you like. But you aren't actually proving anything.

Show us an authoritative, large well designed and reputable study, or a (ditto) meta-analysis or even a position statement from a reputable organisation like the Royal College of Paeds that says 'breastfeeding doesn't protect against allergies' and I might sit up and take notice.

In the interests of clarity and accuracy, I would like to make it clear I have not urged anyone not to breastfeed.
Since this thread is about long term implication of not breastfeeding (with the strong suggestions that this will be negative) I thought that people might like some facts.

I'm not outraged, I just think you are scurrying around quoting odd lines from odd studies and claiming they have a significance that they don't.

If you are going to make a huge claim about evidence, that could influence an important decision that lots of other people make, you should have the weight of evidence behind you. You don't.

These are not 'odd little studies'! The Belarus study is massive, as is the Australian study. Both published in very serious, peer-reviewed journals.

The Belarus study is of 14,000 mothers and babies. It's hard to find a less 'odd little study'.

mabanana

Even allowing for that being a nestle sponsored publication , if you scroll back to the evidence presented before the commentary that you linked to, back to page 104 it says "exclusive breastfeeding for at least 4 months should be a keystone for allergy prevention efforts for both high and low risk infants"

That's an abstract of one study, looking at exclusive b/f for three months, that appears to be in a population who are now 44 - you'd have to examine what the hell else was going on 44 years ago and look at the design in much more detail to see whether there are any real conclusions to be drawn apart from 'more research is needed'.

Has the Aussie College of Paeds hailed this study as breaking new ground? Have they changed their recommendations?

If so, let me know. And THEN we might have something to discuss.

The Belarus study involved a randomized controlled trial involving 14,000 mothers and babies. It is possibly the largest trial ever done. It has been reported in numerous serious peer-reviewed journals. If that is an 'odd little study' I'd love to see a serious one.

'only' 500 babies

Ditto Belaruss - has the Royal College of Paeds, or the Americans, or anyone else said 'this is the best thing since sliced bread and the particular finding is so strong we have to say b/f does not protect against allergies'?

You are selectively quoting, posting studies that contradict each other, desperately trying to bolster a fairly shaky case.

another study of only 15,000 babies

The role of breastfeeding in allergic diseases remains controversial. The authors studied the association between breastfeeding and development of atopic dermatitis during the first 18 months of life among children with and without a parental history of allergy. A cohort study of 15,430 mother-child pairs enrolled in The Danish National Birth Cohort was carried out between 1998 and 2000. Data on breastfeeding, atopic dermatitis, and potential confounders was obtained from telephone interviews conducted during pregnancy and when the children were 6 and 18 months of age. The cumulative incidence of atopic dermatitis was 11.5% at 18 months of age. Overall, current breastfeeding was not associated with atopic dermatitis (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80, 1.04). Exclusive breastfeeding for at least 4 months was associated with an increased risk of atopic dermatitis in children with no parents with allergies (IRR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.55) but not for children with one (IRR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.94, 1.31) or two (IRR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.13) parents with allergies (test for homogeneity, p = 0.03). The authors found no overall effects of exclusive or partial breastfeeding on the risk of atopic dermatitis. However, the effect of exclusive breastfeeding for 4 months or more depended on parental history of allergic diseases.

500 babies is not a huge number if you are making a massive claim that could affect the advice given to millions of babies. And that's a newspaper report.

I could go on pubmed and pull you off one line from a study here, and a line from a newspaper article there, and a line from another newspaper somewhere else, that claim h pylori doesn't cause stomach ulcers. They would all be wrong.

Find me a meta-analysis, a proper peer-reviewed reputable journal with a discussion of the results, a position statement from a Royal College.

You are trying to make a few odd straws into a thatched roof. Doesn't work.

I am not remotely desperate. Why would I be? as a long-term breastfeeder I should, presumably, be gutted by these studies.
I think that's a ludicrous conclusion. I am a facts pedant, and so I find the constant confident assertions that breastfeeding is proved to be protective against asthma and allergy somewhat problematic, and I've also seem distraught parents posting about their guilt about giving some formula or not being able to breastfeed, or stopping breastfeeding before six months and blaming themselves when their children turn out to be asthmatic or allergic.