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.

I am linking to studies as much as you like. Recent, massive studies, published in peer-reviewed journals such as the BMJ and specialist paediatric allergy journals. You may not like what they say (though I don't know why), but I really don't think that alone is sufficient to damage their credibility

I didn't realise the Americal Journal of Epidemiology was 'just a newspaper'.

this mentions some of the limitations of the Kramer/ Belaruss study

IF you are going to make massive claims about medical evidence, you can't selectively quote one line from one study here, and one line from another study there, and insist controversial study X proves something beyond all reasonable doubt. You have to look at the weight of scientific evidence. Follow the debate. What are the responses in peer reviewed journals? What have the royal colleges/equivalent bodies said?

Some of your links are to newspapers.

Here is a review article, from 2003.

link

Strategies to prevent children from developing allergy have been elaborated on the basis of state-of-the-art reviews of the scientific literature regarding pets and allergies, building dampness and health, and building ventilation and health. A similar multidisciplinary review of infant feeding mode in relation to allergy has not been published previously. Here, the objective is to review the scientific literature regarding the impact of early feeding (breast milk and/or cow's milk and/or formula) on development of atopic disease. The work was performed by a multidisciplinary group of Scandinavian researchers. METHODS: The search in the literature identified 4323 articles that contained at least one of the exposure and health effect terms. A total of 4191 articles were excluded mainly because they did not contain information on both exposure and health effects. Consequently, 132 studies have been scrutinized by this review group. RESULTS: Of the 132 studies selected, 56 were regarded as conclusive. Several factors contributed to the exclusions. The studies considered conclusive by the review group were categorized according to population and study design. CONCLUSIONS: The review group concluded that breastfeeding seems to protect from the development of atopic disease. The effect appears even stronger in children with atopic heredity. If breast milk is unavailable or insufficient, extensively hydrolysed formulas are preferable to unhydrolysed or partially hydrolysed formulas in terms of the risk of some atopic manifestations.

I am not selectively quoting. I am putting up links - why not read them? They are not controversial studies. They are huge studies, all pointing the same way. If you want to contradict them, feel free. But if you don't like what they say, don't blame me.

The studies I have LINKED to are far more recent than 2003.

Edam, your link does not at all contradict the study or present contradictory evidence.

Look, you are the one making a huge claim. If you reckon that is based on medical evidence, you have to back up your case properly. Not just quote an odd study here and other odd study there and a third study which is not actually designed to answer questions about b/f and allergies in the first place and looked at a population with a very low incidence of allergies (so the apparent relationship between b/f or ff and allergies may just be a quirk of the very low numbers).

The stuff you've quoted just isn't conclusive. Find me a Cochrane Collaboration statement saying 'b/f doesn't protect against allergies'. Or something equally representative of the weight of medical opinion.

There may be more recent studies, but as has been said, in a vast field with many studies of varying quality it can be useful to look at the evidence as a whole.
These reviews are massive pieces of work, and will obviously be less up to date than individual studies.

long term effects of breastfeeding on prevention of asthma and allergy in doubt
Journal, not newspaper

Yes it does! Read the bloody link!

"When no statistical difference was found between the breast feeding promotion and control groups, the authors have erroneously concluded that breast feeding has no effect on these outcomes.

Firstly, this conclusion can not be drawn from this study design, and secondly cannot be extended to other populations with different rates of breast feeding, asthma and allergy."

"It should also be noted that the relatively wide confidence intervals for a trial of this size raise questions about whether all the important confounding and predictor variables were included in the multivariate model. In addition, there are major concerns about the quality of the skin prick test which was the only objective measure of atopy in this study."

yet another study showing breastfeeding not protective

To say that despite all this you know for sure that it IS protective is just flying in the face of the evidence.

Edam, your link was only to a letter, not a study, and the letter presented no evidence, just some qualms about certain aspects of the methodology of the study by two researchers. A single letter to a medical journal is rarely considered enough evidence to dismiss a randomized controlled trial of 14,000 people published in peer-reviewed journals. Especially when the results are scarcely unsupported by other studies.

Who is saying they know for sure?
What people are saying is that they would like to look at the best availible evidence, and then make up their minds. Not selected snippets of papers of uncertain quality.

yes, and that editorial cites two references on b/f and allergy.

First reference links to a study that says: CONCLUSION: Exclusive breast feeding seems to have a preventive effect on the early development of allergic disease-that is, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and suspected allergic rhinitis, up to 2 years of age. This protective effect was also evident for multiple allergic disease.

Other reference is to a study that slightly supports your hypothesis. So there may be something to investigate - NOT a well-founded 'this is the truth and parents should so X as a result' but a possible line of research. Although I could only see the abstract - like the Kramer study, if you read the whole thing and the responses you might well get a very different picture.

I know my link was to a response to the study, that's the point. The response identified some pretty significant flaws in the way the study was presented i.e. that it didn't stand up to the claims made about it.

It's not the only time the Kramer study has been criticised, but I don't have all bloody night to sit here.

another study
RESULTS: In 516 children evaluated at age 5 years, there was no significant association between the duration of breastfeeding or timing of introduction of solid foods and protection against asthma or other allergic disease, after adjustment for confounding factors. However, breastfeeding for 6 months or more and introduction of solid foods after 3 months were both associated with an increased risk of atopy at age 5 years (P=0.02 and 0.01, respectively). There was no significant association between the presence of eczema at 4 weeks and at 3 months and continued breastfeeding beyond those times. CONCLUSION: Longer duration of breastfeeding and later introduction of solid foods did not prevent the onset of asthma, eczema or atopy by age 5 years.

PMID: 17456214 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

This is actually an earlier study. This controversy is hardly new. I really don't understand why people are so upset and angry about this.

IF you are going to make huge claims about medical evidence, you have to back them up. Show me what the Royal College of Paeds says about b/f and allergy. Or the Cochrane Collaboration. Or the American Academy.

Not a handful of contradictory studies that either don't actually say what you claim they say, or aren't designed to answer the question you are asking.

You need the weight of evidence, otherwise we are just trading study for study and we'll never get anywhere!

You sound really upset about this. The idea that breastfeeding may well not be protective, particularly in the long term (which is the point of this thread) is not new, is far from unsupported by evidence and the most recent studies indicate that we need to look elsewhere for reasons behind hte allergy epidemic.
I have a child with an allergy, and am a long-term breastfeeder. I have no agenda whatsoever, despite the suggestions to the contrary.

How about I'm 42 and it didn't do me any harm?

All my peers were weaned early, they ARE fine

A lot of the guidleine stuff has got morphed though, the gut thing comes from kellymom not WHO. WHO says no harm in waiting til 6 months, not there is harm in weaning before 6 months (though never before 17 weeks)

4-6 months weaning was what they recommended, 6 months being optimum. But they also said in other literature that by 6 months the child should be on a varied diet, so even they were confusing the issue (last time I read up, this was but in the last year, it may have changed)

I am not making any claims that aren't backed up by huge, peer-reviewed, recent studies Edam. They are not a 'handful' of studies, and they do say what I said in the first place. And people who have children with allergies don't need a big guilt trip.

look we could trade bloody studies all night long... show me the weight of scientific evidence.

You made the claim, now go out and back it up properly. Not by quoting studies that weren't designed to answer the question and used a population that has a very low rate of allergies anyway.

If you want to change people's understanding of the health effects of b/f, find out whether the Royal College, or Cochrane, or the American Academy or other reputable bodies that look across the whole spectrum of studies support your point of view. If not, then all we can say is 'more research is needed'.

Who's laying on a guilt trip? Don't be ridiculous.

All I am doing is questioning your claim that b/f is bad for allergies. That's simply not true. "Huge peer-reviewed studies" is misleading. Huge peer reviewed studies do NOT say 'b/f is bad for allergies'. The Kramer study should be struck out for several reasons described in my link, for a start.

I notice you haven't bothered to go and look up what authoritative sources who look across the whole field say.

Don't make claims about medical evidence if you can't back them up. Don't think finding three or four studies of varying designs that say different things = 'b/f is bad for allergies". It doesn't.