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.

Try holding a baby for three hours while it dies while your body tells you to feed it knowing that a. you can't and b. you never will.

The post of mine you quoted was out of context anyway.

But Edam, you are misrepresenting me (though yes, I am glad you have stopped swearing at me!). I have never, ever said that people shouldn't be given facts because they might upset them. I have never suggested hiding information.
I have only ever said people should not be told things are facts (ie true) when they aren't. And that is particularly important if they are being given dodgy information that might lead them to believe, erroneously, that they might have harmed their children. There just isn't any evidence - certainly none that I have found or have been pointed to -that weaning after the four month mark but before six months causes harm. There isn't evidence that breastfeeding gives long term protection against allergies or asthma, and very mixed evidence that it does so in the first year or two.
Saying that there is, and in the context of comparing weaning at four months or giving formula to heroin, is, to put it very mildly, unhelpful. I am sure you will agree with that, at least.

And I explicitly never said there were no benefits to breastfeeding. I have mentioned several benefits in this very thread.
But that doesn't mean it's OK to attribute properties to breastfeeding that it doesn't seem to have.
Yes, most studies show breastfeeding seems to play a role in appetite regulation and thus in reducing the risk of obesity, which is obviously importan. Breastfeeding certainly is strongly associated with a reduced risk of gastro and ear infections, and there is a good model to show how that works. There is evidence that it may reduce the risk of diabetes (or that formula increases the risks of these things, if you prefer)
There is also (mixed) evidence around childhood leukaemia, and some other disorders.

Oh, and there is new evidence that breastfeeding may boost IQ...but I don't suppose anyone is interested in that, as it comes from the same Belarus study that I am told is total rubbish

higher IQ, better performance at school

Breastfeeding and IQ is another area where there is a huge variation in study results.
Again, I think there is a limit to the conclusions that you can draw from one study, though it is interesting.

I very much support breast feeding and breastfed both my children for two years. Both my children were weaned after 6 months, indeed one of them didn't really take to solids until well over a year.

Just to state my position.

I haven't looked extensively at info surrounding BF and allergies so can't comment much on this.

However my DD1 has multiple serious allergies and I have done my damndest to find out as much as I can about atopy.

I know it is not a popular point of view, but I am much more inclined to think that early vaccination plays a significant role in the huge increase in allergic children.

A recent study suggests that the risk of developing asthma is increased by early DTP vaccination for example.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1079259/A-vaccine-given-babies-increase-risk-childhood-asthma.htm l

(Yes I know it's from the DM but for some reason they seem to be less afraid of discussing vaccination issues than the broadsheets)

Am on my way out so apologies for posting and running but will look back in later as am very interested in this issue.

Mabanana, I think you are overstating your case. As far as one can tell from the current state of research, b/f seems to protect against allergies in early childhood but the evidence for longer-term effects is unclear. More research is needed, as ever. IMO.

Well, the the most recent and largest studies indicate that breastfeeding does not prevent allergies, and particularly not after the first few years (which suggests it may only delay their onset at best) and lots of evidence to show that breastfeeding makes no difference. There is even evidence that when allergic mothers breastfeed this might possibly even increase the risk of allergies and asthma.

Or as the recent BMJ editorial stated
"the claim that breast feeding reduces the risk of allergy and asthma is not supported by evidence."
(Sheila Gahagan, clinical professor of pediatrics and communicable diseases
Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5406, USA )
More evidence and more studies may show something different in the future. Of course that possibility cannot be ruled out. But it may also confirm and extend the existing studies. And right now it is wrong to suggest to women that feeding formula will cause their children to become allergic or asthmatic in the long term. And hidden long term adverse effects is what this thread was explictly about, with people suggesting there was no way to know if weaning before six momnths or giving formula was going cause their child to have allergies. I hope that by citing studies this will reassure people that it is not all a big mystery. It has been studied, and the studies tend to show no long term risk at all.
When it comes to allergy & asthma, saying 'I weaned at four months/gave formula and my older kids are fine' is not a stupid or shortsighted thing to say at all.
But this is very tiresome now.
The message is, don't give your baby food before they are 17 weeks, and really never before they are 12 weeks, and ideally around the six month mark. Breastfeed for a variety of health benefits, but if you can't carry on for years, don't worry.

Funnily enough my daughter's allergies showed up before she was breastfed and are exactly the same as mine. Personally I put it down to genetics, especially as my brother and sister have similar allergies to me.

Just to add to my last post, because I forgot this bit. Last weekend I was sat in a delivery room with a paediatrition and he explained what would happen if they couldn't stop my daughter coming. She would have a tube put through her umbilical cord to feed her and whilst I could pump my milk and it would be put together and stored until she was 3 or 4 weeks older and it would take around 10 weeks before she would be put to the breast. I have had three very different experiences of breastfeeding all of it hard and heartbreaking. When you can do nothing for your own child but your body is telling you what you need to do. I'm not making any judgements about other people, it's just what I went through. I've come out of it with breastfeeding having an importance to me beyond anything. I can't understand it when mothers are in a rush to give it up because I can't ever imagine feeling like that. There's lots of things I can't imagine feeling or doing but that doesn't mean that I judge people who do feel like that, it just means I can't imagine being there.

I can pretty much agree with your statement:
"The message is, don't give your baby food before they are 17 weeks, and really never before they are 12 weeks, and ideally around the six month mark. Breastfeed for a variety of health benefits, but if you can't carry on for years, don't worry."

Although I know Hunker would protest at 'benefits' as b/f should be the norm for human beings. It's formula that has disadvantages, not b/f that has advantages.

Tinkerbelle, am sending you LOTS of positive thoughts that your baby can hang on in there and does very well indeed.

Sending you all best wishes, TBM.

I find I'm not really interested in debating bf and weaning and how they affect allergy - there's so little solid evidence and too many variables. There seems to be a lot of discussion here about weaning age and allergy, but apart from very early weaning, if you read the literature, the concerns around weaning age aren't centred on allergy.

What is clear is that allergy is enormously complex and it's going to be a long, long time before anyone can say with confidence why one person will be allergic and another won't.

Then I suspect it'll be an even longer time before anyone can stop a child from being allergic, ie a useful application for the theory.

I agree with Hunker's OP 100% though.

crossing everything for you TBM

edam well put

I agree with mabanana on the whole
The OP is directed at mothers who weaned before 6 months, and designed to make them feel bad
I don't see what the point of that is

i too agree with mabanana

I hate having these arguments. I breastfed my last child for two years, but don't think breastmilk is a magic potion that cures everything. My ds has problems that no amount of breastfeeding could cure. And I think claims for breastfeeding (or warnings about formula) should be measured, accurate, kindly put and based on evidence. I don't think breastfeeding promotion should ever be about bashing people for not being perfect. None of us are perfect. I actually don't think my children have eaten more than a single cherry tomato and a mange tout today, veg wise. There was a thread on MN today with someone panicky and upset that they had caused their child's problems by weaing, as per advice, at 16 weeks. Yet there was no reason to think that her chlid's issues were anything to do with weaning, and she did the right thing at the time.
It's sad that it is all so fraught, and as usual, it's the people who care and try do the right thing that end up blaming themselves.

"People use the 'I weaned dc at 3 months and they're ok' as a way to discredit the research and make out that the risks are a load of piffle. That can be dangerous."

Yep. That's what I had in mind when I started the thread.

"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."
"The OP is directed at mothers who weaned before 6 months, and designed to make them feel bad"

It wasn't, actually, about either of those things.

It wasn't directed at them and it wasn't designed to make them feel bad. I would just like them to stop posting their own experience of the handful of babies they've brought up as if it somehow discredits or trumps broad studies and in-depth research.

(PS - what did Tiktok say to get deleted?! )

"I don't think breastfeeding promotion should ever be about bashing people for not being perfect."

Who on earth thinks bf promotion should be about bashing people for not being perfect?! Bloody hell!

Isn't that called setting up a straw man? And if it's not, can anyone tell me what I mean?!

straw man is right. Can't remember the more long-winded phrase right now.

Hunker, you clarified your point perfectly well enough with your second post. If folk choose to ignore it then there is little point in wasting your time coming back and clarifying it again.

You cant stop folk seeing what's not there, after all, can you?

I did, din't I, VVV? What can I say, I'm just gobby and like the sound of my own, er, keyboard...

Edam, thank you - I thought that was right, but didn't want to Mrs Malaprop all over the nice clean thread. You're right, btw, I do much prefer talk of risks to talk of benefits and do you know what? I'm even OK with upsetting people if it means that support for women in the future improves. Not needlessly, not unkindly, but if people get upset reading bare facts, then I'm not going to pretend things aren't so just to salve their consciences.

Because, let's face it, if your conscience is prickly because you did something you couldn't have known was potentially ill-advised at the time, please don't waste time feeling bad about it!

Me too

You know I agree with you in many ways Hunker.

I think breast feeding has a major role in human health.

I also agree that BF is the norm rather than a positive.

However having BF both my children and weaned them at 6 months I was obliged to look for a more in depth explanation to why my eldest was so sick and had so many allergies.

I have come to the conclusion that early vaccination plays havoc with infants' immune system and damages the gut lining.

I have spent the last four years reading everything I can about this issue and have become increasingly convinced that early vaccines are a major factor in allergic disease.

There is much documentation on this issue but it is never going to be a popular viewpoint.