My thoughts are too numerous to post here but just a couple...
The actual study (as published in pediatrics) is available. Please read that if you wish to from a clear picture of this study, it's methods, and it's findings, and the conclusions drawn by researchers. The reporting on this appears largely either incomplete, biased or both.
Everyone has known for some times that the study that claimed higher "IQ" for breastfed children had multiple flaws. This study also has multiple flaws.
Breastfeeding has nothing to prove. Both the substance human milk and the feeding method of nursing at the breast are biologically normal food and behavior for human infants, babies and toddlers. So when a child is breastfed, no matter what the outcomes are, they are the biological norm. Yet the language the researchers continue to use assume that formula fed children are the control, the norm, and breastfeeding the experiment. In fact it is the other way around.
Last edited by @llli*maddieb; April 4th, 2017 at 12:59 PM.
Way too lazy for formula
Breast feeding as the experiment is well stated--never thought of it that way.
I thought it was interesting how the subject of this study reflects the anxieties and values of our culture...as if, by learning these results, a breath of relief can be had, in the face of low BF rates...all the while overlooking the proven health benefits completely, not to mention any unmeasurable benefits. Our culture finds IQ most important, clearly. I really don't understand why children's overall health is so overlooked in a culture that values children so greatly.
Because there is money to be made. Formula companies only exist to make money. Not to protect the health of children. And they can't make money if people use their breasts. The way they have ingrained themselves hand in glove with the pediatric industry is both insidious and detrimental. That is not to say that formula doesn't have a place. It does. In situations where there is no mother, formula can in fact be life saving. But undermining nursing relationships when the mother is there and CAN provide milk is for profit. KNOWING that it puts children at risk has never stopped them.
And the language in that article does sound like it's trying to downplay. I mean a less hyperactive child at three? Is nothing to sort of casually wave away. Is knowing that I am going to get to quit pull him down off the curtains and can manage to take him out into public without his harness in TWO YEARS supposed to be some sort of comfort when I am in the throes of that? Because it's not. And having to deal with things when children are older is completely different and they didn't even talk about that. For me the name of the game was protecting my child WHILE he was an infant. From Sids, from allergies, from sickness, from ear infections. If my child now has an ear infection he can tell me. And we go get it handled. But when a baby has no words and you are dealing through a process of elimination, having less thing to eliminate IS helpful. My son's father has allergies and asthma. I knew that. I wanted to give my child protection against those things. He showed no signs of allergies UNTIL after we weaned. To suggest that our life is was in no way affected to NOT have to deal with allergies until he was school age rather than when he was an infant or toddler because eventually he DID have them? Seems ridiculous to me. I mean yeah. He has them. So I guess it could be said that it made no difference "in the long run" but it DID in that he was allergy FREE the 1st 5 yrs of his life. We didn't have to go to the doctor for it, because it was simply a non issue in that time. That's worth something.
Way too lazy for formula