General Discussion

pnwmom

(110,261 posts)

27. But it doesn't address the health of babies from 0 - 4, which mothers presumably

Reply to mainer (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 06:26 PM

Feb 2014

also care about.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

88 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study: Breast Feeding No Better Than Bottle Feeding For Kids� Health [View all] The Straight Story Feb 2014 OP

Brace yourselves Recursion Feb 2014 #1

That was my first thought! get the red out Feb 2014 #10

I wonder if the study was funded by a company that produces baby formula. bulloney Feb 2014 #2

Science with an agenda jollyreaper2112 Feb 2014 #9

Moms Rule WovenGems Feb 2014 #19

Key sentence regarding the study here: PotatoChip Feb 2014 #3

Actually - the immunological benefits is one the study still acknowledges Ms. Toad Feb 2014 #6

Well that's just it. PotatoChip Feb 2014 #12

The immunological benefits go away pretty quickly. jeff47 Feb 2014 #29

Jeff47? Google is your friend. You've got to stop vanlassie Mar 2014 #85

Are you now going to claim antibodies are enzymes too? (nt) jeff47 Mar 2014 #87

No. vanlassie Mar 2014 #88

I'd be curious to know about REAL long term outcomes Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #42

It's clear. Bottle feeding pumps more money postulater Feb 2014 #4

Nailed it. Ilsa Feb 2014 #7

Yeah, because... pipi_k Feb 2014 #18

Sometimes it is. postulater Feb 2014 #20

I don't think this is one of them. HappyMe Feb 2014 #21

Of course it is up to the mother. postulater Feb 2014 #23

And they get to decide under the heavy influence Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #43

Yes, and also the HappyMe Mar 2014 #44

I wish we could have traded. Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #49

I don't know the effects of anesthesia HappyMe Mar 2014 #52

It was a spinal. Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #56

I had the full knocked out cold anesthesia. HappyMe Mar 2014 #57

lmao! nt ecstatic Mar 2014 #60

Do you support businesses bombarding them with false info? joeglow3 Mar 2014 #47

Bombarding? HappyMe Mar 2014 #48

My wife has 15 years experience and sees it a lot joeglow3 Mar 2014 #50

I can only speak for my ob/gyn and myself. HappyMe Mar 2014 #53

What I Get Out of This Is Dirty Socialist Feb 2014 #5

Exactly: paid leave & free breast pump & supplies. CottonBear Feb 2014 #14

Just feed them. My Good Babushka Feb 2014 #8

It was only within families that the benefits of breast feeding were less observable. morningfog Feb 2014 #11

Basically, it's telling mothers to relax because the kids will be all right mainer Feb 2014 #13

I agree. HappyMe Feb 2014 #17

But it doesn't address the health of babies from 0 - 4, which mothers presumably pnwmom Feb 2014 #27

The Study is here but it is pay to view (I think it is $39). I am interested but not $39 interested. stevenleser Feb 2014 #15

Several who have read the study are saying vanlassie Feb 2014 #16

Yep, when I hadn't heard of the journal I looked at it more closely. moriah Mar 2014 #64

This is a response to the study by someone well qualified to respond. vanlassie Mar 2014 #67

Bottle feeding Aerows Feb 2014 #22

Yeah, but you'll never see a bottle of formula on the cover of Sports Illustrated. aikoaiko Feb 2014 #24

Real irony: years ago, there was a boycott of Nestles for handing out free samples hedgehog Feb 2014 #25

How many "poor" women in this country have the novelty to even spend more than glowing Feb 2014 #28

Unfortunately, there are still a lot of young mothers in some places who hedgehog Mar 2014 #36

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2014 #40

yeah. laundry_queen Mar 2014 #61

I work with people from Canada, Brazil, England, South Korea and Switzerland. hedgehog Mar 2014 #63

'more modern, scientific' of course you don't mean that our science DebJ Mar 2014 #45

Yes - "more scientific" was used as a sales point throughout the hedgehog Mar 2014 #62

So? Why didn't they study the health of babies and toddlers who were being breastfed pnwmom Feb 2014 #26

Because they were studying long-term effects. jeff47 Feb 2014 #30

That's not true. Older babies still benefit from antibodies, just not to the same extent pnwmom Feb 2014 #31

That doesn't come from antibodies. jeff47 Feb 2014 #33

Yes, it does. The breastmilk continues to contain antibodies, although, yes, it is less dense pnwmom Feb 2014 #34

That's why I said after about 3 months jeff47 Mar 2014 #37

Link please? I've searched for anything backing up your theory, and haven't found it. pnwmom Mar 2014 #39

Lysozyme isn't an antibody. jeff47 Mar 2014 #69

Babies are still "infants" when they're 4, 5, and 6 months old. Even older. pnwmom Mar 2014 #72

The official label stops at 3 months. jeff47 Mar 2014 #74

Let's suppose you're right. The infant/baby is still protected by factors in the mother's milk pnwmom Mar 2014 #78

No, the OP study isn't talking about that either. jeff47 Mar 2014 #80

They only measured some long-term benefits. And they stopped at age 14. pnwmom Mar 2014 #82

The idea was to look for things that are frequent secondary effects jeff47 Mar 2014 #83

My sister was the biggest talker in the family, and still is. pnwmom Mar 2014 #84

Jeff37. What evidence do you have for your beliefs about the human immune system? vanlassie Mar 2014 #65

Every single book and pamphlet doctors have been handing me jeff47 Mar 2014 #68

Surely you must have a link then. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #70

Because you think I scan and upload them? (nt) jeff47 Mar 2014 #71

Because I think you can google as well as anyone else, and cut and paste a link. pnwmom Mar 2014 #73

You mean like this link, showing lysozyme isn't an antibody? jeff47 Mar 2014 #75

But some enzymes are antibodies. pnwmom Mar 2014 #76

Nope. jeff47 Mar 2014 #77

I did not say that all antibodies did that. Logically, there is a key difference pnwmom Mar 2014 #79

If you say antibodies are enzymes, then you are saying that. jeff47 Mar 2014 #81

They also didn't define the duration, or look at the morningfog Feb 2014 #32

I think either are fine. And Mothers should feel no guilt Autumn Feb 2014 #35

The last paragraph in the article says it all. LiberalAndProud Mar 2014 #38

We have had one of each hack89 Mar 2014 #41

Did the article discuss the psychological impact of breast-feeding? DebJ Mar 2014 #46

I agree, no better, no worse for average mother and child�Mom's who want and can't/don't prob feel Tikki Mar 2014 #51

I would imagine that if the mom is feeling pressured, HappyMe Mar 2014 #54

My poor daughter in law tried and tried to breastfeed mainer Mar 2014 #58

Jaundice in breastfed babies, if it raises above normal limits, (because bilirubin has what is now vanlassie Mar 2014 #66

Did they account for whether or not the breastfeeding was done at Olive Garden? Silent3 Mar 2014 #55

Disagree. ananda Mar 2014 #59

as a Michigan fan I find this Ohio State produced study flawed nt alp227 Mar 2014 #86