It is terribly unfortunate that this study is being reported as "the dangers
of breastfeeding" -- there are so many problems with this research.  The
"breastfed" group was not exclusively breastfed, we don't know when they
started solids, etc.  Perhaps it's TRUE that breastfeeding for between 4 and
12 months ends up being bad for heart health as adults.  Since humans are
supposed to be breastfed for much longer, at least 2.5 years, perhaps there
are some negative consequences when you nurse only for a while.  But since
Leeson and Lucas and colleagues aren't studying children who nurse for
normal lengths of time, and who exclusively breastfed for 4-6 months, we may
never know.  And suppose that this study is simple correct, that
breastfeeding in combination with typical Western post-weaning diets, is
worse for the heart than formula.  How do we weigh the danger to the heart
against the proven benefits to the immune system and to the brain?

Imagine if someone discovered that babies born 3 months premature had fewer
heart problems as adults.  Would we then rush to conclude that all
pregnancies should be induced after 6 months of gestation?  Of course not,
because the drawbacks of prematurity clearly outweight the benefits.

I see that at least one of the stories casting this study as pointing out
the 'negative side effects' of breastfeeding is Reuters -- they are known
for their anti-breastfeeding stories.  Any one know of any connection
between Reuters and one or more of the infant formula companies?

Kathy Dettwyler, saddened and disheartened
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html