Yikes, I think  I may not have been sufficiently clear in my post re: what I
termed "extravagant claims"! I apologize if I was misunderstood! But the
responses proved my point exactly.

Katie Allison Granju replied:
"lack of breastfeeding, along with exposure to tobacco smoke and a prone
sleeping position,is now recognized as one of the only known modifiable risk
factors for SIDS" and
"breastfeeding appears to confer a clear protective benefit against
premenopausal breast cancer."
and Kathy Dettwyler says:
"Dr. Doren Fredrickson's (1993) research showing a 50% reduction in risk of
SIDS for every month of exclusive breastfeeding, out to almost no SIDS
deaths after six months of exclusive breastfeeding . . . qualifies as
"BF prevents SIDS."

I have no problems whatsoever with statements like the above. Those are
examples of exactly how such information SHOULD be presented; notice how the
writers say "BF appears to...", "is recognized as one of the only..."
Appropriate citations accompany the statements, references to the pertinent
research are made, and the important qualifying terms are included as well
as the factual info. THAT IS the responsible way to present information,
especially when writing for a general audience. Look at Katie's sentence
about SIDS - it doesn't say  "BF prevents SIDS", it says that one of the 3
known things parents can do to protect a child from SIDS is to breastfeed.
Kathy's research citation gives specific "who says-how much-what kind" info.
Others also responded with very specific research-based and appropriately
phrased information.

All I'm saying is that 1)we need to know what we're talking about when we
share information, especially with "the public" or with those who don't
share the knowledge that we as experts in this field have, and 2)it's
important to differentiate the body of knowledge (what reputable research
shows) from the interpretation made from that data. Take the SIDS data, for
example: there's a big jump from what Katie and Kathy say in the
above-quoted statements to saying "BF prevents SIDS".

I know it's picky, but I think it's really important, especially as we seek
to bring others to examine and adopt our own perspective. And, BTW, I always
share what is known about BF/SIDS and BF/cancer (etc...) whenever I have or
can create an opportunity to do so - I agree 100% that no one can make a
valid choice without adequate information about the alternatives. Or am I
just a fuss-budget nut here, fussing too much over a distinction that most
people don't care about?

Cathy Bargar, RN, IBCLC