It would appear of course that there was no adjustment for racial
differences, and possibly that new immigrants to the 'land of the free'
might be a bit more 'pushy'?
Your point vis a vis antibiotics manufacturers is potentially libellous and
perhaps unworthy [and believe me I have no sympathy with big business and am
currently embroiled with a campaign to see corporate manslaughter against a
large company]
I do accept the argument to a point of course, but epidemiologically
speaking and on awider scale we need to accept that even if a risk is
doubled it is often a very low risk in terms of incidence per 100,000
population. For this reason we need to be careful with analogies such as
smoking where measurable damage can be seen in terms of physiological
variables for each smoker with each cigarette.

>I assumed that other LactNetters
Am I to infer you also assumed I had not read it...?

Tony Knox
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katherine Dettwyler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 3:09 PM
Subject: Research on cognitive outcomes of breastfeeding vs. formula


> When I made reference to the 1929 Hoefer and Hardy study in my post
directed
> to Mr. Knox, I assumed that other LactNetters would know the reference.
My
> apologies.
>
> Hoefer and Hardy, in 1929, compared the cognitive development of children
> who had been breastfed to those who had been formula-fed.  The breastfed
> children were the offspring of recent immigrants to the US -- parents were
> not educated, and at the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.  The
> formula-fed children were the offspring of the well-educated, upper class,
> Western Europe-descended US population who had lived in the US for several
> generations already.  The breastfed children scored better than the
> formula-fed children.  Thus, even when the other factors of socioeconomic
> status and parents' educational levels were working against them, the
> breastfed children scored better.
>
> There was then a long gap in research on cognitive outcomes.  More recent
> research has looked at cognitive outcomes at varying points downstream --
> children at age 3 or 4 and also some in adulthood, and has taken into
> account parents' socio-economic level and educational level.  All other
> things being equal, the breastfed children consistently score better than
> the formula-fed children.  One can only hope that formula is getting
better
> and better over the years.  No one wants children to be harmed by formula.
> Except perhaps the parent companies of the formula producers, who also
make
> antibiotics.  Sorry -- couldn't resist.  And I'm sure they would argue
that
> there's no real harm in causing an ear infection with formula (which makes
> them money) and then suring the ear infection with antibiotics (which
makes
> them money).  Sure the child is miserable for a few days, and the parents
> may lose some work time, and worry, and have to put up with a crying baby,
> but no real harm done.  Right?
>
> Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
> Texas A&M University
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

             ***********************************************
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