Miriam Levitt posted about being more careful (when dealing with folks
outside of our lactnet-type circles) about claiming health benefits
secondary to being breastfed; I am always glad to hear one of the "faithful"
bring that up and remind us. One of my pet peeves is when all kinds of
extravagant and not definitively research-proven claims for breastfeeding
are made; I think the result is that we lose credibility (at best), or that
we can easily then be accused of using "scare tactics" to promote BFing.(The
pic of the Pakistani twins is a good example - even though it in fact is an
accurate and true depiction.) I always cringe when I hear BF promoters say
things like "BF prevents SIDS" or "women who breastfeed don't get breast
cancer". Or even worse, say about a parent dealing with some kind of health
problem in the kid "well, this wouldn't be happening if she'd breastfed that
baby!" Here on the lactnet, we can relax a little among our own, but I think
Miriam's point is well taken, and that we need to be aware of how our
messages are received by others. (And please, I'm not going into that whole
"making mothers feel guilty" thing here - hasn't it been covered pretty
sufficiently?)

Funny coincidence she should post that just today - I spent all day
yesterday all wound up, researching & writing a response to an editorial in
our local paper. The editorial was an anti-abortion tirade, (and that's a
whole 'nother thing I won't get into here), but the paragraph that set me
off was a claim that abortion "more than doubles a woman's chances of
developing breast cancer" and that "women who carry their first baby to term
cut their chances for breast cancer in half". I KNEW that this was not borne
out by reputable research, so I checked it out & found that ONE study
(Netherlands, 1994) suggested that this might have been the case, but that
later studies determined the study to have been not valid because of the
methodology and "subjective bias" (inaccurate reporting on the part of the
participants). The most recent study (1997), done with a prospective design
and a large sample, in fact concluded that "induced abortions have NO
overall effect on the risk of breast cancer". I consider any aspect of
breast health to fall within my field of professional interest, and this
claim about abortion and breast cancer made me nuts, because I could see
that, if I had just been a "regular" person reading the editorial, I might
have thought "Gee, I'm pro-women and anti-breast cancer. If abortion can
cause breast cancer, it must be a bad thing".

Anyway, it strikes me as similar to Miriam's point - that making broad,
unproven claims does damage to "the cause" (whatever it is), and unless your
claim is based on solid, dependable research there will always be someone
able to (with authority, not just blowing air) drag out the studies that
prove you wrong, or overstating the facts, or whatever, and then you do lose
credibility (and integrity).

Cathy Bargar RN, IBCLC Ithaca NY