"I have been experimenting with equating LACK of breastfeeding with other risks..."

I like Karen's wording.  There aren't studies saying that *formula causes* harm, because virtually all the studies ignore the formula part altogether.  When we turn a study around, we can do it either of two ways.  We can say that a lack of bfing was associated with... or we can say that formula-feeding was associated with...  No cause, because that just hasn't been studied.

The problem with studying formula as a cause of damage is that babies have to eat *something*.  There's no "null position" to compare with.  Was it the formula that actually *caused* the damage?  Might the baby have done just as well on, say, coffee creamer as on breastmilk?  We don't know because that study hasn't been done and probably never will be done.  But we do know that formula, in these studies, was *associated* with the damage.  And we know that the non-breastfed cohort performed more poorly, so that a lack of breastfeeding was *associated* with the damage.  Either one works.  We just need to leave the word "cause" out.  A minor point, maybe, but it's just as easy to be accurate as not.  My sister caught me on this years ago.  It still rankles, but darn it, she was right.

Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC  Ithaca, NY  USA
www.wiessinger.baka.com

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

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET email list is powered by LISTSERV (R).
There is only one LISTSERV. To learn more, visit:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html