Dear Lactnetters,
        I thought you'd like to know that much of the Rush Limbaugh
radio show
was devoted today to the "new study" that came out.  He fully believes
that it is a liberal attempt to explain why we are all different and
some are "better" than others.  I thought I'd post my that I e-mailed to
him at [log in to unmask]

Dear Rush,

     I am really surprised at you.  On the breastfeeding issue
you are falling into what you would categorize as the liberal
"feel good" camp who doesn't want anyone to feel guilty and wants
everyone to feel good.  They are not the ones who are trying to
say "you should breastfeed at all costs (not to say that there
aren't pro-breastfeeding liberals...there are and they are making
a wonderful contribution in this field through WIC (cutting
costs, I might add), WHO, UNICEF, and other many important
governmental, societal, and personal efforts)."  The "liberal
mainstream press" are the ones saying "it doesn't make a
difference.  You shouldn't make women shouldn't feel guilty if
they don't.  We don't want to put this information out there
because people will be offended and hurt."  The information on
breastfeeding and cognitive development has been around for
years,as well as many of the other benefits of breastmilk and the
literal harm that formula can cause, but it has not made papers
and parenting magazines because "no one should feel guilty for a
choice."  As with most choices, there is usually a better and
worse choice.  This study probably would not have made the press
at all if the American Academy of Pediatrics hadn't issued their
recommendation last month that women breastfeed for at least a
year.  Right after this recommendation was issued, NOW, for
example, immediately issued a venemous rebuttal about the guilt
that this would cause women all over the country "who could not
live up to this expectation."
     These studies were not started to explain the differences in
performance between different people.  Over the past decades,
different components have been found in breastmilk that, judging
from their chemical makeup,  would encourage more efficient brain
development.  These studies have been undertaken to test that
hypothesis.
     Before my son was born, I was like the average person who
believed "breast is best, but formula is just as good."  I didn't
want to breastfeed, my husband felt that it was better for the
baby and encouraged me to.  After I started really looking into
it on an academic level, I found how dreadfully wrong I was and
how much information doesn't get out into the mainstream press
and remains shut up in medical journals  (for instance, the
breast cancer debate...you don't hear to much in the media about
how women who breastfeed for a combined total of 25 months
drastically reduce their risk.  Instead, we are helpless to do
anything about it and need more governmental funds).  Partially
because I have become convinced of much our society needs to hear
this information and because I want to make breastfeeding more
the norm in society, I am studying to be a lactation consultant
and am going to start working on a Masters degree in human
development.  I have my bachelors degree in psychology with a
minor in child development and I have long been a dittohead, but
when it comes to studies such as this, when you haven't read the
study but only see what's in the paper (as you did with ADD), you
jump to conclusions and become one of the brain-dead masses that
believe the journalists without thinking, just as you accuse many
of being.  By the way, the full study, "Breastfeeding and Later
Cognitive and Academic Outcomes" is published on the net at
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/101/1/e9
     I just completed a literature review of the studies on
breastmilk and IQ that have been published in the last ten years
and hope to have it published soon.  The reason why I limited it
to the last ten years is because there were just too much on this
topic to do a full overview.
     First of all, you keep referring to these as "surveys" as if
researchers went up to kids and said "Were you breastfed?  Mind
taking this test?"  These are longitudinal studies.  The typical
format of these studies is that hundreds of formula-fed children
and breastfed children are recruited at birth, before they even
leave the hospital, and tested at various ages throughout their
childhood.  That is far different than a survey.
     You are right, environment does play a role. It is widely
held that educated mothers of higher social classes are more
likely to breastfeed, and are more likely to genetically and
environmentally pass on those benefits whether they breastfeed or
not.  However, every study that I researched balanced out those
factors before coming up with a final number.  Its called
"adjusting for the confounding variable."  The final result that
is in the newspaper is not raw data, but takes environment into
account somewhat.  You are also right that each person has a
certain potential to live up to, and many factors make that occur
or not occur.  However, the sheer numbers of children in the
studies, and the sheer numbers of studies, balance this out.
There are many people all over that were formula fed and are
intelligent, but these studies would indicate that they would
have been more intelligent had they been breastfed.
     As I said before, there are many factors in breastmilk that
when compared to cowsmilk or soymilk formula do not promote
maximum brain growth potential and can cause harm.  For instance:

1.  Human milk contains more lactose than any other species milk.
This is because lactose is required for brain development.  No
other animal has the kind of brain growth that humans do.  Other
milks contain more fats and more solid proteins to enable
physical growth because they have to grow in physical size more
quickly than humans do.  In fact, solid proteins are very
difficult for a baby to digest and tend to cause problems such as
gassiness, colic, allergies, gastroesophogeal reflux, and other
digestive disorders that can follow a child through life.  Cows
milk formula does not compare, and soy milk formula has NO
lactose.

2.  Human milk also contains Nerve Growth Factor; Linoleic acid
and linolenic acid are necessary for myelination (myelination is
the coating of neurons in order to enable the messages to travel
more efficiently. Multiple Sclerosis, which is the deterioration
of this myelin, is virtually nonexistent in countries where
formula feeding is not practiced),and retinal development (only
in small amounts in formula); DHA and AHA, fatty acids which also
are essential for neuronal growth, sight, and cognitive
development.  Taurine is an important neuromodulator.  Science is
constantly discovering new factors in breastmilk that we
previously didn't know existed, which is one reason why formula
companies cannot reproduce it.  When possible, the elements are
added to formula, but are not in the most absorbable form.

3.  The nutrients in human milk are balanced specifically for an
infant and adjust from feeding to feeding depending on the time
of day and the kind of suckling the child engages in.  Throughout
the last century, the deficiencies and overabundance of nutrients
in formula have caused crises in child health.  In fact, the
over-abundance of aluminum and magnesium in formula has been
correlated to learning disabilities.  Children with learning
disabilities are more likely to have been formula fed than
breastfed.

4.  One woman argued the physical contact was what may have
caused the difference.  Lucas, et. al have conducted several
longitudinal studies using preterm infants (already at a societal
disadvantage) fed either formula or breastmilk by nasogastric
tube, therefore, no physical contact.  They were then tested at
age 18 months, 3 years, 7 years, and the study is continuing.
After factoring out all other advantages, the children that
received breastmilk for 6 weeks through the nasogastric tube
ended up with an average of 8 points higher IQ than the formula
fed counterparts.  (The "normal" range for IQ is between 85 and
115, a 30 point spread, that's over 25% advantage).  Other
studies have been done regarding children with neurological
disadvantage, and the benefits they receive from breastmilk is
higher (a 12 point difference than formula fed) than the
advantages that healthy children seem to receive.  The studies
seem to indicate at least a 4 point benefit, after adjustment for
other variables, in normal, healthy, term children.

     You are a busy man, but I suggest that along with analysing
the data according to political motive (which you have
misconstrued...it might be the press's motive (which I doubt),
but it isn't the researchers'), you also get on the internet and
go to Medscape and see exactly what the scientific literature is.
That is important to find out true information, as the press
rarely publishes an accurate account of research, and you have
misled your listeners, furthered a "brain dead liberal" goal, and
made yourself sound very underinformed.
     Formula is an insufficient substitute for the food God
designed for human babies and the studies are proving this to be
so.  If you look at the Pediatrics study listed above, you will
find a very thorough reference list to the studies that have come
before.

Sincerely,

Lora L. Horn, stay at home mom to 14 month old Christopher and
part-time student LC.