It is terribly unfortunate that this study is being reported as "the dangers of breastfeeding" -- there are so many problems with this research. The "breastfed" group was not exclusively breastfed, we don't know when they started solids, etc. Perhaps it's TRUE that breastfeeding for between 4 and 12 months ends up being bad for heart health as adults. Since humans are supposed to be breastfed for much longer, at least 2.5 years, perhaps there are some negative consequences when you nurse only for a while. But since Leeson and Lucas and colleagues aren't studying children who nurse for normal lengths of time, and who exclusively breastfed for 4-6 months, we may never know. And suppose that this study is simple correct, that breastfeeding in combination with typical Western post-weaning diets, is worse for the heart than formula. How do we weigh the danger to the heart against the proven benefits to the immune system and to the brain? Imagine if someone discovered that babies born 3 months premature had fewer heart problems as adults. Would we then rush to conclude that all pregnancies should be induced after 6 months of gestation? Of course not, because the drawbacks of prematurity clearly outweight the benefits. I see that at least one of the stories casting this study as pointing out the 'negative side effects' of breastfeeding is Reuters -- they are known for their anti-breastfeeding stories. Any one know of any connection between Reuters and one or more of the infant formula companies? Kathy Dettwyler, saddened and disheartened _________________________________________________________________ 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