why do breastfed babies still get sick all the time?

[Anonymous]

PP again - and I'm sorry breastfeeding *isn't* being marketed to you? You haven't seen billboards, psas, pamphlets, websites promoting it? There isn't an entire industry of medical devices devoted to it? Or consultants charging you $100 an hour about it? Please- PP, don't pretend that breast is best isn't an ad slogan!

[Anonymous]

Breastfeeding is normal, formula feeding has risks.

burden of formula feeding, in terms of health care costs:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/04/05/peds.2009-1616.abstract

A choice tidbit: "an estimated $13 billion could be shaved off of health care and other costs if 90 percent of U.S. babies received breast milk exclusively for the first six months of life."

Here's another.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/20110120a.html

According to the U.S. Surgeon General, breastfeeding protects babies from infections and illnesses that include diarrhea, ear infections, and pneumonia. Breastfed babies are also less likely to develop asthma, and those who are breastfed for six months are less likely to become obese. Mothers themselves who breastfeed have a decreased risk of breast and ovarian cancers.

Says the CDC:

One of the most highly effective preventive measures a mother can take to protect the health of her infant is to breastfeed.

http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/promotion/index.htm

Says the Department of Health and Human Services:

The reduced health care costs for breastfed infants translate into lower medical insurance claims for businesses. Babies who are not breastfed visit the physician more often, spend more days in the hospital, and require more prescriptions than breastfed infants. One study found that for every 1,000 babies not breastfed, there were 2,033 extra physician visits, 212 extra hospitalization days, and 609 extra prescriptions for three illnesses alone – ear, respiratory, and gastrointestinal infection.2 This does not include the risks of numerous other childhood illnesses and infections, or women’s diseases such as pre-menopausal breast cancer, which are reduced when a mother breastfeeds.3

http://www.womenshealth.gov/breastfeeding/government%2Din%2Daction/business%2Dcase%2Dfor%2Dbreastfeeding/business-case-for-breastfeeding-for-business-managers.pdf

We bend over backwards to tell women in this country that it's okay that they don't breastfeed, and certainly that is a valid choice. Still, these well cited statements and studies demonstrate higher health care costs for all of us, just like smoking, heavy drinking, and other risk increasing behaviors / lifestyles.

The facts don't have an opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it is crazy propaganda. Both my kids were breastfed for a year, and both have asthma, food allergies, had so many ear infections they had to get tubes before the age of 1, RSV, etc.

It is complete and utter HOGWASH that it makes children healthier.

But they still might be better off than if they had been formular fed - at least according to the studies.

do you repeat this to yourself to help you feel better about yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP again - and I'm sorry breastfeeding *isn't* being marketed to you? You haven't seen billboards, psas, pamphlets, websites promoting it? There isn't an entire industry of medical devices devoted to it? Or consultants charging you $100 an hour about it? Please- PP, don't pretend that breast is best isn't an ad slogan!

Breast milk is what got us here evolutionarily speaking. It's not a marketing campaign; it's one of the ways the human race was able to survive and thrive. Humans like other mammals depended on breastmilk, not formula. So yes, breastmilk is best and formula companies realize this. Formula is factory made to simulate breastmilk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh that article straight up says that the studies are observational and therefore do not prove anything. Further, where does it say that all of the social or economic confounds are removed. Finally, meta analyses are subject to publication bias, the fact that studies with null findings (meaning no effect) are rarely published, and as such not available for review.

Again, please read it. The paper goes into great detail about the limitations of meta analysis and how these were addressed. And yes, SES status, smoking stays, and other known confounders were all accounted for. They even addressed publication bias.

[Anonymous]

23:09 here, my comment was meant for the pp who brought up that breastfex kids "might be better ofc"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody says formula is less beneficial- we simply say that breastmilk isn't the golden liquid you people make it out to be. And that "breast is best" is at best, reductive and simplistic and at worst, straight up hogwash.

What's more beneficial than breastmilk? If you had to choose one - formula or breastmilk - which would it be?

[Anonymous]

The AHRQ reviews actually say "we should account for hereditary and class factors the next time we do this" -so clearly they don't. 100s of flawed studies comIng to the same conclusion don't make their methodology more valid. Sorry, it's just more manure.

[Anonymous]

Actually I breastfeed- with a supplement when I need to, but I'm under no illusions that it's some sort of magical thing, nor that DD is going to be healthier because of it. I can't understand why people like you don't see that breastfeeding is being sOld to them, or that breast is best isn't completely oppressive to women that can't.

[Anonymous]

Don't just read an abstract - read the whole thing.

[Anonymous]

Evolution is NOT what I'm talking about here - evolution gets us to find food for ourselves, marketing makes us choose wholefoods over safeway. And by marketing -I'm talking about all the pressure women feel to breastfeed - sns, LCs, come on. You've been sold on something just like someone that chooses infamil is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually I breastfeed- with a supplement when I need to, but I'm under no illusions that it's some sort of magical thing, nor that DD is going to be healthier because of it. I can't understand why people like you don't see that breastfeeding is being sOld to them, or that breast is best isn't completely oppressive to women that can't.

What's oppressive is the cost of formula. What's also oppressive is the the absurdity of the line of thinking that breastfeeding women are victims of some marketing campaign. Good grief! Breastfeeding is totally normal and natural. Who do you work for? Similac?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The AHRQ reviews actually say "we should account for hereditary and class factors the next time we do this" -so clearly they don't. 100s of flawed studies comIng to the same conclusion don't make their methodology more valid. Sorry, it's just more manure.

I am the poster who linked to several CDC, AAP and HHS studies and statements on the benefits of breastfeeding and risks of formula. I notice you haven't responded to that. What is absurd is that someone thinks that a sugar / cow's milk / chemical combo can possibly be as healthy for a baby as the fluid that was evolutionarily engineered for that specific species, that comes out of its mother's breast. That breastmilk is healthier is undisputed by just about any expert. Even the formula companies are prevented by truth in advertising laws from saying their product is as healthy as breastmilk -- they can only say "closest to breastmilk." Plenty of children will be just fine on formula. If I couldn't breastfeed, as another mom stated, I wouldn't be up at night worrying about my kid's survival chances or IQ, but I'd be cognizant that I was not feeding my child the healthiest option. I'm so tired of being told to sugar coat this or pretend the difference is negligible, at the population level, in order to salve the feelings of someone who cannot or will not breastfeed. I get why a woman might make a different choice, and respect her own risk analysis for her own child, but I'm not going to go so far as to pretend to agree for the sake of being PC. For women unable to breastfeed, my heart goes out. I wish donor breastmilk were more available. The good thing is that I think that is changing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because it is crazy propaganda. Both my kids were breastfed for a year, and both have asthma, food allergies, had so many ear infections they had to get tubes before the age of 1, RSV, etc.

It is complete and utter HOGWASH that it makes children healthier.

Maybe you should try cleaning up your house.

[Anonymous]

I am the OP. I do think breast milk is best, I am just wondering HOW it's better. I hear it's better blah blah, but in my case, it does not keep my son from getting colds, viruses. The benefit I saw was that my son was not constipated on breast milk. When I supplemented with formula I noticed some constipation. I guess I am wondering what the "hidden" benefits are b/c most of them are not visible.