Suck On This by Pat Thomas

*ANY* health issue is appropriate right here on MHA.

Ye ole *what does this have to do with alternative medicine* does not fly
and is a clue that it is 100% correct.
The pro-meds *gang* does not want to hear it.


"D. C. Sessions" wrote

"JOHN" wrote in message
...
http://whale.to/b/thomas.html

Compared to breastfed babies, bottlefed babies are twice as likely to die
from any cause in the first six weeks of life. In particular,
bottlefeeding
raises the risk of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) by two to five
times.
Bottlefed babies are also at a significantly higher risk of ending up in
hospital with a range of infections. They are, for instance, five times
more
likely to be admitted to hospital suffering from gastroenteritis.
Even in developed countries, bottlefed babies have rates of diarrhoea
twice as high as breastfed ones. They are twice as likely (20 per cent vs
10
per cent) to suffer from otitis media (inner-ear infection), twice as
likely
to develop eczema or a wheeze if there is a family history of atopic
disease, and five times more likely to develop urinary tract infections.
In the first six months of life, bottlefed babies are six to 10 times
more likely to develop necrotising enterocolitis - a serious infection of
the intestine, with intestinal tissue death - a figure that increases to
30
times the risk after that time.
Even more serious diseases are also linked with bottlefeeding. Compared
with infants who are fully breastfed even for only three to four months, a
baby drinking artificial milk is twice as likely to develop juvenile-onset
insulin-dependent (type 1) diabetes. There is also a fi ve- to eightfold
risk of developing lymphomas in children under 15 who were formulafed, or
breastfed for less than six months.
In later life, studies have shown that bottlefed babies have a greater
tendency towards developing conditions such as childhood inflammatory
bowel
disease, multiple sclerosis, dental malocclusion, coronary heart disease,
diabetes, hyperactivity, autoimmune thyroid disease and coeliac disease.
Suck On This by Pat Thomas



http://whale.to/b/thomas.html

Compared to breastfed babies, bottlefed babies are twice as likely to die
from any cause in the first six weeks of life. In particular,
bottlefeeding
raises the risk of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) by two to five
times.
Bottlefed babies are also at a significantly higher risk of ending up in
hospital with a range of infections. They are, for instance, five times
more
likely to be admitted to hospital suffering from gastroenteritis.
Even in developed countries, bottlefed babies have rates of diarrhoea
twice as high as breastfed ones. They are twice as likely (20 per cent vs
10
per cent) to suffer from otitis media (inner-ear infection), twice as
likely
to develop eczema or a wheeze if there is a family history of atopic
disease, and five times more likely to develop urinary tract infections.
In the first six months of life, bottlefed babies are six to 10 times
more likely to develop necrotising enterocolitis - a serious infection of
the intestine, with intestinal tissue death - a figure that increases to
30
times the risk after that time.
Even more serious diseases are also linked with bottlefeeding.
Compared
with infants who are fully breastfed even for only three to four months,
a
baby drinking artificial milk is twice as likely to develop
juvenile-onset
insulin-dependent (type 1) diabetes. There is also a fi ve- to eightfold
risk of developing lymphomas in children under 15 who were formulafed, or
breastfed for less than six months.
In later life, studies have shown that bottlefed babies have a
greater
tendency towards developing conditions such as childhood inflammatory
bowel
disease, multiple sclerosis, dental malocclusion, coronary heart disease,
diabetes, hyperactivity, autoimmune thyroid disease and coeliac disease.

Without disputing for a moment that breast is best, I will point out
that some unstated portion of the "bottlefed babies are sick" is due
to "sick babies are bottlefed."

*In your opinion*.

In other words,

No, in YOUR other words.

the conclusion is right but the numbers may be
misleading.

Well, now. And *organized medicine* is never misleading.
HA!

Now, what this has to do with alternative medicine or for that
matter more than half of the newsgroups it was posted to is another
matter entirely.

See above, Mr ridiculer.