Did anyone see the TIME article?

In 5kKib.89319$pl3.67992@pd7tw3no,
Dawn Lawson wrote:

* Also at higher risk for
* allergies were children who were breast-fed for more than four months
*
*But this I don't get. Is it a typo? Bfding for MORE than 4 months
*increases the risk for allergies?? That seems counter intuitive.

No, it is NOT a typo. I can't at the moment lay my hands on the citation
for the study but here is a news article providing a brief synopsis:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/
0,5744,5351040%255E23329,00.html

or
http://tinyurl.com/r075

Bottom line: no one knows why, but this study did find an INCREASED amount
of allergies in kids BFed 4 mo.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 01:47:23 GMT, "E" wrote:

Did anyone see the TIME article?

From Time Magazine...

Allergies: The Two-Dog Trick

Here's a link to the original article (a news release from Henry
Ford Hospital, which is where my youngest was born):

http://www.henryfordhealth.org/body....detail&ref=424

There are other papers in PubMed including Dr. Johnson as an author.

Hillary Israeli wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/r075

Bottom line: no one knows why, but this study did find an INCREASED amount
of allergies in kids BFed 4 mo.

The biggest problem with studies of this kind is that no one defines
"breastfeeding." It is truly *exclusive* (no formula, no sugar water,
no baby foods)? How many people would fit that definition, in this day
and age? At least one study was discussed on LactNet, the list for
lactation professionals--I'm not sure if it was that study, but I think
it might have been--and the category of "breastfed" included infants
given daily formula supplementation for at least the first week! Also,
the numbers were taken from the early 70s, in New Zealand, so who's to
say what was going on back then? I know my mother fed me solids by
three months, and that was after a lot of pressure from other people.
Until we get a study that looks at infants who are truly exclusively
breastfed, I don't know how we can be so quick to blame breastmilk. I'm
not saying that it isn't possible (and even if it was true, breastmilk
provides so much more protection and good health than allergy prevention
that I would never choose to formula feed), but I hate the media spin
and irresponsible reporting, as well as the sloppy study methodology.


JMHO,


Emily

I had written:

The biggest problem with studies of this kind is that no one defines
"breastfeeding." It is truly *exclusive* (no formula, no sugar water,
no baby foods)? How many people would fit that definition, in this day
and age?

But what I meant to say was "*even* in this day and age?"


Emily

Okay, here's my theory on why the studies found that bf for more than four
months correlated to a higher incidence of allergies.

In the developed world, who is more likely to bf? Educated, more affluent
people. Who is most likely to have a home that is clean? (as in the clean
associated with higher incidences of allergies) That's right, the more
affluent people. Don't most people in third world countries bf? Don't they
also have low incidence of allergies and asthma?

Anyway, that's my theory. g
Maryilee

Maggie's Christmas page
http://www.angelfire.com/vi/maggie/c...spictures.html
Info on hereditary spherocytosis
http://www.angelfire.com/vi/maggie/spherocytosis.html