study linking BF with aggressive type of cancer?

[jennyr]

OK. So my anti-BF SIL (who can't stand the fact that I BF my child in the first place, let alone am doing child-led weaning) looks for any evidence she can find that BF is somehow bad. So today she posts this study on my FB page.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/EBCC/19262

Granted it is just one study (and took place in Sweden where I believe more women tend to BF and for longer, anyway) and the study considers over six months to be "longer duration" (?) and this goes against everything else I have ever read about the protective effect of extended BF for reproductive cancers. Anyway, what do you think?

[bri276]

I guess she missed these parts:

"Since this is an epidemiological study, you can't really establish any causal relationship, which is very important to remember,"

■Note that the findings are based on a retrospective review of a database and do not prove that longer duration of breastfeeding affects breast cancer risk or characteristics.

■Note that the study was conducted in a specific area of Sweden, and the applicability of the results to other populations is unclear.


■Note that this study was published as an abstract and presented at a conference. These data and conclusions should be considered to be preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal

[mambera]

In some cases if you develop a particular disease even though you have protective factors, your case may be worse.

Eg if you are taking aspirin and still have a heart attack, your heart disease is likely more severe bc it 'broke through' the aspirin.

I could imagine something like this being the case here. Eg extended bf reduces your overall risk, but if you ext-bf and still got ca, you might more likely have had a very aggressive tumor that 'broke through' the bf protection.

Alternatively you could remember that this is just one study, and that even for very well-established correlations, if you do a lot of studies you will almost certainly get one or two that don't find the effect, just bc that is the nature of statistics. And overall the protective effect of bf against br ca is pretty well established I think.

Originally Posted by bri276

"Since this is an epidemiological study, you can't really establish any causal relationship, which is very important to remember,"

Almost all studies of human bf are necessarily epidemiological bc it is almost impossible to randomize breastfeeding so that you can have a controlled trial.


OP why does your SIL care at all what you do with your breasts?? Sounds kind of weird that she would be 'anti-bf' to the point of bothering to send you an article like this. Does she have some lurking issue of her own I wonder?

[jennyr]

Thank you for your posts!

"extended bf reduces your overall risk, but if you ext-bf and still got ca, you might more likely have had a very aggressive tumor that 'broke through' the bf protection."

mambera - thanks for explaining it this way. This makes perfect sense!
I will share this idea with my SIL (for what it's worth). And, yes, she clearly does have some personal issues regarding BF as well as parenting in general. She is childless by choice and seems to have almost a hostility towards parents who are nurturing towards their children....she definitely cannot stand my AP viewpoints! I suspect she has something in her history/upbringing that this stems from. Normally, I practice "to each his/her own" but she keeps sending me articles/bringing things up (co-sleeping, BF, etc) for "debate" when I am not really interested in arguing about my parenting choices with her.
Thanks for your input about the article.

[GoBecGo]

I would tell her outright that you no longer wish to discuss these topics with her. Something along the lines of "my personal choices and lifestyle are not open to your scrutiny or up for debate. If you want that sort of discourse join a book club." might do...?

[BennyPai]

I would certainly post quotes from the article under the FB post, so it is clear that the post is misleading. As has been suggested, making your boundaries clear could help avoid future posts like this.

[kriket]

no, this sounds like to me that the women who were going to get cancer got it. like if there were 10 women who were going to get cancer and each of those 10 women have a different degree of cancer, the top 4 still get cancer (bad cancer) and the bottom whatever don't, maybe because they BFed.

Also, correlation does not imply causation. My favorite example is global warming is killing pirates

[PatioGardener]

Originally Posted by kriket

Also, correlation does not imply causation. My favorite example is global warming is killing pirates

This is awesome! Thank you for posting it!

[mambera]

Originally Posted by kriket

Also, correlation does not imply causation.

Yes but all of the evidence we have for the benefits of breastfeeding is also correlational. It doesn't make sense to admit that evidence but then dismiss studies whose outcomes we don't like because they are correlational.

[pbjmama]

This isn't about breastfeeding, it is about your SIL. I would either ignore or respond with something like, wow, not sure why you posted this here, breastfeeding is the best choice for our family and we are happy with our decision!