I was just checking out childhood cancer rates and stumbled upon this: http://www.pollutionaction.org/breastfeeding-and-autism-and-cancer.htm I'm freaking out now! I know the intelligent women of MDC will have an explanation, right?! I've breastfed my kids for 2 years each and am now bf'ing my 15-mo-old. Please show me some stats that disprove this!!!
I recently read an article about the risk of childhood cancer going up for every month a baby is on formula! I've come to the realization that the human race is basically screwed at this point, and you just have to do the best you can to minimize the risks of eating, breathing, simply living!
I will risk breastfeeding ANY day over formula and its GMO ingredients, which I feel are FAR more hazardous than anything in breast milk. JMO though, I am far from an expert. Just a mom trying to the best I can for my kids.
I just read an article talking about how GMO toxins have been found in mothers and babies. I have a strong feeling that there is a relation between the two. I have recently been reading up on GMO's, and they are terrible. A 2 year French study has show that they cause cancer and a number of other problems. The problem is that there are GMO's in most stuff weather you realize it or not. A big problem is that anyone in the U.S. and even some other countries that does the research showing that these things are bad, Has their work taken and their careers ruined. Not because of bad research, but because these big businesses have people in high place in the government. A guy recently had years of work stolen from him because he had strong evidence that the pesticides these companies are spraying is killing the bee population. Before he coulod release his work the "law" confiscated or destroyed all of his work. While it is almost impossible to avoid all of the poisons out there, if you stick with organic foods, avoid bpa and other chemical toxins, and avoid "medicine" that is not absolutely needed, you should not worry.
Last I checked the cows live in the same environment that we do. Its not like formula has less toxins in it.
That's a totally stupid article. The whole autism scare and "increase in autism" is made up anyway. Really, it is. Example - today, my son and I are "autistic". 30 years ago, we would never have been classified as autistic. They changed the definition of autistic to diagnose more people. One ca argue over whether they should have done that or not... but keep in mind when they talk about have X % more autistic people now than in 1970, that in 1970 in order to be "autistic" you had to be so bad off you were sent to an institution to live in.
That's a totally stupid article. The whole autism scare and "increase in autism" is made up anyway. Really, it is. Example - today, my son and I are "autistic". 30 years ago, we would never have been classified as autistic. They changed the definition of autistic to diagnose more people. One ca argue over whether they should have done that or not... but keep in mind when they talk about have X % more autistic people now than in 1970, that in 1970 in order to be "autistic" you had to be so bad off you were sent to an institution to live in.
This is one of the most offensive posts I have ever read.
That's a totally stupid article. The whole autism scare and "increase in autism" is made up anyway. Really, it is. Example - today, my son and I are "autistic". 30 years ago, we would never have been classified as autistic. They changed the definition of autistic to diagnose more people. One ca argue over whether they should have done that or not... but keep in mind when they talk about have X % more autistic people now than in 1970, that in 1970 in order to be "autistic" you had to be so bad off you were sent to an institution to live in.
seriously??
Okay, this article is super-long, and I do not have time to read it all at the office, but I'm gonna hit some points that stood out to me in the beginning, and in the author's resume, which I hope you will find reassuring.
From the author's resume:
In other words: This person has no scientific credentials. He took some bio in college. He did okay one year at HBS (it's not clear whether he finished the degree program or not). His grasp on statistical analysis appears to me to be very shoddy. He has no training in immunology, oncology, neurology, obstetrics, gynecology, epidemiology, or pediatrics (or anything else I can find). There is, indeed, sometimes some value to research done by qualified outsiders, but this guy is not a qualified anything. He's just some guy. When reading an article critically and deciding which of several articles (with competing conclusions) to prefer, it's important to examine whether the authors have the expertise they claim they do, or any expertise at all.
ETA: Also please note, he has not done a study. He has written the longest piece of bibliography salad I have ever seen. It's not a study. It barely even rates the title "analysis." More like "he has scraped up some statistics he hasn't taken the time to understand and then hypothesized wildly about them."
Early in the article, he offers the following statements (bolding in original).
Average life expectancies in low-breastfeeding countries are greater then in high-breastfeeding countries. Well, yes, because holy confounding factors Batman. People are more likely to breast feed when they don't have safe alternatives, and people are more likely to have safe alternatives when they live in highly developed nations, where they are also more likely to live longer. Breast feeding has very little to do with that difference.
Similarly, those higly-developed, low-breastfeeding European countries have a tendency to have good public services, like health care. That means that, if you have a health problem, you're more likely to have access to effective treatment, and less likely to find that the problem becomes one of long standing.
Follow Mothering