Saturday, June 2, 2012

Study: Breastfeeding Results in Increased Morbidity and Developmental Delay

Abstract: Breastfeeding has long been touted as improving immunity and having other benefits. However, this study demonstrates that the opposite is true, and that breastfeeding results in increased infections and delayed development.

Introduction: Many studies have shown benefits of breastfeeding, but there are limitations to all these studies since the breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding groups are different. This study looks at babies of the same sex from the same parents, so obviously they're exactly the same.

Methods: Two babies, both girls, from the same parents were studied, examining the number of infections, rate of growth, and developmental milestones. Subject #1 received breastmilk for only six months and got formula supplementation during that time. After six months, Subject #1 received only formula. Subject #2 received only breastmilk for the first six months, then very minimal formula supplementation for the rest of the first year.

Results: At the end of the first year, Subject #1 was at the 99th percentile for both height and weight. She had zero ear infections and zero infections requiring antibiotics. At the end of the first year, Subject #2 was at the 5th percentile for weight and 50th percentile for height. She had been treated for two cases of conjunctivitis and three ear infections. She also threw up a bunch of times. Subject #1 crawled and pulled up two months earlier than subject #2. Subject #1 walked at 10 months of age (data on Subject #2 still pending).

Discussion: Subject #1 showed significantly decreased infection rate compared with Subject #2, in addition to improved growth and reaching milestones. Since Subject #2 received more breastmilk than Subject #1, this likely accounted for the differences.

Conclusion: Breastmilk, once thought to be so great, is actually a source of infection and developmental delay. Who would have thought it?

7 comments:

  1. aren't you full of groundbreaking research lately :P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally am! I recently scored a bunch of grants.

      Delete
  2. I think you can blame subject #1 for the infection rate in subject #2--- toddlers/preschoolers are walking germ factories.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love new research. Two of the things that came to mind reading this was #1 Being siblings doesn't make two children exactly the same, and although they are siblings they are different in age and no two people have the EXACT same life experiences. They many not have come in contact with the same exact people, germs, etc. #2 This is one case study on two individuals so I do not believe this can be considered a medical breakthrough as of yet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm sorry, but I just don't consider that a study. It's anecdotal at best and it's worst it's inflammatory and incorrect. What statistical analysis did they use to determine this was significant and how did they control for that fact that being the second child means you were raised in different circumstances than the first. You can't look at only 2 kids in the same house hold and call it a study.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've gotten a few comments criticizing this "study" and although they have been deleted, I am genuinely uncertain if people realize this post is supposed to be a farce.

    For the record, in case it isn't totally obvious, I don't think comparing my two kids constitutes a scientific study :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. *sigh* Once again a study proving that a sarcasm font is needed.

    ReplyDelete

Comments on posts older than 14 days are moderated as a spam precaution. There may be a delay between submitting your comment and its publishing. Thanks for commenting!