Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

If you choose not to BF, and your child gets a disease that could have been prevented ...

Posted by   + Show Post

I'm not bashing anyone, or trying to cause fights, so lets respect each other's answers... I would just like a conversation started  where people share their thoughts and opinions on this topic...

I'll start out by saying this: My father was bottle fed after he got really ill, almost died, and the shock to my grandmother's system made her dry up. I was bottle fed too and so was my sibling. However I choose to BF my LO because I feel that I can protect her against diseases like diabetes, acute appendicitis, rheumatoid arthritis, inguinal hernia and ploric stenosis, to name a few.

So my question is this: If you choose not to BF and in 10, 20, 30, 40 years your DD or DS got diagnosed with an illness that is life changing, would you like to turn back the years and BF as it would reduce your child's risk to this disease or do you think your child won't get it, or do you think your child will get it no matter what you do today?


Edit:

Firstly I would like to thank everyone that shared their stories. I'm sorry to hear about so many children that is affected by diabetes. I chose diabetes as an example because I was diagnosed with GD that didn't go away and stayed after my daughter was born. There is no family history of diabetes, across family where my grandfather was one of 18 children and my other grandfather one of 11, so I have a huge family. I'm not overweight. I've always eaten healthy food, loved salad and vegetables  etc and yet, now I'm diabetic. 

So my reason for asking was not to make people feel like their parenting choices were bad or that breastfeeding is better or to make moms feel like failures or that they should blame themselves. I'm trying to figure out WHAT on earth LED to MY illness. As a mom I would most definitely go back and redo something I did wrong if I had the means to do so. We all do our best, but we all want a do over.

The illnesses that I quoted in my original question was what I researched on the web. Not something I sucked out of my thumb. And just to clarify AGAIN, I'm not accusing anybody. I was ff. I read a lot of interesting answers that made me think. I need people to challenge my thoughts so that I can push myself further into trying to understand this condition. BECAUSE I AM DIABETIC, my child has a risk of being diabetic. I'm allowed to ask questions without having to be insulted. Trust me if I wanted to insult mothers, you would know about it.

I do believe that breastfeeding reduces your child's risk to these diseases and others thats not mentioned. I don't however said that it would PREVENT them from getting it. So please don't misquote me.


by on Feb. 18, 2013 at 4:18 AM
Replies (41-50):
butterflycircle
by on Feb. 18, 2013 at 11:15 AM

In the future if there was hard evidence it would probably just be that b/f is proven to reduce these risks. No one in the future will be able to predict that if you would have bf your baby would not have gotten this. Unless in the future we have for more creditable psychics. 

I would never change the past b/c it could change the future. It doens't mean it would be better.


Quoting MoeksieNature:

So for argument sake lets say your child gets type 1 diabetes, would you not wonder if it is something that could have been prevented? I know there isn't a lot of evidence going around, so I'm just curious. What if in 20 years time there is hard evidence that BFing could have prevented your child from developing Type 1 diabetes? Would you like to have a do over?

Quoting MrsRobinson06:

No because I believe they would have gotten the disease regardless of how they were fed at infancy. If you're meant to have a disease when you're older it will still happen.




stepconfused182
by Kelley on Feb. 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM

 Yes. I work in a very breastfeeding friendly practice with 11 other pediatricians. Three of those pediatricians have collected data over the past 3 years, working on a publication comparing all variables you have mentioned and then some. While socioeconomic status probably makes the biggest difference, most of those babies are also formula fed, parents smoke, are on government assistance, etc. So they had to leave those babies out of the study due to such high chances of the results being skewed. The results are truly astounding.

Quoting Jadegirl1819:

 This is a serious question and I am not meaning to put anyone down.  Is breastfeeding and formula feeding the only difference between the infants you see?  All the families have the same lifestyle, medical histories, all the infants have a stay at home parent?  There are so many different factors I don't see how a doctor can say that it's all due to breastfeeding or formula feeding.

 

Quoting stepconfused182:

 Oh for heavens sakes. Missing out on life I am not. I am a pediatrician and it is my JOB to obtain the most accurate and correct information available for my patients. This isn't a "doc study" (whatever that is), it is based on clinical trials. You wouldn't believe the difference in the health of infants in bf vs ff babies that I see. It would blow your mind. Like I said earlier, I am not trying to debate or put others down. These are just facts. Take it or leave it!

Quoting crwspringer:

For every doc study you find that says one thing, you will find another disputing it.
These days we have so much crap in our food that we are being killed off by crazy cancers and new super bugs.
If you are going to worry about all this stuff all the time you are going to miss out on living your life.



Quoting stepconfused182:

 Formula fed babies have a 64% higher risk of developing Type II DM than a breastfed baby. Breastfeeding doesn't prevent anything per say, it is the standard. Formula increases the risk. I don't know what the statistics are on Type 1 DM because that's obviously a whole different ballgame! All these people are saying they have certain diseases and were bf, or are perfectly healthy and were FF. However, this is a very small percentage of the world population in which statistics are gathered. Overall, the facts support formula feeding increasing the risk of disease, including a 56% higher risk of SIDS than a BF baby. It's just facts. Not asking for a debate or to be rude and judgemental. It is what it is.


Quoting crwspringer:

I'm sorry, I'm having some trouble with this post. You seriously think breast feeding can prevent diabetes?
Well, my 12 yr old niece who was extended breast fed (until 20 months) was diagnosed with type 1 just shy of her 4th birthday.

 


 

 

 

 

ekh2010
by Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM
You cant prevent type 1diabetes...why do you want to encourage more guilt? If were all moms and have our kids best interest than it shldnt matter. Life would be boring if we were all the same...i think wed be some creepy ass robots lol
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
-PB
by Gold Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM
1 mom liked this

 I think what we (those who have said they are sick vs. healthy and bf vs. ff) are saying is that bf does not make you exempt from disease.  Is it better?  Of course it is.  Everyone knows that.  Does it help prevent certain diseases?  Yes, it helps.  But there are exceptions to the rules as well as other contribution factors.  If your kid gets sick 10, 20, 30 years down the line there is no point in going back and saying "if only I breastfed my kid wouldn't be sick".  That would be silly.

Quoting stepconfused182:

 Formula fed babies have a 64% higher risk of developing Type II DM than a breastfed baby. Breastfeeding doesn't prevent anything per say, it is the standard. Formula increases the risk. I don't know what the statistics are on Type 1 DM because that's obviously a whole different ballgame! All these people are saying they have certain diseases and were bf, or are perfectly healthy and were FF. However, this is a very small percentage of the world population in which statistics are gathered. Overall, the facts support formula feeding increasing the risk of disease, including a 56% higher risk of SIDS than a BF baby. It's just facts. Not asking for a debate or to be rude and judgemental. It is what it is.

Quoting crwspringer:

I'm sorry, I'm having some trouble with this post. You seriously think breast feeding can prevent diabetes?
Well, my 12 yr old niece who was extended breast fed (until 20 months) was diagnosed with type 1 just shy of her 4th birthday.

 

 

MsRkg
by Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM
2 moms liked this

No ,because genetics play a large factor in if you are going to get a disease, not breastfeeding.

Momniscient
by Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Most studies can't control for this. In fact within the on the ground medical community there isn't much difference in early infancy between FF and BF children. Beyond early infancy (and even then it isn't precise or absolute) studies can't even begin to control for factors beyond the type of food being smooshed into a childs intestines.

In reality any 'real' difference in IQ and performance of children that were ff or bf is more likely due to environment and not food. The same is most likely true when it comes to medical issues as well.

Being bf does NOT guarantee a good diet later on anyway. The only way breastmilk confers true and genuine health benefits is if that child is then taken out of the real world and transported to a place and time where the modern world does not exist.

Quoting Jadegirl1819:

 This is a serious question and I am not meaning to put anyone down.  Is breastfeeding and formula feeding the only difference between the infants you see?  All the families have the same lifestyle, medical histories, all the infants have a stay at home parent?  There are so many different factors I don't see how a doctor can say that it's all due to breastfeeding or formula feeding.


Quoting stepconfused182:

 Oh for heavens sakes. Missing out on life I am not. I am a pediatrician and it is my JOB to obtain the most accurate and correct information available for my patients. This isn't a "doc study" (whatever that is), it is based on clinical trials. You wouldn't believe the difference in the health of infants in bf vs ff babies that I see. It would blow your mind. Like I said earlier, I am not trying to debate or put others down. These are just facts. Take it or leave it!

Quoting crwspringer:

For every doc study you find that says one thing, you will find another disputing it.
These days we have so much crap in our food that we are being killed off by crazy cancers and new super bugs.
If you are going to worry about all this stuff all the time you are going to miss out on living your life.



Quoting stepconfused182:

 Formula fed babies have a 64% higher risk of developing Type II DM than a breastfed baby. Breastfeeding doesn't prevent anything per say, it is the standard. Formula increases the risk. I don't know what the statistics are on Type 1 DM because that's obviously a whole different ballgame! All these people are saying they have certain diseases and were bf, or are perfectly healthy and were FF. However, this is a very small percentage of the world population in which statistics are gathered. Overall, the facts support formula feeding increasing the risk of disease, including a 56% higher risk of SIDS than a BF baby. It's just facts. Not asking for a debate or to be rude and judgemental. It is what it is.


Quoting crwspringer:

I'm sorry, I'm having some trouble with this post. You seriously think breast feeding can prevent diabetes?
Well, my 12 yr old niece who was extended breast fed (until 20 months) was diagnosed with type 1 just shy of her 4th birthday.

 


 





stepconfused182
by Kelley on Feb. 18, 2013 at 11:18 AM

 Agreed.

Quoting -PB:

 I think what we (those who have said they are sick vs. healthy and bf vs. ff) are saying is that bf does not make you exempt from disease.  Is it better?  Of course it is.  Everyone knows that.  Does it help prevent certain diseases?  Yes, it helps.  But there are exceptions to the rules as well as other contribution factors.  If your kid gets sick 10, 20, 30 years down the line there is no point in going back and saying "if only I breastfed my kid wouldn't be sick".  That would be silly.

Quoting stepconfused182:

 Formula fed babies have a 64% higher risk of developing Type II DM than a breastfed baby. Breastfeeding doesn't prevent anything per say, it is the standard. Formula increases the risk. I don't know what the statistics are on Type 1 DM because that's obviously a whole different ballgame! All these people are saying they have certain diseases and were bf, or are perfectly healthy and were FF. However, this is a very small percentage of the world population in which statistics are gathered. Overall, the facts support formula feeding increasing the risk of disease, including a 56% higher risk of SIDS than a BF baby. It's just facts. Not asking for a debate or to be rude and judgemental. It is what it is.

Quoting crwspringer:

I'm sorry, I'm having some trouble with this post. You seriously think breast feeding can prevent diabetes?
Well, my 12 yr old niece who was extended breast fed (until 20 months) was diagnosed with type 1 just shy of her 4th birthday.

 

 

 

Jadegirl1819
by Bronze Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Do the families know they are being monitored?  Is this a large number of kids that are being monitored from infancy to a certain age?  I hope it will be longer than 3 years.  That doesn't seem long enough to really get any good data.  Will they be removed from the study if they fall outside the perameters such as a parent starts smoking, home school vs public school, change is family lifestyle, etc. 

Also, I'm confused by this sentence.  Are formula fed babies not being included in the study?  Basically only middle to upper class families were chosen for the study?


Quoting stepconfused182:

 Yes. I work in a very breastfeeding friendly practice with 11 other pediatricians. Three of those pediatricians have collected data over the past 3 years, working on a publication comparing all variables you have mentioned and then some. While socioeconomic status probably makes the biggest difference, most of those babies are also formula fed, parents smoke, are on government assistance, etc. So they had to leave those babies out of the study due to such high chances of the results being skewed. The results are truly astounding.

Quoting Jadegirl1819:

 This is a serious question and I am not meaning to put anyone down.  Is breastfeeding and formula feeding the only difference between the infants you see?  All the families have the same lifestyle, medical histories, all the infants have a stay at home parent?  There are so many different factors I don't see how a doctor can say that it's all due to breastfeeding or formula feeding.

 

Quoting stepconfused182:

 Oh for heavens sakes. Missing out on life I am not. I am a pediatrician and it is my JOB to obtain the most accurate and correct information available for my patients. This isn't a "doc study" (whatever that is), it is based on clinical trials. You wouldn't believe the difference in the health of infants in bf vs ff babies that I see. It would blow your mind. Like I said earlier, I am not trying to debate or put others down. These are just facts. Take it or leave it!

Quoting crwspringer:

For every doc study you find that says one thing, you will find another disputing it.
These days we have so much crap in our food that we are being killed off by crazy cancers and new super bugs.
If you are going to worry about all this stuff all the time you are going to miss out on living your life.



Quoting stepconfused182:

 Formula fed babies have a 64% higher risk of developing Type II DM than a breastfed baby. Breastfeeding doesn't prevent anything per say, it is the standard. Formula increases the risk. I don't know what the statistics are on Type 1 DM because that's obviously a whole different ballgame! All these people are saying they have certain diseases and were bf, or are perfectly healthy and were FF. However, this is a very small percentage of the world population in which statistics are gathered. Overall, the facts support formula feeding increasing the risk of disease, including a 56% higher risk of SIDS than a BF baby. It's just facts. Not asking for a debate or to be rude and judgemental. It is what it is.


Quoting crwspringer:

I'm sorry, I'm having some trouble with this post. You seriously think breast feeding can prevent diabetes?
Well, my 12 yr old niece who was extended breast fed (until 20 months) was diagnosed with type 1 just shy of her 4th birthday.

 


 

 

 

 


 

EvilAsh
by on Feb. 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM
1 mom liked this

I wouldn't want to go back and change anything I did. I did what was best for myself and my kids at the time. I have no regrets about formula feeding my kids. You can develop diseases for no reason at all later in life, or any time. Who's to say it's from not breast feeding or whatever? No one knows for sure where many diseases and disorders come from.

CafeMom Tickers
thatgirl70
by Carin on Feb. 18, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Good grief, how you were fed as a child would have no bearing on whatever disease you got 30-80 years later. 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured