Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Good reason to nurse babies:

"researchers found that the rate of SIDS was 60 percent lower among infants who had any amount of breastfeeding compared to those who didn't breastfeed, and more than 70 percent lower in infants that been breastfed exclusively - without any formula - for any period of time."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/06/13/breastfeeding-linked-to-lower-risk-sids/#ixzz1PEmwMhJB

What goes unsaid here is that kind of implicates Formula in SIDS. If babies who drink formula have a 70 percent greater chance of dying from SIDS, why are we still giving formula to children? And why is there no furor about this in the press?

Look at it this way: when scientists discovered that babies who sleep on their backs have a statistically significant lower risk of dying of SIDS, the AAP went all out to basically force parents to make their babies sleep on their backs--even to the point that babies who need to sleep on their tummies in order to sleep aren't "allowed". Parents and babies are getting less sleep, less education about healthy sleep, and having fewer options to make their babies happy. All because of what my doctor said was actually a LESS THAN 1% greater likelihood of a baby dying of SIDS simply from sleeping on its back. LESS than 1%. 

So now we find a 70% chance, and what do we say? NOTHING. 

Why? Because it's too late for moms who didn't breastfeed to start? Because we don't want to hurt the feelings of Moms who really shouldn't breastfeed (like because they need anti-depressants?). Because the makers of formula are too powerful?

Why is the word not spreading on this one?

No comments: