Dear Sir,
The study which found that 13 year old breastfed
babies were almost three times as likely to have asthma than those who were
bottledfed, it highly misleading.
1972 and 1973 was a time when doctors considered
that only formula provided for the full needs of babies. It was considered
that bottle-fed babies were the only group that had enough iron, and other
nutrients. The graphs used then by Plunket, were that which bottle-fed
babies conformed to.
Breastfed babies, who do not put on the copious
weight of bottlefed babies, were therefore considered "underfed" and
nutritionally deficient.
For this reason, often these babies were put on
Ribena, orange juice at birth, supplemental formula bottles at night from
the start (because breastmilk was not good enough). Some paediatricians
even advocated at six weeks of age, cutting off the tips bottle nipples, and
mixing mashed potatoes, and finely ground cooked minced beef to formula to
help these babies catch up with their more "normal" bottlefed counterparts.
This study represents to me, the results of a
medically ignorant philosophy of the time. And the fact that these babies
may well have suffered more than bottle-fed babies, because of inappropriate
food introduction causing allergy, as a consequence of the medical ignorance
of the time.
This sort of inappropriate antigenic stimulation
would now be considered somewhat criminal.
What is worse, is that this study is considered
useful to apply to mothers today. Were I a mother today, I would be not
researching what happened to babies as a result of shonky medical attitude
of 1972. I would be researching just what the experts said in those days,
and comparing that to what is known now.
What this study should do, is make today's
paediatricians blush right down to their ankle socks. And cringe, when they
consider the ignorance of their peers about many many aspects of neonatal
care.
For instance, it was these same paediatricians
who said that babies should be slept on their fronts, because if you slept
your baby on his side or back, your baby would suffer "plagiocephaly (which
actually is true) plagiothorax, plagiopelvy, a relatively adducted hip, a
wry neck and a bat ear. (BMJ 8 April, 1989;298:906-907, Dickson RA.
Idiopathic Scoliosis)
A classic paper in 1973 showed that supine
sleeping was bad because there was decreased opportunity for perception and
experience, bacteria, viruses and mould would attack the eyes, nose and
mouth; there was no outlet for inflammatory nasal discharge, there was a
danger of aspiration; there was a lack of supportive function for the arms
and legs; it promoted dislocation of the hip through the permanent false
position, the skin of the back was overtaxed; belching was inhibited; lower
thoracic aperture was disfigured; it caused skeletal deformation through
non-physiological pressure, and there was relative inactivity of the
musculature of the shoulders, back and hip. (Acta Paediatr. Scand;
1973:62: 176 - 180)
NOW, we are told that that advice was all wrong
and caused cot-deaths. It is time someone did an historical expose of the
paediatric ignorance into everything, not just the reasons for their advice
of sleep position. A study of their views on nutrition would prove equally
as farcical.
Sincerely,
Hilary Butler.