Hilary Butler's response to New Zealand asthma/breastfeeding study

Vaccination News Home Page

Hilary Butler's response to New Zealand asthma/breastfeeding study

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. 

 

Vaccination News Home Page

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.