Breast feeding compared to smoking.

It's okay I got it (after reading through what you wrote about four times and mulling it over in my mind lol). On Friday for the interview, speak slowly

Wow this debate has gone well off tracks Ok then, with all the current evidence and taking an educated prediction in which situation do you think a person is more likely to be healthier, if they were breast fed for a year as a baby but smoked for a year when they were 16, or if they were not breast fed as a baby and didn't smoke at all? In other words is not recieving breast milk for the first year worse than smoking for a year when older?

Reason I ask - In people who quit smoking the body heals itself and all their risk factors return to normal after say 10 years. But not being breast fed is like someone said irriplaceable so I don't understand why smoking is seen as much worse than not breast feeding.

smoking around a baby can KILL them. It increases the risk of cot death. Is that a chance that should be taken? You don't see formula killing people!

Edit : and anyway you're veering away from your original question now by talking about people smoking in later life. Originally you were questioning whether smoking around a baby is worse than giving them formula, were you not?

smoking around a baby can KILL them. It increases the risk of cot death. Is that a chance that should be taken? You don't see formula killing people!

Edit : and anyway you're veering away from your original question now by talking about people smoking in later life. Originally you were questioning whether smoking around a baby is worse than giving them formula, were you not?

I heard something very relevant when I went into work today. A colleague who was due to return to work from paternity leave didn't come back as one of his twins had been taken to big childrens hospital from local general hospital. They thought she was going to need surgery due to serious bowel problem. This little one was very prem and only out of hospital a couple of weeks ago at three months old. Anyway she was doing well but mom struggling to keep on breastfeeding when she got home with two little ones so she weaned them on to formula. Well they think the formula milk is the problem, she is improving, don't know what she is being fed at the moment, but it does show that not breastfeeding can cause serious problems.

It doesn't show that its the formula thats caused it, if babies can't handle being formula fed (apart from being lactose intolerent) chances are the baby ill anyway even if he/she does improve with breast milk.

Depends on the 'bowel problem' you're talking about - off the top of my head it's thought breast feeding is protective against nectrotizing entercolitis specifically, especially in premature babies.

Oh OK, I'll tell him to mention it to the Consultant in charge of the case as he is obviously on the wrong track.

That must hurt. So overall if a baby isn't breast fed then what other ways are there that they could have an health advantage over a breast fed kid?

They could not be deep fat fried by a mother suffering from post-partum depression.

The women's ward at work is a collection of fun.

If people can fully recover after smoking for 10 years then im sure people can recover from not being breast fed.

Oh yes, I remember it so well. I decided that it would be a good idea to kill my baby boy in case someone shouted at him, one day somewhere in the future. I could picture it so clearly, my three day old baby as an angelic five year old being shouted at because he forgot his PE kit or something. I sobbed my heart out and felt infanticide was the only answer. Fortunately I got over it and was OK. The scary thing is no one noticed, or if they did they just ignored me. Fortunately for me it only lasted a day, the crying that is, the murder plan was just half an hour or so.

You're comparing two completely different sets of biological processes (thousands in each really) and you want to use logic as flimsy as that?