Breastfeeding may not be best. Oh damn, condescending lactation consultants and SWPL women will be pissed. When they breastfed their kids out to age five, they were not helping their future SAT scores, they were just being weird. I support breastfeeding or bottle feeding but don't kid yourself that seeing a kid run up to his mom for a "fill up" is perfectly normal. The Ohio State study shows that breastfeeding may not be best and in some instances, worse than formula. All of the benefits of breastfeeding evaporate when you look at family results.
Their basis for this is looking at life results for siblings. Once they looked at the familial level for children fed differently within the same family, those breast feeding gains went kaput. But but but but for years studies showed breastfeeding kids did better and were smarter! These researchers would never discuss it, but at play was genetics. They are blind to nature, but nature is reality. What may have skewed the breastfed kids are smarter studies was an oddity in breastfeeding rates between races. Simple point that even these researchers concede is that educational outcomes and achievements vary by race even if we disagree on cause of variance. Who breastfed more? Even in 2000 during the breastfeeding push, white moms were breastfeeding at rates of 72%, Hispanic moms at 77%, but black moms breastfed at 47%. I do not have numbers for the 1980s or 1990s, but think about what that means for scoring down the road. Black kids are overrepresented in the formula numbers while white kids are overrepresented in the breastfeeding numbers. There is your breastfeeding vs. formula academic achievement gap. It is like a high school rigging their state education exams by sending the bottom 5% home on test days.
Now the researcher is a good, progressive soldier. Even looking at these results Dr. Colen states that this means there is more importance on environment, schooling, etc. Dr. Colen mentioned that she knew more whites breastfed, but because she denies the reality of differences between racial groups that could not possibly account for the mirage of breastfeeding benefits. This is rather amazing on her part because she takes her research results and fails to see that kids in the same family (same nature) raised in the same way (same nurture) saw no difference. It was a wash. She cannot open her mind to the possibility that the core matter, what DNA coding says, might be the key factor. It is no surprise to see her resume. She was a women's studies major who earned an MD and PhD with papers constantly hauling the progressive load. Her papers are the academic jargon version of what you hear progressives spout on MSNBC or the stump come election season. She gets grants, awards and a plum job. Politicians get excuses and the government social welfare state gets more jobs.
Why even bring this up? It is garbage science that will never take into account the genetic because of what that may say about the rest of their crackpot research. They cannot admit it, so they perpetuate lies over and over. Some of the lies have horrible effects like our current education system. Other effects are more hidden, like breastfeeding is best, enables idiot politicians in New Jersey to have formula kept behind the counter at the pharmacy. When a mom buys it (already shamed by the La Leche League Nazis for not breastfeeding), the pharmacist has to instruct her that breastfeeding is best. There are benefits to breastfeeding. It's natural, mother-child bonding, immunity boosts, but the recent propaganda is that breastfed kids became smarter. Let us not kid ourselves professors and liberal pundits, you aren't nursing your kid to Harvard.