With twins on the way I've been giving a lot of thought to FF vs BF and the pros and cons of both.

In my reasonably rudimentary view of these matters, I find it curious that statements are frequently made to the effect of "we all know breastfeeding is best". It suggests that this is an irrefutable truth, such that the sun is hot and the ocean is made of water.

What I am genuinely interested to see (because I don't know where to look) is a listing of scientific studies using proper methodology which proves this point. I expect that such studies would need to compare a number of FF and BF babies from the same socio-economic background, over a period of say 5 years, for the purposes of evaluating present and post-BF/FF outcomes. The control would need to be a sample of both FF/BF infants whose health and immune characteristics can be quantified. How this is done I don't know but I'm not a scientist.

I am not interested in links to blanket statements made by the ABA, or a blog or whatever, or sources which mention studies and evidence as "proof" but don't actually cite the source. An example of a dinky di study (unrelated to BF) is here: MJA: Blyth, et al., Hospitalisation for congestive heart failure: burden and outcomes

If you haven't got a source in a format similar to the above (ie. a formal scientific study) I am not going to look at it - I'm not trying to be nasty, I'm just telling you what I am after and am wondering if anyone can help.

This isn't a wind up or an excuse to start a debate, I actually want to know for myself and for DW. I am asking because I am assuming that some of you who are very pro_BF will have knowledge of what I am after.