There was no mention of the sample group size anywhere, Sherie - so yes, 20% of FF babies may get XXX compared to 10% of BF babies - but in a sample size of 10 that's 3 babies get XXX, of which 2 were FF and one BF - not exactly representitive. And is that exclusively breast, exclusively formula, or were the 10/20% BF and FF combined? Because there should be a seperate statistic for them.

Also the age at which the babies get the diseases wasn't mentioned (I believe) - so, at the age of 80 if you were FF over BF you stand a greater chance of XXX; but then if you're 80 you've done pretty well out of life. And it didn't explore the fact that social factors are also partly responsible, though it did mention it. Over here, the lower socioeconoic group are twice as likely to have type II diabetes - because of their adult diet (that is a huge contribution, though not always the case). They are also the group more likely to have been Formula Fed.

As I mentioned before, I'd love to BF if I can but articles like this wouldn't put me off FFing; I like to see the raw data, not the reported date before making up my mind. FionaJill - please don't think I'm turning a blind eye as I do think that breast is best, but when an article makes these claims with no sample size and no raw data I get a bit annoyed: I wish when someone can "prove" something that they do it comprehensively.