The study states that breastfeeding did not help prevent babies (6-18 months old) who were breastfed from getting atopic dermatitis.
However, these babies were not exclusively breastfed as stated in the article:
Chuang and colleagues point out, however, that most previous studies focused on exclusive breastfeeding, something they could not do because few Taiwanese parents exclusively breastfeed their children without adding other liquids or solids. As a result, they say they "cannot totally dismiss the supposed benefits of exclusive breastfeeding with regard to atopic dermatitis."
The study also excluded a large amount of children for fear the information was incorrect, as stated here:
The researchers excluded a large number of children who were diagnosed before they were 6 months old for fear that their parents might have changed the way their kids were fed after the diagnosis, thus skewing the data. Of the 18,773 children that remained, 1,050 (almost 6 percent) were diagnosed with atopic dermatitis between the ages of 6 and 18 months.
So, I am lost on this study. It seemed they were trying to debunk the 2008 study done by The American Academy of Pediatrics, that found infants at high risk of developing allergic diseases (including dermatitis) might benefit from EXCLUSIVE breastfeeding for 4 months. But for infants in general, "after 4 to 6 months of age, there are insufficient data to support a protective effect of any dietary intervention for the development of atopic disease."
So with this information, how can they compare the two studies if one was with exclusive breastfed babies and the other not?
HMMMM let's ponder that one!