There's more threads on this subject scattered throughout the site so you can do a search and feed some of them.

I'm not going to tell you one way or the other but that study on the Jamacian mothers and their babies is always brought up.

You should know that there are serious flaws in the design of that study. Test groups of 20 and 24 babies does not make a good study. To take luck and random events out from a medical study, the test groups need to be big enough that statistical deviations can be seen and applied. This usually requires groups in the thousands of patients. To look at what happened to 44 babies and try to state with any degree of certainty that the results of the study can be applied to entire populations is quite ridiculous. This goes both ways whether the results are desired or undesired. I'm not saying the study doesn't have any merit to it but when reading the study and its results, the design of the study should always be taken into account. This includes sample size to who was funding the study to whether it was a double blind study to peer review, etc, etc, etc.