Anti-Vaccine Groups Do One Worse: Harrassing Parents of Dead Children
July 21st, 2010
|
| Share |
What can I say? This is absolutely sickening. Granted that those who oppose vaccination and spread lies in an attempt to stop vaccination of children takes a very perverted and unethical kind of person. Still, the very idea that they could be so committed to trying to further their own agenda that they would actually confront and harass the parents of a child who had just died of an infectious disease takes things to a new level of cruelty.
Perhaps the leadership of the AVN really is insane enough to believe what they are saying. However, even if that is so, it in no way justifies attacking people who have just gone through the kind of loss and pain most of us could never even imagine. Their motive is clear and could not be more callous or self-serving – to try to preserve any credibility they think they still have by going after their opponents, regardless of who they are or how much they have suffered already.
This kind of behavior transcended the issue of bad science and incorrect medical advice. It shocks and offends the conscious of any person with a sense of decency. It offends the values of humanity and sympathy. This is intolerable and just plain wrong. No person who engages in such actions should ever be seem as anything other than a sociopath and a self-serving, callous fraud.
There can be no doubt that this is simply a very dishonest operation run by a very dishonest woman who does not care what she says or does to promote herself. And all this comes from a group which touts itself as being a sympathetic, pro-family and pro-health organization.
It’s revolting. It does, however, remind me of another post on here a while ago.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 21st, 2010 at 9:28 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Conspiracy Theories, Culture, Quackery, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
July 21st, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Westboro Baptist called. They want their playbook back.
Quote Comment
July 21st, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Oh, and this Dorey c*** sounds like an American. What, she couldn’t find enough idiots in this country to swallow her kool-aid?
Quote Comment
July 21st, 2010 at 10:38 pm
This looks more like an act of desperation by an organization that realizes that their movement has jumped the shark. I suspect that they are jonesing for some arrests, or maybe some angry father to beat one of their faces to blood so as to make it look like they are being persecuted.
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:11 am
Is it just me, or do the reporters seem sympathetic to these sociopaths?
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:14 am
Matthew said:
It might just be you. I remember watching that episode of lateline. They tore Dorey and the AVN to pieces and were fairly sympathetic toward the parents of the deceased baby.
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:18 am
Finrod said:
Could be – the accent throws off my intonation interpretation. It’s happened to me before.
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:23 am
DV82XL said:
I am sure that a confrontation so they can try and claim victim status is what they are looking for. But even knowing that I believe that if I were one of the fathers I would still give in and at least get in one really good punch.
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:18 am
When my girls were babes and I stumbled out in search of mommy companionship (and conversations of more than one syllable not involving excretia) I remember encountering a whole swack of women I came to think of as “brown skirts”…they’d read every book on parenting and were convinced of the need for a return to holistic values.
One mom was shocked…shocked, I tell you, to learn there was actual sugar in baby formula. I was drummed out of that particular group for mentioning if she tasted her own breast milk, she’d detect a distinct sweet taste…”from what would that be, d’ya suppose?” I posed, batting my eyes..
It was in groups like this I first encountered this same anti-vaccination fervor because they had read/heard somewhere from someone sometime that a baby had a reaction to the pertussis vaccine. Because they, as children themselves, never experienced a whooping cough epidemic, they concluded the greater danger lay in exposing their beloved bunnykin to the one in a million chance of anaphylaxis without considering why they never experienced an epidemic as children.
You cannot argue with the fanatics…unfortunately, it only makes them feel more justified and willing to die for their misguided faith. I’ve learned this over the years. You can only present the truth to counter their fuzzy thinking and outright lies.
Here’s a great site that provides some ammunition against the lying liars and the twisted truths they spew http://immunize.cpha.ca/en/diseases-vaccines/pertussis.aspx
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:36 am
The AVN evidently knows no depths to which they will not sink. They believe passionately that pertussis doesn’t kill, and when presented with evidence that it does, they must attack the evidence because it threatens their belief. In this case, that means claiming that this child did not die of pertussis, and that her parents are deliberately lying about her death. Furthermore, her parents are using her death to raise awareness of the importance of vaccination; this threatens AVN more directly, and so they know that if they want to avoid any inconvenient questions, they must silence the parents. They don’t have any facts, so they are settling for abuse and intimidation.
Appalling. I can only hope that the public sees this abuse and recognizes the AVN for the desperate and contemptuous jerks that they are.
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:29 pm
maureen blaseckie said:
Baby formula is something else that I’ve seen some of these groups go on a tirade over. There’s no doubt that breast milk offers some benefits you can’t get from formula, but it’s still entirely possible to raise a healthy child on formula alone, and in cases where the mother does not produce adequate breast milk or where there is some medical reason not to use breast milk, it’s the way to go.
I was raised on a combination of both. I definitely received some formula from time to time. My sister was raised entirely on specialized formula because she had an adverse reaction to milk early on, so she never got breast milk, but only formulas based on soy or special low-lactose milk.
Yes, formula does contain sugar. All milk (human or otherwise) has sugars in it. Lactose being the most common, but others as well, depending on the species. Sugar is not “un-natural” It’s a simple carbohydrate that is an essential nutrient for young children. Different brands of formula are going to contain different ratios of sugars (lactose, dextrose, fructose, glucose, sucrose etc) along with other ingredients.
There is nothing sinister here. Again, babies need sugars in the milk.
Some of the anti-formula websites have worried me too. As I stated, there are good reasons to breast feed, but formula is a good second option if a woman does not produce enough breast milk or if there are medical reasons why she is advised not to breast feed.
There have been some very disturbing stories on this subject: http://baby.families.com/blog/the-breastfeeding-mafia-is-starving-babies
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:32 pm
ddpalmer said:
Of course, in civilized societies, we can’t condone punching someone who disagrees with you and expresses an opinion that is so ridiculous. However, if I were the judge in a case where the father of a dead child punched an anti-vaxer for getting all up in his face about his recently-desecrated child, I think I’d exercise some judicial discretion and take into account his state of mind and the full context of the situation. IMHO, such an act would be best addressed with a dismissal and a very stern “don’t let this happen again” or perhaps knocking it down to a third-degree misdemeanor and a suspended sentence.
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 3:01 pm
drbuzz0 said:
While I dislike the “breastfeeding mafia” very much, and find a considerable amount of falsehood in what they say, the story is not quite as horrific as it may sound. It is actually not unusual for a baby to lose a great deal of weight in the first week, regardless of the method of nutrition used. Bottle or breast, the baby has to figure out the mechanics of suckling without choking, and some work it out more quickly than others. It is a bigger problem with preterm babies, partly because they may not yet have a suckle reflex but also because they have less weight to lose. Both stories sound very scary, but it’s worth remembering that weight loss in newborns is *typical*. There isn’t enough information in either story to blame it on breastfeeding, or even to say whether the situation would’ve been better without breastfeeding nazis. More frequent well-baby checks, perhaps. I think it might be good to have door-to-door nurses or midwives who did housecalls to check the baby’s weight daily until birthweight is regained, without the expense and nuisance of actual in-clinic doctor visits just to weigh the kid.
More generically, though, the problem is far bigger. Motherhood introduced me to a whole, crunchy world of wackiness directed entirely at new mothers. It’s not just breastfeeding. It’s what kind of diapers to use, diaper rash care, vaccines, medicines, how to soothe the baby, extremely early education, how much time outdoors, TV, etc. Very little of it is science based; most of it is completely nuts.
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Calli Arcale said:
The elder of my sisters is a midwife who practised for several years on and around the Welsh border in the U.K.. I recall her outrage at this sort of thing which was rampant in that region, to the point where many older women seemed to derive a sort of sadistic glee terrifying new mothers, and mothers-to-be, with idiotic nonsense. This would sometimes be done to the point where the poor girl would become hysterical with fear when she stated labour, complicating what would have been a normal delivery.
She was never able to understand this sort of cruelty. Of course there was also an endless supply of well-meaning but worthless advice, and traditional practices that would cause the post birth professionals to pull out their hair in frustration as well, but she was mostly working in prenatal/delivery.
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I call Godwin.
If you seriously want to compare breastfeeding supporters genocidal maniacs I suppose that’s your right, but it doesn’t do your case any good.
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Deb said:
I think in this case Calli was using the term ‘breastfeeding nazis’ because that is a descriptor that the La Leche League is often referred to by their opponents, rather than an editorial position she holds herself.
Therefore Godwin need not apply.
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Actually, she said “breastfeeding _mafia_”. And even that was a quotation.
Quote Comment
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Brian Garrett said:
Yes, she’s an American transplant to Australia. And as an American, I once again have to say I’m very sorry about that.
Quote Comment
July 24th, 2010 at 12:59 am
My apologies, I thought I saw ‘nipple nazis’ but it may have been in the link. And Calli was quite rightly pointing out that it’s normal for newborns to lose weight (although 23% is very high). This is actually the thing that infuriates many lactivists – ignorance of what is ‘normal’ leads to people thinking there is a problem when there isn’t really.
Quote Comment
July 25th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Deb said:
I’m sorry if it’s a sore subject (and I know that when it comes to breastfeeding, nipples can be a sore subject), but that’s really funny. The alliteration, puerility, and imagery speak so powerfully to my inner imp.
Quote Comment
July 25th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Shafe said:
Down boy!
Quote Comment
July 26th, 2010 at 8:05 am
DV82XL said:
Brian Garrett said:
Sorry, but actually:
Calli Arcale said:
Deb’s call of ‘Godwin’ is justified (as much as calling Godwin’s law is ever justified).
Quote Comment
July 27th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Technically, Godwin’s Law only applies to calling another participant in the discussion a Nazi. It does not apply to other uses of hte term.
DV82XL is exactly right; I did not originate the term “breastfeeding nazis”. It is used to describe the especially overzealous, who use intimidation, humiliation, and shame to try to force people to breastfeed, rather than actually doing something useful like giving them the *facts* and the *support* and the *love* needed to encourage women to do it. It refers essentially to the militancy of their tactics, the absolutism of their views, and their general sense of superiority.
I’m an ardent advocate of breastfeeding. It’s the tactics I object to, as well as black-and-white views of the issues. I can’t help but think that if the majority of mothers initiate breastfeeding but stop by 6 weeks (which is very common in the US), the problem is something other than a lack of awareness of the importance of breastfeeding.
Quote Comment
July 27th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
My sister was raised exclusively on specialized formulas for the first couple of months. I believe she later did breast feed, but not exclusively, but the reason being that she had digestive problems that prevented her from being able to take breast milk. I don’t remember exactly, but I think it was a mild form of lactose intolerance or something. She reacted violently to milk and milk products. She did seem to grow out of it.
She had to be given a specialty formula that is based on soy and/or highly processed milk and synthetic nutritients.
I’m also aware that some women do not produce enough milk to breast feed exclusively without augmenting it with formula. This being a more common problem with multiple births. I’ve also heard of women who have repeated problems with infection during breast feeding, this often treated with antibiotics and possibly requiring them to refrain from breast feeding for a few days until the infection clears.
I don’t see how these issues would somehow indicate reduced “love” for the infant or something like that. It’s probably healthier to feed an infant formula for a few days than milk that contains a combination of bacteria and strong antibiotics to treat the infection – apparently it depends on the nature of the infection and the prescribed antibiotic whether its necessary to reduce or stop breast feeding.
I’m well aware that there are groups who get livid at these notions. They will tell you that “it’s natural” to feed a baby even when there’s an infection of the milk ducts. They’ll say it usually is not fatal and that it ca be beneficial. It’s similar to the anti-vaccine stuff IMHO. Usually it is not fatal (but it sometimes is), but it’s probably not beneficial to feed when there’s a bad infection.
Quote Comment
July 28th, 2010 at 7:05 am
Calli Arcale said:
Curses, I was raised on the harsh principles that even a mention Nazism, the Nazis or Hitler in their debating was subject to general mockery and so on and so forth.
I apologise. I’ll have to go back to (Godwin’s) law school.
Quote Comment
July 28th, 2010 at 9:29 am
I’mnotreallyhere said:
If I recall correctly, Godwin’s Law states that as any internet debate goes on, at some point one side will start comparing the other to the Nazis as an ad hominem attack, and that, as a general rule this is the point at which the debate serves no useful purpose, because one side has gone off the deep end.
I don’t think that this mention crosses the threshold (ie it is not the main thrust of the argument). There are other exceptions, as well, the most important being relevance. In a debate about eugenics, for example, it is perfectly appropriate to bring them in, since they are probably the best known eugenecists of the 20th century.
Quote Comment
July 28th, 2010 at 9:41 am
drbuzz0 — I have a friend who was raised on goat’s milk, by doctor’s orders. Barring lactose intolerance (which will affect pretty much any mammal milk diet), it’s a fairly good fit for an infant but is higher fat, so it’s good for a baby who’s having trouble gaining weight despite adequate feeding.
Mastitis is definitely a common condition; I’ve had it a few times. It isn’t always an actual infection, though. In fact, it’s usually not. It’s usually just a blocked duct which has backed up, irritating the breast and causing it to get inflamed. Heatpacking (which temporarily softens the fatty material forming the plug) and continuing to nurse/pump is the best treatment for a mechanical case of mastitis. It can be associated with fever even without an actual infection. The key is that it should clear up in a couple of days. If it doesn’t, then you probably do have a bacterial infection on your hands. Whether or not it will affect the baby depends on the species and quantity of bacteria. Odds are, the baby has already been exposed by the time you notice the infection, so discontinuing nursing is a bit like closing the barn door after the cows have gone, and it might actually be helpful to treat both, but the caveat there is that you must choose the antibiotic carefully. Not all antibiotics are safe in infants, and some are known to be dangerous, in which case “pump and dump” is called for.
Some doctors are far too quick to prescribe antibiotics for mastitis. This does no one any good, and not just because of switching the baby to formula.
I’mnotreallyhere — to be fair, I probably should’ve avoided saying “nazi” because it does tend to make people lose perspective. Then again, the point of it was to describe an activist who has become so enveloped in the Cause that they’ve lost perspective themselves. It’s mostly just habit picked up from parenting forums.
If all mention of Nazism would destroy a thread, then it would be impossible to discuss, for instance, the European theater of World War II.
And actually, I just refreshed my memory on Godwin’s Law, and it’s indeed not limited to calling your opponent a Nazi — it also doesn’t say that it ends the thread, or that it is subject solely to mockery, or even address the (de)merits of the term. It states “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
Quote Comment
July 28th, 2010 at 10:41 am
First it is highly unlikely that evolution would not have dealt with any risks to the infant from mastitis cause by trauma, in fact my son managed to give his mother a mild case by his very aggressive feeding, and was unaffected (beyond getting rapidly weaned) One of the responses of the body to mastitis is to flood the milk with somatic cells which likely scavenge up any bacteria anyway.
The parallels with the subject at hand with anti-vaxers laying guilt trips on parents, is that the disciples of the La Leche League do something similar, even when halting breast feeding is medically indicated for the health of the infant, the mother, or both. It the point where ideology, not reason based on fact that is driving advice, and that an attempt is being made to manipulate using guilt and other emotional tools.
Quote Comment
July 28th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Calli Arcale said:
I’m not a doctor so I don’t know how this all works, but I do know there are some legitimate times when a woman either should not breast feed because of medical reasons or when she is simply not capable of producing enough milk for the infant.
This issue has always been fairly common. In centuries past they didn’t have formula, but instead had women known as “wet nurses” who would breastfeed the infant. Today this is not a common practice in most of the world. It is fairly common for a woman who gives birth to twins or triplets to not be able to sustain them entirely on breast feeding, or so I’ve read.
Quote Comment
July 29th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Actually, wet nurses were usually not hired because the mother couldn’t safely nurse. They were usually hired if the mother did not *wish* to nurse. Being able to afford a wet nurse was a sign of affluence. And actually, it still is, in some parts of the world. In China, the practice of using a wet nurse is alive and well. Affluent mothers will flaunt their wealth by hiring a wet nurse. The nurse is a mother herself, of course; her child is placed on formula. (In medieval times, her child would nurse second.) What’s more, the affluent mother usually lives in the city, while the wet nurse lives in the country. It is commonplace for the wet nurse to leave her only child (one-child policy, after all) in the care of relatives while she moves in with her clients hundreds of miles away for the next nine months or so.
Affluent mothers didn’t nurse their own babies in medieval times; they would never learn if they could produce enough milk. The majority of mothers, if they couldn’t produce enough milk, would use animal milk, usually cow or goat. Sometimes the child would be placed actually on the animal to nurse; other times, a makeshift nipple would be created out of leather. But most mothers would not have hired a wet nurse; they could not have afforded it. Only the wealthy would do it, and they wouldn’t do it just because they mother was sick or anything; they would have decided to do it from the start.
The medieval wet nurse’s child might end up stunted, or might be supplemented with animal’s milk, or might even died due to malnutrition, but it wasn’t uncommon for both children to grow up just fine, and even be raised together, though the wet nurse’s child would be always considered subordinate. (Wet nurses were often expected to continue their service as a nanny after the child was weaned.) While not all women can produce enough milk for two babies, most women actually can. The real reason most mothers of twins give up on nursing is because it is a MAJOR time sink, enough so that it can easily become impractical even for a stay-at-home mom. Nursing one baby takes a lot of time. Nursing two, unless you can persuade them to nurse on the same schedule, can leave you with no time to yourself. If you’re okay with that, well, more power to you, but I think not a lot of women will be okay with that. There is something to be said for sanity, after all.
The whole medieval wet nurse arrangement really doesn’t have a lot of bearing on modern formula feeding or even donor breast milk arrangements; it was an artifact of its times, rooted in a rigid class structure that divided the aristocracy from everybody else. The closest analog is the wet nurse arrangements in China today, and they are, in many ways, more sinister because of the clients’ insistence that the wet nurse abandon her child for the duration, and have no long-term relationship with the child she nurses. Medieval nurses were hired as surrogate mothers, not just walking milk machines. But they do share this in common: the wet nurse is not hired because of milk supply or milk quality concerns. It’s a long-term arrangement meant to entirely replace breastfeeding by the birth mother.
Quote Comment
July 29th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Calli Arcale said:
In which case Godwin’s Law has been proven once more and we can all move on with the more sensible avenues of conversations available
And since you were the one to link some XKCD a little while ago I’m sure you can find the particular strip to illustrate the problem (I’d check, but XKCD is one of many sites blocked by my office’s net filters).
On Topic:
Has anyone got some suitably informative (and informed) links on the nutritional merits of breastmilk versus “formula”? Sorry for the quotes, somehow that word just doesn’t sound right – too much time studying engineering perhaps?
I can understand that from the point of view of mother and child bonding it’d be beneficial to breastfeed and clearly it fits “the natural order of things” and thus possibly has benefits for things like the mother’s hormonal balance (pure speculation on that one) but I’m left with only three logical reasons why “formula” wouldn’t be nutritionally equivalent:
1) Breastmilk contains certain specific (useful) compounds which don’t last – rapid decomposition of certain compounds outside breast-tissue could lead to a situation where “formula” manufacturers hit a dead end.
2) It’s not so much about difficulty in preservation, but in production – certain compounds in breast milk which are rarely found in other animal milk and hard to synthesise. Until things get really out of hand and women start getting milked by SMA then we can assume this would limit the ability of “formula” companies to produce an equivalent product.
3) It’s specifically an issue of having a milk factory in the same environment – given the well known effect of building resistances to local strains of viruses etc, having milk produced by someone in the same environment provides noticeable benefits to the immune system of the child.
Can anyone shed some light on which of these are flawed, possible but unsupported or backed up by science? Capitalism being what it is (especially in the baby-raising industry) you’d think some smarty pants would have synthesised a perfect match.
Quote Comment
July 29th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
In my experience, the benefits of breastfeeding are often grossly overstated, particularly by the breastfeeding zealots. (I hope that term will be considered acceptable.) In particular, the immune benefits are really not that dramatic. It’s all passive immunity, and actually not really meaningful after the first week — the gut changes and becomes less permeable, which is important for survival, but means that immune benefits are unlikely or minimal after the first week. It’s probably not a coincidence that the immune-boosted first milk (colostrum) doesn’t last very long; the mother’s body switches to regular milk within a few days.
Apart from colostrum, nutritionally speaking formula and breastmilk are both fine and nearly equivalent. The only major difference is that formula isn’t made with human proteins and consequently it is possible to develop an allergy to it. That includes the “hypoallergenic” soymilk formulas — soy allergies do exist. But there are enough varieties of formula that a suitable match should be possible. If not cow’s milk, then soy, if not soy, then goat.
Harriet Hall over at Science Based Medicine reviewed (and was unimpressed by) a study purporting to show better outcomes for breastfed babies. It’s an interesting read.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4678
Quote Comment
July 29th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
I’mnotreallyhere said:
All of these point have some basis in fact. See Colostrum
Quote Comment
July 29th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
True, but note that colostrum is only produced for a couple of days or so and it is thus a very small percentage of what an infant eats before starting solids.
Quote Comment
July 29th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Calli Arcale said:
No question, however it does seem to indicate that at least for these few days there is some benefit. I agree that the other advantages of long-term nursing have been exaggerated.
Quote Comment
July 30th, 2010 at 1:44 am
I’mnotreallyhere said:
I would have to add:
4) There is still more to be learned about the importance of the various compounds that make up our food (including milk), their functions, and interactions between them.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I’m under the impression that while we’ve identified a lot of compounds like various proteins, amino acids, fatty acids, sugars, hormones, and the like, our understanding of biochemistry and physiology is not a closed book. Evolution spent millions of years fine tuning the composition of milk, and we don’t know all the minutiae of why one protein may be better than a similar one or what condition a particular enzyme might have evolved to prevent.
We can formulate very good milk substitutes that will make healthy children out of at-risk infants and that are better than adequate at what they do. But I will continue to believe that the milk that is the product of our evolution is the best first choice.
Besides, that formula stuff is expensive.
Quote Comment
July 30th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
For me, price and convenience was a big factor. Plus, of course, it was kinda cool knowing I was *personally* providing for my baby.
It is absolutely true that we don’t know everything there is to know about our food and how it all interacts. One of the big challenges is that what you put on your plate is *not* what is actually going into your body. It changes a great deal in the gut, and may change again several times in your bloodstream before doing any good and/or being eliminated. (Case in point: people who have celiac sprue actually do not have a problem with gluten itself. It’s what the gluten becomes after reacting with digestive enzymes.) That certainly happens with breastmilk too, and it means you can’t just chemically analyze it. Breastmilk we know is safe for babies to drink; it’s a very safe choice to make.
That said, I’m always leery of phrases like “evolution spent millions of years fine tuning”. Thanks to the Victorians, we have it in our heads that evolution makes things better. It doesn’t. It makes them sufficient. There is no guarantee that what exists now is actually the best it could be, nor even that all components of, for instance, breast milk actually have some sort of functional value. Some may just be there because it would be harder to evolve them out than to keep making them. The way we evolved can give us some good guidelines or good suggestions, but it is by no means a definitive answer. Evolution also left us with bad backs and a propensity for death in childbirth, so it’s obviously got a long ways yet to go.
Quote Comment
July 30th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Calli Arcale said:
The real issue was, I believe, a push by formula manufacturers, starting in the %)’s to push their products as superior to breast-milk, based on weight-gain alone. This, with again an implied guilt-trip that was at the root of the advertisements, and the risks of home formula preparation, involving the need to sterilize the equipment, was what drove the anger of the La Leche League. The development of better, balanced formula, and disposable bottle systems have eliminated most of these reasons.
While it is true that the pro-breastfeeding element tends to be somewhat doctrinaire in their approach, we should remember they were fighting elements like Nestlé.
Quote Comment
July 30th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Calli Arcale said:
Point taken; however, if we didn’t want bad backs, we shouldn’t have stood up.
I’ll grant you that evolution isn’t perfect, but considering how hard a time we have replicating its work, I’m willing to take it for granted that, for the average mother and child, nature will do the better job.
And not to be taken too lightly, but I’d rather change a breastmilk diaper than a Similac diaper any day.
Quote Comment
July 30th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Shafe said:
No question
Quote Comment