Catharina Svanborg

"Elfanie" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:32:28 -0600, Bryan Heit
wrote:

Bottle feeding (by which I expect you mean formula) hasn't been promoted
in decades.

*blinkblink*
as someone who has been in the birthing field for 12 years...I can
tell you with absolute certainty that it has absolutely been
promoted...everyday...for decades.


Well said. The allopaths just pay lip service to breast---just enough so
people like Bryan can believe it and make an argument. They know (at the
top) breast would get rid of most of their customers, with no
vaccination--the rest.

It is an absolute crime the way they have covertly promoted formula (and
taken money off them), especially when you know what the cow's milk does to
the gut, and how it protects from infections and infectious
diseases--natural immunisation

Elfanie wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:32:28 -0600, Bryan Heit
wrote:

Bottle feeding (by which I expect you mean formula) hasn't been promoted
in decades.

*blinkblink*
as someone who has been in the birthing field for 12 years...I can
tell you with absolute certainty that it has absolutely been
promoted...everyday...for decades.

If you look at the WHO/Unicef code for marketing artificial baby milk
(a code which, BTW, we were the LAST country to sign) you will see
that we absolutely unequivically do not follow the code.

Everytime a hospital tells a mother whose baby is 26 hours old that
the baby "needs" formula because *fill in any reason*, that's
promoting formula feeding.


Obviously I cannot speak for every hospital on the planet, but the
standard here is that formula is only used if a mother doesn't produce
milk, produces insufficient milk, or cannot breastfeed for some other
reason.

I'm not exactly sure what you'd have them do in these circumstances -
let the baby starve?


everytime a pediatrician tells a breastfeeding mom to give the baby
formula because the baby isn't gaining enough, that's promoting
formula feeding.


And I ask again, if the mother cannot produce enough milk or breastfeed
for whatever reason, exactly what should be done?


Everytime you turn on the television and see a carnation good start
commercial with "comfort proteins" - that's promoting formula feeding.


We don't get those; must be specific to your country. I cannot think of
one TV commercial for formula that's been aired here in decades...


Everytime you see an item with a 'baby theme' (baby shower invitation,
L&D scrubs, etc) that have bottles as a symbol of a baby, that's
promoting formula feeding.


Oh give me a break. Now you're becoming paranoid. Are you aware that
breast pumps exist? That mom can now send dad out a 2AM to feed the
child breast milk? And guess how that all works - I'll give you a hint:
dad is not lactating. I'm starting to think you're maybe not as
familiar with the whole baby thing as you claim.


Everytime a mother is sent home from the hospital with a "diaper bag"
from Enfamil written all over it and with free formula samples, that's
promoting formula feeding.


Once again, thats your country, not mine. Don't whine to me if you're
country still lives in the 1950's, or if your doctors are unduly
influenced by industry.

Bryan

JOHN wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Wow, that's amazing - conspiracies everywhere! Yep, good thing we've got
tabloids & anti-mcdonalds organizations to keep us safe.


Yeah yeah, the conspiracy-paranoid argument, that is ad hominem

And yet so very true.


so the aap don't take money off them?

How would I know? I wouldn't exactly consider mothering magazines to be
reputable sources for information, but even if it is true, who cares?
Organizations like that are expensive to run, and the money they use has
to come from somewhere. The money supposedly given to the aap would be
a drop in the bucket compared to their budget; certainty you don't think
they'd be completely beholden to someone providing a tiny percentage of
their annual operating budget?

Bryan

JOHN wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...

Bottle feeding (by which I expect you mean formula) hasn't been promoted
in decades. Its well established that breast milk is best, with the odd
exception. Maybe you should update your "knowledge" of medicine to stuff
post-1980's...

"Its well established that breast milk is best"

Yeah, maybe you should give them the real story--- how many parents know the
death rate for bottlefed kids is twice that of breast,

You have a cite for this - of course not, because it is a lie:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p604n52697160043/

Well, unless you live in India. I'll grant you that, but its pretty
dangerous to make sweeping conclusions based on evidence gathered in
developing nations. Especially when those results don't hold out in
other countries...

Of course, you also failed to mention that breastfed babies are more
likely to be readmitted to the hospital during their first month of life
- due to insufficient feeding. Now what should we do with those babies
John - continue as is, or maybe, just maybe, supplement with formula?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather feed my kid a bit of formula then
have them starve. But then again, thats just me - the less rational may
disagree.

and that it cuts
cot-death dramatically, to zero if not vaccinated?


And yet another unsubstantiated lie by John. What's the matter - afraid
if you try and support your claims with outside evidence you're
followers will begin to see through your lies?

Just to show how wrong you are, someone bothered to track SIDS rates as
hungary began introducing more childhood vaccinations. Guess what
happened - SIDS rates went DOWN. That's right - the exact polar
opposite of what you claimed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

And it saved my kids
life when he got e coli.

Hate to break it to you John - you, your kid, me and everyone else on
this planet have e coli growing in our bowels. So milk didn't save him
from that. It may have altered the microflora balance during his
colonization phase, perhaps protected him from "bad" intestinal flora,
but thats it.

The real irony with this statement is what it says about you. Do you
know the major source of pathogenic e coli transfer? Fecal-oral. Easily
prevented by washing ones hands...


How many know it developes a healthy emotional
developement?


And helps prevents post-partum depression. A well known and publicized
fact.


So breast is best is just cop out to show they told you something, and
covered their asses, but only 1% of the real story.

Hmm, the standard brochure I see in my doctors office says everything
you did, minus the lies of course. Lower rates of infection, less
frequent hospitalization, lower SIDS, lower post-partum, all that jazz.
Now what exactly are they hiding?

Bryan

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Elfanie wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:32:28 -0600, Bryan Heit
wrote:

snip
Obviously I cannot speak for every hospital on the planet, but the
standard here is that formula is only used if a mother doesn't produce
milk, produces insufficient milk, or cannot breastfeed for some other
reason.

I'm not exactly sure what you'd have them do in these circumstances - let
the baby starve?

Bryan

It is an unfortunate fact that a very large number of women feel that they
are unable to produce enough milk for their babies, and hence suplement with
formula. This begins the slippery slope of declining demand, so the body
produces less milk, and the mother formula feeds more, and finally stops BF
before they want to.

(Take a look at table on p9 of this survey in the UK for reasons for
stopping BF:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publications...nce/DH_4008114)

The truth is that there are very few women who are truly unable to produce
enough milk (around 1%). The problem is the poor information and support
that mothers are given to enable them to breastfeed successfully. This is
poor and conficting advice from health professionals, and the underlying (or
in some countries such as America, an upfront!) push from formula companies
that formula is OK. Formula is not OK. It is an OK substitute for those
babies that are unable to be fed breastmilk, but it is in no way equal to
breastmilk. Don't get me wrong - formula has a purpose to serve, and for
those babies who need it it is a life saver. But formula is not equal to
breastmilk.

Suzanne

Suzanne S wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Elfanie wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:32:28 -0600, Bryan Heit
wrote:

snip
Obviously I cannot speak for every hospital on the planet, but the
standard here is that formula is only used if a mother doesn't produce
milk, produces insufficient milk, or cannot breastfeed for some other
reason.

I'm not exactly sure what you'd have them do in these circumstances - let
the baby starve?

Bryan

The truth is that there are very few women who are truly unable to produce
enough milk (around 1%).


However, that is not the sole reason why a woman cannot breastfeed.
There are a multitude of medical issues which can reduce or eliminate
milk delivery, even if milk production is up to par. See the articles I
posted in response to John for a clinical study that covers some of that.

In addition, there is a large (and unfortunately growing) number of
women with diseases which can be (or may be, there is sme contrversy for
some diseases) transfered via milk. TB, HIV, HTLV, and bacterial
abscesses being a few examples. Likewise, many medications can render
breast milk unsafe. And while normal practice is to discontinue
medication during pregnancy & breastfeeding, that isn't possible in all
cases.

And lastly, while not a major issue in developed nations, in developing
nations it is not uncommon for women to produce low-quality milk. After
all, if a woman is not receiving sufficient nutrition herself, there is
no way she can pass on proper nutrition to her child.

In each and every of the above cases supplementation (or total
replacement) of breast milk with formula represents not only a viable
option, but in many cases the only option, to safely feed the baby.


snip

But formula is not equal to
breastmilk.


I, nor any of the doctors I've ever worked with or known, have ever
claimed otherwise. But the paranoia John is spreading about it is
simply wrong. It isn't the best option - but it isn't toxic, it isn't
going to kill your baby, and its a damn site better then allowing your
child to be improperly nourished.

Bryan

Bryan Heit wrote:
Elfanie wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:32:28 -0600, Bryan Heit
wrote:

Bottle feeding (by which I expect you mean formula) hasn't been
promoted in decades.

*blinkblink*
as someone who has been in the birthing field for 12 years...I can
tell you with absolute certainty that it has absolutely been
promoted...everyday...for decades.

If you look at the WHO/Unicef code for marketing artificial baby milk
(a code which, BTW, we were the LAST country to sign) you will see
that we absolutely unequivically do not follow the code.

Everytime a hospital tells a mother whose baby is 26 hours old that
the baby "needs" formula because *fill in any reason*, that's
promoting formula feeding.


Obviously I cannot speak for every hospital on the planet, but the
standard here is that formula is only used if a mother doesn't produce
milk, produces insufficient milk, or cannot breastfeed for some other
reason.

Oh, bless, how sweet.
I know women who've been advised to use formula from the day they delivered
their baby because their milk hadn't come in. Well, no. It wouldn't, would
it. I know women who've been advised to use formula because their baby had
jaundice. I know women who've been advised to use formula because they had
flu and using formula meant the baby wouldn't get flu too. I know women
who've been advised to use formula, at night at least, so they could get
some sleep. I know women who've been advised to use formula, by the medical
profession, in a variety of countries, for a variety of very silly reasons.

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Suzanne S wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Elfanie wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:32:28 -0600, Bryan Heit
wrote:

snip
And lastly, while not a major issue in developed nations, in developing
nations it is not uncommon for women to produce low-quality milk. After
all, if a woman is not receiving sufficient nutrition herself, there is no
way she can pass on proper nutrition to her child.

In each and every of the above cases supplementation (or total
replacement) of breast milk with formula represents not only a viable
option, but in many cases the only option, to safely feed the baby.


I wasn't going to reply, not wanting to get into a flame etc, but I can't
let this bit slide.

A women has to be *severly* undernurished, not just poorly nurished, before
her milk is adversly affected. The body will take the nutrients it needs
from the mother for the baby's milk, leaving the mother without. There have
been studies done on this.

In a country where a mother is poorly nurished, it is also not a good idea
to switch to formula. Often, formula is expensive, and so it gets watered
down to make it last longer. The water is not safe, and so passes illness
on to baby. The equipment is not steralised properly and so passes
illnesses onto baby. Further, the formula is not always quality controlled
as it is in developed countries, and so substandard formula makes it onto
the market. I remember a year or so ago where the formula on sale on one
country (China?) didn't provide enough calories for the baby, and babies
died because of it (found the story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/stor...196996,00.html )


Developing countries even more so than developed countries need to encourage
breastfeeding.

Unicef article on BF in developing country:
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/...aso_35227.html

Suzanne

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...


And lastly, while not a major issue in developed nations, in developing
nations it is not uncommon for women to produce low-quality milk. After
all, if a woman is not receiving sufficient nutrition herself, there is no
way she can pass on proper nutrition to her child.

In each and every of the above cases supplementation (or total
replacement) of breast milk with formula represents not only a viable
option, but in many cases the only option, to safely feed the baby.


that kills an estimated 1.5 million babies every year
http://www.whale.to/w/baby_milk2.html

You can see formula promotion in action with Heit.

JOHN wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...

And lastly, while not a major issue in developed nations, in developing
nations it is not uncommon for women to produce low-quality milk. After
all, if a woman is not receiving sufficient nutrition herself, there is no
way she can pass on proper nutrition to her child.

In each and every of the above cases supplementation (or total
replacement) of breast milk with formula represents not only a viable
option, but in many cases the only option, to safely feed the baby.


that kills an estimated 1.5 million babies every year
http://www.whale.to/w/baby_milk2.html


Gee, look. johns written another page, and then linked to it to
"support" his arguments. Anyone else find it amazing these pages just
magically appear on his webpage a day or two after he needs them?

Also note the complete lack of citations & controls...


You can see formula promotion in action with Heit.

I'm promoting it how - by saying it can be used to suppliment when
sufficient normal milk isn't available. Interesting "promotion"...

Bryan