# Oh. My. God. (x-post from breastfeeding advocacy)



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

http://techcentralstation.com/040705F.html

Woah.

I am so writing a letter.

Disclaimer: I don't frequent these kind of crap sites. I came across it looking for tcs as in, taking children seriously...then I saw the same article posted in another group I attend online...


----------



## Hera (Feb 4, 2002)

Yikes! I thought "surely it's satire!" for the first 1/2 of the article...

That is just too out-there! Where do they get these people?


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


The WHO wants to discourage the use of baby formula, whose efficacy and safety have been established over many decades
BWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAhAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!

Quote:

while at the same time, the WHO has been approving untested anti-AIDS drugs.
Ok...I guess he gets at least ONE point.

But that is the ONLY point they get. What an







*oops*

My nose is stopped up and I cannot send good hate mail when my head is clogged.







I will have to write him hate-ness later.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

Now, breasts are back.
Dude, they never went anywhere.

Quote:

Trying to make formula anathema is to thrust such women back to the Dark Ages. This question of choice for women is especially compelling in developing nations
I'm gonna guess this is one of the few choices the author appproves women of any nation having control over.

Quote:

Nestle sells more infant formula in a healthy nation like Belgium than it does in all of Africa, which has 60 times Belgium's population.
Now we're getting to the good part. They sell more formula in Belgium because Belgians *have more money*!!!

Quote:

There's a correlation between high rates of infant-formula use and low rates of infant mortality. The reason is not that infant formula is better than breast milk, but that, *as a country develops, infant health and nutrition improve,* and the use of formula, at the same time, increases.
OY! So using formula is not better. It is worse. But you should do it... because you are poor and black and live in Africa. Optimal child care is a luxury for rich folks!

I bet this guy gets roses from Nestles on Valentine's Day.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

posting twice... so nice


----------



## kay4 (Nov 30, 2004)

Quote:

Infant formula provides the freedom that many women want, and deserve. Trying to make formula anathema is to thrust such women back to the Dark Ages.


----------



## indiana ima (May 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I am so writing a letter.

good! when it is done, will you share it here?


----------



## MamaFae (Sep 24, 2004)

I can't believe the ignorance of some people. If you thought the article was a hoot, go read some of the responses!

Anyway here is my response to the article.

I had so much more to say, but I am long winded as it is!

Blessings,
N~


----------



## milk_maker (Jun 24, 2004)

:


----------



## desertpenguin (Apr 15, 2005)

It's sad to see how many ignoramuses there are in the world.







:


----------



## squirrelletta (Jan 25, 2005)

Oh you know this guy probably paid for a boob-job for his trophy wife too! titter, titter...


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

This line made me sad:

Quote:

And time-saving technologies like infant formula can help.
What have we become?


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

well, I posted my letter on the other thread, but I'll post it here in case anyone wants to view it.

Quote:

Dear Mr. Glassman,

I am writing in response to your WHO Wants You in the Dark Ages article, published 4/7/05. In this article you can be quoted as stating "There's a correlation between high rates of infant-formula use and low rates of infant mortality. The reason is not that infant formula is better than breast milk, but that, as a country develops, infant health and nutrition improve, and the use of formula, at the same time, increases."
This is a very interesting claim, and I'll happily explain why. If you'll do just a small amount of research on both international breastfeeding statistics and infant mortality rates, you will note the United State's rank on both lists are relatively low. In simple terms, this means that although the US (being a highly industrialized nation) has a high percentage of formula fed infants, it has more infant deaths than countries such as Japan, Norway, England, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Canada, Austria, Australia, Finland, Germany, Portugal, Switzerland, Spain-even countries like Cuba, Taiwan and Singapore-to name more than a few. All of these countries have higher breastfeeding rates than we do in these great United States. That makes one wonder where you gathered your information before you came to the conclusion that you did. (these stats can be viewed at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...r/2091rank.html ).
One would also wonder if you have researched the scientifically proven benefits of breastfeeding to both the mother and to her child. Such lifesaving benefits for the mother include a reduced risk of postpartum hemorrhage and minimized loss of blood in the days and weeks after birth (due to the contraction of the uterus during breastfeeding) and a reduction in the prevalence of breast cancer. Health benefits to the baby include increased levels of immunity (necessary to fight off viral and bacterial, as well as parasitic infections common in many "third world" countries) and a much lower incidence of life threatening food allergies in infancy as well as later in life. These are just a small sample of the benefits, as I'm sure you are familiar with the dozens more.
One also wonders if a financial expert such as your self has considered the cost effectiveness of breastfeeding. Basically it's free. One can of formula costs more money than most African families make in months, or even years. Once formula is introduced to an infant in Africa (many times by a generous donation from Nestle), the mother's milk supply dries up. Very quickly the free supply of artificial nutrition runs out, leaving the infant with no source of adequate sustenance.
You make the seemingly good point that many mothers are not healthy enough to breastfeed their children. While this seems very sensible at first glance, it does not hold water once carefully considered. The reasoning is just that-water. Formula must be mixed with water and the unfortunate fact that most sources of water in Africa are unclean and contaminated is a very red flag that formula just might not be best for these babies. Cholera anyone?
I am assuming (possibly falsely) that you place yourself on the right wing of politics, judging by your "You probably remember the infant-formula imbroglio -- a real blast from the left-wing past." comment. If you are at all interested, I know just as many, if not more, conservative breastfeeding activists as I do liberal. I find it quite amusing, in fact, that the right wing is suddenly very concerned with a woman's right to choose what is to be done with her body. Please keep me abreast as to your strides towards women's reproductive rights, as I am extremely interested to see what develops.
I'm not sure if you consider yourself a radical. I know I do not consider myself one, generally. But I have a very radical idea, one that's just crazy enough to work. How about I resist giving out financial advice and making false claims against the economic community (two things I know next to nothing about) and you keep your nose out of the healthcare field? Or at the very least-and this is the bare minimum requirement that I must insist upon-do some research before you begin to spout off. Would that be at all possible? I, and the rest of the medical and scientific community, thank you in advance.

Best Wishes,
Kelly W. xxxxxx (Maternal-Child Health RN, BSN)

Also, my response is on that page "Sad, Rediculous, Infuriating and WRONG" or some such title.

Kelly


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Great letter, Kelly! Let us know if you get a response.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

It's nicer than my letter, which began "Dear Sir- you are truly an idiot"

No response here.


----------



## Jennifer3141 (Mar 7, 2004)

That was a GREAT letter, Kelly!

Jen


----------



## mamatojade (Jun 2, 2004)

Awesome letter Kelly!


----------



## suwannee (Sep 23, 2004)

Great letter!


----------



## wednesday (Apr 26, 2004)

That's so freaky capitalistic! You know, his whole argument is basically that women in impoverished countries need to get working in order to improve their economies...not sit around nursing their babies.







:


----------



## momof2tadpoles0104 (Sep 26, 2004)

so far my favorite line is this

Quote:

But many women lack the time or, in some cases, the health to feed their babies from their own breasts. For them, infant formula is an excellent substitute.
maybe becasue i know so many people that "just dont have the time" to BF







:
ok off to finish reading


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

Ah, no response yet.

Ask me if I'm suprised.









Liars, sensationalists, pseudo-experts and con-men often either freak out or ignore intelligence and facts.







:

Oh well.

Kelly


----------



## SAHMaggie (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:

This means that Africans should be able to choose, and not to be scared or shamed into breast-feeding. Radicals and their supporters at the WHO, however, want to keep African women, in effect, barefoot, denying them the choice, as they modernize, of a healthy, convenient product.
This all wrong wrong wrong - the position is wrong wrong wrong and very sad

Quote:

There's a correlation between high rates of infant-formula use and low rates of infant mortality. The reason is not that infant formula is better than breast milk, but that, as a country develops, infant health and nutrition improve, and the use of formula, at the same time, increases.
I think that there is a bit of truth to this however! It's like those high-cal/high-protein biscuits and cereals and whatnot that are given to those in famine stricken areas; if the nutritional status of a woman is so poor that she cannot possibly breastfeed without endangering both her health and the health of the child, then I would agree that infant formula is a life-saver - literally. It (formula) should NOT be touted as carrying less "shame", being more "convenient" or as being more healthy however!! Let's face it there Mr. Author; the poor/low economic status of women in Africa (or around the world for that matter) is NOT directly related to breastfeeding!!! WOW, how on earth did he come up with that thesis anyway???


----------



## lauraess (Mar 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wednesday*
That's so freaky capitalistic! You know, his whole argument is basically that women in impoverished countries need to get working in order to improve their economies...not sit around nursing their babies.







:









Yes, that's what i was getting out of this idiots point of view. so very capitalistic. I mean the idea that women can actually be empowered by mothering, nursing, going to work and nursing, fighting for their rights to have BOTH if need be--- surely, that's never entered into his mind when he thinks of us nursing radicals as barefoot and backwards!
~L


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2 (Mar 23, 2004)

"Infant formula provides the freedom that many women want, and deserve. Trying to make formula anathema is to thrust such women back to the Dark Ages."










i was nak a squirmy baby.









this makes me want to cry! the quote above makes bfing sound like a prison sentence. i can't believe some people are actually agreeing with this "man". i was expecting to find alot of rebuttals in the discussion area there.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

:ignore


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Yeah, that actually probably is a comment that is better left unsaid.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy (Oct 15, 2002)

ita w/annette....


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Would it have been ok in BF advocacy? At any rate, I apologize for posting it here. I guess it probably isn't appropriate considering even though there was a bit in the article about working, it wasn't written by a woman who could actually make this decision. Does that make sense?


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I don't think a comment indicating that a woman shouldn't have children is really acceptable anywhere.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Ok, I'll give ya that one. It's just too bad the gov't thinks that they can make the decision to take them away from anyone after they did. I am not saying that anyone here agrees with that either. Seriously, it's about time I run my posts by someone else first. I truly didn't think before I posted this one. I didn't totally mean it the way it came out. I think I'll just edit it out.


----------



## Tupelo Honey (Mar 24, 2004)

I love the back door attempt to enlist feminists. Talk about strange bedfellows! I have nursed three kids for more than 6 combined years. During that time, I have taught in three urban schools and started and operated two businesses. I've never made a bottle of formula, and I've never felt like my nursing was inhibiting me or limiting my freedom. Guess I didn't get the dark ages memo. LOL!


----------



## fourgrtkidos (Jan 6, 2004)

I'm going to have to write a letter too....... ARRRRGGG!!!


----------

