Etiquette

A mention of specific studies would be nice. Formula was developed in the 1800's for women who were unable to breast feed. I can't find any study that says formula is better, only that it is adequate. You've piqued my curiosity.

Specific studies on the composition of breastmilk?

OK, I will correct and say, doctors have usually given lip service to the superiority of human milk for human babies. With the addendum, "BUT, if you 'can't' breastfeed..."

And then they throw hundred of roadblocks up to sabotage breastfeeding, such as:

The alcohol on the nipples.

The recommendation to only breastfeed every 4 hours, and go 8 hours at night by forcing a baby to "cry it out" to stay in its own bed. Going 4+ hours between feeding causes menstruation to return, and pregnancy often occurs, thereby causing the milk to further dry up, robbing the first child of healthy food

Patronizing women and telling them it's OK to quit nursing and switch to formula, it doesn't make that much difference. It makes a HUGE difference! It brings doctors more patients, ie: sick babies (leukemia, diabetes, Crohn's disease). It brings dentists more children with rotten teeth.

Even calling synthetic baby milk "formula" when it wasn't a scientific formula, is deceiving. It was diluted cow's milk (with too much salt and casein, a known rubbery indigestible allergen) and the wrong kind of sugar, and not enough of the right vitamins and minerals, and NO immune properties, etc. To this day, formulas are recalled from rat feces contamination, from lead contamination, from too much or too little of this or that vitamin.

Telling mothers in the hospital, whose milk hadn't "come in yet," that the colostrum wasn't enough, the baby needed to gain weight, so forcing the mothers to choose to feed the baby some sugar water or formula, causing the baby to have "nipple confusion" when given the rubber nipple of a bottle, and to fill up on the artificial food, pass out, and miss one or two breastfeeds, and causing the mother to question her adequacy as a mother, as a woman, and to quit nursing this child, and perhaps not even try with subsequent children

Telling a mother to "top off" a breastfeeding with formula, for a small or premature baby, for whatever reason. Breastmilk is a supply and demand resource, the less you nurse, the less milk there will be, and so the spiral begins

Even telling a mother breastmilk is "best" is incorrect. Breastmilk is NORMAL! Formula feeding is abnormal, inadequate, and leads to health issues. Making a woman think breastfeeding is "special" and a "gift" to her child makes it seem like an extra, like an option. Many mothers will believe it's just a choice between Coke and Pepsi, she might as well quit.

breastfeeding in primates is not fully instinctive. We humans and the apes are meant to learn to breastfeed by watching other mothers do it. By being informed and educated on it by other mothers in our family or tribe. By having the childcare and housework done for us so we can focus on the baby. Nowadays women don't have tribes unless we seek them out. Many of us weren't breastfed by our own mothers, or we don't live near our mothers. Or aunts. Or older sisters or cousins. So if a hospital doesn't give mothers information about La Leche League, which provides mother to mother support for lactation, the new mother is often isolated and quits breastfeeding. Oh well, formula is almost as good! (No, it isn't, it's a dead substance with inadequate nutrition. It's meant to save a baby's life in dire circumstances.) (And many babies who allergic or sensitive to the casein in cow's milk, or to soy formulas, do better on goat's milk, believe it or not.)

Doctors are not trained in human lactation in medical school. There is good science on human milk these days, unlike in the early to mid 20th century. One of my points was to concur with River (for once), that "science" isn't perfect. Early researchers thought human milk was dirty and germy, thin and weak. They thought human mothers, middle class and upper class ones, were too "nervous" to lactate. Their science was clouded by classisism and racism. They believed breastfeeding was well and good for the "lower class," but richer woman didn't need to be bothered with it. Just look at those African women in National Geographic with babies hanging off their sagging breasts! We don't want to look like that, do we, dear?

People came to believe this, against their own instincts. A non-drugged mother does have an instinct to nurse. And a non-drugged baby will root for a breast. It will even climb up the mother's body unassisted to get to her breast. So, science, thinking milk was dirty and germy, thin and weak, and that women should be compliant to the male doctor, and be drugged to be made passive, sabotaged the nursing relationship in many ways, to be in control of the female right of passage to give birth in an aware state, and to breastfeed as nature intended.

We've all heard of penis envy. Many men have Venus envy. It wasn't enough to make women pregnant. They wanted to "deliver" babies as well. Women today still say "Dr So and So delivered my baby." They aren't empowered to understand, the mother delivers the baby. The nurse, doula, midwife, partner or spouse, her own mother, sister or friend, aid her labor. The doctor may come in in the last minute to "catch" the baby. And then take all the credit.

And so many fathers want to bottlefeed their babies! They can't wait 6 months to help a baby start table food. They want to feed it milk from a nipple! Well, you can say, a mother can pump her milk so the father can feed it from a bottle. But the milk supply can then get thrown off. If a mother pumps a few times so father can have the fun of bottle feeding, and then he loses interest, her supply will be too large, and she'll get swollen breasts and maybe an infection. Or if the father feeds his baby formula, then loses interest, the mother's supply will be too low, and she'll have a fussy underfed baby for a week or so until she can get her supply back up. Or she'll just give up and start to formula feed the baby herself.

Where are the doctors telling parents that it's a baby's right to be fed its own mother's milk from her breast? At least for the first 6 weeks... come on. (This is why we have lactation specialists and consultants, and midwives and doulas, in hospitals fighting doctors tooth and nail for the rights of mothers and babies to birth naturally and feed human milk to human babies.)

The doctor convinces the mother she needs his "help" to interfere in her labor and her birth, for the good of her child. No woman wants to harm her child. So she is cowed by his mansplaining and patronizing to go along with the program to keep her compliant. The drugs, the epidural, the bright lights and noises, the stirrups, the lack of food and water, the strange unfamiliar surroundings all extend her labor and weaken her resolve, and make her doubt herself.

The strange surroundings and strange people of the hospital cause adrenaline to be released into the blood of the laboring woman. This slows or stops her labor. Just like a laboring deer in the forest, if threatened by a predator, her labor will stop until she escapes to safety. Women in good strong labor at home, will often find labor ceases on the way to the hospital or in the hospital. Then she "needs" meds to restart her labor. And her adrenaline may still prevent labor from progressing, so she "needs" a big episiotomy or worse, cesarean section. And then she has to recover from major surgery while attempting to breastfeed. 25%-50% of all hospital births these days are C-sections! Left alone, in a home birth or birth center with trained certified midwives, only 5% of mothers will need to be transferred to hospital for C-section.

So, as many of us know, scientific "advancement" can exceed our ethics. And end up causing actual harm to humanity (and the planet).
 
Last edited:
There are too many studies (properly done, or poorly done) on breastfeeding and breastmilk to cite here. And as I said, current research is finally being done rather well. (But many doctors advise mothers against research recommendations because they don't keep up with their journals, or subscribe to lactation journals, or they just don't care, or they like their kickbacks from formula companies.)

Go ahead and start by looking at the Wikis on the topic, and going to lalecheleague.org.

I have heard of studies in the past where "breastfed infants" were studied, as well as artificially fed infants. But "breastfed" wasn't defined. It might mean, got 2 days of colostrum. Or, gets one breastfeeding a day, and the rest of the feeds are artificial. Or breastfed completely for 3 months, then half weaned to artificial baby milk and table foods. Or, receives freshly pumped milk from a bottle from the mother, or frozen milk from a donor. Or, fully breastfed by the mother, for 6-9 months, on request (let's not call it "on demand"), no imposed schedule of feeds, no pacifiers, being worn in a sling a lot to remind baby mother's breast is there, co-sleeping to encourage frequent night time feeds, then very slow introduction of table food when baby can sit up unassisted, and continued breastfeeding along with table foods until the child outgrows the need, for 2-7 years.

Yes, 7 years. Babies are meant to breastfeed until the adult teeth start to erupt and the immune system is fully functional. The average age of weaning, worldwide, even today (even counting babies who only get one breastfeeding in their life), is 4 years. (Of course many babies never even get one feed of their mother's milk. If science was so good, why is that?)

You can see how results of research done this poorly would be misleading about the inadequacy of artificial feeding.

And as I said, many studies on the benefits of breastfeeding were financed by formula companies. So, terms were improperly defined, subjects were incorrectly chosen, data was collected poorly, results were skewed, results that revealed how inferior formula is were downplayed, and recommendations were false.

It's all about making money for Nestle and other large corporations, and lining doctor's pockets. It's not about the health of babies and women.
 
Last edited:
I did do a little reading. All I found was the mention of studies saying the mortality rate was lower in infants who were breastfed.

You paint a very dark picture, but only briefly touched on the convenience for women. Neither mother of my kids wanted to breastfeed. I wanted them to, but it obviously wasn't up to me. They just didn't want to be bothered.

But back to the point. I don't see why you think that has anything to do with science. Is it because doctors are usually seen as some kind of authority? At best I would see a doctor's opinion as a hypothesis. A doctor might opine that a woman needs to disinfect her nipples, but a scientist would ask to see the data.

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but I see too many irrational arguments against real science.
 
I did do a little reading. All I found was the mention of studies saying the mortality rate was lower in infants who were breastfed.

I'm not sure what you're saying. You only found one study which was about the mortality rate in breastfed children?

You paint a very dark picture, but only briefly touched on the convenience for women. Neither mother of my kids wanted to breastfeed. I wanted them to, but it obviously wasn't up to me. They just didn't want to be bothered.

I wrote a lot. Obviously I didn't cover every single issue related to breastfeeding. There is a great book on breastfeeding, which is updated every few years, called The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, which you can read if you really want to learn about it.

If you don't want a book, go ahead and read the Wiki on breastfeeding, and read around at lalecheleague.org.

But back to the point. I don't see why you think that has anything to do with science. Is it because doctors are usually seen as some kind of authority?

You agree doctors are seen as science-based authority figures, but in at least this case, many doctors go against the latest scientific research on lactation...?

My other point was, early research into infant feeding did harm to humanity, since people were already breastfeeding and being breastfed, since it was just what people did. And then science came along and did some studies that had skewed results because of poorly chosen subjects, inability to truly test the components of the milk, erroneous comparison of the digestion of cow's milk vs the digestion of human milk, lack of understanding of how a baby should best be held to get a good latch, etc., etc. So women lost confidence in the perfection of the infant food coming out of their bodies, as they'd lost confidence in the ability of their bodies to give birth. Thanks to meddling male doctors and poorly done studies.
Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but I see too many irrational arguments against real science.

Nothing wrong with "real science," if you must use that term. There is the scientific method. It states a hypothesis, it runs its test, it collects data, it makes conclusions based on data. It can come up with results that aren't true if the hypothesis is silly, if the study is done poorly, if the study is funded by an organization with a certain agenda (which can cover up results) if the results are analyzed incorrectly, etc. Meanwhile, the incorrect analysis is put to work, as applied science. In my examples, that has happened over and over again in the birthing and infant feeding sectors. And then harm can be done.

More studies can completely overturn earlier studies. But the damage has been done when the prior studies were seen as truth.
 
I'm not sure what you're saying. You only found one study which was about the mortality rate in breastfed children?

No. I said studies and I was looking for studies that compared formula fed vs breastfed. I got as far as the 60's. All those studies showed that breast milk is better. Your idea that formula was some nefarious plot by evil men to somehow undermine women does not hold water.


I wrote a lot.
I am familiar with the tactic lol.

Obviously I didn't cover every single issue related to breastfeeding. There is a great book on breastfeeding, which is updated every few years, called The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, which you can read if you really want to learn about it.

No need. I'm already a fan of breastfeeding. I would have preferred my children be breastfed, but obviously I couldn't force that to happen.

I think you have some very strong biases. You end up sounding almost like a conservative, expecting women to stay at home and have a child hanging off their teat for 2 to 7 years. Women don't want to do that. They want careers and a life outside of raising their young. Did you miss the whole feminist movement of the 70's?


You agree doctors are seen as science-based authority figures, but in at least this case, many doctors go against the latest scientific research on lactation...?

I argue that doctor's are not authorities on science even though they are seen that way. Go against? I doubt it. Probably more like unaware. But since when is a doctor required for lactation?
My other point was, early research into infant feeding did harm to humanity, since people were already breastfeeding and being breastfed, since it was just what people did. And then science came along and did some studies that had skewed results because of poorly chosen subjects, inability to truly test the components of the milk, erroneous comparison of the digestion of cow's milk vs the digestion of human milk, lack of understanding of how a baby should best be held to get a good latch, etc., etc. So women lost confidence in the perfection of the infant food coming out of their bodies, as they'd lost confidence in the ability of their bodies to give birth. Thanks to meddling male doctors and poorly done studies.

I disagree. With modern times comes a want of comforts. Women choose formula because it's easier. They don't have to watch what they eat. They can leave the kid with the father or babysitter. No worries. I've known women who made the effort. I think it's awesome. Early research showed breastfeeding was better. But I also understand why most women don't want to do it in modern times.

Nothing wrong with "real science," if you must use that term. There is the scientific method. It states a hypothesis, it runs its test, it collects data, it makes conclusions based on data. It can come up with results that aren't true if the hypothesis is silly, if the study is done poorly, if the study is funded by an organization with a certain agenda (which can cover up results) if the results are analyzed incorrectly, etc. Meanwhile, the incorrect analysis is put to work, as applied science. In my examples, that has happened over and over again in the birthing and infant feeding sectors. And then harm can be done.

More studies can completely overturn earlier studies. But the damage has been done when the prior studies were seen as truth.

So what you are saying is the scientific method works, unless they don't use the scientific method.

I shouldn't have to say real science. Science is science. You are showing examples that are not science. Most of what you are saying probably didn't even occur the way you described.

River mentioned something about philosophy related to science. A scientist's philosophy should be they don't know. If we knew everything there would be no need for scientists. And yes, science evolves as we learn more.

I do agree there is a misuse of science when it comes to marketing, etc. I recall hearing a story about a drug company testing a drug. It worked fine for 6 months then subjects would show horrible side effects. The drug company took those results and only submitted the first 6 months to the FDA. Was the science bad? No. The science showed the drug was bad. It was misrepresented by the corporation.

The big problem is funding. Scientists want to learn things. The people doing the funding want those things to work in their favor. It should be done a better way, but then people start screaming about Communism :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
No. I said studies and I was looking for studies that compared formula fed vs breastfed. I got as far as the 60's. All those studies showed that breast milk is better. Your idea that formula was some nefarious plot by evil men to somehow undermine women does not hold water.





I am familiar with the tactic lol.



No need. I'm already a fan of breastfeeding. I would have preferred my children be breastfed, but obviously I couldn't force that to happen.

I think you have some very strong biases. You end up sounding almost like a conservative, expecting women to stay at home and have a child hanging off their teat for 2 to 7 years. Women don't want to do that. They want careers and a life outside of raising their young. Did you miss the whole feminist movement of the 70's?




I argue that doctor's are not authorities on science even though they are seen that way. Go against? I doubt it. Probably more like unaware. But since when is a doctor required for lactation?


I disagree. With modern times comes a want of comforts. Women choose formula because it's easier. They don't have to watch what they eat. They can leave the kid with the father or babysitter. No worries. I've known women who made the effort. I think it's awesome. Early research showed breastfeeding was better. But I also understand why most women don't want to do it in modern times.



So what you are saying is the scientific method works, unless they don't use the scientific method.

I shouldn't have to say real science. Science is science. You are showing examples that are not science. Most of what you are saying probably didn't even occur the way you described.

River mentioned something about philosophy related to science. A scientist's philosophy should be they don't know. If we knew everything there would be no need for scientists. And yes, science evolves as we learn more.

I do agree there is a misuse of science when it comes to marketing, etc. I recall hearing a story about a drug company testing a drug. It worked fine for 6 months then subjects would show horrible side effects. The drug company took those results and only submitted the first 6 months to the FDA. Was the science bad? No. The science showed the drug was bad. It was misrepresented by the corporation.

The big problem is funding. Scientists want to learn things. The people doing the funding want those things to work in their favor. It should be done a better way, but then people start screaming about Communism :rolleyes:

You don't have to watch what you eat when you breastfeed.
http://time.com/5353068/breastfeeding-debate-history/
 
Back
Top