In article <392C49CF.E8405...@worldnet.att.net>, CAROL KENNON

Not only is it a bummer but it is designed to personally attack
the credibilit and sensitivity of those who chose, or have no
choice, to formula feed.

It is just another extremist philosophy that goes along with
extremist attitudes.

Ben

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

There is a fine line between encouragement and proselytizing, between teaching
and preaching. Breastmilk provides superior nutrition, that much is clear. The
extent to which it is superior is still being explored. I don't doubt that many
lactation promoters have the best interest of mothers and babies at heart. In
fact, I admire the hours and effort they devote to a very demanding job and they
have made such a difference. On the other hand, there is a contingent of folks
who are very opinionated (the in your face crowd) who are reminiscent of
Christian missionaries and have a need to dictate to others how to live their
lives. They display an annoying intolerance for those who hold different
opinions and interests. Rather than using the scientific literature to gain a
balanced and objective perspective of what has been learned, they selectively
choose those articles which support their point of view. They says things like
"formula kills" and then distribute a very selective and biased bibliography.
The effect of this behavior can actually be more harmful than helpful. Mothers
who want an honest appraisal of the situation feel that they have been given a
biased sermon rather than factual information. They then become somewhat
resentful and distrustful. I think it is possible to encourage breastfeeding in
a friendly and accepting way. In fact, I honestly believe that if we removed
some of the "excess baggage" such as the talk about dire health consequences
(many of which are still somewhat theoretical) and implications that
breastfeeding is related to women power, we might persuade more new moms to try
it. As it is, the subject is mired in politics, opinions, etc.

Ben:

RAther than being a deliberate design to personally attack anybody, it is more
likely a passionate belief and desire to help.
And when seen in this forum, it's even more likely to be simply a desire to
vent a little and get some relief from the need to constantly bite our tongues
and keep certain opinions to ourselves all day long every day in a world which
is by and large ignorant, uninformed, and in some cases actively hostile to
bfing.  We assume it is safe to relieve our feelings on the subject in this
place, one which, by it's name (misc.kids.breastfeeding) ought to clearly be
understood by all present as a safe place to talk about what a wonderful thing
breastfeeding is.
Blessings,

Kanga

Beauty tip of the month: For attractive lips, speak words of kindness.  -
Audrey Hepburn

In article <392C52AD.D17F1...@worldnet.att.net>, CAROL KENNON

What this boils down to is a need to have all things go
according to a plan, to have order.  The problem is that God is
nor never has been in a box.  Especailly the box the extremists
wish to put him in.

Is all b-feeding bad?  No.  Is all formulae feeding medically
unsound?  No.

Are there some who will never be able to meet hte challenges,
the changes, the somewhat erratic course of life?

The answer is self-evident within this "Breast is best, was Re:
Internet survey - should mothers" thread alone.

Ben

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

No one has supplied one single recent, credible study showing anything
contrary to 'breastmilk is by far the best' because they don't exist.
They don't exisit b/c breastmilk really is, by far, the best. It seems
to me as if perhpasyou are trying to justify your situation by
distorting the truth. I posted a link to the American Academy of
Pediatrics own website where they list well over 100 studies. They are
hardly "extremists".

Instead of whining about us being biased and accusing of us slanting
things by using selective references, try to disprove it. You can't,
because the breastfeeding advocates happen to be right about this.

Again, it was the World Health Organization that originally stated
babies die b/c of formula use in the U.S. Did someone mess up the
wording? Yes, but that doesn't negate the real, true proven facts about
how and why breastmilk really is a lot better for babies.

It's sad to think there are people that are that immature that they
would let an emotive tone of someone's writings turn them off without
even checking the writers references (especially on the internet when
it's just a cut and past and click away).

Please back up that statement. I disagree.

Of course the subject is mired in politics. For the past 50 or more
years we have had distorted breast images shoved down our throats by the
media, and many women are not raised to actually believe their breasts
are for their babies.

--
Colette
l n r p l x u s a t r i p c o d o t c o m
^^^^^^reduce for email^^^^^^

Peace begins at birth. Support non-nurse midwifery.
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/5510

Breastmilk is the biological norm, hence formula poses added risks.
Breastmilk is what the baby's body expects to receive, so it's not a
benefit but the normal baseline, so to speak.

Sorry, but those analagies don't fit since antiobotic medicines and
bullets are not something that nature or god or evolution (or whatever
your label) account for in the natural world.

No, it is not convoluted. The baby's body expect to receive hundreds of
live immunilogical properties, specialized proteins, specific types of
fats and vitamins and minerals in very very easily assimilated forms.
That's what biology designed the human bab to receive. If you use
formula for a nutritional subsitute, you are increases risks b/c the
baby is not getting the biological norm.

Saying breastmilk has benefits creates an artificial "norm" for formula
and is simply inaccurate.
--
Colette
l n r p l x u s a t r i p c o d o t c o m
^^^^^^reduce for email^^^^^^

Peace begins at birth. Support non-nurse midwifery.
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/5510

In alt.support.breastfeeding CAROL KENNON <c.ken...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Actually, given that manufacturers CAN put all kinds of vitamins and
minerals into a can of formula, the nutrional differences are probably
less significant than the immunological and developmental ones.

 I don't doubt that many

Fortunately, none of them are posting on this group.

Naomi

: Steve,
: I cannot conceive how you can be so militant about formula hurting children
: and still support abortion.  Hello?

I will not get involved in this debate.

I will not get involved in this debate.

I will not get involved in this debate.

I will not get involved in this debate.

I will not get involved in this debate.

Ad nauseum...

Charlotte

: >Formula is depriving a child of proper nutrition, or, in effect,
: >starving them, whereas smoking is actively poisoning them, the first isa
: >crime of ommision, to whit, neglect, the latter commission, assault, but
: >both harm children and kill some of them, statistically speaking, which
: >is an entirely valid criticism. If more children have bronchitis and
: >asthma from not receiving breast milk, and some die, they still die!!
: >Steve

--
"The truth is incontrovertible.  Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride
it; malice may distort it; but there it is." -Winston Churchill
                        Visit http://www.birth.bc.ca!

Believe it or not I strongly support breastfeeding, having bf 2 babies of my own. I
heartily support other mothers efforts here. I'm not on some other side. Here are a
few articles showing some question about benefits: (I'll summarize in the interest of
space, please feel free to go to the main article):
Of course I know that many studies strongly support bfing. My only point is that it is
important to review all the evidence to come to objective conclusions. Like it or not
formula is very available and as such has become a standard for infant nutrition.
Many, many new mothers choose it and they believe they have legitimate reasons. You
come across as very angry and even try to diminish any opinion different from yours,
as if anyone who sees things differently is a bad person. One point I'm trying to make
is that this kind of intolerance of other viewpoints may actually harm breastfeeding
promotion. Sometimes you have to look at all components of the opposition -- good and
bad. Then you can reckon with what is there. If formula had no appeal and nothing
going for it, it would not be the choice of so many moms.
 1. Epidemiology 1996 Jan;7(1):87-92

                       A meta-analysis of infant diet and insulin-dependent diabetes
mellitus: do biases play a role?
                      Norris JM, Scott FW
This meta-analysis indicates that the weak association  between infant diet and risk
of diabetes mellitus may have methodologic explanations
2. J Am Coll Nutr 1986;5(5):439-41
                       Breast feeding and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in
children.
                       Fort P, Lanes R, Dahlem S, Recker B, Weyman-Daum M, Pugliese M,
Lifshitz F
In our studies we were unable to document any relationship between the history of
breast feeding   and subsequent development of IDDM in children.
3.  Diabet Med 1992 Apr;9(3):233-5
                       Breast feeding and the development of type 1 diabetes mellitus.

                       Kyvik KO, Green A, Svendsen A, Mortensen K
                       Department of Medical Genetics, Institute of Community Health,
Odense University, Denmark.

. Overall, the statistical analysis failed to confirm the hypothesis of  an
association between duration of breast feeding and subsequent diabetes risk.
4.  Acta Paediatr Scand 1986 Sep;75(5):713-8
                       Observations questioning a protective role for breast-feeding
in severe rotavirus diarrhea.

                       Glass RI, Stoll BJ, Wyatt RG, Hoshino Y, Banu H, Kapikian AZ
None of these 3 independent observations support a protective role for breast-feeding
against  rotavirus diarrhea after the first months of life.
5.  Bottle feeding and the sudden infant death syndrome.
                       Gilbert RE, Wigfield RE, Fleming PJ, Berry PJ, Rudd PT

                       Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of
Child Health, London
. CONCLUSIONS--Bottle feeding is not a significant independent risk factor for the
sudden infant death syndrome.
                       Patterns of maternal smoking, preterm gestation, and parental
employment status account for most of the apparent
                       association with bottle feeding.

6.  Pediatrics 1999 May;103(5):e71
                       Breastfeeding effects on intelligence quotient in 4- and
11-year-old children.
                       Jacobson SW, Chiodo LM, Jacobson JL
                       Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Wayne
State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI 48201,
                       USA.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the observed advantage of breastfeeding on IQ
is related to genetic and socioenvironmental factors rather than to the nutritional
benefits of breastfeeding on neurodevelopment. T
7.   Early Hum Dev 1998 Jan 9;50(2):209-17
                       Does breast-feeding influence intelligence quotients at 9 and
10 years of age?
                       Malloy MH, Berendes H
                       University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, USA.

Further analyses limited to those exclusively breast-fed for the first 60 days failed
to demonstrate  any significant relationship between breast-feeding and IQ.

8. J Epidemiol 2000 Mar;10(2):74-8

                       Relationship between breast milk feeding and atopic dermatitis
in children.

                       Nakamura Y, Oki I, Tanihara S, Ojima T, Ito Y, Yamazaki O,
Iwama M, Tabata Y, Katsuyama K, Sasai Y, Nakagawa
                       M, Matsushita A, Hosaka K, Sato J, Hidaka Y, Uda H, Nakamata K,
Yanagawa H

                       Department of Health Science, Jichi Medical School, Tochigi,
Japan.
CONCLUSION: Breast milk elevates the risk of atopic dermatitis slightly without
statistical significance; the risk may be, however, higher in children in second or
later parity orders.

9.  Singapore Med J 1998 Dec;39(12):551-6

Breastfeeding at 6 months and effects on infections.

                       Chye JK, Lim CT

                       Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University
Hospital, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

CONCLUSIONS: Breastfeeding does not appear to confer significant protection to either
URTI
                       or gastrointestinal tract infections.

10.  : Pediatrics 1990 Apr;85(4):464-71

                       Relationship between infant feeding and infectious illness: a
prospective study of infants during the
                       first year of life.

                       Rubin DH, Leventhal JM, Krasilnikoff PA, Kuo HS, Jekel JF,
Weile B, Levee A, Kurzon M, Berget A

                       Division of Pediatric, Albert Einstein College of
Medicine-Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York.

                       Prior studies investigating the relationship between infant
feeding and infectious illnesses in developed countries have provided
                       conflicting data about whether breast-feeding protects against
common infectious illnesses early in life. These conflicts may in part be
                       due to the failure to consider the following methodologic
issues: (1) collecting data prospectively at frequent intervals for active
                       surveillance of the detection of infections and of feeding
practices, (2) specifying what is meant by infectious illnesses and
                       breast-feeding, (3) controlling for confounding variables such
as social class or presence of siblings in the household, and (4) applying
                       appropriate analytical strategies to a population in which both
feeding and exposure to illness change over time. A total of 500 infants
                       born consecutively in a university-affiliated community
hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark, were studied prospectively for the first 12
                       months of life by means of a detailed, monthly, mailed
questionnaire that focused on feeding practices and illnesses (overall response
                       rate, 73%). The percentage of infants who were completely or
mostly breast-fed decreased from 88% at 1 month to 20% at 12
                       months of age. After adjustment for major covariates, no
statistically significant relationship was found between the type of infant    feeding
and the incidence of four categories of infectious illnesses: gastroenteritis, upper
respiratory illness, otitis media, and lower  respiratory illness. The adjusted
incidence density ratio for gastroenteritis was 1.067 (95% confidence interval =
0.982, 1.226) and  for upper respiratory illnesses 0.984 (95% confidence interval =
0.883, 1.096).

There are many, many more studies like the above. In fact, research on this topic is
very biased toward funding studies supporting breastmilk --and I believe that this is
appropriate. Again, I am a fan of breastfeeding. I would like to have
non-confrontational discussions about this topic. The WHO and AAP are more political
than scientific and rightfully so. Their aim is to promote optimal infant nutrition
and naturally they will be biased. But the evidence is mixed and would probably be
more mixed if the research weren't so politically motivated. The balance, however,
gives more than enough support to overwhelmingly support bfing.

Certainly we should be saying it, but to say it aggressively is bound to be
counterproductive in many instances as parenting is SUCH an emotional issue, bound up
with all sorts of identity issues - it strikes us to the core of our being.

Having been on the receiving end of formula guilt-mongers, even though my wife and I
are rabid breastfeeding advocates and were forced to use formula to save our girl's
life, I can tell you it hurts.  Even though we knew the criticisms were ill-founded,
it still cuts to your sense of self.  Because parents are responsible for someone
other than themselves, someone totally dependent on them, it is more often an
emotional issue than one's own diet or exercise.

So, yes, do what I do - advocate breastfeeding as much as possible, get the
information out, but do it sensitively. What is so wrong with that?  Why do we have to
get so mad about it?

Robert Davidson

You make a very good point and this is a forum where breastfeeding promoters
should come to recharge and get support. But on the other hand, this topic is
complicated and I believe we are all entitled to our opinions. You certainly do
your part to combat the negatives you describe above. There is more negative
baggage on the formula promotion side, no doubt. However, some of us see some
efforts on the lactation promotion side that are counterproductive. This should be
a forum for all these opinions. The subject is broad and there is room for many
opinions. Some people on both sides harbor resentment, and hold opinions which are
offensive to others. My hope is that we can elevate this discussion to a more
friendly plane. The camps can be so hostile, and the moms can feel caught in the
middle. There is room for civility. In the interest of babies and good nutrition,
I hope that we can get around some of our hard feelings and pride to improve the
quality of the discussions. I was very offended by the use of the term nazi, for
example. But I have felt the wrath of criticism for not pledging complete
allegiance to the strongest bfing stance. Please continue your well-intentioned,
good-hearted efforts. The more friendly and encouraging we remain, I believe, the
more strides we can make.

news:392C85BC.31528A21@student.uq.edu.au...

Oddly, or perhaps because I've been fortunate, I have had *no* criticism for
having to feed one of my daughters a formula-fortified breastmilk diet.
But, people seem to understand - she was born with a major heart defect, and
she's been up against a lot of challenges.  She's needed extra calories, and
restricted fluids.  Mostly, people are in awe of me for pumping enough milk
for one baby, while nursing another *and* a toddler.  I've had people say
"Why don't you just go to formula, it's easier."  But they don't understand,
I'm already messing with formula a couple times a day, and it sucks bigtime
compared to just lifting the lower hem of my shirt.

Shrug.

--angela

    CAROL KENNON wrote in message <392C8C7F.7BACD...@worldnet.att.net>...

        <snip cites>
        So?  What these studies tell us is that there are some illnesses and
diseases that breastfeeding does not effect.  It is like quoting 150 studies
that all conclude that breastfeeding does not increase you child's chances
of surviving a plane crash.  Show me a study that shows a significant
health advantage of formula feeding.
    There are many, many more studies like the above. In fact, research on
this topic is very biased toward funding studies supporting breastmilk --and
I believe that this is appropriate. Again, I am a fan of breastfeeding. I
would like to have non-confrontational discussions about this topic. The WHO
and AAP are more political than scientific and rightfully so. Their aim is
to promote optimal infant nutrition and naturally they will be biased. But
the evidence is mixed and would probably be more mixed if the research
weren't so politically motivated.

    Formula companies have more of an agenda than the WHO and the AAP.
Afterall, Carnation, Nestle and the like have the biggest motivater of them
all - money, billions of dollars of the stuff.  Yet they have not been able
to bastardize one bit of research to fit their agenda.

There are studies which support many different benefits of bf. There are often
also studies which dispute the presence of many of these benefits. Then there
are studies which challenge the magnitude of the benefit previously reported by
a study. For example, studies showed a protective effect of bf against ear
infections (many studies did, and some studies showed a very significant
effect). Other studies looked at this association and controlled for certain
counfounders like smoking or day care and found minimal to no protective effect
of bf. The same is true for gastrointestinal infections, asthma, intelligence,
SIDS, diabetes, etc. Someone made the valid point that no studies show that
formula is superior, no matter how studies are done, clearly bf will come out
looking better.

"Show me a study that shows a significant
health advantage of formula feeding."

1. Mothers who cannot breastfeed can offer formula, so in this case formula is
better than almost any other alternative (except breastmilk)
2. Many infections (some known and some not known yet) can be transmittled by
br-milk, these include HIV, HTLV, CMV, Brucellosis, hepatitis. Not getting
infected might well be seen as a significant health advantage of formula. There
are tragic examples of babies who have been infected with HIV who otherwise
would be alive today if they had been fed formula. What viruses are emerging
that we haven't recognized yet?
3. Mothers who have a particularly high level of a toxin or drug may be better
off formula feeding.  I was reading an abstract on possible exposure to toxins
in breastmilk of mothers who smoke heavily. Some of these toxins can have a very
detrimental effect on infants.

There are other examples where formula may be more beneficial or less risky --
not many I will certainly grant. However, this is certainly not an
all-or-nothing situation. Some of these circumstances come down to personal
opinion. Some feel that risking HIV is worth it when we consider the benefits of
bf. Certainly many others disagree. Who is right here?

------------------
No one faults someone who has to supplement breast milk with formula,
it's SUBSTITUTING formula for it that smacks of some either really
obtuse or some really stupid neurosis.
Steve

Because you have no possible justification for killing babies.    JK

Exclusively breastfeeding when infected with HIV has been shown to be
SAFER than breastfeeding and supplementing with formula, and in some
instances safer than formula feeding exclusively. D

Carol, you may be interested in this article which explains why it's
important to word it the way many here are!!
http://www.kjsl.com/~donya/naturalinstinc/watch.htm
Carol wrote "Some people like to coach this in terms of formula
producing a
risk of infection because it doesn't protect like breast milk does. That

is like saying Amoxicillin is risky because it doesn't cover as many ear

infection bacteria as well as Augmentin. Or a shirt is risky because it
doesn't protect against bullets as well as a bullet proof vest does. The

logic is somewhat convoluted because the risk is only relative to the
absence of benefit provided by the alternative. "

A better analogy is Breast feeding is normal and healthy, formula
feeding is not healthy much like having skin protects your muscle and
tissues, and not having skin will not protect your tissues from
infections! D

In article <392D59DC.5A2B1...@televar.com>, "Brian & Danette -

You've just got to be kidding.

Who, in their right mind (which may eliminate you two dweezils)
would put the teat of a HIV infected mother in the mouth of Baby
when a perfectly sterilized nipple with formulae is available.

You b-feeders can be as obnoxiously stupid as born-again
Christians.

Ben

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

On 10 May 2000 22:55:18 GMT, Naomi Lynne Pardue

We should add some qualifiers, and remember that drug use, medical
conditions, etc. negatively impact the quality of breastmilk.  The
best term would be -healthy- breastmilk is always superior ;)

CW

In misc.kids.breastfeeding Brian & Danette - (The Preston's) <bjp...@televar.com> wrote:

Nope. Breastmilk has been found to be a source of HIV transmission.
Unless the woman is in a sitaution where formula feeding would be
inherantly highly dangerous (extreme third world conditions), the current
advice is that HIV+ mothers should formula feed, with baby getting no
breastmilk at all. (A fairly large study among mothers in Kenya,
published, I think, in JAMA, found that, among babies born to HIV+ mothers
who were negative at birth, much higher seroconversion rates were seen in
the babies who were bf, even partially, compared to the formula-fed
cohort. (The difference was significant enough that women in the bf cohort
who still had HIV- babies were advised to wean their babies immediately
once the results of the study were in.)

Naomi

In misc.kids.breastfeeding "Brian & Danette - (The Preston's)" <bjp...@televar.com> wrote:
: Exclusively breastfeeding when infected with HIV has been shown to be
: SAFER than breastfeeding and supplementing with formula, and in some
: instances safer than formula feeding exclusively. D

Cites, cites, cites!!!  Can you please provide cites to published
studies substantiating this claim.  This is a very interesting
statement, and if true, very important.  However, a statement of
this importance cannot be allowed to be made without demostration
of it's validity.  Please cite the study or scientific article
which backs up this claim.  I would love the see the evidence.

Larry

Brian & Danette - (The Preston's) wrote:

You forgot the caveat ... in extremely poor conditions without clean
water (like famine-stricken third world).
--
Colette
l n r p l x u s a t r i p c o d o t c o m
^^^^^^reduce for email^^^^^^

Peace begins at birth. Support non-nurse midwifery.
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/5510

Hi Larry,
  Sorry I did not post my source! I received the info because I am on
the WABA mailing list. It was sent in a very long e-mail from Ted
Greiner, PhD, Coordinator, WABA Research Task Force. You may be able to
get the particular article by e-mailing him at ted.grei...@ich.uu.se
 I don't know if he has an article on the web about the newest info he
has sent out, but perhaps you could ask him for it, the title is
"Coutsoudis on HIV and Breastfeeding". I did not see the latest mailing
on his website, I will check WABA's.
Or, I would be happy to photo copy it and mail it to you if you like!
Danette

Norma, I would be happy to send you  the same article by Anna
Coutsoudis, Dept Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Natal,
Durban if you are interested in reading it. I don't want to type 6 full
pages of text here!! Danette