Boycott Nestle

[Soubrette]

LOL. I think you are subtly accusing Nestle of forcing people to try their product for a period of time. The simple fact is, if a mom decided to quit using the baby forumula after one session, Nestle cannot force her to. They might encourage her to give the formula a chance, but I see nothing unethical about that.

Since these products are being offered in a hospital, maybe we should be blaming the doctors for not educating parents about breastfeeding.

A mother can try Nestle for just one session, if she so chooses. A mother can also not even try Nestle.

No thai - I am simply trying to say that if I were selling a product it would make sense for me to offer it for a period of time

You are the one with the conspiracy theory - that these concerns are merely "junk science" and that it's all a conspiracy against the kind hearted Nestlé

Sou

 

[michaellee]

What's your point? Some people must bottle feed. Some people just can't, for whatever reason, breast-feed. (Even "standard" couples.)

Just a failed attempt to slide in an off-the-subject perspective others, I thought, might see or actually have experienced.

Personally, I can't remember if my mother breast fed or bottle fed me; I never asked and she never told me. Logic dictates breast feeding in all cases if possible.

What is 'formula' anyway?
Why, after weaning, do most children switch/continue to drink milk from a COW, and then as adults?

Could we test? Maybe a comparison of breast-fed/IQ to bottle-fed/IQ or something similar.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Spoken like someone who's never had a baby to care for.

That's NOT how it works with mon. Would you like to revisit this, do some homework, and tell us how it's really done?

That is, if you can read words like that and not explode.

P.S. It's only 2 data points but ours both used natural and bottle feeding. Both prefered natural by a very large margin, and seemed to have little trouble figuring out which was which. Your milage may vary.

If you have a hungry baby (not spoiled), the baby will grab the nearest nipple and suck away to be fed. It is laughable to say otherwise.

JK

 

[thaiboxerken]

" No thai - I am simply trying to say that if I were selling a product it would make sense for me to offer it for a period of time "

And I'm pointing out that a mother need not use it for that entire period, or at all.

"You are the one with the conspiracy theory - that these concerns are merely "junk science" and that it's all a conspiracy against the kind hearted Nestlé"

Your arguement is hardly rational. This is as stupid as the theist claiming that it's atheists that have faith there is no god.

I am not saying Nestle is kind-hearted, in fact, I'm sure that they promote their product with the intent of gaining profit and PR. I do not agree with the conspiracy theory that Nestle is doing the equivalent of trying to get people hooked on crack-cocaine.

 

[Soubrette]

If you have a hungry baby (not spoiled), the baby will grab the nearest nipple and suck away to be fed. It is laughable to say otherwise.

JK

JK

Many women have problems breast feeding. Many babies have problems thriving on breast feeding.

It's not as simple as just waving your bosom in your new baby's face and letting nature take its course.

Sou

 

[Soubrette]

" No thai - I am simply trying to say that if I were selling a product it would make sense for me to offer it for a period of time "

And I'm pointing out that a mother need not use it for that entire period, or at all.

"You are the one with the conspiracy theory - that these concerns are merely "junk science" and that it's all a conspiracy against the kind hearted Nestlé"

Your arguement is hardly rational. This is as stupid as the theist claiming that it's atheists that have faith there is no god.

I am not saying Nestle is kind-hearted, in fact, I'm sure that they promote their product with the intent of gaining profit and PR. I do not agree with the conspiracy theory that Nestle is doing the equivalent of trying to get people hooked on crack-cocaine.

Hehe - I wondered how a taste of your own medicine would go down

I'm not giving a rational argument because I portrayed your position as one of assuming Nestlé to be acting out of the kindness of their heart.

Yet your extreme crack cocaine analogy is pure logic

What do you say of the fact that women in third world countries are often not educated to the standard that we are in the West - would you agree with that one?

Sou

 

[Jedi Knight]

Sir, do you every consider just NOT TALKING when you have nothing useful to say? Since you are a man, I'm POSITIVE you have not breastfed. I, on the other hand, have breastfed 3 children, and can assure you that the mechanics involved in breastfeeding vs. bottle feeding are QUITE different. I'll not talk about penises as if I have experience, if you'll not talk about breastfeeding as if you do.

Since you have no personal experience OR scientific evidence to back up your claim, please shut up.

You're pushing superstitious mythology on the forum. A hungry baby is going to breast feed with no problem.

Let me ask you this, oh angry womyn, were there 'baby bottles' in 1850? What about 1900?

In comparison, what you are basically saying is that I couldn't cook a microwave TV dinner in a wood stove. Get real.

BTW, I will talk about womyn's breasts whenever I feel like it, hon.

JK

 

[BillyTK]

Could we test? Maybe a comparison of breast-fed/IQ to bottle-fed/IQ or something similar.

Funny you should mention that: UK Study: Breast-feeding Increases Babies' IQ

Breast-fed babies’ IQ is three to five points higher than that of formula-fed babies, according to researchers at the University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center. The findings are published in the October issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

James W. Anderson, M.D., professor of medicine and clinical nutrition in the UK College of Medicine, found that breast-feeding, compared to formula feeding, is associated with significantly higher levels of cognitive development. The difference increases the longer a baby is breast-fed, and low birth weight babies receive the greatest benefits.

 

[jj]

If you have a hungry baby (not spoiled), the baby will grab the nearest nipple and suck away to be fed. It is laughable to say otherwise.

JK

When you have some experience, first or second-hand, get back to us. Until then, you stand dismissed as a mean, malicious, seriously ill-informed spewer of quackery.

 

[jj]

You're pushing superstitious mythology on the forum. A hungry baby is going to breast feed with no problem.

Let me ask you this, oh angry womyn, were there 'baby bottles' in 1850? What about 1900?

(noted that the effect of baby bottles on nursing infants is the issue here, and Jedi's introduction of when they occur in his assertion that "hungry baby..." is purely dishonest, unethical, and malicious, since the point is that they HAVE been introduced.)

Soubrette, Gethane, he has no knowledge whatsoever, and his only intent is to demeam others here.

So don't try to be reasonable. Flaming him would be reasonable, trying to reason with him is just wasting everyone's time.

Jedi, your statements are false, irresponsible and potentially dangerous (except that I think nobody is stupid enough to take your advice and claims seriously).

(edited to cure typokinesis)

 

[Soubrette]

jj

actually he has a point - one of the observations made on the website is that a baby started on a bottle has difficulty changing to the nipple.

This leads to a higher likelihood of breast feeding failure and thus reliance on bottle feeding.

The question is - is this junk science?

I can find no studies but I can find websites that don't recommend mixing both until breast feeding is well established plus an explanation on why the suckle reflex is different for a bottle or a breast.

So far thai has come up with nothing to support his view that it is junk science.

As to JK's pov - he isn't the only one propagating it on this thread. For what it's worth I think that when breast feeding is the only option then families tend to be extended and there is a lot of support for them. Breast feeding is often painful hard work - that support helps you through.

Many years ago we didn't have oven or cookers but I'll bet if I dropped the average person in the middle of a forest they couldn't cook themselves a meal - knowledge is lost.

The rooting reflex is instinctive, much about the rest of breast feeding needs to be learned

Sou

 

[Jedi Knight]

When you have some experience, first or second-hand, get back to us. Until then, you stand dismissed as a mean, malicious, seriously ill-informed spewer of quackery.

You are just a mean old bastard JJ. How many 'bottles' were babies sucking on in 1850?

Momma's tit, that's all. How's that for experience, chump.

JK

 

[Jedi Knight]

(noted that the effect of baby bottles on nursing infants is the issue here, and Jedi's introduction of when they occur in his assertion that "hungry baby..." is purely dishonest, unethical, and malicious, since the point is that they HAVE been introduced.)

Soubrette, Gethane, he has no knowledge whatsoever, and his only intent is to demeam others here.

So don't try to be reasonable. Flaming him would be reasonable, trying to reason with him is just wasting everyone's time.

Jedi, your statements are false, irresponsible and potentially dangerous (except that I think nobody is stupid enough to take your advice and claims seriously).

(edited to cure typokinesis)

Hey there thug, answer the question. How many babies were sucking on bottles in 1850?

You are pushing pseudo-science. Mythology. Superstition.

If you used critical thinking (yeah, right) instead of your BS, in the human timeline, how many human babies out of all that existed sucked on plastic nipples attached to baby bottles?

Answer the question.

JK

 

[Jedi Knight]

As to JK's pov - he isn't the only one propagating it on this thread.

Point of view? Try historical fact.

Bottle feeding babies was just a way for moms to not have to have babies rip their nipples up while nursing them, or to provide womyn with certain inadequacies the ability to feed the children they spawn.

But bottle feeding then turned into a multinational conglomerate of Feminazism where breast feeding became politically incorrect. The boycott of Nestle is just to get the 'product' for free (socialism). That is why the moron said the women couldn't breastfeed. All pregnant women can breastfeed unless they suffer from inadequacies. If they couldn't, the human race wouldn't be here. Bottle feeding has only existed for a microscopic blip in the human timeline.

The bottom line is this--hungry babies will feed on any nipple that provides them food.

JK

 

[jj]

jj

actually he has a point - one of the observations made on the website is that a baby started on a bottle has difficulty changing to the nipple.

This leads to a higher likelihood of breast feeding failure and thus reliance on bottle feeding.

The question is - is this junk science?

That's a good question. I can only offer two close personal anecdotal experiences and a lot of hearsay.

On the other hand, you have to admit that running a real experiment has hideous ethical experiments. What do you do?

Now, I can see that mom's supply will start to wane if she doesn't feed for a day and doesn't pump. That, however, is a different (although for some women extremely serious) issue. Some women lactate easily, some don't. A woman who doesn't lactate easily can't afford to pass up a day in some cases, and yes, I do know some examples of that. (Fortunately not ours...)

In the two cases I know of, both babies adapted very nicely, BUT one had to be reminded to "get it all in" (you'll know what I mean if you've done this or helped with it) every time she went back to the nipple.

I can imagine that some babies would be much more stubborn. Also, both of ours were healthy and well-fed. I can imagine problems when an infant is weak.

But do I have any cites to good work? No. I've seen the stuff that comes out of some of the breast-feeding groups, but frankly it seems, well, lacking, to say the least, in rigor, and I can't credit it even anecdotally.

 

[jj]

You are just a mean old bastard JJ. How many 'bottles' were babies sucking on in 1850?

Momma's tit, that's all. How's that for experience, chump.

JK

You try to justify your idiocy by spouting irrelevancies.

The question is NOT "did children breastfeed in 1850". The question is "does bottle feeding cause problems for breastfeeding"?

SINCE that is the question, it is forthrightly dishonest of you to raise the issue of what infants fed from in the 1850's. If you want to even try to be equitable, let's introduce the death rate, let's introduce the lack of medical issues, sepsis, etc. If you want to compare, let's compare apples to apples. HOW DOES THE INFANT DEATH RATE FROM THEN COMPARE TO NOW?

Of course, since you haven't bothered to look up any data, Jedi, I think you would, if you were wise, back off and admit your egregious mistakes.

But you won't. You aren't able to admit you're wrong.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Here is how the breast-feeding pseudo-science scam works.

1) Elevate the threshold of a baby's nutritional requirements so that no matter how much milk a pregnant mom's breasts dispenses, it is never enough.

2) Teach moms that bottle-feeding is easier and provides the nutritional threshold.

3) Womyn will follow the feminist instructions thinking that breast-feeding is actually starving the baby. No new mom wants her kids to go hungry. Plus, feminists will make the mom feel that there is something 'toxic' in her milk, thus pushing moms towards bottle-feeding. No mom wants her own milk to poison her newborn baby, right? Womyn buy into that fear-marketing easily.

4) Perpetuate the myth.

5) Hammer corporations for not giving bottled formula away for free. (socialism). Claim scientific evidence (pseudo science) that breast-feeding is dangerous and malnutrition will result.

6) Perpetuate the overall scam and junk-science.

JK

 

[jj]

But bottle feeding then turned into a multinational conglomerate of Feminazism where breast feeding became politically incorrect. The boycott of Nestle is just to get the 'product' for free (socialism).

While I think your usual dishonest association of anything you disagree with as "socialism" is typically inflamatory and unethical of you, I will say that I find the call to boycott a bit much.

I trust you have noticed that I have not suggested that anyone join the boycott.

I will continue to point out that you have demonstrated plainly that you have no understanding whatsoever of breastfeeding or the relative complexity of the process, and that furthermore you have, in your usual abusive fashion, used deliberately coarse, insulting language.

Your ignorance does not add to the defense of Nestle, Jedi. If anything, you're arguing against them by trying to help them.

 

[Jedi Knight]

You try to justify your idiocy by spouting irrelevancies.

The question is NOT "did children breastfeed in 1850". The question is "does bottle feeding cause problems for breastfeeding"?

SINCE that is the question, it is forthrightly dishonest of you to raise the issue of what infants fed from in the 1850's. If you want to even try to be equitable, let's introduce the death rate, let's introduce the lack of medical issues, sepsis, etc. If you want to compare, let's compare apples to apples. HOW DOES THE INFANT DEATH RATE FROM THEN COMPARE TO NOW?

Of course, since you haven't bothered to look up any data, Jedi, I think you would, if you were wise, back off and admit your egregious mistakes.

But you won't. You aren't able to admit you're wrong.

You have bought into feminazi myth and superstition. Tell me JJ, if you were a starving baby and someone planted a big fat, milk-inflated nipple in your face, what would you do? You would start chowing down.

JK

 

[specious_reasons]

When you have some experience, first or second-hand, get back to us. Until then, you stand dismissed as a mean, malicious, seriously ill-informed spewer of quackery.

I would like to make a distinction between what I said and what JK is saying.

what I said
From ancedotal evidence, a baby can and will figure out the difference between bottle and breast and suck accordingly.

I didn't intend to imply that this learning process is easy, nor did I intend to imply that the process is not stressful for baby and the rest of the family. All I intended was that the baby will learn how to survive as a matter of necessity.

...and note I said "survive", not "thrive".

editted to fix a typo