Boycott Nestle

[Jedi Knight]

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.

JJ, you are just a goofy moron, a poster-boy for why we need skeptics in this world.

JK

 

[jj]

3) Womyn will follow the feminist instructions thinking that breast-feeding is actually starving the baby.

FEMINIST? FEMININIST INSTRUCTIONS to bottlefeed?

Jedi, you are on another planet.

Quack, Quack, Quack.

Now you're just "making it all up" so you can slam women again.

Your basic misogyny is appalling.

Get help.

 

[jj]

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

Once again, you show that you have no understanding whatsoever of how the process works.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

I would agree. But this still doesn't mean that what Nestle does is unethical. Mothers should be asking their care-providers about breastfeeding vs bottle. One needs not be educated to ask questions.

 

[jj]

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



I didn't intend to imply that this learning process is easy, not 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".

My experience is that you're quite right for healthy babies. However my experience has a sample size of 2.

I would have more concerns with the mom's milk supply, especially if she was a first-time mom.

And I understand why anyone would want to distance themself from JK's ranting. No problems there.

 

[jj]

JJ, you are just a goofy moron, a poster-boy for why we need skeptics in this world.

JK

Your lack of substance to reply with is noted.

Please take your misogyny somewhere else.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

I didn't have to, you did it for me when you said that the website didn't tell all the facts about the breast feeding issue. The website implies that all babies cannot go back to breast feeding once starting the bottle. This is junk science, they did not disclose that it's only some babies.

1. The site has an agenda
2. The site posts selective facts about the science of bottlefeeding and breastfeeding.
3. The site tries to invoke fear and distrust.

 

[jj]

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

Oh, I must add.


Jedi, produce evidence that the LaLeche league is not feminist.

Now, I didn't say "scientific", I said "feminist".

Your lies roll in like the tide, Jedi. You're incapable of honest discourse.

 

[Soubrette]

I hope you realise that we are now talking about formula milk in general?

Do you agree with me that women in third world countries are less educated than those here?

And I've also come up with some links that show that it is not total junk science. That there is a different suckle reflex for bottle and breast.

Is it some babies or is it a majority?

I've also come up with the conclusive fact that women who don't breast feed regularly will have their milk supply dry up.

Answer the first question thai and see where we can go from there

Sou

 

[thaiboxerken]

"I hope you realise that we are now talking about formula milk in general?"

Really? I started the thread with the complete intent of talking about that website, not whether breastmilk is better or worse thatn forumula.

"Do you agree with me that women in third world countries are less educated than those here?"

Yes, but I don't agree that they are stupid. Even the uneducated should be asking their doctors questions about bottle vs breastfeeding.

"And I've also come up with some links that show that it is not total junk science. That there is a different suckle reflex for bottle and breast."

You've shown links that show what they present is fact, however, your links also show that what they present is not the entire picture. This is one of the methods of junk-science, not really fabricating evidence, but not giving out a clear picture of the science.

"Is it some babies or is it a majority?"

Who knows? You're the one that said "some". I was asking about the science of the website because I'm not an expert. Now you've convinced me that the site does use selective science to promote their agenda.

"I've also come up with the conclusive fact that women who don't breast feed regularly will have their milk supply dry up."

Yep.

"Answer the first question thai and see where we can go from there."

I've answered all of them.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Oh, I must add.


Jedi, produce evidence that the LaLeche league is not feminist.

Now, I didn't say "scientific", I said "feminist".

Your lies roll in like the tide, Jedi. You're incapable of honest discourse.

Sure JJ, spam the forum. You are pathetic. But what is even more pathetic is the pseudo-science you are pushing.

JK

 

[Soubrette]

Sure but I want to get right back to basics so we can see where we disagree or we don't.

Is it reasonable to assume that poorer people are influenced by advertising in the same way as us? For them to assume that as the West is affluent - that its mores and fashions are something to aspire to?

And I convinced you that that website had an agenda and was using junk science? It's my impression that you had made up your mind and merely used my words against me. I honestly don't know either - some babies do have problems using both breast and bottle I know that anecdotally. What percentage I don't know. But this isn't the only issue with pushing formula milk in third world countries.

Thanks for answering all the question though

Sou

 

[gethane]

ahh, so much nicer.. ignore is a lovely feature.

 

[specious_reasons]

(snip)
And I've also come up with some links that show that it is not total junk science. That there is a different suckle reflex for bottle and breast.

Is it some babies or is it a majority?
(snip)

I would estimate that the makers of Enfamil and Isomil gave us a retail value totalling $40-50 of free product, per child. Considering much of the material was "standard issue" from the doctor's office and hospital, it's safe to assume that these manufacturers are spending very large amounts of money to market to expecting parents.

This would imply that the percentage is large enough to make these companies feel it's worth it, even though most patients in the US are told quite directly from doctors and other medical professionals that breast feeding is the best for your baby.

 

[Jedi Knight]

This got spammed so I am reposting it:

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

 

[thaiboxerken]

Sure but I want to get right back to basics so we can see where we disagree or we don't.

We agree that breastfeeding is better than bottle feeding in most cases, i think. I also agree that it could be hard for some babies to go back to breastfeeding after trying a bottle for several weeks. I agree that it could be hard to do both bottle and breast feeding.

I don't agree that Nestle is doing anything unethical by offering a product for free in a hospital for PR and demonstrative purposes.


Is it reasonable to assume that poorer people are influenced by advertising in the same way as us?

Yes.

For them to assume that as the West is affluent - that its mores and fashions are something to aspire to?

If that's how they want to think, then they are only victims of their own values.

And I convinced you that that website had an agenda and was using junk science? It's my impression that you had made up your mind and merely used my words against me. I honestly don't know either - some babies do have problems using both breast and bottle I know that anecdotally. What percentage I don't know. But this isn't the only issue with pushing formula milk in third world countries.

The website has an agenda, that's obvious as they are asking people to boycott the company. Because of this agenda, the science should be looked at more critically, as agenda-based sites often have junk-science.

Think of this. If someone is selling bottled water and advertises that their water is a natural diarrhetic and anti-oxidant, it's junk-science. Heres' why, because they aren't disclosing that all water has the same properties.


If they really think bottlefeeding is wrong, shouldn't they be attacking ALL forumula companies and bottle manufacturers?

 

[Soubrette]

Regarding the advertising. I think most people are susceptible to advertising. And most people want to better themselves.

If a person saw pictures of healthy bouncy baby being fed bottled milk. Don't you think it would be reasonable to assume that bottled milk is a really good thing for your baby? Especially if they are western pictures where you may even be aware that in general they are richer and healthier than you?

And I think Nestlé and Danone are the main two companies that contravene the WHO guidelines re formula milk - I provided a link to the British Medical Journal regarding a study done on this and the effects of the free samples.

I wish I could find something which actually explained what these free samples were. I think here we are thinking totally different things. You, I think, are assuming they get one free sample and that's it. I'm assuming they get bottled milk free for the whole time they are in hospital - which would be a least a couple of days. I can't find anything to say which of us has the right idea though.

Sou

 

[thaiboxerken]

If a person saw pictures of healthy bouncy baby being fed bottled milk. Don't you think it would be reasonable to assume that bottled milk is a really good thing for your baby? Especially if they are western pictures where you may even be aware that in general they are richer and healthier than you?

Not really, it would be reasonable to assume that it's not poison though. I see lots of women that hang out with the beer-drinkers in the commercials, but I don't expect that drinking beer attracts supermodels.



I think the free samples are offered for the term of the maturnity visit, but I don't know.

 

[Soubrette]

Not really, it would be reasonable to assume that it's not poison though. I see lots of women that hang out with the beer-drinkers in the commercials, but I don't expect that drinking beer attracts supermodels.

I think the free samples are offered for the term of the maturnity visit, but I don't know.

You do see that advertising in general sells us more than just the product though don't you?

For example - we used to have a Lucazade - a drink you drank if you were poorly. Now it's been revitalised as a sporting drink.

Tango - an in the doldrums orangeade drink - revitalised as a fun zany drink.

Here people pay an awful lot of money for jeans - because they sell us a lifestyle. So much so that the jean manufacturers actually sued the supermarkets for stocking their jeans more cheaply - because it cheapened the brand.

Imagine the pressure of wanting to do the absolute best for your child? Of wanting to buy into the Western lifestyle? Do you honestly not see how persuasive that in itself must be? Then to be spoonfed this at the hospital? Look how easy bottlefeeding is etc etc?

Is it unreasonable to make that choice for what seem like all the best reasons?

A choice that we both agree that once made is difficult to change.

Sou

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, advertisement often sells their product as being more than it is. I agree.

But I don't agree that we should protect people from advertisements. Nestle giving out free samples is just a form of advertisement.

"Is it unreasonable to make that choice for what seem like all the best reasons?"

If someone is stupid enough to use those reasons to bottlefeed vs breastfeed, it's their fault. I don't agree that we should protect stupid people from their own stupidity.