I hate the AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience?

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula, which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it.

Oh my gosh, it talks about how many babies die because their mothers don't breastfeed. Based on observational research that doesn't effectively account for confounders. GTFOOH.

If you read the document, you know it also discusses situations in which breastfeeding can actually be harmful to children. Not a word about formula. Get over yourself, this isn’t about you.

Wow, now you are just lying. The document mentions formula several times and implies it is somehow bad that mothers give their babies any formula in the first days of life, when the latest research actually shows that supplementing helps the breastfeeding relationship.

please feel free to quote the article

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3666109/

There are other studies that show no impact, meaning, it's actually not bad to supplement with formula even if you accept the shaky premise that breastfeeding is really that important.

Its 10ml of formula and limited to those that lost >5% and was d/c AFTER MATURE MILK PRODUCTION so tops 2-3 days TOTAL since they started at 24-48 hours and its limited to those with early weight loss. Thats not the type of supplementation people are referencing. There's a big difference between exclusively breastfeeding and adding 10ml of formula after each BREASTFEED to using 1+ bottles of formula (anywhere from 2-4oz) for breastfeeding week 1-month 6.

I mean tell that to the AAP, which emphasizes that the number of babies that get formula supplementation in the 48 hours after birth are keeping the US from meeting breastfeeding targets:

The average national breastfeeding initiation rate for the total United States population, based on the latest National Immunization Survey data for the birth cohort from 2018, is 83.9%2 (Fig 1). This figure represents any breastfeeding, not exclusive breastfeeding. Healthy People 2020 indicators have been met or exceeded for the 2018 birth cohort for initiation of any breastfeeding (83.9%), exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months (46.3%), exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months (25.8%), and any breastfeeding at 12 months of life (35.0%), but not for the 6-month rates of any breastfeeding (56.7%) (most recent data indicated in parentheses; Table 1). Furthermore, 19.4% of breastfed infants received supplements of commercial infant formula in the first 48 hours after birth, well above the Healthy People 2020 target of 14.2%.2 The Healthy People 2030 goals for breastfeeding are to increase the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed for 6 months to 42.4%7 and to increase the proportion of infants who continue to breastfeed for 12 months to 54.1%.7

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/1/e2022057989/188348/Technical-Report-Breastfeeding-and-the-Use-of?preview=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience?

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula, which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it.

Oh my gosh, it talks about how many babies die because their mothers don't breastfeed. Based on observational research that doesn't effectively account for confounders. GTFOOH.

If you read the document, you know it also discusses situations in which breastfeeding can actually be harmful to children. Not a word about formula. Get over yourself, this isn’t about you.

Wow, now you are just lying. The document mentions formula several times and implies it is somehow bad that mothers give their babies any formula in the first days of life, when the latest research actually shows that supplementing helps the breastfeeding relationship.

please feel free to quote the article

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3666109/

There are other studies that show no impact, meaning, it's actually not bad to supplement with formula even if you accept the shaky premise that breastfeeding is really that important.

Its 10ml of formula and limited to those that lost >5% and was d/c AFTER MATURE MILK PRODUCTION so tops 2-3 days TOTAL since they started at 24-48 hours and its limited to those with early weight loss. Thats not the type of supplementation people are referencing. There's a big difference between exclusively breastfeeding and adding 10ml of formula after each BREASTFEED to using 1+ bottles of formula (anywhere from 2-4oz) for breastfeeding week 1-month 6.

I mean tell that to the AAP, which emphasizes that the number of babies that get formula supplementation in the 48 hours after birth are keeping the US from meeting breastfeeding targets:

The average national breastfeeding initiation rate for the total United States population, based on the latest National Immunization Survey data for the birth cohort from 2018, is 83.9%2 (Fig 1). This figure represents any breastfeeding, not exclusive breastfeeding. Healthy People 2020 indicators have been met or exceeded for the 2018 birth cohort for initiation of any breastfeeding (83.9%), exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months (46.3%), exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months (25.8%), and any breastfeeding at 12 months of life (35.0%), but not for the 6-month rates of any breastfeeding (56.7%) (most recent data indicated in parentheses; Table 1). Furthermore, 19.4% of breastfed infants received supplements of commercial infant formula in the first 48 hours after birth, well above the Healthy People 2020 target of 14.2%.2 The Healthy People 2030 goals for breastfeeding are to increase the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed for 6 months to 42.4%7 and to increase the proportion of infants who continue to breastfeed for 12 months to 54.1%.7

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/1/e2022057989/188348/Technical-Report-Breastfeeding-and-the-Use-of?preview=true

Right do you understand the difference between getting formula supplementation in the first 48 hours compared to supplementation for babies who lost more than 5% of their BW from 48hours-mature milk? There is a difference. The latter has weight loss AND mature milk hasnt come in, the former means supplementation is being used without meeting those two criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience?

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula, which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it.

Oh my gosh, it talks about how many babies die because their mothers don't breastfeed. Based on observational research that doesn't effectively account for confounders. GTFOOH.

If you read the document, you know it also discusses situations in which breastfeeding can actually be harmful to children. Not a word about formula. Get over yourself, this isn’t about you.

Wow, now you are just lying. The document mentions formula several times and implies it is somehow bad that mothers give their babies any formula in the first days of life, when the latest research actually shows that supplementing helps the breastfeeding relationship.

please feel free to quote the article

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3666109/

There are other studies that show no impact, meaning, it's actually not bad to supplement with formula even if you accept the shaky premise that breastfeeding is really that important.

Its 10ml of formula and limited to those that lost >5% and was d/c AFTER MATURE MILK PRODUCTION so tops 2-3 days TOTAL since they started at 24-48 hours and its limited to those with early weight loss. Thats not the type of supplementation people are referencing. There's a big difference between exclusively breastfeeding and adding 10ml of formula after each BREASTFEED to using 1+ bottles of formula (anywhere from 2-4oz) for breastfeeding week 1-month 6.

I mean tell that to the AAP, which emphasizes that the number of babies that get formula supplementation in the 48 hours after birth are keeping the US from meeting breastfeeding targets:

The average national breastfeeding initiation rate for the total United States population, based on the latest National Immunization Survey data for the birth cohort from 2018, is 83.9%2 (Fig 1). This figure represents any breastfeeding, not exclusive breastfeeding. Healthy People 2020 indicators have been met or exceeded for the 2018 birth cohort for initiation of any breastfeeding (83.9%), exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months (46.3%), exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months (25.8%), and any breastfeeding at 12 months of life (35.0%), but not for the 6-month rates of any breastfeeding (56.7%) (most recent data indicated in parentheses; Table 1). Furthermore, 19.4% of breastfed infants received supplements of commercial infant formula in the first 48 hours after birth, well above the Healthy People 2020 target of 14.2%.2 The Healthy People 2030 goals for breastfeeding are to increase the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed for 6 months to 42.4%7 and to increase the proportion of infants who continue to breastfeed for 12 months to 54.1%.7

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/1/e2022057989/188348/Technical-Report-Breastfeeding-and-the-Use-of?preview=true

Right do you understand the difference between getting formula supplementation in the first 48 hours compared to supplementation for babies who lost more than 5% of their BW from 48hours-mature milk? There is a difference. The latter has weight loss AND mature milk hasnt come in, the former means supplementation is being used without meeting those two criteria.

Do you understand that this thread is about the AAP's new guidance which doubles down on toxic, oppressive and deceptive claims about the benefits of exclusive breastfeeding? They do not make the distinction you are claiming is so important, so you should direct your inane comments to them.

[Anonymous]

Fully aware I’m not the boss of the internet…but I suggest not engaging the distressed anti-breastfeeding poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[b]…but I suggest not engaging the distressed anti-breastfeeding poster.

Lol 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[b]…but I suggest not engaging the distressed anti-breastfeeding poster.

Lol 😂

Excellent advice that I am going to take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[b]…but I suggest not engaging the distressed anti-breastfeeding poster.

Lol 😂

Excellent advice that I am going to take.

I don’t think they are anti-breastfeeding. They were simply unable (physically and/or circumstantially) or unwilling to breastfeed for the prescribed length of time and reports like this make them feel bad. The last thing any parent wants to hear is that they could have or should have done something differently. It’s true with all topics from daycare to sensory bins to screen time (and on and on). We all want to think we raised our kids in the best way possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fully aware I’m not the boss of the internet…but I suggest not engaging the distressed anti-breastfeeding poster.

Do you have anything substantive to add, or just bullying now? I think it was clearly shown the AAP is against formula.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[b]…but I suggest not engaging the distressed anti-breastfeeding poster.

Lol 😂

Excellent advice that I am going to take.

I don’t think they are anti-breastfeeding. They were simply unable (physically and/or circumstantially) or unwilling to breastfeed for the prescribed length of time and reports like this make them feel bad. The last thing any parent wants to hear is that they could have or should have done something differently. It’s true with all topics from daycare to sensory bins to screen time (and on and on). We all want to think we raised our kids in the best way possible.

Ugh no. The whole point here is that the “prescribed length of time” is made up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[b]…but I suggest not engaging the distressed anti-breastfeeding poster.

Lol 😂

Excellent advice that I am going to take.

I don’t think they are anti-breastfeeding. They were simply unable (physically and/or circumstantially) or unwilling to breastfeed for the prescribed length of time and reports like this make them feel bad. The last thing any parent wants to hear is that they could have or should have done something differently. It’s true with all topics from daycare to sensory bins to screen time (and on and on). We all want to think we raised our kids in the best way possible.

Ugh no. The whole point here is that the “prescribed length of time” is made up.

Why? It makes no sense to make up a random length of time for breastfeeding.

And no one will continue to breastfeed if they can’t or child doesn’t want to because of an AAP recommendation. Much ado about nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[b]…but I suggest not engaging the distressed anti-breastfeeding poster.

Lol 😂

Excellent advice that I am going to take.

I don’t think they are anti-breastfeeding. They were simply unable (physically and/or circumstantially) or unwilling to breastfeed for the prescribed length of time and reports like this make them feel bad. The last thing any parent wants to hear is that they could have or should have done something differently. It’s true with all topics from daycare to sensory bins to screen time (and on and on). We all want to think we raised our kids in the best way possible.

You’re likely right, but whatever their experience — and probably whatever feedback and support they got during the time the experience took place— has left them in a place where this subject is extremely triggering to them and leads them to behave in a way they probably would not do on other subjects, and noting how it’s deteriorated as the thread goes on I think it’s possible further engagement makes it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[b]…but I suggest not engaging the distressed anti-breastfeeding poster.

Lol 😂

Excellent advice that I am going to take.

I don’t think they are anti-breastfeeding. They were simply unable (physically and/or circumstantially) or unwilling to breastfeed for the prescribed length of time and reports like this make them feel bad. The last thing any parent wants to hear is that they could have or should have done something differently. It’s true with all topics from daycare to sensory bins to screen time (and on and on). We all want to think we raised our kids in the best way possible.

I'm the person you're referring to and I breastfed for 14 months. I don't regret not nursing longer, I regret nursing for as long as I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[b]…but I suggest not engaging the distressed anti-breastfeeding poster.

Lol 😂

Excellent advice that I am going to take.

I don’t think they are anti-breastfeeding. They were simply unable (physically and/or circumstantially) or unwilling to breastfeed for the prescribed length of time and reports like this make them feel bad. The last thing any parent wants to hear is that they could have or should have done something differently. It’s true with all topics from daycare to sensory bins to screen time (and on and on). We all want to think we raised our kids in the best way possible.

You’re likely right, but whatever their experience — and probably whatever feedback and support they got during the time the experience took place— has left them in a place where this subject is extremely triggering to them and leads them to behave in a way they probably would not do on other subjects, and noting how it’s deteriorated as the thread goes on I think it’s possible further engagement makes it worse.

All things we think we could have done better or might have been damaging to our kids are triggering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why? Honest question. The evidence of benefits is weak. Should we also "support" families that choose not to sleep train? We should support all families and this statement is all about supporting families solely for the purpose of breastfeeding. That's messed up.

Because what the AAP recommends as support is currently only available to comparably well-off, disproportionately white, women. Removing more of the barriers of breastfeeding at a policy level is a step toward evening the playing field. I can nurse to 3 or 4 and take all the pumping breaks I want and no one would say boo, but that’s not a right afforded to a woman working three jobs to make her rent.

Also, while the benefits are frequently overstated, they are not non-existent. Many of the benefits to many AAP recommendations (such as room sharing) are on the margins. That doesn’t mean they’re bad recommendations. Also, and I feel this one in particular, breastfeeding unlike so many other baby-related issues has documented health benefits to the mother. Yeah, I am ok with supporting a policy that reduces a woman’s chance of getting cancer over her lifetime, particularly given how many other recommendations come at the expense of mothers.

Where did the AAP say they centered communities of color by reaching out to them to understand their perspectives on breastfeeding? it's obvious that they didn't which means they are just using them to promote something they would have done anyway. This is not my area of expertise but from what I have read there are a lot of concerns about how the medical establishment treats mothers and babies of color, with fatal consequences. They need to focus on fixing that, which this statement does zilch to to address.

Would it be okay for a person to have to work 3 jobs if they were able to breastfeed? No. That's sick. Not being able to breastfeed is far from the worst health-related consequence of having to go back to work days after giving birth and working 3 jobs.

Where? In footnote six:

Trent M, Dooley DG, Dougé J; Section on Adolescent Health; Council on Community Pediatrics; Committee on Adolescence. Policy statement: The impact of racism on child and adolescent health. Pediatrics. 2019;144

What I mean by centering communities of color I mean LISTENING to them, not putting out a statement about "minorities" (barf) that seems focused out racism outside of healthcare as though pediatricians have no role in perpetuating racism.

I think you should look the authors up. I would personally not be comfortable accusing a Black pediatrician of racism.

The idea that a person can't be criticized if they are Black is pretty toxic and unhelpful.

When the criticism is that the Black community was not consulted, yet the pediatrician is a member of that community, how is this even a question? Do you know how many other Black people were consulted?

Because that pediatrician is also a part of the medical community. Centering Black communities does not mean that if a Black pediatrician writes something, all is good. It means you talk to the people being served by the medical community to understand their needs.

Another one who didn’t read the paper or look up the author’s work.

By all means, please quote the place where they consulted communities of color regarding their infant feeding priorities and preferences.

preferences are not public health oriented!!!!! i dont like have a speculum in my vagina but I do it because of cervical cancer---LIKE WTF

Ha! Yes this! I posted about not preferring exercise but this one is even better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why? Honest question. The evidence of benefits is weak. Should we also "support" families that choose not to sleep train? We should support all families and this statement is all about supporting families solely for the purpose of breastfeeding. That's messed up.

Because what the AAP recommends as support is currently only available to comparably well-off, disproportionately white, women. Removing more of the barriers of breastfeeding at a policy level is a step toward evening the playing field. I can nurse to 3 or 4 and take all the pumping breaks I want and no one would say boo, but that’s not a right afforded to a woman working three jobs to make her rent.

Also, while the benefits are frequently overstated, they are not non-existent. Many of the benefits to many AAP recommendations (such as room sharing) are on the margins. That doesn’t mean they’re bad recommendations. Also, and I feel this one in particular, breastfeeding unlike so many other baby-related issues has documented health benefits to the mother. Yeah, I am ok with supporting a policy that reduces a woman’s chance of getting cancer over her lifetime, particularly given how many other recommendations come at the expense of mothers.

Where did the AAP say they centered communities of color by reaching out to them to understand their perspectives on breastfeeding? it's obvious that they didn't which means they are just using them to promote something they would have done anyway. This is not my area of expertise but from what I have read there are a lot of concerns about how the medical establishment treats mothers and babies of color, with fatal consequences. They need to focus on fixing that, which this statement does zilch to to address.

Would it be okay for a person to have to work 3 jobs if they were able to breastfeed? No. That's sick. Not being able to breastfeed is far from the worst health-related consequence of having to go back to work days after giving birth and working 3 jobs.

Where? In footnote six:

Trent M, Dooley DG, Dougé J; Section on Adolescent Health; Council on Community Pediatrics; Committee on Adolescence. Policy statement: The impact of racism on child and adolescent health. Pediatrics. 2019;144

What I mean by centering communities of color I mean LISTENING to them, not putting out a statement about "minorities" (barf) that seems focused out racism outside of healthcare as though pediatricians have no role in perpetuating racism.

I think you should look the authors up. I would personally not be comfortable accusing a Black pediatrician of racism.

The idea that a person can't be criticized if they are Black is pretty toxic and unhelpful.

When the criticism is that the Black community was not consulted, yet the pediatrician is a member of that community, how is this even a question? Do you know how many other Black people were consulted?

Because that pediatrician is also a part of the medical community. Centering Black communities does not mean that if a Black pediatrician writes something, all is good. It means you talk to the people being served by the medical community to understand their needs.

Another one who didn’t read the paper or look up the author’s work.

By all means, please quote the place where they consulted communities of color regarding their infant feeding priorities and preferences.

preferences are not public health oriented!!!!! i dont like have a speculum in my vagina but I do it because of cervical cancer---LIKE WTF

Ha! Yes this! I posted about not preferring exercise but this one is even better.

When you are using flimsy data and referencing communities of color,.claiming to advocate for them, yes you should either consult them or leave them out of your "analysis".