Reply to I hate the AAP

Forum Index » Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers

Reply to "I hate the AAP"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]"Anti-breastfeeding poster" here (I'm not against breastfeeding, I EBFed for 6 months and kept it up until 14 months). Here's a quote from the NYTimes about the new guidelines. The AAP has messed up before (we know this because they have previously retracted guidance that severely harmed some children) and they have messed up again. It is not uncommon for subject matter experts to know a lot about their subject but very little about how to interpret data, and there is no doubt in my mind that this is a BIG issue at the AAP.

"The new guidelines suggest that in the first week after birth, “pediatricians should discourage the use of nonmedically indicated supplementation with commercial infant formula.” The 2012 A.A.P. statement was more subtle, advising that pediatricians encourage “support of practices that avoid nonmedically indicated supplementation with commercial infant formula.”

The difference may seem like a minor point — supporting breastfeeding practices versus discouraging formula use — but it matters. “[b]Nonmedically indicated” is subjective, [/b]and the updated admonition concerns me. There are reports, such as this one from The Atlantic and this one from CNN, about mothers who’ve been pressured by lactation consultants, nurses or pediatricians to reject formula in the early days of their children’s lives, and as a result their babies lost a dangerous amount of weight and, in rare circumstances, became gravely ill."

These New Breastfeeding Guidelines Ignore the Reality of Many American Moms https://nyti.ms/3am1C5s[/quote]

That is untrue. There are highly publicized guidelines for what percentage of dropped birthweight indicates supplementation with formula in the days and weeks after birth. [/quote]

Yet there are babies who have been denied formula despite needing it. Is it really necessary to double down against formula, as these guidelines clearly do, despite the outright lies from previous posters on this thread?[/quote]

There are also babies who have been denied breast milk, and had the nursing relationship undermined, despite it being a viable option, because those same nurses and pediatricians don’t tell them their baby is within normal range for breastfed. Practitioners not following the best practices doesn’t mean those best practices don’t exist.[/quote]

baby starver![/quote]

Oh gosh you again? My baby is fine. She never had formula. She got syringe-fed my hand expressed milk because a nurse berated me to tears about how small she was and how fast she was losing weight. The next morning the pediatrician said she was completely fine, wholly within normal, and corrected the nurse. So I spent the night after I delivered a baby hand expressing the worlds most pathetic drops of colostrum because someone didn’t follow or “believe in” the published guidelines. That is a problem with a [b]person[/b] not with the [b]guidelines[/b].  It would have been [b]equally problematic[/b] if she had needed formula and not been offered it.

Given how much some families have struggled this year to find formula for their babies, undermining women who *want* to breastfeed and *can* breastfeed is even more disrespectful of womens time, unless you feel like driving 3-5 hours to secure formula is somehow compensated?[/quote]

You are off your rocker if you believe it is just as bad for you to have to hand express colostrum as it is to deny a starving baby formula. This is the problem with you sickos.[/quote]

Are you not the same person who just said how much she values women’s bodies and time? Because my body sure could have used the sleep and my time would have been much happier holding my baby than doing something wholly unnecessary because someone was “old school”. But I guess woman’s bodies only have value when that’s a convenient point for you?[/quote]

I absolutely value women's bodies but really? You think that's k st as bad as a starving baby? You're insane. [/quote]

Please provide a single documented instance in the United States, Canada or Europe of a baby of 12-16 hours old starving to death due to lack of formula. I’ll wait.[/quote]

I am not sure why you are setting this arbitrary timeline of 12-16 hours but there are absolutely documented cases of babies starving either to death or to the point of having brain damage in their first days of life because they were dined formula. All you have to do is read the link cited in the first post above which links to the documented cases. I'm sure you'll come up with another lie to justify this, and you can go to hell as far as I care.[/quote]

Because my baby was 12 hours old when the nurse told me I “had” to supplement “immediately”. She was 18 hours old when the pediatrician told the nurse she was out of line. At 16 hours I passed out so I can’t take responsibility for what happened after that.

Yes there are documented cases of babies dying from dehydration because their medical providers failed them. In many cases because they are *not* following published guidelines. But bad practitioners are bad practitioners regardless of the side of this debate they fall on, and that doesn’t mean the guidelines themselves are subjective . [/quote]

Oh you're making baby starving incidents about YOU specifically. Got it. Since the new guidelines place further pressure on practitioners to avoid formula for no clear reason, yes I am worried that more bad practitioners will err on the side of avoiding formula. I get why you are not concerned about this because a baby having brain damage thanks to being denied formula is apparently equally bad as you being made to hand express colostrum.[/quote]

And what about the time a mother who wanted to breastfeed but is undermined from doing so will spend looking for formula in this current shortage? What about the mothers who could have— if properly supported— breastfed, but who will instead dilute their infant formula to make it stretch longer particularly in a recession. Does that baby’s malnutrition matter to you as much as yelling “Baby Starver” at a stranger on the internet?  Do their experiences also not matter, as mine clearly doesn’t, because it doesn’t support your narrative?

[b]Go back to work in Abbott PR.[/b] But please wash your hands first. [/quote]

Every time you type this idiocy and accuse people of “working for formula companies,” you embarrass yourself. Just stop.[/quote]

Personally I find more secondhand embarrassment in someone in 2022 thinking that the formula companies are really the people with the interests of women and babies at heart.[/quote]

Omg Dyson does not have my interests at heart either! They just want to addict me to the convenience of a cordless stick vac and know I will never be able to go back to a broom and dustpan. [/quote]

! :) 
Look the formula companies have a product they sell but that product fits a need. I would be much more apt to believe the WHO and medical community advise on this it did not feel like they were trying to sell me time share anytime they talk about BF. [/quote]

And I’d be more apt to think of formula as a benign option if it didn’t keep getting recalled— yes there’s this current disaster but before that it was literally beetles. Trust us with your newborn baby’s nutrition, we totally only put bugs in it sometimes! Add that to situational issues like Flint— where formula-fed babies now have permanent brain damage from lead poisoning— the weeks long boil-orders parts of Texas were under this year in which moms were melting snow and boiling it over fires to make formula and I am forced to conclude that the convenience and safety factor is way oversold and the risks are understated. Which is exactly how the anti-breastfeeding moms feel about breastfeeding guidance.[/quote]

Wasn’t the Abbott recall the first large scale formula recall in something like 10 years? I have no idea about the beetle thing, but if it only affected a few shipments and didn’t cause large scale supply issues that means the recall did its job IMO.

People have always had to deal with boil orders - the water plant where I grew up had a lot of issues and I can remember boil orders way back in the 80s and 90s that lasted for days. It’s nothing new. And in terms of a place in the US like Flint that had unsafe drinking water, wouldn’t the babies be affected anyway if mom drank the water and then nursed? Or if the water was used in food prep? I don’t know, I just don’t think any of these are widespread enough issues for the AAP to be so militant about BFing. [/quote]

The Flint thing disproportionately affected formula-fed babies because mothers who couldn’t afford bottled water followed the instructions for tap water and boiled the water for formula, which concentrated the lead.

Here’s the beetles, it happened just as my niece was born in 2010 and grossed all of us out: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2010/09/22/130052702/beetle-contamination-leads-to-similac-formula-recall  and to be clear the recall is not the problem, it’s the kind of facilities that allow beetles into baby formula that’s the problem.

I am not saying the potential inconvenience and lack of safety of formula is related to the AAP guidance, I am saying that I have deep skepticism of the claims about formula (that it’s just so easy and convenient)  just as people seem to about breastfeeding. I am also skeptical of the companies that make formula since they have no interest outside a profit.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics