We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, March 4. 2014
Breast-feeding Benefits Appear to be Overstated, According to Study of Siblings - Advantages of women who choose breast-feeding likely bias findings in previous research
Federal audit calls new school lunch rules a failure
Business Leaders Doubt Higher-Ed's Value
Business Leaders Doubt Higher-Ed's Value
A few good links at Thompson
Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming.
Gloomy France - As the young and entrepreneurial flee, the country struggles to
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Breast-feeding: Cheap, always available, always right temperature, no need to sterilize. And the milk content adjusts to gender of child.
You are correct. Plus, the idea of listening to a cabal of heartless technocrats just gives me the willies. A pox on them and their inhumane, mechanistic worldview.
And it is the most natural thing a human can do and provides psychological/physical comfort to the baby that can't be duplicated.
Why do we need a study about that? Oh, wait I know, it's to help mothers who just can't wait to get back to their important careers in the cube farm feel better about outsourcing the feeding and caring of their baby.
Breastfeeding is nature's way. It is a choice. But really is anyone suprised by the wildass claims by the pro-breastfeeding cabal all these years. It was always unscientific and bais driven. Now perhaps parents can make better decisions without the guilt and shaming pressures from the angry pro-breastfeeding groups.
Better decision like what exactly? Sending mom back out to the workplace to outsource care and feeding of her baby to someone else? Nonsense! I think the study that breast feeding doesn't matter IS unscientific and bias driven. Plays right into the feminists' playbook that children are a horrible sacrifice for mom's real calling however trivial that 'calling' might be.
Better decisions because they have the facts. They could still choose to breast feed and they can always choose to work or not work and stay at home. But many women want to work, they want to be able to feed the baby without breast pumps and refrigerators nearby. The pro-breast feeding lobby has been heavy handed in their approach and used shame and misinformation to bully mothers into breast feeding. Shouldn't it be their decision based on the best and honest information available?
That assumes of course that this 'study' is actually honest and factual.
“I’m not saying breast-feeding is not beneficial, especially for boosting nutrition and immunity in newborns,” Colen said. “But if we really want to improve maternal and child health in this country, let’s also focus on things that can really do that in the long term – like [b] subsidized day care [b], better maternity leave policies and more employment opportunities for low-income mothers (i.e., single mothers) that pay a [b] living wage [b], for example.”
So those little lefty/feminist buzz words don't raise a flag with you about this study GWTW? This SCREAMS feminist agenda.
The article may or may not have other agendas, I am only commenting on the value of breast feeding. I have looked into this subject in great depth and have come to the conclusion that most if not all the favorable reporting on breast feeding is biased. Perhaps that's just the nature of human knowledge in that if something is controversial there will be individuals and groups producing propaganda to support their beliefs. The clue to phony data in most things that relate to health is in the statistics. That is if I shoot you multiple times at close range with a powerful rifle you will die. No statistical manipulations and permutations required, you die. But if I am opposed to meat and I want to convince you to be opposed to meat and I'm trying to create a reasoned arguement I will almost invariably use statistics. so then it comes down to evaluating the math used to prove or disprove something. There are tricks and subtrafuges that are typically used by those who would confuse. I have never seen a "good" study of breastmilk vs alternatives and I have never seen an honest statistical arguement to support breastmilk being superior. Almost without exception if this belief is questioned the discussion immediately turns to an emotional one. There simply is no "evidence" that breast feeding makes the baby healthier in the short term or the long term. Formula feed humans don't die earlier or get ill more often then breast feed humans with one caveat and that is that we are talking about a Western environment and normal circumstances when food and baby formulas are readily available. I have four children, nine grandchildren and 3 great grandchildren. I have three siblings and seven nieces and nephews who between them have nine children. I have seen the pressure a new mother is placed under to breast feed and I have seen babies thrive on formula and remain underweight on breast milk. While I am certainly not oposed to breastfeeding I am convinced that the readily available alternatives are just as good and possibly even better (based on the failure to thrive in some cases). My mind is open and perhaps someday a real study will finally provide an answer.
Most things in life don't need 'study' to help you know what is better. Yes I and my wife encountered the breast feeding nazi ladies at the hospital and while I thought them a bit over zealous it did not change the fact that breast feeding is the preferred way to feed, comfort and develop a healthy and critical bond between baby and mother and that the best care a baby can get is from a mother being ever present and a father who can provide and protect so that mother can do what nature intended. Yes we humans are adaptable and flexible and the world won't end and the child won't likely be permanently scarred if mother has to supplement with formula and a bottle. That doesn't change, however, the reality that breast feeding is the preferred way to raise your baby and sane society and individuals would work to organize around that principle so that ideal could be maximized.
I assume then from yur comment that you agree that there isn't a "health" arguement, that is bottle feeding is as healthy as breast feeding. So your position seems to be that since breast feeding is natural and since it requires the presence of mom that therefore it is "good" for both baby and mom. I'm not sure I can even agree with that statement. If you can show me millions and millions of adults who were not breast feed and are criminals or sick etc. then your claim of benefit may have some validity. I think what you are actually expressing is the emotion I described as the arguement of last resort, i.e. since it feels good for mom to provide for her new born in this most basic way it must be good and therefore it is preferred and " the best care a baby can get". Not to mention "...breast feeding is the preferred way to raise your baby and sane society and individuals would work to organize around that principle so that ideal could be maximized." Is that really your position on this??? You have proven my point that when the pro-breast feeding individual is challenged they always resort to an emotional arguement and shaming. That is basically telling the new parents that if you don't breast feed your baby you are not a good parent and are hurting the child and any sane person would comply with this and not question our wisdom. My position is simply that it is not my business what the new parents choose to do and it is not the business of the nurse, the breast feeding coach or society either. It is a decision that only the parents can and should make and it should be based on facts and not emotion.
"Breast-feeding Benefits Appear to be Overstated, According to Study of Siblings - Advantages of women who choose breast-feeding likely bias findings in previous research".
I don't believe it for a minute. Sounds to me like this study was adjusted to achieve the desired result. How about a study comparing breast cancer rates between women who breast fed as compared to those who didn't? Or, maybe more importantly, the happiness of the breast fed baby as compared to the unhappiness of the formula fed? The all important yummy factor?
Moreover, with these kinds of twisted studies combined with the declarations of people like Michelle Obama that women are too stupid to shop, we run the risk of relegating women to the trash heap of society. What next I wonder, another perverted study showing that the smile of a lovely lady does not really melt the heart? Balderdash, I say.
Bias in studies: Finding what they want to find. Or not finding what they don't want to find.
School Lunch Rules: Ve know vot ist rrrrrrrright for you!
Biz Doubts Higher-Ed's value - its been that way for a number of years. I've been in several org's that get these budding Einsteins on paper, only to see them preform FAR SUB-PAR in real life.
One such stellar example - a Rhodes Scholar candidate, who couldn't type on a keyboard to save his life, and had less tech skills than my Grandma, yet held a 4.0 in BizA. He lasted a year, before going off to complete his PhD.
The current state, the only bennies is to the Admins of the colleges whom rake in the money for the classes, and the meter out the worthless paper sheepskins...
The next step is getting to the HR Depts, and making them see that preformance is far more superior than inflated ED requirements of the positions - our HRs say that my position is a PhD grade - imagine that, to push ones and zeros and databases...
OH boy--here I go again: I feel certain that if we named all of the major universities who offer an MA in MANAGEMENT--that's not the same as an MBA--I am sure you would be stunned. Traditionally, an MBA, or even a Bachelor's degree in business would require calculus, finance, and risk assessment. All of these courses require an advanced level of mathematical understanding and skill. HOWEVER, when we started downgrading our country so that the lazy, the incompetent, and the spoiled could have "their turn" at leadership we needed to provide an academic degree in the business world that would open the door for that glass escalator to reach the top levels. That meant that academia created a new degree -- Management--Organizational Design, etc. This degree usually includes a course in behavioral psychology, a couple of classes in leadership strategy and certainly the sensitivity courses. NO MATH in a business major is in my mind ludicrous! So now we have a bunch of women in upper management leaning over the white guy's shoulder demanding to know the answer! Too bad we don't have any true meritocracy in this country anymore! Might have been able to fight back when Clinton was in office and explained how we were going to survive financially as a nation focusing on the service industries. Yeah that sure worked.
All other things being equal, women who breast-feed are sexier than women who don't.