I was going to comment on the original topic, but it seems to have wandered into something that gets my hackles up. So before I go there...
Anyhow, my opinion on the original topic is that it's likely the potentially 'extra' skin to skin and physical contact that breastfeeding mothers may give their babies that gives this result. So not something that is magically inherent in breastmilk and certainly something that any mother (or father even) can give her child. Summary: Hugs are good! Hug your babies.
As to the tangent, I'm not really surprised to see that attitude, seeing as that someone has come into my journal to try and argue with me.
People who had issues with BF shouldn't condemn other women, they should be helping them. Judgement and snide remarks get us nowhere, but help and support makes it better.
I wish that 98% figure would die a horribly firey death. I really do. It's based on the breastfeeding initiation (not the 3 week or 6 week or 6 month) rates for Norway and Sweden. Which basically means they intended to BF and were physically able to put the baby to the breast. So at 6 weeks their exclusive rates of BF are around 85% and at introduction of solids are around 70%. They have a totally different support system than most of the people on this board, so no fair comparing ourselves to them, ok? Ok. At least know where the statistics you are using to make people try and feel bad are coming from and get it right.
In reality recent studies show that up to 5% or so of women produce insufficient milk and a potential another 10%+ of babies have some tongue, lip or swallowing issue that makes breastfeeding painful and difficult if not just inefficient (which results in weight loss). Why wasn't this an issue in bygone days (which people must imagine that women and babies were happily breastfeeding and the infant mortality rate of the under 2's wasn't shockingly high and everyone pooped unicorns and jellybeans)? Because A) people used to know what a tongue or lip tie looked like and midwives or birth attendants would cut it at birth with their fingernails, and B) a lot of the low milk hormonal issues now present in our population were likely controlled by diet and reduction in exposure to plastics and environmental toxins.
To assume that it's the mother's fault for not being able to breastfeed is awful and cruel.
And you know what, if BF isn't right for you, it isn't right for you. I can certainly think of circumstances where BF wouldn't be right for me and my future babies, but I hope I never get into any of them because I like BF.
Also as an ahem 'real' scientist (ok that's a bit of a joke) I don't really like social research studies. I don't like the lack of controls and how there could be sooo many other factors giving the result seen. I know it's hard with humans as your experimental animal, but arrrgh. They make me want to pull my hair out. Just IMO.
Anyhow, my opinion on the original topic is that it's likely the potentially 'extra' skin to skin and physical contact that breastfeeding mothers may give their babies that gives this result. So not something that is magically inherent in breastmilk and certainly something that any mother (or father even) can give her child. Summary: Hugs are good! Hug your babies.
As to the tangent, I'm not really surprised to see that attitude, seeing as that someone has come into my journal to try and argue with me.
People who had issues with BF shouldn't condemn other women, they should be helping them. Judgement and snide remarks get us nowhere, but help and support makes it better.
I wish that 98% figure would die a horribly firey death. I really do. It's based on the breastfeeding initiation (not the 3 week or 6 week or 6 month) rates for Norway and Sweden. Which basically means they intended to BF and were physically able to put the baby to the breast. So at 6 weeks their exclusive rates of BF are around 85% and at introduction of solids are around 70%. They have a totally different support system than most of the people on this board, so no fair comparing ourselves to them, ok? Ok. At least know where the statistics you are using to make people try and feel bad are coming from and get it right.
In reality recent studies show that up to 5% or so of women produce insufficient milk and a potential another 10%+ of babies have some tongue, lip or swallowing issue that makes breastfeeding painful and difficult if not just inefficient (which results in weight loss). Why wasn't this an issue in bygone days (which people must imagine that women and babies were happily breastfeeding and the infant mortality rate of the under 2's wasn't shockingly high and everyone pooped unicorns and jellybeans)? Because A) people used to know what a tongue or lip tie looked like and midwives or birth attendants would cut it at birth with their fingernails, and B) a lot of the low milk hormonal issues now present in our population were likely controlled by diet and reduction in exposure to plastics and environmental toxins.
To assume that it's the mother's fault for not being able to breastfeed is awful and cruel.
And you know what, if BF isn't right for you, it isn't right for you. I can certainly think of circumstances where BF wouldn't be right for me and my future babies, but I hope I never get into any of them because I like BF.
Also as an ahem 'real' scientist (ok that's a bit of a joke) I don't really like social research studies. I don't like the lack of controls and how there could be sooo many other factors giving the result seen. I know it's hard with humans as your experimental animal, but arrrgh. They make me want to pull my hair out. Just IMO.