The 45th POTUS - Donald J. Trump

[Rangi Guy]

actually breast feeding is not necessarily good for all babies

It's a pretty tiny percentage of babies that don't get huge benefits from breastfeeding

[Kaius]

I can’t stop thinking about this tweet while reading about how they’re asking for deadline extensions because they don’t want to commit any resources to parent/child reunifications, and have destroyed some records documenting parenthood.

This makes me very sad and angry.

[dimejinky99]

The queen and prince Philip aren’t attending their Great grandsons christening ceremony.

Guaranteed this is to get out of meeting Trump. It’ll be a flu or illness. Just watch.

[Fuzzy_Dunlop]

actually breast feeding is not necessarily good for all babies, sometimes it comes out too acidic and upsets the baby's fragile digestive system

and because there are no standard protocols for testing a mother's breastmilk before she begins the potentially exhausting and painful ordeal of regular breast-feeding management, it's not until after several weeks and the baby is an unhappy mess and the mother is psychologically traumatized that you explore that path and understand that it can be an issue

there are also a lot of women who don't produce enough breast milk, and don't need to be bottle-shamed about it when they are feeding their newborn in public somewhere when some artisanal asswipe decides they know what's best about other people's babies

obviously there is an immune system benefit if it is working for x person

but the avocado toast generation seems to have latched on to breastfeeding righteousness like it's a social justice issue and that it "should" work for everyone and just like cis heterosexuality, that's not how it pans out in the real world, bigots

You make a great argument for the manufacture of breast milk alternatives. No one argues against having those alternatives for when women/babies face the problems you've listed above. Well, I guess not "no one," but only fringe elements should be bottle shaming.

This seems reasonable to me.

If public health officials allowed for nuance, the “breast is best” mantra might morph into a more accurate, nuanced statement like, “All else being equal, it is better to breastfeed. But if breastfeeding causes you severe emotional distress or is physically difficult or financially costly, those costs likely outweigh the small benefits breastfeeding confers for full-term babies.”

https://expectingscience.com/2018/03/21 ... stfeeding/

[bada]

Pro formula here my wife's tities are mine. Little shits can find their own girl.

[run2death]

actually breast feeding is not necessarily good for all babies, sometimes it comes out too acidic and upsets the baby's fragile digestive system

and because there are no standard protocols for testing a mother's breastmilk before she begins the potentially exhausting and painful ordeal of regular breast-feeding management, it's not until after several weeks and the baby is an unhappy mess and the mother is psychologically traumatized that you explore that path and understand that it can be an issue

there are also a lot of women who don't produce enough breast milk, and don't need to be bottle-shamed about it when they are feeding their newborn in public somewhere when some artisanal asswipe decides they know what's best about other people's babies

obviously there is an immune system benefit if it is working for x person

but the avocado toast generation seems to have latched on to breastfeeding righteousness like it's a social justice issue and that it "should" work for everyone and just like cis heterosexuality, that's not how it pans out in the real world, bigots

You make a great argument for the manufacture of breast milk alternatives. No one argues against having those alternatives for when women/babies face the problems you've listed above. Well, I guess not "no one," but only fringe elements should be bottle shaming.

This seems reasonable to me.

If public health officials allowed for nuance, the “breast is best” mantra might morph into a more accurate, nuanced statement like, “All else being equal, it is better to breastfeed. But if breastfeeding causes you severe emotional distress or is physically difficult or financially costly, those costs likely outweigh the small benefits breastfeeding confers for full-term babies.”

https://expectingscience.com/2018/03/21 ... stfeeding/

That blog post is completely asinine, needlessly snarky and reeks of InfoWars-ism. The idea that a government agency shouldn't promote the healthiest option because of unique "individual experiences" is dumb beyond words.

In short, in developed countries like the United States, for full term babies, these short term benefits are nice but not essential. They mostly matter from a public health perspective, lowering the risk of rare yet costly hospitalizations. They matter little from an individual perspective.

In short, the supposed long-term benefits found in observational research conducted in the 1980s and 1990s almost certainly derived from differences between breastfed and formula fed babies in parenting, home environment, and social and economic status, rather than from breastfeeding per se.

By contrast, breastfeeding does actually appear to boost IQ and educational performance, but the effect is tiny. A recent review of the research suggested that, once studies account for differences in maternal IQ, breastfeeding boosts IQ by an average of about 2 IQ points ( less than a fifth of a standard deviation)–roughly equivalent to the effect of sneezing while taking an IQ test. While this boost may be real, in practice, it’s hardly significant. Breastfeeding will not get your baby into Harvard.

Why is the AAP exaggerating breastfeeding’s benefits?

Almost certainly the AAP and others who overzealously promote breastfeeding are acting in good faith, but for bad reasons.

First of all, they want to err on what they perceive as the side of caution.

Since breastfeeding does confer benefits against infections, has a large impact at a public health level, despite doing little at the individual level, and may have unknown beneficial impacts, it seems at first blush safer to encourage women to breastfeed.

Second, public health organizations like the AAP and CDC place little faith in the public’s ability to grasp nuanced messaging–especially when it comes to health advice for women.

[Bi_3]

The idea that a government agency shouldn't promote the healthiest option because of unique "individual experiences" is dumb beyond words.

This is a pretty complicated issue actually. Not breastfeeding, for women who can do it both biologically and economically, they absolutely should. Science is in agreement there. But there are potential downsides to what you typed above that you can't just brush over.

[Strat]

Why is this a government issue anyway?

[McParadigm]

Nothing disheartens me more than checking in on the forum, only to find that a US revolt against an international effort driven mostly by healthcare professionals, whose primary outcomes have been increased funding for breast feeding health education and related maternity services in poor countries and increased regulatory oversight of the ways that formula is produced and especially marketed in those same countries, has produced here a discussion whose primary feature is a Fox News-level misinterpretation panic: "is the government telling people they can't use formula omg why is that their job?"

[Strat]

calm down, mcp.

[dimejinky99]

Guys. If you’re bored of your own shitshow head over to twitter and check out the latest on brexit. It’s popcorn time

[McParadigm]

calm down, mcp.

Calmer than you are.

[Strat]

calm down, mcp.

Calmer than you are.

Im basically just catching up on the news after a week of gin and tonics on the lake.

[Bi_3]

Nothing disheartens me more than checking in on the forum, only to find ....

I don't believe this. I think you want it.

[bune]

Happy tariff day, everybody! I’m sure the impact on American farmers will be insignifi....

The current slide comes at a precipitous time for US farmers. They have about 179 million acres of the two crops growing in their fields—a combined land mass equal to nearly two Californias, and just 1 percent less than last year’s plantings. To make a profit on these crops, farmers will have to make at least $4 per bushel on corn and $10.05 on soybeans for the 2018 harvest, a University of Illinois analysis found. Currently, the two commodities fetch $3.43 and $8.40, respectively.

I drove through a lot of farming country last week. I saw a lot of Trump support - no doy - but also a lot of anti-government messaging in general. I wonder how they feel about gov subsidies to purchase their crops?

[bune]

calm down, mcp.

Calmer than you are.

Im basically just catching up on the news after a week of gin and tonics on the lake.

Ditto, minus the gin, tonics, and lake. A week with no cell signal is amazing.

[McParadigm]

Nothing disheartens me more than checking in on the forum, only to find ....

I don't believe this. I think you want it.

It makes me actual real life sad, because it represents a complete lack of effort to learn before forming an opinion. And it's such an everyday occurrence.

Study: By tracking 1,500 people for a period of years and surveying their coffee consumption, we found that high levels of coffee consumption (up to 8 cups a day) correlated to lower mortality rates.

New York Times: Drinking Eight Cups of Coffee a Day Can Help You Live Longer!

Me (grumpycat, reading): That's not causal, and that's not what the research said...

Friend at work: I love coffee. I just saw this study that said it's good for you no matter how much you drink.

Me: No, wait. They only tracked coffee consumption. So, maybe nonsmokers are more likely to be heavy coffee drinkers than smokers. Or maybe heavy coffee drinkers also exercise more, or eat less. None of that is known or factored in here. They were only tracking one correlation. The purpose isn't to-

Fox News (on in the background): Yesterday they said coffee's bad for us. Today they say it's good. These researchers don't know anything...

Friend at work: That's so true.

Me: dies

[tragabigzanda]

[dimejinky99]

[Bi_3]

FYI, women do not have a right to terminate a pregnancy. What the law says is that the government is not allowed to restrict them from terminating prior to viability.* These are different.


*i might have this wrong, but that’s how it was last explained to me