Someone wrote about the AAP:  "If they cared about children's health or children's rights, we would be 
seeing passionate support of breastfeeding, a moratorium on vaccines and an end to male genital mutilation."

I am bothered by the inconsistency of this viewpoint.  If we want to use the scientific evidence to argue that
formula is bad for children's health, then how can we justify refusing to accept
the scientific evidence that not vaccinating is bad for children's health?  

My opinion is that we should either "go with the science" or not.  But it isn't proper, to my way of thinking,
to insist on going with the science only when it supports something a person ikes (breastfeeding) and
dismissing the science when it supports something she doesn't like (immunizations). 

Not to mention that when someone else bottle-feeds, it doesn't directly affect my children's health.
But when someone else refuses to vaccinate their kids, it puts my children -- all children -- directly at risk.

The AAP does the best it can with the science, in the context of the culture it operates in, including the need 
for financial support from industry.  The 1997/2005 statement is such a huge improvement on what was in place
before.  Now if **only** we could get pediatricians to follow their own organization's advice, and support
breastfeeding for a MINIMUM of one year, and thereafter as long as mother and child want.

Kathy Dettwyler 

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome