In a message dated 2/26/01 1:21:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:20:44 -0800
> From: Chris Hafner-Eaton <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: relative risk REBUTTAL
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Cindy ([log in to unmask]): You poor thing...I am sorry that my email
someho=
> w
> contributed toward your feeling assassinated.
Surely, my intent was to
> educate you and those who may not remember my previous explanation of
> relative risk. I know how it feels to not have had an ounce of mother's
> milk as a baby (I was formula fed and pay the price in spite of a high IQ)
> and I often wonder what could have been...BUT...just because we didn't know
> any better "in the good ole days" doesn't mean we should continue making
th=
> e
> same stupid mistakes especially when we now have mounds concrete evidence
> that formula DOES cause many horrible outcomes.
> Your email (below) says that "smoking is different" because it causes
> cancer. Based upon THE SAME CALCULATIONS AS WE USE FOR SMOKING AND CANCER
=
> I
> maintain that formula causes juvenile diabetes (1) (up to 26 time higher
> than in breastfed kids, many times leads to life threatening
complications)=
> ,
> leukemia (2, 8, 9) and lymphoma (6) (which is often fatal), and a ten-fold
> increase in hospitalizations for infections (3), and among other things
> KILLS 4 OUT OF EVERY 1000 BABIES BORN THIS YEAR in the US(4-7). Our infant
> mortality rate in the US would go from 7/1000 to 3.0/1000 if all babies
wer=
> e
> breastfed for the first year of life. DO THE MATH---4 million babies are
> born each year here--THAT MEANS THAT 16000 BABIES DIED LAST YEAR DUE TO
> FORMULA! If death doesn't get ya goat, how about toxic contamination
> (10-15), or do you like your babies to glow in the dark so they're easier
t=
> o
> find?
> > If you so badly want me on your side, present the facts. No judgement.
=
> No
> > lectures. Plain facts. And then trust me to possess the intelligence
an=
> d
> > maturity to make my own decision by myself. And then, respect that
decis=
> ion,
> > even if you don't like it. Isn't this what you want from everyone else?
> I think you are kidding yourself and your patients, and doing your future
> children a world of disservice. >
> > You have not convinced me to exclusively breastfeed my future children.
=
> You
> > have convinced me that I need to be *extremely* careful about
approaching=
> any
> > LC because it appears anyone with an alternate view is immediately put
on=
> the
> > defensive. =20
>
> Where have you been for the past 20 years? I would go as far as to say
> that you are ignorant to the facts and now you are in denial. If the
> following references have whet your appetite for a dual, I personally (as
> well as your local library and the Center for Breastfeeding Information)
> have stacks (hundreds) of articles from peer reviewed, scientific journals.
> I haven't even mentioned issues of IQ or cancer risks DUE TO formula to the
> mother (16-18) or detriments to society ( see others).
>
Wow.
You have got to be the rudest person I have ever met. What effect were you
hoping for? That I would quake in my boots? Have horrible dreams about how
!@#$ up my future children's lives will be, dare I let a drop of formula pass
their lips? Be instantly converted?
I am not your verbal punching bag. I am no one's verbal punching bag. I am
not a "poor thing". I don't believe you are sorry. You've failed in your
intention to educate. I will not take you up on a duel. But, here is what
you did accomplish:
I don't like you. I don't trust you. I don't respect you. I will not run
right to my nearest LC when I have problems breastfeeding because too many
people on this list have presented themselves obnoxiously and with little or
no respect to where I stand. I will absolutely not recommend any of my
pregnant friends who intend to return to work consult anyone in this
profession because it appears they will be treated terribly.
I am a screenwriter. I intend for my main character to be an IBCLC. I
joined this list in an effort to find out about the profession. Thanks for
all the references as they will come in handy for research.
Thanks very much for all this conflict as that will really come in handy.
My goal with my inital post was to point out that someone had made a blanket
statement, that in fact did not apply to everyone. The only response I was
looking for was something like "Oh, yeah, it was. But, do you realize,
Cindy, you are something of an exception to the rule? Don't make the same
generalizing mistake. BTW, why don't you read these articles which support
my view and then we can be at least closer to the same page."
Alas, you've chosed to crucify me instead.
As you ponder why it is LCs are treated with so little respect in the media,
I suggest you reflect on your treatment of me.
I guarantee that no one on this list will convert me without showing
tolerance and respect for where I am now.
I'd say goodbye, but I'm sure I'll hear more.
Cindy :)
***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
