[Quantum_Leap]

I think the point isn't so much that you're not allowed to disregard the WHO's recommendations about vaccines, but that if you're going to acknowledge that the WHO isn't 100% trustworthy, that you need to start offering sources OTHER than WHO to support yourself when it comes to the BFing debates. You need to offer additional evidence in support of the idea that BFing is so vastly superior to formula (and not just sources that are dittoing the WHO -- sources that come from independent research). It shouldn't be hard to do. There's a ton of research out there, most of it unanimously in support of BF.

Originally Posted by beck12

What eventually convinced me to BF long term was things like reading up on cultural anthropologist Dr. Katherine Dettwyler's research on human's natural age of weaning & the biology behind it[SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif].[SIZE=2]But the fact is, when I was getting crap IRL about nursing past a year it was from people who were familiar with the AAP's stance of nursing to a year & they responded much better to regurgitating the WHO's recommendation than to me bringing up Dr. Dettwyler & looking at me like I suddenly grew a third eye. I think in debates it is not so different, especially when debating newbies who might not even be aware of the WHO's stance on BF. ANY breastfeeding is the "gold standard" as anything else isn't going to be as healthy.

Which means that this is a very, very good point.

[SweetSimpleThings]

I had no intent to disregard anyone's feelings or disrespect anyone. I should have taken my own advice and stayed out of here completely

I actually think some days this should almost be a banned topic in the debates, along with politics and circ'ing... invariably, people feel they've been insulted, dismissed, or that they've beend told they're uneducated/stupid/harming their kids (and I think folks on both "sides" end up feeling that way.)

[Quantum_Leap]

Originally Posted by SweetSimpleThings

I actually think some days this should almost be a banned topic in the debates, along with politics and circ'ing... invariably, people feel they've been insulted, dismissed, or that they've beend told they're uneducated/stupid/harming their kids (and I think folks on both "sides" end up feeling that way.)

That's not the fault of anybody on here. It's the fault of the world. Everybody wants to protect their kids from everything, and it just can't be done. My heart breaks for any family that chooses to vaccinate and whose child then ends up suffering a horrible complication or side effect. My heart breaks for any family that chooses not to vaccinate and whose child then ends up getting horribly sick or dying. I just wish these diseases could be banished from this earth for good, so that we wouldn't have to worry about it.

I'm not sure I agree with banning any topic. We're all adults and should be able to gauge for ourselves when a topic is getting too personal to be able to debate it without feeling negatively toward each other.

[ka-chow]

Originally Posted by Torrie

I love how when the WHO says that breastfeeding is best and formula is the THIRD CHOICE and omg third choice, they're the absolute source on everything Right and Good.

When they express concerns about sparse vaccination, they suddenly have no idea what they are talking about.

I dont think anybody is saying they dont know what they are talking about, because they are RIGHT. In 3rd world countries, a vaccine IS needed because the alternative is not optimal.

They are NOT talking about america or canada or even in general europe. When proper hygiene is being done, measles are NOT an issue to the general public as a whole.

Also, they arent the "source for everything right and good" when it comes to ff vs bfing. They are just a source that GENERALLY has a good reputation that supports the bfing side.

Actually if I generally disagree with someone and they agree with me on something, I tend to notice even MORE and take it to heart because if both sides of an issue agree, then it tends to be right.

[SweetSimpleThings]

Originally Posted by Tofu Bacon

I'm not sure I agree with banning any topic. We're all adults and should be able to gauge for ourselves when a topic is getting too personal to be able to debate it without feeling negatively toward each other.

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't really think banning a topic is the answer... just sayin' that there are some topics that never seem to go well, hence why some have been banned in the past. It wasn't really a suggestion for actual banning.

Does everyone who felt their point about bfing, the WHO and vaccines wasn't acknowledged, get an answer?

[gina!]

i am just a lurker here.....and maybe i am really stretching here, but.......if someone abides by the WHO's stance on BF-ing and uses that information to back up their debate........yet goes against the WHO on their vaccine stance....then doesn't that discredit the previous argument for BF-ing based on the WHO's information?

[**Badfish**]

Originally Posted by ~Gina~

i am just a lurker here.....and maybe i am really stretching here, but.......if someone abides by the WHO's stance on BF-ing and uses that information to back up their debate........yet goes against the WHO on their vaccine stance....then doesn't that discredit the previous argument for BF-ing based on the WHO's information?

Not really. This is the WHO's stance on vaccines.

The mission of the WHO Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals is the attainment of “a world in which all people at risk are protected against vaccine-preventable diseases".

Notice the words "at risk." That's a subjective qualifier, and it's really up to parents, particularly in developed countries, to determine if their children are at risk for contracting a potentially fatal disease. The WHO recommends breastfeeding for all babies because all babies benefit from breastmilk, regardless of geography, social status, heredity, etc. (I'm sure someone is already hitting the quote button so they can provide an example of a baby who would not benefit from breastmilk, but let's stay away from extreme examples.) Unless I'm missing something, the WHO does not recommend that every child in the world be vaccinated, no matter what, so it's not particularly honest to suggest those who conform to the WHO's recommendation for extended breastfeeding are hypocritical if they choose not to vaccinate their kids after they've determined their kids are not in that "at risk" category.

I think the only babies who wouldn't benefit from breastfeeding are those with mothers who have something like HIV. And even then, in developing countries, breast feeding while HIV positive is still better than the contaminated drinking water that the formula would be mixed with. And of course even then, babies of mothers with HIV would do better with someone else's breast milk over formula. I just wanted to throw that out there so that I look well informed and intelligent. Continue on.

Originally Posted by ~Gina~

i am just a lurker here.....and maybe i am really stretching here, but.......if someone abides by the WHO's stance on BF-ing and uses that information to back up their debate........yet goes against the WHO on their vaccine stance....then doesn't that discredit the previous argument for BF-ing based on the WHO's information?

How is that fair because many ffing moms want to breastfeed but can't. So by your logic, shouldn't they not be vaccinating since they can't breastfeed?

Originally Posted by Jess is Write

.. so it's not particularly honest to suggest those who conform to the WHO's recommendation for extended breastfeeding are hypocritical if they choose not to vaccinate their kids after they've determined their kids are not in that "at risk" category.

Plus, it's not just because of the WHO's recommendations that women full term breastfeed in the first place as it's implied.

Originally Posted by (.Y.)mom2dd(.Y.)

How is that fair because many ffing moms want to breastfeed but can't. So by your logic, shouldn't they not be vaccinating since they can't breastfeed?

I think she meant the people that use the WHO to back up their point that people should extended nurse or whatever. it wasn't a reference to people who don't extended nurse for some other reason. She was saying what's already been said about taking the WHO's breastfeeding advice and ignoring it's vaccine advice.

Originally Posted by Keskes

I think she meant the people that use the WHO to back up their point that people should extended nurse or whatever. it wasn't a reference to people who don't extended nurse for some other reason. She was saying what's already been said about taking the WHO's breastfeeding advice and ignoring it's vaccine advice.

Right but I don't know one single full term breastfeeder who ONLY did it because of the WHO's recommendations in the first place. I've brought in numerous sources that support full term bfing, not just WHO yet the pro vax in this thread is implying that the WHO can't ever be used if they don't vax ~ that's not logical. I'm trying to show her that logic puts down ffing moms too.

The WHO is widely accepted in the BF/FF debate circles as the number 1 source on breast feeding. So then the question becomes this: if we don't trust their advice on vaccinations, then how can we trust their advice on breast feeding? Because they can't have our best interest at heart on one issue, and not on another. They either do or don't. Jess redefined (for the thread) the WHO's actual stance on vaccinations, so it's a moot point, anyways. But the question still remains on something like co-sleeping.

Originally Posted by Keskes

The WHO is widely accepted in the BF/FF debate circles as the number 1 source on breast feeding. So then the question becomes this: if we don't trust their advice on vaccinations, then how can we trust their advice on breast feeding? Because they can't have our best interest at heart on one issue, and not on another. They either do or don't. Jess redefined (for the thread) the WHO's actual stance on vaccinations, so it's a moot point, anyways. But the question still remains on something like co-sleeping.

That's exactly what I already said about the co-sleeping issue. I don't use WHO for everything. In fact even the pro-vax community in this thread had said parenting decisions are parenting decisions which is why they don't always follow the WHO's recommendations. I totally agree with Jess's point yet if you and the other posters need more clarification, I'll try hard to do it.

[beck12]

Originally Posted by Keskes

The WHO is widely accepted in the BF/FF debate circles as the number 1 source on breast feeding. So then the question becomes this: if we don't trust their advice on vaccinations, then how can we trust their advice on breast feeding? Because they can't have our best interest at heart on one issue, and not on another. They either do or don't. Jess redefined (for the thread) the WHO's actual stance on vaccinations, so it's a moot point, anyways. But the question still remains on something like co-sleeping.

I guess I don't read the debates the way you do if you feel they have been "accepted" as the #1 source....maybe because *I* don't see them as that I am missing something - I just thought they were being cited as one source - not THE source. Like I said I give more weight to Dr Detwyller as well as to Dr Jack Newman, etc...if the debate is about "who is the number one authority on breastfeeding" then someone uses the WHO - I can get that argument, but that isn't how it goes. If the WHO gets brought into the BF debate often it is because they recommend it until age two - and that is a health organization that says it - so for many that seems to be more effective when explaining WHY I would choose to nurse past a year than bringing up a cultural anthropologist or whatever. I often cite sources the OTHER person might respect when trying to make a point - not necessarily teh ones I respect. Just like how in this debate i brought up that the CDC stated teh flu vaccine was completely ineffective in 2004 at preventing any illness as there were no active strains of flu included in that year's vax...I cited the CDC because those who vax tend to respect them. That doesn't make them MY source or the end all be all of vaccine related info - they are a source though. I didn't think this was an uncommon practice. I am pretty sure I have seen it happen in all sorts of debates on here under all types of topics.

And to be fair there are just as many in the BF/FF debates (that do vax) that say the WHO's BF recommendation is only really for those overseas where they are exposed to more disease, etc...and that nursing past a year isn't really all that helpful in the US or Canada.

Originally Posted by (.Y.)mom2dd(.Y.)

That's exactly what I already said about the co-sleeping issue. I don't use WHO for everything. In fact even the pro-vax community in this thread had said parenting decisions are parenting decisions which is why they don't always follow the WHO's recommendations. I totally agree with Jess's point yet if you and the other posters need more clarification, I'll try hard to do it.

oh, no. I'm good. I was just trying to clarify someone else's point. I've discovered today that I'm not making much sense, and should have probably taken the day off.

Originally Posted by Keskes

I was just trying to clarify someone else's point.

I know you were trying.. I'm just really surprised how the vaccine issue in this thread was somehow a platform to put down lactivism in the first place. I hope the points are clarified to those who felt justified to bring it up.

I didn't get the impression anyone was using it as a put down, but rather just bringing up an argument.

[gina!]

Originally Posted by (.Y.)mom2dd(.Y.)

I know you were trying.. I'm just really surprised how the vaccine issue in this thread was somehow a platform to put down lactivism in the first place. I hope the points are clarified to those who felt justified to bring it up.

me?
because i was not putting down lactivism at all. i was simply curious as to (from a debate standpoint, not IRL) the validity of using literature from an organization like the WHO or AAP to support a topic that you agree with (anything really) but then disagreeing with other things that that organization supports.


maybe i am not expressing myself properly.