Lock Up ALL Parents Who Formula Feed, Call For Mandatory Breastfeeding!!!

That would be a preposterous suggestion wouldn't it?  Yet I've heard similar comments numerous times in recent weeks during the discussions that have surrounded vaccination. Calls to lock up parents who decline, sue them, ban the children from public spaces and schools, report them to the CPS as paediatrician Mike Ginsberg (who appears to have beat a hasty retreat from Facebook) stated he would, make all vaccinations mandatory.  Not vaccinating is apparently a child endangerment issue.

This isn't a vaccine discussion post, because which side of the debate you sit is irrelevant - what's relevant are the demands to remove parental choice.  Force vaccination by any means necessary - even the suggestion terrifies me, and not for the reasons you might imagine.

I wonder how many of those making these demands either formula feed, or believe it should be the choice of the parents whether to breast or formula feed?

That's not the same though.  Is it?

Prior to any measles vaccination in the UK, with epidemics running into hundreds of thousands of cases, the death rate was 0.02%. Other complications could potentially occur such as deafness, although due to the introduction of antibiotics the risks associated with both measles and scarlet fever had somewhat diminished (more on that later). In short for every 100,000 cases, approximately 20 people would die.

Research published in May by the American Academy of Paediatrics concluded that 27% more deaths occurred when no breastmilk (ever) was provided.  They also found that longer duration of breastfeeding resulted in a further reduction in mortality (or shorter duration resulted in more deaths, depending on how you want to phrase things).  When they compared 3 months of "any breastfeeding" to "no breastfeeding", the result was 56% more infant deaths in the babies those receiving mostly formula. They concluded:

Promoting breastfeeding has the potential to save or delay ~720 postneonatal deaths in the United States each year.

Dr Linda Folden Palmer who has explored decades of research surrounding infant feeding, feels the study is flawed and the true figures are actually much higher.  Researchers didn't include deaths within the first 28 days, which is when a significant number occured.  Furthermore they didn't differentiate between "exclusively breastfed" or "any breastmilk" (which might have been just one feed). We know how significant exclusive breastfeeding is in terms of outcome - yet this wasn't compared

She estimates that the use of infant formula costs the lives of an estimated 9,335 U.S. babies each year, which is more than 4 per 1000 or for every 100,000 infants, approximately 400 would die.

You read that correctly.

So presumably anyone who feels you are playing "roulette" with your child's health by not vaccinating, feels even more strongly this is the case when it comes to feeding?

If we are going to force vaccinations to protect children, the next logical step is to force breastfeeding too - because that "parental choice" costs lives and the state right?

Because that's the other argument for mandatory vaccination isn't it?  That it's a public health issue, and treating the diseases the selfish won't vaccinate against costs tens of thousands.

Ditto artifical feeding.

In fact a UK report this year stated if the percentage of women who breastfed for at least four months increased from 7% to 45%, the NHS would save £11 million per year just in treating conditions like ear infections and gastroenteritis. Similarly, the same increase could result in NHS savings of around £21 million related to breast cancer alone over the course of a first-time mothers' lifetime.  That's without even starting to consider the many other health conditions associated with not breastfeeding.

A US report in 2001 states:

A minimum of $3.6 billion would be saved if breastfeeding were increased from current levels (64 percent in-hospital, 29 percent at 6 months) to those recommended by the U.S. Surgeon General (75 and 50 percent). This figure is likely an underestimation of the total savings because it represents cost savings from the treatment of only three childhood illnesses: otitis media, gastroenteritis, and necrotizing enterocolitis.

Do it to protect the vulnerable - the preemies and immune compromised.

Ditto breastfeeding:

All babies are vulnerable, so those trying to force vaccines like to stress - pointing out they're too young to be vaccinated and thus most at risk.  Premature babies even more so.

First described over a century ago, necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) is the most common and devastating diseases in neonates. It has also been one of the most difficult to eradicate and thus has become a priority for research. 90% of babies who suffer are premature. (here)

Although there is thought to be global variation, one US study found an incidence of. 0.3-2.4 cases per 1,000 live births. The mortality rate is 20-40%

A multicenter trial demonstrated the protective effect of breastmilk for these babies.  The lowest incidence of NEC (1.2%) was in the group given only breastmilk, compared with 7.2% when exclusively formula fed.  Among babies born at more than 30 weeks' gestation confirmed necrotising enterocolitis was rare in those whose diet included breast milk; it was 20 times more common in those fed formula only

In fact the authors concluded:

With the fall in the use of breast milk in British neonatal units, exclusive formula feeding could account for an estimated 500 extra cases of necrotising enterocolitis each year. About 100 of these infants would die.

Where on earth are all the media reports shouting how selfish those who don't breastfeed or source donated same species milk are.  Where are the demands for each and every hospital to have a human milk bank to prevent babies dying of a disease like NEC? To have qualified lactation support on hand? We care if babies die from measles, but not NEC?

There's one vaccine where we can link breastfeeding even more closely than typical, and that's rotavirus.

“Rotavirus vaccine cuts deaths of Mexican babies from diarrhoea by 40%," states a January, 2010, British Medical Journal headline summarizing two studies.(1) Yet, a study of Brazilian children finds that exclusive breastfeeding cuts diarrhea cases in this similarly developing nation by a whopping 90% (1 / 9.41), versus a diet of formula and/or other foods.(2) here

Suggesting at times it may even more risky to not breastfeed than it is to not vaccinate.

What's more, the biggest risk of rotavirus are in those too young to be vaccinated. That's why the push to create a herd isn't it?  Yet a 2010 study published in the European journal of paediatrics  in states:

"Our study adds to the evidence of a protective concurrent effect of breastfeeding against rotavirus infection in infants, particularly in children 6 months and younger. Breastfeeding is important to diminish rotavirus-related gastroenteritis in infants before vaccination can be introduced." 

So if you're wandering around insisting everyone gives their child the vaccine, I damn well hope you're breastfeeding and demanding everyone else does too.  Otherwise it's perfectly reasonable for breastfeeding mums to request you keep your "rotavirus incubator" away from their little darling (a comment a pro vaccine poster used online):

"For RV1, live rotavirus shedding in stool occurs in approximately 25% of recipients, with peak excretion occurring around day 7 after dose 1. Transmission of virus has not been evaluated. There have been a few cases of documented transmission to contacts. The rate of transmission is unknown, but no known cases have developed symptoms of rotavirus gastroenteritis" (2009)

Although rotavirus vaccines are known to be shed in stools, transmission of vaccine-derived virus to unvaccinated contacts resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis has not been reported to our knowledge. We document here the occurrence of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq [Merck and Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ]) transmission from a vaccinated infant to an older, unvaccinated sibling, resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis that required emergency department care. (2010)

Oh and presumably you will expect to be sued should your non breastfed baby pass rotavirus, (or any of the other numerous health conditions they're more at risk of) to an exclusively breastfed baby too?

Another reason we hear for forcing vaccination is that it's not just about death rates, but other potential associated consequences, like deafness from measles.

Ditto for breastfeeding:

An obstetrics and gynaecology review published states:

"Health outcomes in developed countries differ substantially for mothers and infants who formula feed compared with those who breastfeed. For infants, not being breastfed is associated with an increased incidence of infectious morbidity, as well as elevated risks of childhood obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome. For mothers, failure to breastfeed is associated with an increased incidence of premenopausal breast cancer, ovarian cancer, retained gestational weight gain, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, and the metabolic syndrome

People state breastfeeding is different, because it only affects your own child, not the health of those around them; vaccines are different as they impact on others.

I'm not sure how that logic makes sense in the bigger picture - if you feel not vaccinating is a risk, you surely feel equal concern for the babies of non vaccinating parents, as you do others they might come in contact with?  To state it's OK if their child suffers as long as those babies who can't be vaccinated don't suffer, wouldn't seem to highlight a huge concern for infants generally?   To me it sounds like, "I don't care if the non vaccinated children are OK as long as it doesn't impact on those who have done what I feel is best to prevent it".  But surely no baby gets to choose, the adult does?

The same goes for paediatricians like Mike above, who openly state they will not tolerate anyone not vaccinating within their practice.  They will be removed to prevent them passing diseases to the vulnerable and those who can't be vaccinated; those who are premature, receiving chemo or with complex heart conditions.  Presumably Mike also boots out anyone who refuses to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months from his practice too? Particularly if they have a baby in these extra vulnerable categories;
because the associated risks are huge, and as a paediatrician how can he possibly sit back and condone it? Better call CPS!

Otherwise what he's surely saying is he won't tolerate babies (in his opinion) suffering as a result of one parental choice, but will another?

And it's not just breastfeeding.

I think Dr. Jack Wolfson, a cardiologist sums it up well:

"Be angry at food companies. Sugar cereals, donuts, cookies, and cupcakes lead to millions of deaths per year. At its worst, chicken pox killed 100 people per year. If those chicken pox people didn’t eat cereal and donuts, they may still be alive. Call up Nabisco and Kellogg’s and complain. Protest their products. Send THEM hate-mail. Be angry at fast food restaurants. Tortured meat burgers, pesticide fries, and hormone milkshakes are the problem."

But people aren't are they?  Angry at all the other causes of suffering and death I mean - not beyond a few diseases, the convenient causes.  The media whips people into a frenzy over a few measles cases, whilst the real causes of mortality and death are in our shopping centres and high streets, right under our noses.

I have a constant battle with my children's school to stop feeding them so much goddam junk, as the NHS partners with confectioner manufactures, and fast food restaurants sponsor sporting events. So if we want to start locking people up, we had better build some bloody big prisons.

Whether you believe in the vaccination schedule or not, mandatory vaccination is a whole different ball game. Where would those who support such a notion draw the line?  Should any public health decision whereby the rest of society deems one action more risky than another should be enforceable? Regardless of the rationale or reasons why a person has made that choice?