OK Lactivist!

21EDF723-EC22-4199-A4B8-0A7FC4D2C756

They think they can ignore the problems they cause.

They refuse to listen to the younger generation they harm.

They imagine that because they hold the power, they don’t have to care.

They’re not boomers; they’re lactivists.

Think deleting and banning your critics is a winning strategy? OK Lactivist!

Tens of thousands of infants are re-hospitalized each year for breastfeeding complications. Shockingly, exclusive breastfeeding has become the leading risk factor for newborn hospital readmission.

A new movement, the Fed Is Best movement, encompassing hundreds of thousands of women has come to prominence for trying to protect babies from dehydration, hyperbilirubinemia, hypoglycemia and other complications of insufficient breastmilk.

How has the breastfeeding profession responded?

Amy Brown has written:

…[T]he phrase ‘fed is best’ is nonsensical. At NO point has anyone ever suggested that if a baby can’t be breastfed then they should starve… Fed is therefore not best, because best implies that there are other acceptable alternatives.

OK lactivist!

Marsha Walker wrote:

Social media has been alight with descriptions of exclusive breastfeeding being dangerous, resulting in significant and severe negative outcomes in infants whose mothers wished to breastfeed. This backlash has been led by a campaign that uses inflammatory anecdotes and misleading and inaccurate interpretation of research to bolster its assault on breastfeeding …

OK Lactivist!

Lucy Ruddle wrote:

So, that study being shared by certain places who like to scaremonger… the “1 in 71 breastfed newborns are readmitted” one… I got hold of it, mainly because I was interested in the limitations, which SOB and FIB have a habit of ignoring.

But Ruddle read the wrong paper, misunderstood what she read and it actually showed an even higher rate of readmission. When confronted with her multiple mistakes, Ruddle deleted the post without correcting her errors and without apologizing for them.

Okay Lactivist!

Serena Meyer wrote:

Have you heard about Fed is Best? It’s an organization that believes that the Baby Friendly Initiative is responsible for pushing breastfeeding in a way that essentially starves babies. There is a lot of carefully cloaked vitriol about breastfeeding and brain damage, starvation and death. It makes me feel pretty argumentative; not about the fact that babies can lose more than we would like, but at the goals of the organization as I perceive them.

When faced with hundreds of comments from women whose babies were starved by aggressive breastfeeding promotion, Meyer deleted them … all of them.

When invited by the Fed Is Best Foundation to respond to their careful recitation and debunking of Meyer’s lies, she responded:

So it looks as though I have an invitation to defend my post on Fed is Best. It will take me a second to respond to it all. But I will. Line by line is going to take time…

26C16ACA-C6BC-4E4F-93B7-CB602A151098

But within an hour she was back-pedaling:

Actually. Its pointless and I have christmas cards to write.

OK Lactivist!

You think you can ignore the problems you cause, but you’re wrong.

You refuse to recognize the younger generation you harm and therefore you are undermining the very programs you seek to support

You imagine that because you hold the power at the moment, you don’t have to care about the anguished mothers whose babies have been hospitalized, injured and, in some cases, rendered permanently impaired or even dead.

You’ve made it impossible to have a reasoned discussion because you delete comments, ban those who try to correct your falsehoods and refuse to engage with your critics.

Think that’s a winning strategy?

OK Lactivist!

  • Sarah

    It is always completely pathetic when someone who has already invested time in shitposting and arguing on the internet then claims to be too busy to continue arguing when it becomes inconvenient. I prefer a good honest go and fuck yourself, or similar. That at least has the dignity of nobody lying to anyone.

  • JDM

    Oh, I could demolish your position so easily, chapter, verse, and references. But I’m not going to do it, just claim, over and over, that I could.

    Again, I’m commenting to point out the tactics of pseudoscience seem to run the same no matter the subject; I’ve seen exactly the above from pseudoscience proponents on other subjects.

  • OT: I’ve gotten really into “This is Us” recently. IDK if you watch that show, but in the first episode, Rebecca, the mother, goes into labor with triplets I believe 6 weeks before her due date in 1980. The doctor tries to discuss the risks and mentions something about the positioning of the babies being risky, but never suggests a C-section at the beginning. She gives birth to the first baby vaginally, and then goes into distress and is wheeled in for an emergency c-section, and a while later the doctor comes and tells the father that they lost the third baby. I couldn’t help but wonder, “why wasn’t this delivery a C-section in the first place?” I’m curious, would a high risk delivery like that actually have been attempted vaginally in 1980, or was this just done for dramatic effect, since losing the third baby is central to the show’s story?

    • rational thinker

      In some cases they will let you try to vaginally birth twins, but you have to labor in the OR as a precaution. With triplets I am pretty sure they wont allow a vaginal and it will be a section every time with triplets cause it is just too dangerous for mom and all 3 babies.

      * I am not a doctor, so if I am wrong about this please reply to let me know.

      • That was my thought as well. I was wondering why vaginal birth was even attempted with triplets. Probably just because it made better TV, especially since the death of the third baby was integral to the show. One of these days I’m going to do a parody of NCB’ers reaction to This Is Us.

        • rational thinker

          Yeah It was probably just for dramatic effect/story. I dont think any doctor even in the 80’s would ever attempt a vaginal with triplets, unless one came out on the way to the hospital before they could get mom to the operating room. A NCB parody would be funny.

      • MaineJen

        I was thinking the same thing when I first saw the Friends episode where Phoebe has triplets. Vaginally. I call absolute BS on that…

    • AnnaPDE

      When I was born in the 80s in Hungary, planned section was already a thing – so much so that of all the family members and friends I know from around that time and place, I don’t know a single one who was born vaginally. Sure, the “how were you born” question isn’t a standard one you ask but it’s a bit telling.
      So I’d say that for high risk situations such as triplets, they would certainly have broken out the good old scalpel.