4 ms·

Sorry, are you now suggesting that someone being overly judgmental and perhaps not minding their business is a cause of postpartum depression? That, my friend,

Sorry, are you now suggesting that someone being overly judgmental and perhaps not minding their business is a cause of postpartum depression? That, my friend, is going to require a fuck of a lot of citations. You've managed at the same time to deny all of the science behind breastmilk benefits and significantly downplay a known medical condition as nothing more than feeling embarrassed.

cromulent 16y ago
> deny all of the science behind breastmilk benefits I don't think I have done this. I have linked to scientific studies, and meta-studies, that indicate that the benefits are not clear and that more research is needed. I think that you have denied all the science behind breast-milk not having significant advantages, by posting FUD about GlaxoSmithKlein being linked to all of those studies. I'm not sure if you are picking up on the difference between association and causation. I have not said that formula is better, and I don't believe it is. I think that the current dogma around breastmilk being worlds ahead is not justified by the scientific studies. I am happy to change my mind and apologize for my truculence if I see the scientific data that the benefits are significant, causal, and proven. Got any links? > significantly downplay a known medical condition as nothing more than feeling embarrassed. No, I didn't say that.
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  I have linked to scientific studies, and meta-studies, that indicate that the benefits are not clear and that more research is needed. Except that they don't. That's why I quoted your link right back to you. While they say that for certain areas like a link to intelligence (which you will note I have not ever raised), they fully support numerous health benefits. I should note that your link was a study of studies; one giant peer review done right before your eyes. It's pretty conclusive. There is - supported by links that you submitted yourself - significant scientific evidence to suggest that breastfed babies receive health benefits that formula fed babies do not. Ergo, breast milk is a better option for a baby. You've presented nothing to support otherwise, beyond your own personal bias.
  - cromulent 16y ago
    > Ergo, breast milk is a better option for a baby. You've presented nothing to support otherwise, beyond your own personal bias. My claim was that breastfeeding should be encouraged, and that your claim of scientific proof was less solid than you might think. I agree that I have not presented evidence that breastmilk is not a better option - I don't think that, and I certainly haven't said that, hence my lack of presentation. I've asked for causal evidence that there are significant benefits from breast milk. That study's conclusion specifically warns against inferring it. You've now changed your claim from "proven" to "suggest". I'm happy with that - I agree that evidence suggests it is a better option, I disagree that there is proof that people who are breastfed are healthier due to the breast milk. I know it is often repeated, but it is not true.

cromulent 16y ago

> deny all of the science behind breastmilk benefits I don't think I have done this. I have linked to scientific studies, and meta-studies, that indicate that the benefits are not clear and that more research is needed. I think that you have denied all the science behind breast-milk not having significant advantages, by posting FUD about GlaxoSmithKlein being linked to all of those studies. I'm not sure if you are picking up on the difference between association and causation. I have not said that formula is better, and I don't believe it is. I think that the current dogma around breastmilk being worlds ahead is not justified by the scientific studies. I am happy to change my mind and apologize for my truculence if I see the scientific data that the benefits are significant, causal, and proven. Got any links? > significantly downplay a known medical condition as nothing more than feeling embarrassed. No, I didn't say that.

run4yourlives 16y ago
I have linked to scientific studies, and meta-studies, that indicate that the benefits are not clear and that more research is needed. Except that they don't. That's why I quoted your link right back to you. While they say that for certain areas like a link to intelligence (which you will note I have not ever raised), they fully support numerous health benefits. I should note that your link was a study of studies; one giant peer review done right before your eyes. It's pretty conclusive. There is - supported by links that you submitted yourself - significant scientific evidence to suggest that breastfed babies receive health benefits that formula fed babies do not. Ergo, breast milk is a better option for a baby. You've presented nothing to support otherwise, beyond your own personal bias.
- cromulent 16y ago
  > Ergo, breast milk is a better option for a baby. You've presented nothing to support otherwise, beyond your own personal bias. My claim was that breastfeeding should be encouraged, and that your claim of scientific proof was less solid than you might think. I agree that I have not presented evidence that breastmilk is not a better option - I don't think that, and I certainly haven't said that, hence my lack of presentation. I've asked for causal evidence that there are significant benefits from breast milk. That study's conclusion specifically warns against inferring it. You've now changed your claim from "proven" to "suggest". I'm happy with that - I agree that evidence suggests it is a better option, I disagree that there is proof that people who are breastfed are healthier due to the breast milk. I know it is often repeated, but it is not true.