Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also, do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to negligence. I was about to blow the outrage ho

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also, do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to negligence. I was about to blow the outrage horn but decided to do some reading. After going over the entire wiki, i could not find any single shred of evidence that could even suggest outright malice or worse, criminality, from nestle. I remain open minded, but I'd like to see evidence that justifies the claims. Currently, the accusations seem based on selective facts & theory, used to form a narrative that is questionable at best. However, nowhere in the article did i see any mention of any of the positive effects by nestle donations. Here are some counterfactuals: 1- most men do not realize that women may not produce milk for several days despite lactating nonstop during this time. Newborns in such cases will be inmediately be given formula before jaundice sets in. Nestle probably (unintentionally) saved countless children from death this way. 2- formula and breatsfeeding are not mutually exclusive. The notion that free formula would impair the ability of women to continue breastfeeding is not true, as many dads will attest. 3- Africa life expectancy / health outcomes are poor. In any emergency, you do want to have formula as a fallback option 4- this article presents african women as naive with zero proof. Is there a smoking gun that i missed somewhere?