"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it." --Edward Bernays, "Father of the Public Relations Industry", known for getting women to smoke in the late 1920's through a public relations campaign and created the US public relations behind overthrowing the democratically elected government of Guatemala in the 1950's.
This era in history should be titled, "Dueling social media marketing on infant feeding," or, "Facebook Games on infant feeding" or maybe just, "Mind Games on infant feeding." Edward Bernays would be proud of all you propagandists and social marketeers! Keep the lies a'coming, baffle us with your brillance and along the way destroy everyone's faith in evidence-based science. Truth or the honesty in educating the public no longer exists, maybe it never existed? After the US election or should we say the coronation of the presumptive King of Entertainment, the stage managers are trying to convince the public that only certain publications are the truth-tellers for the nation. Hm...yeah sure, whatever, whatever, whatever.
Okay infant feeding experts, lets look at the Forbes article of December 20, 2016 entitled, "Yet Another Study Claims and Fails to Show That Breastfeeding Is Best," by Kavin Senapathy. The author critiques a recent study (Journal of Pediatrics-October 2016) entitled, "Disparities in Breastfeeding: Impact on Maternal and Child Health Outcomes and Costs). Senapathy singles out one of the six authors to this study, Dr. Melissa Bartick for criticism. Why? I am not sure why. Senapathy seems to have a problem with researchers who feel compassion for their subjects. Bartick had expressed concern that sub-optimal breastfeeding impacts non-Hispanic black and Hispanic families disproportionately. The implication appears to me that Senapathy believes that scientists should set aside "sentiment" or concern for subjects in their research. I on the other hand believe that science and scientists have to be ethical and concerned with the health and well-being of their subjects. That concern does not lessen the science but safeguards the subjects.
Senapathy then uses her experts to critique the study. She "reached out" to Dr. Emiliano Tatar, Dr. Amy Tuteur and Dr. Daniel Summers (formerly known as Russell Saunders). It was the usual propaganda material that supposedly proves that breastfeeding is no better than infant formula. Although these experts seem to agree that in the case of Necroticizing Enterocolitis-NEC, breastfeeding is better than infant formula.
What I found most interesting about Senapathy and her experts was that they all are listed writers for the Genetic Literacy Project. The Project was founded by Jon Entine who is also the executive director. He is also an author and journalist. He has written 3 books on genetics. One is called, "Let them Eat Precaution: How Politics is Undermining the Genetic Revolution." (The precautionary principle is the basis of the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol of 2000 signed by 68 nations--https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf
The title seems to suggest that Jon Entine believes in throwing caution to the wind in support of genetic engineering. And not too surprising is a TruthWiki report that states that the Genetic Literacy Project is a "GMO lobbying outfit funded by Monsanto." And they characterize Jon Entine, founder of the Genetic Literacy Project, as a media-savvy corporate propagandist and not a scientist.
http://www.truthwiki.org/genetic-literacy-project/
Entine also wrote a book called, "Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It." It was perceived by some people as a racist view of human relations. (Wikipedia on Jon Entine).
Getting back to the author, Kavin Senapathy, of the Forbes article, she has also written an article for Forbes entitled, "Beware of Accidentally Starving Your Breastfed Newborn, Warns The Fed Is Best Foundation." Monsanto Europe interviewed Kavin Senapathy in an article called "Fighting the hydra of science myths: an interview with Kavin Senapathy." According to the Monsanto article she is the co-Executive Director of international pro-science, pro-biotech organization March against Myths (an organization to counter March Against Monsanto). Thus it appears that she writes for an organization that is funded by Monsanto-Genetic Literacy Project and is interviewed by Monsanto Europe. And the experts she uses in her article are also writers for the Monsanto-funded Genetic Literacy Project: Dr. Amy Tuteur, Dr. Emiliano Tatar and Dr. Daniel Summers aka Russell Saunders.
So why is Monsanto using these writers to create public doubt about the value of breastfeeding? Maybe its because the infant formula that is on the market is composed of genetically engineered ingredients from dairy milk or soy proteins to the vitamins and minerals, the DHA/ARA. Infant formula is a package of gmos. If more women exclusively breastfeed, will Monsanto financially survive? If more black women exclusively breastfeed, what will Monsanto do to survive?
When I started to think about writing this post, I thought I would use the patents to show these people the evidence of how valuable breastfeeding is and how even the infant formula industry considers its own product a risk. These patents are legal documents. The industry knows the truth. But these propagandists that have the public ear, have no interest in the truth. Their bread and butter is made by disseminating doubt about breastfeeding.
Copyright 2017 Valerie W. McClain
No comments:
Post a Comment