Corporate Journalism and the Fearless Formula Feeder

"Authenticity.  Listening.  Finding unique angles.  Those are the keys for journalists seeking earned coverage via social media, according to Suzanne Barston, manager, corporate journalism, corporate communications at AbbVie.  As founding partner of AbbVie's StoryLab, Barton is responsible for creating stories around the company's therapeutic areas, pipeline and philanthropy."
--Jim Aikon, "How AbbVie Leverages Social for Earned Media."  8/7/18
http://www.prnewsonline.com/abbvie-social-earned-media-suzanne-barston 

Reading this article was an eye-opening experience, particularly since I have written in this blog about Suzanne Barston, otherwise known as The Fearless Formula Feeder.  She is the author of the book, Bottled Up:  How the Way We Feed Babies Has Come to Define Motherhood and Why It Shouldn't.   When her book came out;  she did the usual publicity tour of talk shows, book signing, etc.  I remember watching her on one talk show and thinking how does someone who is virtually unknown able to garner so many public and media appearances?  For that matter how did she get published?  I chalked it up to her being a writer and editor for health and parenting publications.  But of course now I wonder about her employment with Abbvie.  Was she employed by Abbott Labs or Abbvie during the time she blogged and wrote her book?  Or was this job the ultimate reward for attacking breastfeeding advocacy, by a company that is a spinoff of Abbott Labs, manufacturer of Similac?

 In 2011 Abbott Labs announced in the NY Times its intention to become 2 separate companies, a spinoff.  This became official in January of 2013.  Abbot Labs is considered the parent company.

 "A spinoff retains its assets, employees, and intellectual property from the parent company which gives it support in a number of ways, such as investing equity in the newly formed firm, and providing legal, technology, or financial services."
--definition of spinoff,  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/spinoff.asp

Corporate Journalist, Suzanne Barston, states in a session brief about her talk. Speak Softly and Carry a Big Narrative:  When Quiet Stories Speak the Loudest,  posted at epharma,

"Complicating things further, patients and external audiences are more media savvy than ever.  They can smell the complexity of marketing behind our best efforts;  taste the inauthenticity in our paid influencer communications."

and last sentence regarding her intended talk,

"In this session, we'll examine how unbranded, journalistic content boosted a company's reputation in a tangible way, despite less-than-perfect metrics, and show how in the end, authentic storytelling is worth more than SEO [Search Engine Optimization-common term used by social marketing sites]."
https://lifesciences.knect365.com/epharma/agenda/3#think-like-a-patient_speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-narrative-when-quiet-stories-speak-the-loudest

Reading that last sentence I wonder whether her "authentic storytelling" that boosted a company's reputation is about her blog-The Fearless Formula Feeder? As a corporate journalist, she is concerned that media savvy people may "taste the inauthenticity in our paid influencer communications."  Well, I am tasting it and I am a bit angry.  Our corporate journalist totally denied and dismissed the breastfeeding advocates who smelled something fishy about her blog.  I wrote about it back in 2014, 
http://vwmcclain.blogspot.com/2014/07/marketing-infant-formula-with-magic-of.html

The really sad thing about this is that her blog has been quite influential.  Her blog influenced quite a few breastfeeding advocates and some breastfeeding organizations to tone down their advocacy for fear of causing shame in formula feeding mothers.  But she also was politically influential.  In a position paper written by Jennifer Doverspike in 2013 to the The Federalist, a Republican conservative think tank organization, Doverspike writes in the second paragraph of her 6 page paper,

"Don't believe me?  Just ask Suzanne Barston, the founder of a website dedicated to freedom in infant feeding choices.  Her blog, Fearless Formula Feeder (Tag line: Standing up for formula feeders...without being a boob about it) is about the battle to destigmatize formula feeding.  When Mayor Bloomberg announced his Latch On NYC initiative in 2012, Barston went nuclear."
--Jennifer Doverspike, The Literal Nanny State--Breastfeeding and Public Health Officials, The Federalist  
http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/29/literal-nanny-state-breastfeeding-public-health-officials/

Doverspike continues on to discuss the WHO Code as restrictive to access of formula, formula advertising and samples given to mothers.  She states, "The WHO Code appears to be organized around a simple, if dubious, premise:  It's always the evil corporations' fault."  Then she writes about Iran taking control of the import and sale of infant formula (only available by prescription).  She considers this madness.  She considers it an encroachment on personal freedom.

No, Jennifer Doverspike, this is not about personal freedom, its about corporate freedom to influence generations of parents to use their products no matter what the risks.  Her introduction of don't believe me, read The Fearless Formula Feeder website seems rather ironic.  Maybe it would be more truthful if this paper had just given out the Abbot Labs or Abbvie websites rather than Suzanne Barston's website.  Has this paper influenced US politics?  I would say so after reading about the performance of the US delegation to WHA (World Health Assembly) regarding support of breastfeeding.  This Republican Administration appears to be under the sway of this particular paper.

Doverspike gives breastfeeding its token benefits but states they are exaggerated.  Her concerns are supposedly about the USA becoming a "Nanny State," where personal choice becomes limited.  Yet I have to wonder, if the real concern is about propping up a billion dollar industry, so that there is no governmental oversight, no regulations? 

She states that the benefits of breastfeeding are exaggerated.  She ought to read a few infant formula patents in which the infant formula company just has to use a synthetic/genetically engineered imitation of a human milk component to improve or make a safer product.  Interestingly I have read various breastfeeding advocates who state there are no benefits to breastfeeding.  Ignorance versus ignorance seems to be the way of our media-crazed social marketing internet.

Well, Fearless Formula Feeder, aka corporate journalist (although I fear I will never like the word-journalist-any more);  how do you sleep at night?  Any regrets?  It feels like a con, smells like a con, by god we have been conned.
Copyright 2018 Valerie W. McClain

Down the Rabbit-Hole-part 2: "Money is the mother's milk of politics."

                 
"But there is a 'creation myth' that is blind to both, nature’s creativity and biodiversity as well as to women’s creativity, intelligence and knowledge. According to this 'creation myth' of capitalist patriarchy, rich and powerful men are the 'creators'. They can own life through patents and intellectual property. They can tinker with nature’s complex evolution over millennia and claim their trivial yet destructive acts of gene manipulation as 'creating' life, food and nutrition."  --Vandana Shiva, "Tackling 'Monocultures of the Mind'"
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/04/24/tackling-monoculture-mind

Glued to my seat, I stare at the computer screen.  I learn that some Americans are deeply surprised that breastfeeding is political.  And some people are surprised and shocked that US delegates to the World Health Assembly in May had tried and partly succeeded in watering down (only minor changes they say) an international resolution supporting breastfeeding.  Why am I not surprised?  The only thing I am surprised about is that it took 2 months for this information to make it to the US new's cycle!

The Trump/Republican Administration has its priorities.  Chaos becomes a priority, a smokescreen that hides intention.  Changing stories, repetitive lying is designed to create a level of mental chaos on one's opponents and everyone is an opponent.  People have to make sense out of the decision-making of this Administration.   And the reality is that this Administration is not about sense.  It's about distraction and chaos.  Trying to make sense of it, is a fruitless task.

Having lived 60-some years on this earth, I have on occasion met people who are driven to create chaos in their lives as well as in everyone else's life.  I learned to not waste my time analyzing their behavior, trying to make sense out of senseless actions.  Instead, I realized that there is no appeasement with those who choose to rein chaos down on your life.  Walking away, keeping a distance has been a solution.  But what to do when those who are governing a people are intent upon reining havoc upon their nation as well as other nations?  

The Business of Patents

Over the years I have been told many things in regard to my "obsession," about human milk component patenting.  I have been told by some breastfeeding advocates that patents don't mean anything. so I suppose that comment means I am wasting my time by writing about it.  Yet corporations spend thousands upon thousands of dollars in fees to the US Patent Office and thousands of dollars in IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) lawyers, and court proceedings. An international patent is estimated to cost over $100,000.  A US patent can cost from $12,000 (less complex patent) to $20,000 (software patents) in filing costs alone.  Then there are attorney fees ranging from $5000-$15,000.  Large corporations have multiple patents and patent applications.  Court costs for patent infringement cases can cost a million or so dollars. So if money has any meaning, then patenting appears to me to be a huge investment by corporations.  So patents on human milk components have a economic and political impact.  And that impact can be and is already showing to be a negative impact on the promotion of breastfeeding.

I have to dismiss this attitude that patenting means nothing.  In an editorial in Intellectual Asset Management (july/August 2012) titled, "Key issues in building a strong life sciences patent portfolio," the article states,

"Patents are the engine that drives venture capital investment and initial public offer funding, as well as mergers and acquisitions in the life sciences industries.  Venture capitalists, Big Pharma and the stock market all need to be convinced that a start up has enough IP protection to gain an edge over its competitors."

In the Boston Business Journal, Joe Hadzima, Jr., Senior Lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management states,

"Twenty years ago patents weren't very valuable in the sense that they were not upheld in court that often.  Today as a result of changes in the patent laws, inventors are more often prevailing in multi-million dollar lawsuits.  For example, the holder of a patent on the bar code process has reportedly received over $450 million in royalties and judgments."

While many people may think that patents are meaningless, it is quite apparent that in the business world they have monetary value.  Dismissing the thousands of patents based on human milk component research as meaningless seems rather peculiar.  Particularly when some of those patents are owned by the infant formula industry.  Protecting the enormous investment in patents would seem like a probable outcome, particularly when a world organization asks for support for and promotion of breastfeeding.  No corporation wants to throw money away on its investments by supporting the competition.  And breastfeeding is the competition
   
"Money is the mother's milk of politics" *

"Money is the mother's milk of politics."  This quote was used in an article that went on to discuss how 3 infant formula companies (Abbott, Nestle, and Mead Johnson which is now Reckitt Benckiser) spent $60.7 million on lobbying US lawmakers  during the last decade.
 https://maplight.org/story/infant-formula-makers-sweetened-mothers-milk-of-politics-with-60-million-in-lobbying-funds/ 

So not only does the infant formula industry use advertising to consumers to influence the buying habits of families but they also lobby the government in order to influence policy.  This influence peddling is not new but is an ongoing situation in which corporate interests influence health care policies.  Another form of influence is when heads of various governmental agencies have corporate backgrounds. For example the current head of the Department of Health and Human Resources, Secretary Alex Azar was President of Eli Lilly from 2012-2017 and also was on the Board of Directors of the organization BIO (Biotechnology Innovation Organization-trade association supporting biotechnology-genetic engineering-Monsanto). During his confirmation hearings for the job of Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Resources, he was questioned about his role in Eli Lilly's gaming of the patent  system by extending their erectile dysfunction drug-Cialis by testing it on pediatric patients who had a rare muscle-wasting disease.  
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/08/trump-azar-patent-drug-company-268942

As Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources, he is in charge of the reunification of immigrant families seeking asylum at the border.  He made statements about this reunification process that, "There is no reason why any parent would not know where their child is located."  And stated that the Department of HHS was acting out of "generosity for immigrant children."  All of these statements contradicted by the facts brought out by various news organizations and the ACLU.

Secretary Alex Azar was the head US delegate to the May meeting at the WHA (World Health Assembly) in which Ecuador was to introduce a supportive statement regarding breastfeeding. Most of us have heard the rest of the story.  Ecuador felt threatened and backed down and the Russian delegates made the introduction to support breastfeeding.  The US delegation says they did not threaten anyone.  But obviously something happened.

The US Deputy Secretary to Secretary Alex Azar is Eric D. Hargan who previously has been shareholder in a lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig LLP.  Some of the lobbying firm's clients were Bayer (a pharmaceutical company that also manufactures infant formula), Albertson's Grocery, Samsung. etc.
https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=71406

According to the Washington Examiner on the WHO meeting on sugar taxes,
"Eric Hargan, the U.S. deputy secretary for health and human services, reported that he was the commissioner who blocked advocacy for a levy on sugar on the said panel, arguing it was not clear that imposing taxes on sugary drinks like sodas and fruit juices would improve public health."
 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-administration-blocks-who-from-calling-for-sugar-taxes

Those who were appointed to the US Health and Human Services agency seem to side with business interests at the WHO.  One would suppose that this agency would be supportive of health promotion not business promotion.  But not to many people realize that the US Department of Health and Human Service owns patents.  They even own a patent on human lactoferrin (a component of human milk).

Patent #5948613, in which they state the following,

"Another embodiment of the present invention relates to a method of treating a condition in a patient characterized by a deficiency in lactoferrin by administering to the patient an amount of human lactoferrin according to the present invention in sufficient quantities to eliminate the deficiency. The conditions include neutropenia, AIDS, skin infection, gastrointestinal bacterial overgrowth syndrome, vaginal infection and septic shock."

The patent was filed in 1996, so it is a dead patent.  A patent is valid for 20 years from date of filing, although extensions are possible.  Fascinating that the US Department of Health owned a patent that stated that human lactoferrin, a component of human milk, could eliminate a variety of health issues including AIDs.  Yet, they are not supportive of breastfeeding by women who test positive for hiv.  Maybe they forgot to read their own patent? Or maybe it is that money is the mother's milk of politics?
Copyright  2018 Valerie W. McClain

* "Money is the mother's milk of politics," is attributed to statements made in 1960's by California Democrat, Jesse Unruh, who died in the 1980's.






        












 












  





 

"Down the Rabbit-Hole" The USA and its fickle breastfeeding policy

                                            "CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER"
                                         Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll


We are down the rabbit-hole, living in Trumplandia, where what was up is now down and down is up.  We are Alice in Wonderland.  Our Heartless King rampages through an early morning; spreading his Story for the Day, only to retract the Story the next day, and then to retract the retraction.  Around and around we go, a merry-go-round that never stops.  The Queen in Silence does not care.  The Chessboard beckons the world of players.  The King, his Bishops, and Knights capture the Pawns.  Black against white, republican against democrat, and one nation against the world;  the strategy of never-ending chaos of words and wars.  And now the Jabberwocky King bestows his wisdom onto the world. America the Great "strongly supports breastfeeding" but (always a but with the word breastfeeding) "we don't believe women should be denied access to formula."  And in his wisedom adds,  "Many women need this option because of malnutrition and poverty."  Yes up is down and down is up.  The Jabberwocky King's wisedom in one twitterly-tweet. 

Does the Heartless King really care about women or children?  Or is it business as usual?  Patents and Trademarks hurrah-hurrah?  Capture the Pawns, silence them quick.  Cage them, deport them, and shut them up quick.  Up is down and down is up.

The Delegation parades onto the Chess Board, capturing the Castles. Baiting and bullying those who do not understand the game.  The Delegation has property to defend.  Companies must be fed.  Royalties must be paid.  

"One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all
Go ask Alice
When she's ten feet tall."
--White Rabbit by Jefferson Airplane

*******************PATENTS********************

"Consumption of human milk is one of the most cost-effective strategies known to medicine for protecting infants against morbidity and mortality due to infectious disease. Human milk may be considered a natural and efficacious "nutriceutical," i.e., a model food that conveys immunologic benefits. Protection against infectious diseases occurs through a variety of complementary mechanisms found in human milk, including oligosaccharides and their related glycoconjugates. Significantly enhanced immunologic protection by breastfeeding has been demonstrated for diarrheal diseases, respiratory tract illnesses, bacteremia, meningitis, and necrotizing enterocolitis. Protection by breastfeeding is especially efficacious against diarrheal disease." 
--Patent #7893041 entitled, "Oligosaccharide compositions and use thereof in the treatment of infection," filed in 2004, owned by Children's Hospital Medical Center (Cincinnati,Ohio), Instituto Nacional De Ciencias Medicas Y Nutricion (Mexico, Mx), and University of Massachusetts (Boston, Ma) 

"During postnatal development, a newborn's intestine experiences a process of maturation that ends with the production of gastrointestinal epithelium that functions as a selective barrier (i.e., gut barrier). The gastrointestinal epithelium permits the absorption of nutrients, electrolytes and water, while preventing exposure to dietary and microbial antigens, including food allergens. Specifically, this barrier limits the passage of antigens to the systemic circulation, thereby preventing infection, inflammatory reactions, and other gastrointestinal diseases and disorders that may occur during infancy and later in life. For very young infants, and particularly, preterm infants, who have an immature immune system and intestinal tract, development of suboptimal intestinal flora may result in infection, diarrhea, allergies, and food intolerance.

Barrier formation and maintenance has been found to be affected by the diet. Breast milk contains components that not only act as pathogen receptor analogues, but also activate immune factors by infant intestinal epithelial cells and/or associated immune cell populations to enhance development and maturation of the infant's gastrointestinal and immune systems." 
Patent #9539269, entitled, "Methods for decreasing the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis in infants, toddlers, or children using human milk oligosaccharides."  filed in 2011 owned by Abbott Laboratories

"The present invention pertains to a composition for inducing a pattern of gut barrier maturation similar to that observed with breast feeding and able to improve gut barrier maturation, e.g. during neonatal stress. In particular, the present invention relates to an infant formula containing a combination of specific ingredients designed to provide a synergistic effect all along gastrointestinal tract and barrier function.

During the postnatal development, the newborn intestine experiences a process of maturation that ends by the establishment of a functional barrier to macromolecules and pathogenic bacteria. This phenomenon is called gut closure and appears to be affected by the diet. Hence, different studies with infants (JPGN, 1995, 21: 383-6) and animal models (Pediatr Res, 1990, 28: 31-7) show that the maturation of the barrier is faster in breast-fed than in formula-fed newborns. This could explain the higher prevalence of allergy and infection in infants fed formula than in those fed with mother milk."
Patent # 8394370, entitled, "Nutritional formula for optimal gut barrier function," filed in 2004, owned by Nestec [Nestle]

Copyright 2018 Valerie W. McClain

Mastering the Art and Science of Human Milk Oligosacharide: The Joy of Genetically Engineering HMOs Cookbook

"Glycom has confirmed...that the 2'-FL manufactured by Glycom is chemically and structurally fully identical to the 2'-FL that is present in human breast milk.  Glycom's 2'-FL is therefore referred to as a human identical milk oligosaccharide (HMO)." US FDA Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) Notice 650  https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/NoticeInventory/ucm513832.pdf

THE 2'-FL HUMAN MILK OLIGOSACCHARIDE  RECIPE

*One host organism, your choice:
E. coli K12 DH1 or Helicobacter pylori

*Genetically modify using knockout genes and inserting a promoter gene.

*Use a plasmid vector from donor strains, Klebsiella pneumonia and Salmonella Typhimurium. Make sure the undesirable genes that are pathogenic or toxigenic are taken out.  The ampicillin and tetracycline resistance genes should not be expressed during fermentation.

*With fermentation the E. coli or H. pylori will express the Human Milk Oligosaccharide, 2'-FL. Use various solvents to extract the pure 2'-FL Human Milk Oligosaccharide such as pyridine, or benzoyl chloride, or DCM, or Methanol. While some of these solvents are highly toxic-unfit for consumption, various processes will be used to make sure none of these solvents remain in the Human Milk Oligosaccharide product.

 *This recipe makes a crystallized powder identical to the Human Milk Oligosaccharide made in the human mammary gland. 

This recipe is my interpretation of the information given in Glycom's GRAS notice 650 to the FDA regarding their 2'-FL Human Milk Oligosaccharide.  My attempt at humor.  Biotech industries use microbes genetically engineered and the process of fermentation to create food products.  Perhaps a cookbook would be somewhat informative for those of us who want to know what is in our food.  

It must be a joke that the FDA has no questions regarding the manufacturing of 2'-FL Human Milk Oligosaccharides.  How could anyone believe that this product is identical to what women produce in their breasts? Glycom "convened" (another word for hired?) an expert panel to critically evaluate their HMO product.  The 4 experts were Dr. Joseph F Borzelleca of the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Dr. Ronald Kleinman  of Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, Dr. Robert J Nicolosi of the University of Massachusetts Lowell, and Dr. John A. Thomas of Indiana University School of Medicine.

In 2012 Dr. Joseph F. Borzelleca received a Lifetime Service Award by the International Association of Color Manufacturers. He was responsible for the standards developed in the 70's and 80's for food color safety.
https://www.iacmcolor.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/IACMBorzellecaReleaseFinal092412.pdf
The importance of white color to infant formula is not often recognized. Even though babies do not notice the color of their infant formula, parents notice the color.  I blogged about the use of lutein in baby formulas. http://vwmcclain.blogspot.com/2011/04/lutein-dye-supplement.html

When industry thanks researchers, I get a little uneasy.  Of course this is not about food coloring but whether a genetically engineered food product is safe for babies.

Dr. Ronald E Kleinman of Massachusetts General Hospital is notable.  He is one of the authors of a study that questioned the safety of Baby Friendly Hospitals/exclusive breastfeeding. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2546142?redirect=true 

Interestingly, Massachusetts General Hospital (also known as The General Hospital Corporation) is a co-patent owner to a number of Human Milk Oligosaccharide patents (inventors being David S Newburg, Ardythe Morrow and Gillermo Ruiz-Palacios)

Dr. Ronald E Kleinman has in the past been funded by Mead Johnson and Nestle. He did a study on the optimal duration of breastfeeding which was funded by Gerber.  He also was a paid expert witness for Gerber in a court case.  https://ethicalnag.org/2011/01/27/integrity-in-science-report/

Dr. Robert J Nicolosi is also the Chief Science Officer for a Nanotech company.  Nanotechnology is being used in manufacturing infant formula but not being used as far as I know in the manufacturing of HMO's.

John A. Thomas PhD is or was employed in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology as well as a member of the Society of Toxicology since 1971.

Whether the experts convened by Glycom have a lot of expertise in the safety of genetic engineering is unknown.  Perhaps Dr. Robert J Nicolosi with his financial involvement in nanotechnology (not genetic engineering but a newer technology) has a high level of expertise in genetic engineering.  I question whether the other experts have a background in genetic engineering. 

Glycom is a Danish biotechnology company that manufactures HMOs.  Nestle has a strategic stake in Glycom (at least half the BOD are from Nestle).  So I suppose one might just consider Glycom a Nestle company or at least a company with a lot of Nestle influence.
https://www.glycom.com/about/history/

The safety of Glycom's 2'-FL Human Milk Oligosaccharide is based on a clinical trial that was funded by Abbott.  One of the authors of that clinical trial is Rachel Buck who is a listed inventor to many of Abbott's patents on HMO's for use in infant formula.  
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4645963/

The Abbott clinical trial was registered NCT01808105.  The trials were conducted in the USA in various locations and Puerto Rico.
 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01808105

One clinical trial by a company with a vested patented interest in using HMOs seems rather strange to me.  And to declare this HMO identical to the real HMO made by the mammary gland of women seems even stranger.  Yet this is where we are at nowadays.  Deluded, delusional...and these people and institutions determine safety and what products parents believe are being regulated by governmental agencies.  When the formula company advertises their new formula with HMO's identical to human breast milk,  should we laugh or cry?*  
Copyright 2017 Valerie W. McClain

*The label on Abbott's infant formula with HMOs states in small print, "Not from human milk."  Glycom's GRAS statement to the FDA on this particular HMO states that their manufactured HMOs are the same structurally and chemically as real human milk oligosaccharides.  

Time Magazine article on motherhood: "The Goddess Myth"

"Propaganda is amazing.  People can be led to believe anything."--Alice Walker

Guilt and shame and more guilt and shame, brought to you by Time Magazine or should we say brought to you by the Genetic Literacy Project.  I found the article, "The Goddess Myth:  Why Many New Mothers Feel Guilt and Shame," (10-19-17) to be a great social marketing piece.  We might all want to send our letter of thanks to Alice Park and Alexandra Sifferlin, who were listed at the end of this article. Both Park and Sifferlin contributed to this article and their names are listed in the author section of the Genetic Literacy Project website

In bold letters prior to the article, it says, "Motherhood Is Hard to Get Wrong, So Why Do So Many Moms Feel So Bad About Themselves?"
I am already feeling the guilt.  I always questioned my mothering ability, there must be something wrong with me to believe that motherhood is not easy.  There were days when I felt like a good mother and there were days when I think I failed motherhood 101.  I thought that was normal.  I am a grandma now. While I like to see the little fairies under the toadstool with my grandchildren; I do not believe that motherhood was an easy trip, and hard to get wrong.  Nor do I believe that birth and breastfeeding is about being a goddess, like the earth goddess Gaia.  Yet I had my babies at home and I breastfed them. 

I had a homebirth because I didn't have health insurance--lost it because my husband's new job had a insurance company that considered my pregnancy a pre-existing condition. We had to pay out of pocket anyways and at that time homebirth with midwives was far less expensive than a hospital birth. And the reason I wanted to exclusively breastfeed my baby was another economic decision-infant formula was costly--and I planned on being a stay-at-home mom for the first 3 years.  I did those things out of practicality.  And the crazy thing is the practicality became a love, an attachment to the value of homebirth with midwives and to the value of breastfeeding, with La Leche League as my support system.

I am not sure where the author and her reporters got their data regarding home births (1.5% of all US births) being almost as many as "elective" c-sections.  Or that c-sections are down to 26% of "low risk first births."  Sounds good but no references to where this data comes from.  No discussion regarding the rising morbidity and mortality rate of mothers giving birth in the USA.  Nor discussion of the high morbidity and mortality rate of African-American mothers and babies.  The critique is centered around women who choose to have a more natural birth or want to exclusively breastfeed.  If you want a more natural birth or want to exclusively breastfeed, it would seem that you suffer from a goddess complex.  

The article states, "it [breastfeeding] may help reduce gastrointestinal infections, middle-ear infections, some immune-based diseases like allergies and asthma."  May help?  I think the author and her trusty reporters need to read some infant formula patents regarding the use of human milk components to treat all the illnesses they mention. The article states that 80% of American women "try" breastfeeding.  Try is an interesting and very tentative word.  When I worked as a lactation consultant some moms told me that they were going to "try" and breastfeed.  It reminded me of someone saying that they are going to try and exercise tomorrow. Maybe they will exercise, maybe not.  Of course sometimes we are only mimicking what we heard someone else say or repeating phrases from something we read.

The thrust of the article seems to be a criticism of the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative.  In horror they write that, "You won't see any formula, bottles or pacifiers on display.  They are forbidden..."  Yes but mothers can bring those items from home.  The hospital can't display them or give them to mothers-- remember nothing is free in hospitals.  So if they are giving you something for free, then one might suspect that there is a marketing deal in which a company is benefiting.  

The article discusses a paper published in 2016 JAMA Pediatrics authored by several doctors regarding rooming-in and their concerns that this will lead to "hazardous practices" and "counterproductive outcomes."  Their concerns are about babies being smothered and a rare fatal respiratory failure.  Interestingly, one of the authors, Dr. Ronald Kleinman, has been funded in past research by Nestle, Mead Johnson and Coca-cola.  Hospital nurseries in years past were often designed and funded by the infant formula industry.  Separation of mothers and babies may work wonderfully for babies who are formula-fed;  especially since most nurses love feeding babies.  But separations don't work well for getting breastfeeding off to a good start.

Fed Is Best is discussed towards the end of the article.  And the word starvation and exclusive breastfeeding is tied together.  How to make mothers fearful of exclusive breastfeeding. They quote Dr. Del Castillo-Hegyi, "If you have leaders telling you this is what's best [exclusive breastfeeding], it becomes ideology, policy, identity." Back at ya, Dr. Del Castillo-Hegyi.  One could easily say that the Fed Is Best organization is about ideology, policy, identity.

This whole article reminds me of the Similac Ad called the Mother-Hood regarding the mommy wars.  Heaven forbid anyone make any judgments or really read the last 50 years of medical literature regarding the value of breastfeeding.  And heaven forbid we ask why the Genetic Literacy Project appears to be so involved in trying to subvert the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative and exclusive breastfeeding.  Here is an interesting article on how the Genetic Literacy Project has behaved regarding its use of writers to spread a positive spin on GMOs. 
http://progressive.org/magazine/how-the-biotech-industry-cultivates-positive-media/

As author, Alice Walker, said:  "Propaganda is amazing.  People can be led to believe anything."  Time for people to use their critical thinking skills when reading this article. 

Copyright 2017 Valerie W. McClain

FED IS BEST: Twisting the facts to fit the agenda

"We are the only species of mammal that doubts our ability to give birth.  It's profitable to scare women about birth.  But let's stop it."  Ina May Gaskin

  Let us add to Ina May Gaskin's comment that we are also the only species of mammal that doubts our ability to breastfeed.  And it is certainly profitable to scare women about breastfeeding.  Currently breastfeeding is under fire by an organization that twists the facts to fit their agenda.  The Fed Is Best Foundation had  the initial media appearance of being a "parent-led" organization that was using social media to invalidate exclusive breastfeeding.  But the organization denies that they are a parent-led group.  They list their credentials:  physicians, scientists, IBCLCS, NICU nurses, attorneys, public health advocates. And then state that they "were created to speak out against the unsafe and unethical practices of the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative and the WHO exclusive breastfeeding guidelines which has hospitalized more babies on this planet for starvation-related complications than any other policy in the history of public health."  (quote from Dr. Christie del Castillo-Hegyi, co-founder of the Fed Is Best Foundation in response to Anna Almendrala's editorial/on Fed Is Best website)

The reference to that particular statement regarding the Baby Friendly Hospitals and WHO recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding is to a research paper on neonatal jaundice in the Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice.  The research paper states the causes of neonatal jaundice:  G6PD deficiency, ABO incompatibility, sepsis, prematurity and/or low birth weight.  The research paper states, "Although breastfed babies are more likely than bottle-fed babies, to develop jaundice within the 1^st week of life, the impact of the ubiquitous exclusive breastfeeding in Nigeria was not documented in any study."   

I saw no statement on Baby Friendly Hospitals or data on deaths caused by exclusive breastfeeding.  No statements regarding starvation associated with exclusive breastfeeding.  The research paper does discuss morbidity and mortality of neonatal jaundice in Nigeria but the paper states they have no data on exclusive breastfeeding.  How does this paper support Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi's statement?

A couple of paragraphs later in her response to Anna Almendrala's editorial she states,

"Sadly, hospitalizations for jaundice primarily caused by underfeeding from the Baby-Friendly protocol are common. In a paper published by a Baby-Friendly Hospital system, they revealed that 5.7-13% of all the babies born required hospitalization for phototherapy. Furthermore 12-20% experienced levels of hyperbilirubinemia that have been associated with multiple developmental and neurological disabilities."

Clicking on "paper published" leads to a paper entitled, "Association Between Laboratory Calibration of a Serum Bilirubin Assay, Neonatal Bilirubin levels, and Phototherapy Use."  In this paper they re-calibrated the Bilirumbin Assay and the re-calibration lead to less babies being diagnosed with hyperbilirubinemia with less babies needing hospitalization and phototherapy.  This was with the Kaiser Permanente Northern Hospital in Oakland, California.  The paper does not state that this particular hospital was Baby-Friendly.  One of the conclusions of this study was, "Current laboratory accuracy standards are insufficient to detect biases that can have significant clinical effects."  I did not see any discussion of exclusive breastfeeding in association with their collected data.  In fact this paper calls into question the accuracy of the bilirubin assay.

Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi, then discusses a paper in which 10% of exclusively breastfed newborns were  diagnosed with hypoglycemia.  I clicked on the word, hypoglycemia, that leads to her reference. The paper referenced is entitled, "Study of Asymptomatic Hypoglycemia in Full Term Exclusively Breastfed Neonates in First 48 Hours of Life,"  It states:

"Many studies have shown that early initiation of exclusive breastfeeding meets the nutritional and metabolic needs of healthy term neonates.  Establishment of normal breastfeeding may be interfered, when unnecessary supplementation of healthy term neonates with water, glucose water or formula is done."

Then they go on to state, "Transient, asymtomatic hypoglycemia in healthy newborns may be a part of the normal transition to extrauterine life."  

This paper does not support her statement on hypoglycemia in the exclusively breastfed infant  causing "long-term cognitive declines by 6 hours of life." 
The paper concludes with a number of statements.  One of the paper's statements was, "At present, the universal screening of uncomplicated term neonates for hypoglycemia is not recommended."  

Later Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi discusses hypernatremic dehydration and uses as a reference a study, " Early Weight Loss Nomograms for Exclusively Breastfed Newborns."  She states, "..when dehydration as defined by weight loss of greater than 10% is actually common, occurring to 14% of newborns in the largest study done date." 

Yet this is what the study states:

"Almost 5% of vaginally delivered newborns and almost 10% of those delivered by cesarean had lost ≥10% of their birth weight by 48 hours. By 72 hours of age, >25% of newborns delivered by cesarean had lost ≥10% of their birth weight."

This study appears to show that c-sections are a risk factor for newborn dehydration, not exclusive breastfeeding. (authors admit that some babies in this study may have had formula).  It appears to me that Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi has misread this study.  In fact the consistency of the references not matching her statements is rather strange.

She also has some video lectures in which the  references do not match her statements. She states, "The leading cause of newborn hospitalizations are complications associated with insufficient feeding from early exclusive breastfeeding."  She references this to a study, "Early Readmission of Newborns in a Large Health Care System." (Pediatrics 2013;131:e1538-e1544) This paper does mention breastfeeding as a feeding problem but there is no mention of exclusive breastfeeding.  I found this one and only sentence on breastfeeding, 

"We are not aware of any studies evaluating out-patient interventions to prevent feeding problems, such as lactation support for breastfeeding mothers, but it is reasonable to speculate that such interventions might reduce the number of infants who require admission because of excess weight loss secondary to problems with feeding." 

References should match up with what a scientist, physician or attorney is stating.  In educational institutions this mismatching of a reference to a statement would be grounds for a failing grade.   Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi states that her Foundation is not a parent-led organization but a professional organization.  Yet this organization uses propaganda techniques to persuade others that their mission is based on their understanding of the medical literature. 

The word, starvation, is a strong emotive word.  Equating exclusive breastfeeding with starvation, is a propaganda technique (use of emotional words to persuade people) not a scientific fact.  Card stacking or cherry picking evidence is another propaganda technique used to persuade people that your side is right.  The use of evidence that only supports your "beliefs" is not science it is propaganda.

Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi is a co-inventor to a patent in the US Patent & Trademark Office entitled, "Chimeric protein for prevention and treatment of HIV infection." (patent #7115262). The patent is owned by the United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Service and filed in March of 2000.  The science behind this invention is way over my head and I assume that I would not be alone in not understanding it. 

Yet the science of breastfeeding is so obviously being misread and misinterpreted by Dr. del Castillo-Hegyi and her expert supporters.  The use of propaganda techniques to persuade the public to save babies from starvation caused by exclusive breastfeeding is not only unscientific but detrimental to the promotion of breastfeeding.

Yesterday I saw a picture at a UK newspaper website of a baby that had died from starvation in Syria.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/23/syria-shocking-images-of-starving-baby-reveal-impact-of-food-crisis
The picture was shocking and made me extremely sad and angry.  The anger is a reaction to the way in which wars destroy lives.  The 35 day old baby died without her parents being present.  It is incomprehensible to me to separate a mother from her baby, particularly if the baby is dying.  Her name was Sahar Dofdaa.  The article states that the mother was unable to breastfeed because she was "undernourished."  The article states that supplies of infant formula are practically nonexistent in Syria.  With the logic of Fed Is Best, one might consider that this starvation death was caused by infant formula, since that is how the baby was fed when she died.  Of course that is an inflammatory statement and while somewhat true is not the total truth.  War was the cause of this baby's starvation as well as misinformation regarding breastfeeding. 

Malnourished mothers can breastfeed their babies. http://www.ibfan.org/art/FactsheetEmergency2000.pdf

Misinformation regarding breastfeeding, particularly misinformation stated by medical professionals has serious ramifications.  I have been involved in breastfeeding promotion for about 30 years and I have heard some misguided and just wrong statements regarding breastfeeding.  I am really tired of it, particularly when the source is from highly educated women. 

Copyright 2017 Valerie W. McClain

FED UP

'When inspiration has become hidden, when we feel ready to give up, this is the time when healing can be found in the tenderness of pain itself...In the midst of loneliness, in the midst of fear in the middle of feeling misunderstood and rejection is the heartbeat of all things."  --Pema Chodron

Last night my dream seemed so real that it felt like a memory rather than a dream.  In my dream I was in a big city and I was walking with someone who was pointing out the long line of people in every block.  The line went on and on.  It reminded me of going to the movies in Toronto back in the fifties.  There would often be a line to see a new movie that would wind around a city block.  Waiting to see a new Disney movie, the atmosphere would be one of excitement.  But in my dream this huge line was in the USA. It was filled with hungry, disheveled and desperate  people waiting to be fed.  Since waking I can't get the dream out of my head.  A premonition?  Symbolic of my frustration with the current political atmosphere?  Or is it my frustration with the politics of infant feeding and how blinded people seem to be?  Politically we are heading into hard times for everyone but the wealthy 1 per cent.  The kind of economic and social policies being promulgated by a republican administration will in all likelihood create an economic recession and more likely a depression.  Or maybe it is the food shortages/crisis in Venezuela that triggered my dream?  Venezuela was once a wealthy country with much promise that is now in the midst of a serious food crisis.  What was the cause of this crisis?  A dictatorship?  Who would have predicted that a wealthy country could be brought down so easily?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/opinion/crisis-upon-crisis-in-venezuela.html

How prepared are people for such an event?  We take for granted that our grocery stores will always have shelves full of food that we can buy.  And that we will have the money to buy what is on the shelves.  Or that if worse came to worse our benevolent and loving government would make sure we got fed.  It is pretty clear to me that it is an illusion to believe in the benevolence of our current government.  Maybe if you are white and wealthy and/or a corporation, you will be protected from the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune."  How much our current political scenery reminds me of Shakespeare's Hamlet.  The political corruption, anti-women attitude ("Get thee to a nunnery,"  Hamlet says to Ophelia) and incestuous relationships in Hamlet; seemed far-fetched when I  read it in my teen years.  But now I feel that Shakespeare had great insight.  Insight that is still relevant to this day and age.

And so I dreamed a dream and suddenly felt like writing in my blog.  It has been a few months without any wish to write in this blog.  Depressed by the state of the world, and depressed by my inability to communicate the importance of patenting of human milk components, I just drifted reading one horrible news article after another.  I started a post to this blog in May and entitled it, Fed Up.  It was about being fed up with the Fed Is Best organization.  And I couldn't finish the post.  It seemed irrelevant, like fighting against a run-out in the ocean.  Amazing that the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine lets the Fed Is Best kind of critics post their delusions to the Academy website.  Not that I am for stopping their posts, because I believe in discussions, in the dialectic of thought.  Just that when I post a response to some of Fed Is Best delusional thinking, there is no response.  Blessed silence.  So what I am saying is either on target or others just think I am crazy.  Crazy? The patents are legal documents and the infant formula industry is either stating one crazy thing after another about human milk components being so beneficial or they are speaking some truths.  Maybe its a mixture of lies and truth or science gone nuts.  But I am in a state of Fed Up.  And my dream last night triggered the thought that breastfeeding is a vital, dynamic necessity in a "world gone mad."  We believe rather erroneously that nothing changes, that what has been, will continue to be.  That the US will never face hunger or starvation of its populace.  Yet even now in the US children go to bed hungry and homeless.  Just it isn't visible poverty, so we are blinded to that reality.  After Hurricane Katrina there were accounts of young babies dying in New Orleans because the mothers didn't have infant formula to fed them.  If only, if only they had breastfed-the only worry would be that the mother has water and food.  We seem to be blinded by the past, that the US is a prosperous nation.  But of course that is a white prosperous nation.  Nowadays poverty seems to be a crime as well as being black or brown or female.  Heaven forbid you are a poor black female in this country.  My dream made me realize how critical it is for breastfeeding to be promoted and protected in the US right now.  The current government has made it obvious that if you fit into the criteria of being poor, nonwhite, female or of a religion other than Christian, no assistance will be available.  Immigrants are to be scorned, some will be imprisoned and deported without a trial.  Life is getting brutal for the have-nots.  And for those who think that their middle-class status will save them from this savagery, please re-read history or better yet read Shakespeare.

"We are such stuff as dreams are made on..."  The Tempest, William Shakespeare

And as Nestle says about its new infant formula patent,

"Mother's milk is recommended for all infants. However, in some cases breast feeding is inadequate or unsuccessful for medical reasons or the mother chooses not to breast feed. Infant formulas have been developed for these situations. However, bovine milk which is usually used as the basis of commercially available infant formulas has a much lower content of sialylated oligosaccharides than human milk. As the structure of human milk and the functions of the individual components thereof becomes better understood, it has become apparent that it may be desirable to improve the sialic acid content of infant formulas based on bovine milk. "
Patent #8617631

As Shakespeare said, "Dreams, indeed, are ambition, for the very substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream..."  Time to rethink our current reality and work to protect those who will not be protected by a government bereft of concern for those in need.
Copyright 2017 Valerie W. McClain