This is an interesting excerpt from a nearly 100 year old textbook, The Home and Its Managment by Mabel Hyde Kitteredge. I find the statistics between breastfed and bottlefed babies. The formula would be perscribed at "milk stations" where the baby would be weighed and the mixture of milk, barley water, etc would be given.
2. In the city of New York during 1912, 3392 babies under one year of age died from bowel trouble, and nine out of every ten of these babies were bottle-fed.
3. Mother's milk is the only safe food for a baby during the first six months of its life.
4. Cow's milk or prepared food can never equal breast milk as the proper food for the baby.
5. Breast fed babies rarely have bowel trouble. Bottlefed babies rarely escape it, particularly during warm weather.
6. Babies fed on breast milk show the best development; the teeth will appear at the proper time; the muscles and bones will be stronger, and walking will not be delayed.
7. A breast-fed baby is not so likely to have bronchitis or croup, and if attacked by any disease, has a much better chance of living than a bottle-fed baby.
8. Pneumonia in babies is fatal more often in bottlefed babies than in breast-fed babies.
So then, from this we conclude that it was a well-known fact that breast-fed babies had superior health to their bottle-fed counterparts. When did all this change so that it was seen as freakish to naturally feed a baby?
Enter the formula oliogarchy. Just a few companies: Mead Johnson, Abbott labs, and Nestle currently control most of the American market. They keep their potential competitors forever out of the market by lobbying the FDA (most likely staffed with their peeps) to have requirements that only they can afford in order to sell baby formula.
The original baby formula company was Mead Johnson. Get a load of this from their website on their history:
I did a cursory look at the board members of baby formula companies, and all of them worked with the Fortune 100 companies like Unilever (the one that want's sustainability by shutting off your shower between shampooing and conditioning), Bristol Myers Squib, Brunwick Sporting Supplies, ExxonMobil (the new Standard Oil), the Chicago area is highly represented, etc.
You get the picture, they've taken the free food God gave babies to keep them healthy and used PR to discredit it, all the while pushing their product. Then, they turn around and try to "improve" on the product after it tears up the babies' guts. An entire generation was totally cut out from bonding with their mother in the first year of life. I don't like to get mushy about stuff liket this, but maybe that would explain some the rebellion of the sixties--that and all the indoctrination in the public schools. I mean during the WW1 generation, a heavy push was made in the media to ridicule "apron strings". Each subsequent generation, the ties that bond become thinner due to an ongoing all-out attack on the family. Do I believe that the makers of infant formula sit around the S.P.E.C.T.R.E. conference room and laugh maniacally at the destruction of the mother-child bond? No, I think they just want to make money any way they can. But I do believe that the spiritual warfare being played out in the realm of the family is a real and many-faceted reality.
These are a few of the reasons given by the Board of Health in New York City on the subject" Why a Mother should nurse her Baby."1. One death out of every five which occur at all ages is that of a baby under one year of age, and the greatest number of these deaths is among bottle-fed babies.
2. In the city of New York during 1912, 3392 babies under one year of age died from bowel trouble, and nine out of every ten of these babies were bottle-fed.
3. Mother's milk is the only safe food for a baby during the first six months of its life.
4. Cow's milk or prepared food can never equal breast milk as the proper food for the baby.
5. Breast fed babies rarely have bowel trouble. Bottlefed babies rarely escape it, particularly during warm weather.
6. Babies fed on breast milk show the best development; the teeth will appear at the proper time; the muscles and bones will be stronger, and walking will not be delayed.
7. A breast-fed baby is not so likely to have bronchitis or croup, and if attacked by any disease, has a much better chance of living than a bottle-fed baby.
8. Pneumonia in babies is fatal more often in bottlefed babies than in breast-fed babies.
Enter the formula oliogarchy. Just a few companies: Mead Johnson, Abbott labs, and Nestle currently control most of the American market. They keep their potential competitors forever out of the market by lobbying the FDA (most likely staffed with their peeps) to have requirements that only they can afford in order to sell baby formula.
The original baby formula company was Mead Johnson. Get a load of this from their website on their history:
More than one in five American children did not live to celebrate their fifth birthday in 1918, according to government health statistics. Gastrointestinal disorders and infant digestive probelms were two of the leading causes of death. By the early 1920s, Mead Johnson introduced its first milk-derived product, a protein supplement called Caesin, to help ease these issues.Compare this to what is noted above about bowel trouble in infants known in 1917. A truly fascinating study is one of reading medical literature prior to the bankster takeover of medicine in the 1930s. A tremendous amount of knowledge was flushed down the toliet because it was unprofitable. That would be an entirely different post to go into how all medicine not alleopathic was shut down by the new "regulatory" (read: cronies of Big Medicine and Rockefeller Pharma) agencies as quacks. And maybe some of them were quacks, but we've got a lot of nuts running around now, and people seem sicker than they ever were with chronic, continuous ailments.
I did a cursory look at the board members of baby formula companies, and all of them worked with the Fortune 100 companies like Unilever (the one that want's sustainability by shutting off your shower between shampooing and conditioning), Bristol Myers Squib, Brunwick Sporting Supplies, ExxonMobil (the new Standard Oil), the Chicago area is highly represented, etc.
You get the picture, they've taken the free food God gave babies to keep them healthy and used PR to discredit it, all the while pushing their product. Then, they turn around and try to "improve" on the product after it tears up the babies' guts. An entire generation was totally cut out from bonding with their mother in the first year of life. I don't like to get mushy about stuff liket this, but maybe that would explain some the rebellion of the sixties--that and all the indoctrination in the public schools. I mean during the WW1 generation, a heavy push was made in the media to ridicule "apron strings". Each subsequent generation, the ties that bond become thinner due to an ongoing all-out attack on the family. Do I believe that the makers of infant formula sit around the S.P.E.C.T.R.E. conference room and laugh maniacally at the destruction of the mother-child bond? No, I think they just want to make money any way they can. But I do believe that the spiritual warfare being played out in the realm of the family is a real and many-faceted reality.
God had a perfect plan and called her mother. Life's cycle goes from Huggies to Depends and from mother's milk to Ensure.
ReplyDeleteHa, that's a good one.
DeleteI cannot remember where, but I read that sometime on the 1920s-1930s, the bottle was a symbol of womens' "independence." some even say it led to the sexual revolution (?)
ReplyDeletethe rich folks would hire a wet nurse to free up mom. So the bottle was the middle class version of the wet nurse. But They did not figure in all the time for washing those bottles.
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Dangers-Of-Formula-Milk