I am a little confused by all of this. I feel naturally that breast milk is best for babies. It definitely seems to be a cure all for a lot of things in babies. My kids are 5 and 1.5 years old. I have seen/read a ton of mom stuff and there is a ton of push back from the mom communities about saying "breast is best." They say it shames mom's who don't breastfeed and use formula and that formula is just as good. I was surprised when I first read many articles saying that, but now this article goes the opposite direction. I don't know what is right or wrong, but it seems natural to breast feed some.
Our pediatrician was very adamant that breast feeding a baby was the right thing to do whenever possible and helps build up a strong immune system. Just another fuck up by this administration of idiots.
You forgot the part where you must buy the seed from the roundup co. What you grow will not reproduce.
Well that is what im not sure about. There has been a lot of literature out there from mom communities, well before the current administration, that formula is just as good. Now that may be to comfort mom's who don't breastfeed, or it may be true, I don't know. My wife breastfed both our kids til they were a little more than 1 years old. We definitely supplemented with extra formula though as well.
I feel like it has been forever. Who doesn’t know this? And what opposes it? Next meeting: drink water not Coke.
Hey world: stop meeting about breastfeeding. Make sure everyone gets fed, educated and taken care of and the breastfeeding will happen.
The genes inserted are already naturally occurring. They just want to make them occurring more frequently in crops, which includes the so called pesticide gene.
Marketing. The manufacturers want you to believe their product is superior to the natural breast milk that they make zero money on where as it has been shown that babies raised on mostly breast milk or synthetic milk for babies have shown good results. I worked in the oil and chemical industry for many years and when the Jiffy Lubes, Oil Can Henry's etc. started coming into market they started telling consumers they needed to have their oil changed every 3,000 miles where as a car can easily go to 5,000 miles as long as quality oil and filter are used, but then the oil companies would sell less oil and the quick change shops will do less oil changes meaning big loss in profit. Corporate America at its finest.
That may be true today but 50 years ago I'm pretty sure it was better to change oil and filter every 3,000 miles. Edit: We've got free oil changes for as long as we own our car so we get to change oil and filter every 3,000 miles. They even throw in a free car wash. (Beaverton Toyota and they no longer offer that benefit with their new cars).
Well technology has greatly improved in the manufacturer of oil. The company I worked for was a Chevron distributor and Chevron was the first to produce a high quality base oil they used to manufacturer various types of oils and I took many classes from Chevron and toured the facility a few times Filter technology has greatly improved as well. My dad was an auto mechanic for years at a Ford dealership and then opened his own shop and back when I was first driving (a little less than 50 years ago, we were mostly changing oil at 5,000 miles even then. Oil industry and the shops want you to change at 3,000 miles so they make more money. If you get oil changes for free (my son has that with his Subaru Outback) then by all means go for it, but it's not necessary.
