Here's a letter I sent out the other day. A friend sent me a link to an article by Dennis Prager (never heard of this guy). I just couldn't resist an response.
From: "Jones, Vicki"
To: "'dennisprager@dennisprager.com'"
Subject: Article of 11/11 re: Breastfeeding
Date: Mon, Nov 17, 2003, 4:54 PM
Mr. Prager,
I noticed that your byline at the end of this article says you are "one of America's most respected and popular nationally syndicated radio talk-show hosts".
Surely your radio station hasn't commissioned double-blind studies to prove this assertion with any statistical validity? I would respectfully point out that the half-truths, misstatements and misleading assertions in your article re: breastfeeding are similarly unfounded.
Indeed, to assert that breastfed children of the current generation have more health problems than your generation is to make the logically fallacious claim that "A occurred then B occurred, therefore A caused B". This is one of the oldest flaws in reasoning known to humankind. Surely the one of the most respected radio personalities (I don't think it appropriate to call you a journalist), shouldn't fall into this trap.
I'm not familiar with your body of work, but do believe the ethical integrity of your profession and, incidentally, of your syndicated radio stations, is compromised by such misuse of your public position.
I do hope you'll resort less to sensationalism and more to solid facts in the future. For instance, you said:
"I acknowledge having no scientific basis on which to challenge the many scientific studies that point to the health benefits of breast-feeding - such as fewer infant infections, fewer early allergies, getting the mother's antibodies, and so on. I do, however, believe that in a health-conscious home, these benefits are negligible.
On what grounds do I believe this? Common sense - our built-in defense against nonsense - suggests it."
Once upon a time bleeding patients was common sense. Hence our first president died an early death. Galileo nearly lost his life for refuting "common sense" and religious zealots. Sadly, hundreds of thousands of children die each year in the modern world because their mothers believe formula is better for them, utilizing a twisted form of "corporate common sense", if you will.
If the U.S. were not so exceedingly backwards in their approach to breastfeeding (with one of the lowest rates in the industrialized world), didn't have such enormous rates of infant mortality and maternal mortality (again, compared to our international peers), then your presumptive denigration of "breastfeeding zealots" would be less interesting.
You imply that a lack of belief in G-d correlates to a unhealthy emphasis on breastfeeding. Since I'm fairly certain you do not regularly associate with groups of breastfeeding mothers, please allow me to fill in the gaps. I've not met a more devout group of women - and they practice all religions, from all denominations. While this is anecdotal evidence, it seems superior to empty conjecture.
Unfortunately, although you don't address it, it is indeed the most vulnerable women who do not breastfeed. Women with less education, who work full time and have less support are least likely to provide the best nutrition to their children. As you surely know, breastfeeding has been demonstrated to increase IQs (intelligence quotients) and therefore their children are handicapped by more than poverty and ignorance.
In closing, I believe that a lack of breastfeeding is perhaps evident in this generation. It seems to have concentrated in the lowest common denominator of pop "journalism".
Sincerely,
Vicki Jones