Notable quote on the business opportunities in baby abuse

There’s no big bucks for big corporations if you breast feed. The life, health, and well-being of an infant has no value for those corporations including those that own the hospitals. instead, they prefer babies who have never received a mother’s precious colostrum (first gift and immune protection that oozes from her breast at the first nursing). Allergic children mean MONEY for big Pharma. Fake milk, even though it doesn’t have all the amino acids, etc., that an infant needs and may even be GMO, means unhealthy children who will need doctors, hospitals, fake “medicines”. . . Add to that the unhealthy psychological issues between mother and child, the lack of proper bonding, a mother who has MALE-invented postpartum depression — meaning, take the newborn away from the mother after the birth so her body goes into crisis because it is responding as if the infant has just died. Oh good, another depressed woman and more money for Big Pharma.

— Clare Puskarczyk

The intensity of the demands of the occasional woman who is fanatic in her zeal for ‘natural childbirth’… and her uncompromising attitude on the subject are danger signals, frequently indicating severe psychopathology…. A patient of this sort is not a candidate for natural childbirth, and requires close and constant psychiatric support.

— Medical, Surgical and Gynecological Complications of Pregnancy; Staff of Mount Sinai Hospital; Williams and Wilkins, publishers; 1960

All I did was have a baby and look what they did to me. But if I did something really bad, what would they do to me then? So you be very very careful.

— Connie Neal, psychiatric and obstetrical survivor, as reported by Bonnie Burstow on Thought Crime Radio, see:

This picture tells two stories: most obviously, about the often fatal consequences of bottle-feeding; more profoundly, about the age-old bias in favour of the male. The child with the bottle is a girl – she died the next day. Her twin brother was breastfed. This woman was told by her mother-in-law that she didn’t have enough milk for both her children, and so should breastfeed the boy. But almost certainly she could have fed both children herself, because the process of suckling induces the production of milk. However, even if she found that she could not produce sufficient milk – unlikely as that would be – a much better alternative to bottle-feeding would have been to find a wet-nurse. Ironically, this role has sometimes been taken by the grandmother. In most cultures, before the advent of bottle-feeding, wet-nursing was a common practice.

“Use my picture if it will help”, said the mother. “I don’t want other people to make the same mistake.”

Despite the obviously irrational cruelty of circumcision, the profit incentive in American medical practice is unlikely to allow science or human rights principles to interrupt the highly lucrative American circumcision industry. It is now time for European medical associations loudly to condemn the North American medical community for participating in and profiting from what is by any standard a senseless and barbaric sexual mutilation of innocent children.

— Fleiss PM. MD, MPH. Circumcision. Lancet 1995;345:927

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.