To assume everyone who quotes the WHO bf guidelines

[DontPanicMrMannering]

Also immunises?

What with recommended immunisation schedules being set by the WHO too?

Alphamummy but the forum not fb. It has an area just for listing and judging others parenting choices. Nice!

I thought that you were going to finish the sentence with "lives in Bangladesh, or Africa", seeming as the WHO guidelines have technical information behind every statement and the environment that the infant is growing up in, changes the advice given.

YANBU, about the anti-vaccination clap trap, unless you live in a self sufficient commune that no one enters or leaves.

You mean the Alphamummy thing in the Times?

Or the Alphaparent blog?

OP I do know the type of mum you're talking about. I had a look at that Alpha Parent FB page yesterday, and one of my facebook friends is a member. She is very shallow and easily led IMO, and has a poor understanding of science IMO. She is exactly the type you're thinking of I suspect. She eats only raw food, is into loads of really hokey-sounding "healing" practices, doesn't vaccinate her DD, and last time I saw her she told me she refused any kind of scanning or tests while pregnant. I was about to ask her why, but then thought "do you know what, I really don't want to know, it'll only make me cross and won't change her mind". She also happened to BF for ages.

However although I recognise the stereotype, I think you are being very unfair by thinking that those who quote the WHO guidelines are that type! Personally I often quote the WHO wrt BF, when feeling challenged about BFing. I fed DS till he was 4 and am currently EBF baby DD. All their jabs are up to date.

Many people, like me try to follow the official guidance on safely. Where I deviate from it, I can explain why I think my individual circumstances are different from the studies involved, or why I am happy to take a specific risk.

On the other hand, I think many people have a poor grasp of science. Anyone who thinks Natural News is a good source for example. It's this kind of person who would have no trouble quoting the WHO on one thing and not another.

I think it's a bit bizarre though that you would think that anyone who quotes the WHO would be anti-vac, why would you think that?

tiktok it was a facebook page linked to yesterday.

Oh I see it's a forum too, I haven't seen that, but I assume it's the same lot, is it?

threefeet I don't think that! I've quoted it myself, sorry if that was how it reads.

I'm another militant breastfeeder (DS2 is 4.6) and both my sons are vaccinated to the hilt.

I didn't breastfeed because of the WHO. I breastfed because:

1. My ex-MIL was against it
2. I'm lazy
3. There is a history of excema and asthma in our family

I wouldn't have been able to do it without advice from TikTok - so thanks to her I have been continuously breastfeeding for 7 years.

Ooh sorry, have I got the wrong end of the stick!

I have noticed this, especially on other natural parenting boards. Very pro BF and/or anti FF and anti vax. What people want to do with their own children is up to them but if you want to use WHO guidelines to defend your position then you should accept you are open to people questioning you if you are picking and choosing which ones you want to follow.

Isn't the clue in the word guidelines? I've never heard anyone use the WHO guidelines on bf to criticise or lecture anyone. I have heard them quoted when they are being challenged to explain why they bf past 6 months.

Anyway, the decision to bf or not doesn't have the same implications for the wider population as not vaccinating does. The decision not to vaccinate doesn't just affect your own child but the wider population as a whole.

Some (myself included) use the WHO as an answer to nosy arseholes people that pull faces whilst saying "you're not still feeding him are you? But he's got teeth!"

Llaare so you think everyone who doesn't bf is wrong? You espout pseudo science to make otgers feel bad? No? Then you are a bfeeder not a militant one!

I do wish people would read posts thoroughly tiktok was also massively helpful to me when I wobbled and I bf DD2 until over a year. I am not anti bf or anti ff or anti vax (I am provax and make no apologies for that).

The WHO in defence of natural term bf fine. The WHO quoted as scientific fact by bf mums who then don't vaccinate not ok.

Surely the issue is why people need to use WHO guidelines to justify breastfeeding. That in itself is sad don't you think? The fact people need to justify their choice.

Well, I suppose I do think breastfeeding is the best option available, so naturally I do think it is better. I will admit to not being ambivalent on the matter.

But I also think it is important that parents feed their children, whatever method they choose. That's the key thing for me.

I also know that there are a myriad of reasons why someone might choose one method over the other, and I cannot possibly judge someone for the choices they have made.

However, whether someone chooses to vaccinate or not does affect me in a very immediate way, so yes, I have very strong feelings about that.

DD1 self weaned from the breast at 6 months. I breastfed DD2 till a week after her fourth birthday. DS is still being breastfed at 2.3.

They are all immunised.

In the case of the feeding it was a 'joint' decision - ie I was happy to do it and was 'lead' to some extent by my child's preference.

As to the immunisations it was plainly mine and my DH decision. Though to be honest it never occurred to us not to.

I was informed by what the WHO said. But that was not determinative of my decisions on any counts. Like most people I know I am capable of deciding what advice to follow and of aking up my mind in a (hopefully) rational way.

I understand that the OP is just looking to open a debate. And there is nothing wrong in that. But I really think this us a non issue.

I bf to 19 months, and all my friends bar two bf their babies until 18 months or so. They all immunised on schedule, too, and I immunised, but on a delayed schedule owing to a terrible reaction at three months. I don't think it's a case of ne'er the twain shall meet.

If someone says you have to breastfeed until at least 2 and if you don't you're a bad mum for not following the WHO guidelines, but then goes on to say they didn't vaccinate their children, I would think they were being slightly hypocritical. In that case YANBU.

But I think most people quote the guidelines as just that, a guide.

I sort of get the logic that people don't want to put artificial 'stuff' into their baby and there happens to exist support for one of their choices so they quote it. But it's not based on accepting the research carried out by the WHO as a whole, necessarily. I'd find it far stranger if they quite everything except the vaccination schedule as gospel.

I'm pro BF, mostly pro vax although I have slightly skewed views on hep B compared to most because my body never accepted it and as such I couldn't continue with midwifery at Uni but then I also managed to catch mumps and rubella despite having had the MR and then MMR boosters so maybe my ability to seroconversion is buggered. Anyway, wonky immune systems aside delaying vaccination can be justified but refusing full stop is IMO a bit strange.

I have never seen anybody quote the WHO BFing guidelines for any other reason than reassurance for people receiving criticism from others. As an antidote to assertions about extended bfing being absolutely wrong for example. But then I don't frequent self selecting sites where people sit around being judgemental and ridiculous for no good reason. Those sites, in my mind, exist to ring fence their behaviour and thank heavens they're not obligatory. It's not the bfing or the picking and choosing of guidelines which makes them fools. That's just a subject on which to wax ridiculous. I also don't accept that knowledge of WHO bfing guidelines and the quoting of them precludes you from making a choice not to vaccinate. I think the choice not to vaccinate is a valid one for some people and you can't necessarily draw simple, reductive conclusions.

I bf to natural term. I am currently bfing my 2.1yo. He was until recently completely unvaccinated. I also co-sleep. I also quote the WHO on bfing sometimes.

All of the above are mere factual statements. They tell you very little outside of themselves unless you introduce conjecture.

BFing and vaccinations are different too. They're both about putting something into your child. One is natural, one isn't. For people who bf because it's natural, I suppose I can see why they have the seed of doubt over vaccination already there. And vaccination is about other people's children too so a slightly different fish.