FROM THE SUBSTACK OF “A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR” TITLED: THE FORGOTTEN SIDE OF MEDICINE
I then came across a passage from “How to Raise a Healthy Child In Spite of Your Doctor,” (written in 1987 by one of the original medical dissidents—Robert S. Mendelsohn) which stated the growth charts were extremely inaccurate (e.g., that they did not take into account a wide range of genetic variabilities in weight or that breast fed babies weighed less than formula fed ones) and that:
What their doctor doesn’t tell them is that this [weighing] ritual has no medical significance whatsoever. They aren’t told that some formula manufacturer was probably the source of the growth chart the doctor is using, and that he gets them free. That leads to an obvious question: Why are the formula makers so eager to have your doctor check your baby’s weight? Answer: Because the weight gain of breastfed babies may not match the average weights shown on the formula maker’s chart. They hope that the pediatrician, instead of reassuring the mother that this is normal and nonthreatening, will tell her to stop breastfeeding and switch to their product, of which he has a handy reminder in his hand. Too often, that si exactly what he does, and the baby is subsequently denied the immunity and other benefits that breastfeeding provides.
Given Mendelsohn’s accuracy, integrity, and knowledge as an insider, I was quite intrigued about this and discovered that during his career, many dubious weight charts had circulated around, and that it was not until 1977 that the US government made a standardized one. Following this, in 2000, the CDC made a chart using the average weights of American children (who were often on formula), and in 2006, the WHO made a chart using the weights of children who had been breastfed. The CDC chart (which is what’s often used in the United States) in turn, was recognized to be more prone to classify children as being underweight.
Below age 24 months, the revised [CDC] weight-for-age curves are generally higher than in the 1977 charts. This will result in more frequently classifying infants as underweight. Similarly, this shift would be expected to result in lower comparative estimates of overweight when the revised charts are used.
As expected, there are important differences between the WHO and CDC charts that vary by age group, growth indicator, and specific Z-score curve. Differences are particularly important during infancy, which is likely due to differences in study design and characteristics of the sample, such as type of feeding. Overall, the CDC charts reflect a heavier, and somewhat shorter, sample than the WHO sample. This results in lower rates of undernutrition (except during the first 6 mo of life) and higher rates of overweight and obesity when based on the WHO standards. Healthy breast-fed infants track along the WHO standard’s weight-for-age mean Z-score while appearing to falter on the CDC chart from 2 mo onwards.
Thus, the scam was:
•Infant formula is composed of ingredients that will make children overweight and obese (the first ingredient is often corn syrup and then followed by seed oils).
•Children who have been made overweight from the formula are the “new normal,” and anyone who weighs less than them is diagnosed as being underweight and pushed to take the formula (e.g., see this 2010 blog postby a pediatrician about it).
In turn, many studies (and systematic reviews) have found formula feeding not only causes rapid weight gain but also makes children much more likely to be obese as adults.1,2,3,4,5,6
As such, formula’s role in the continually increasing childhood obesity rates(e.g., 19.7% in 2020) must be considered (but unfortunately we are instead “solving” it by putting children on Ozempic—a drug which has a great deal of issues).
Later, I got in touch with one of the (now retired) doctors Mendelsohn mentored, who shared a few other important things with me:
(more)
