Breastfeeding? Not natural, not better

I can’t believe how far this SJW influence has come.
They will happily ruin people’s lives for the sake of politics.
Breastfeeding is the definition of natural, it’s a condition of being mammal, and every reasonable study conducted has proven it is better.

A new article in the journal Pediatrics is calling on health professionals to stop saying thatbreastfeeding is natural, arguing that doing so gives the impression that natural parenting practices are healthier. The authors have started a public campaign to end the positive use of the word natural, claiming that it is associated with such “problematic” practices as home birth, homeschooling and the rejection of GMO foods, and that natural parenting movements are interfering with vaccination efforts.

In the article, Unintended Consequences of Invoking the “Natural” in Breastfeeding Promotion, Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill, Medical Ethics and Health Policy researchers at Penn Medicine, wrote:

Building on this critical work, we are concerned about breastfeeding promotion that praises breastfeeding as the “natural” way to feed infants. This messaging plays into a powerful perspective that “natural” approaches to health are better… Promoting breastfeeding as “natural” may be ethically problematic, and, even more troublingly, it may bolster this belief that “natural” approaches are presumptively healthier.

They are generally healthier than what humans can come up with artificially, because evolution. EVOLUTION. For example, natural pesticides turned out to be better than DDT. Say sorry to the parents and deformed children who trusted expert opinion. Not close enough to pediatrics? How about thalidomide? What about the cancer risk of hormonal pills including birth control? Future fertility side effects and miscarriage/abortion risk?

Not even real doctors. Ethicists. Who have no problem with trashing the Hippocratic Oath on abortion, euthanasia (both eugenic operations) and still-living organ donations.

They removed this line from the modern oath: “Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.” Vaccines (esp. adjuvants) and abortion/chemical contraception, right there. n.b. It is little-known that hormonal ‘birth control’ doesn’t stop you from getting pregnant, it stops you from staying pregnant. No wonder it’s meant to be temporary (just a few short years) or there are serious fertility risks.

The Japanese did better in the 16th century. “You should not kill living creatures, nor should you admire hunting or fishing. In our school, teaching about poisons is prohibited, nor should you receive instructions about poisons from other physicians. Moreover, you should not give abortives to the people.”

What about making the ethicists financially accountable for this BS? Would they say it if millions of people could sue them for being wrong? Why can you sue the doctor but not the person they’re taking expert advice from?
Think I’m kidding? What about the toxins that can find their way into baby formula and are seldom recalled? What about how you’re not supposed to use tap water to mix it up, but they never actually tell you that, so your baby gets poisoned/OD’d with fluoride when it doesn’t even have teeth? What about the bonding and the microbial protection from the mother’s skin-to-skin contact? Can these people be sued for the consequences of their orders? Make no mistake, they are trying to order people about what to do in their own personal (medical) lives, they’re even trying to order around doctors, despite being less qualified.

Where’s the accountability?