On of the things that I've been working on in my life is understanding and stepping out of -- as well as not creating -- manipulation, relationship triangles. So foremost, I need to call attention to that.
Now, onto your statement. You assert that I misinterpreted it and didn't take it as you intended. So, we'll start there.
As you quoted yourself. . .
This statement requires no difficult or extreme-reach inferences to come to my simple statement/conclusion.”IMO when a child gets to about 6 months of age, to continue to grow at an optimal level, you must introduce solid foods, and this must form a major part of their diet. I am led to believe that up until about 6 months of age breast milk has all the goodies to sustain and nurture said babe, however beyond this point we need to introduce the nutrients that a child needs to survive optimally.”
Your statement very clearly implies that breast milk cannot provide adequate nutrition (loses nutritional quality) for infants after 6 months of age. The next statement then says that their health absolutely requires solid food after this time for optimal growth.
And notice your verbs: must, must, and need. It's a very a strong, prescriptive statement of what must, must, and needs to happen for optimal growth.
And you might also notice the age that you asserted twice: about 6 months of age and up until about 6 months of age. This, again, is very clearly prescriptive in terms of timelines.
As you can see, this is not misinterpretation or falsehood on my part. If you didn't mean this statement, then it's up to you to communicate what you *intend* not for me to divine it from such a strong, prescriptive statement.
I also stand behind my assertion that this statement is "utter nonsense." I supported that strong assertion with evidence from major, mainstream medical and public health organizations as well as lesser known individuals and breastfeeding advocacy organizations.
But then, you change the "meaning" of your statement. Instead of needing food as a major source of nutrition at about 6 months of age, you now state:
This is very different than that a child must be fed solid food at about 6 months because they need it to meet their nutritional needs.I also believe that the child should be deciding when he/she eats solid food
This has two components:however if you do not offer that child a chop, or a morsel off your plate, or a piece of apple etc....
1. it doesn't have any mention of the child's nutritional needs being met by food (as your first statement does); and
2. the whole question is largely stylistic -- different families are going to introduce solids differently.
At the end of the day, if you intended to say "breast milk should be the primary nutrition of infants up to one year, and you should offer solids when the baby demonstrates readiness," then you should have stated so.
But, the statement that you did make was patently false, and it was worth refuting *in that thread* because the topic was about a family who was introducing solids to their infant while simultaneously attempting to maintain and possibly increase breast-milk supply while pumping. It is certainly not inappropriate to refute false information that might inhibit a family's success at increasing and/or maintaining the supply that they *want* in order to continue to provide breastmilk as the primary nutrition for their child -- as every major organization suggests.
Wouldn't you agree? That it's not a personal attack, but truly refuting false information so that a family can succeed at providing breast milk for their child, as they stated was their desire?