Why Breast Milk Offers Spectacular Protection Against SIDS

“Breast milk is NOT just food.

“Breast milk has functions which go far beyond nutrition.

“Breast milk has a dramatic and long term effect not only on the immune system development, but gut flora, allergy, brain development, and other health parameters.

“Breast milk is an immune regulator, a hormone conductor, a bone density wizard and a genetic blueprint scanner.

“It is a gene methylator, and two years of breast milk lays, stabilises and solidifies the core genetic manual of health for your child, for that child’s whole life.

“Add stem cells to that list.”

“Read full article HERE”

Butler provides the science shwing why breast milk is protective against SIDS and many diseases, but then she goes further and is equally clear in showing baby formula is associated with SIDS.

“One bottle of formula is enough to change a baby’s gut dramatically, and it takes two weeks of breastfeeding to return the gut back to normal. (Personal communication, Dr Robert Reisinger) How can this happen? E Coli is the main culprit. This bacteria is a putrifactive protein loving bacteria. The protein content of human breast milk is lower than in any other mammal, and the protein content of formula or any other milk supplement has a direct influence on the numbers of E Coli in the gut . Not only does the acid gut and very low protein content of breastmilk provide a more hostile environment for E Coli, but breastmilk also contain neutralising factors against E Coli.

“Several studies have shown that babies who died of SIDS have a high prevalence of E Coli in the flora of the gut. Some suggest that the E coli “have acquired a plasmid which confers toxigenicity” (Med J Aust, 1989, Vol 151, pg 538) But E. Coli is intrinsically toxic. The outer coating (lipopolysaccharide) is the toxic component, but the key to the toxicity level is the speed with which it can multiply, given the right circumstances. These factors include bottle feeding (which results in more gram negative bacteria, and a protein and alkaline level favouring E Coli), stress, overheating, viruses, vitamin deficiencies AND the suppressive actions of vaccines on the reticuloendothelial system.” [Emphasis added.]

Many mothers have trusted what the government has said, that SIDS results from putting babies down on their stomachs, and is not about vaccines, and point to vaccines increasing and yet SIDS starting to go down after families began putting babies down on their backs. The problem is that reduction in SIDS as vaccines were increasing, based on a statistical trick.

From Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, written by yet another mother into serious research.

“According to the Miller/Goldman study, SIDS deaths have increased in a linear fashion with the number of vaccines administered. At 12 vaccines the number of total infant deaths was around 3 per 1000 children. Double the number of vaccines and you almost double the death rate (see this graph for details). These researchers challenge the idea that the SIDS rate dropped in the 1990′s, claiming instead that the dip was due to infant deaths being re-classified as other Sudden Unexpected Infant Deaths and later Shaken Baby Syndrome (which is thought to be vaccine-induce encephalitis).” [Emphasis added along with an article on the biomechanics of Shaken Baby Syndrome - Shaken Baby Syndrome: actual innocence petition by Kent R. Holcomb]

If mothers add together the deaths from SIDS and the new category – SUID – they can see how many babies die each year of “unexplained” deaths. Many of the deaths are closely related in timing to the administration of vaccines, and all infant deaths have risen, as the Miller/Goldman study indicates, with the imposition of more and more vaccines.

While it may be shocking to think the government would create a false picture of vaccine deaths by simply dividing the deaths into additional categories, a similar statistical trick with diagnostic categories was used with polio, from the very beginning. To promote the introduction of the polio vaccine, polio was made to appear a terrible threat by lumping cases of paralysis from other sources together (aseptic meningitis and Coxsackie virus paralysis were combined polio data). After the polio vaccine came out, the other diseases were stripped away from polio cases, so “polio” appeared to dramatically decrease. From The Polio Game:

“Polio cases were predetermined to decrease when the medical definition of polio was changed. Cases of polio were more often reported as aseptic meningitis after the vaccine was introduced, skewing efficacy rates. Source: The Los Angeles County Health Index: Morbidity and Mortality, Reportable Diseases.

“The fact that dubious tactics were used to fabricate efficacy rates was corroborated by Dr. Bernard Greenberg, chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s. …. simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease… [52:96,97]”

A large scale alteration of numbers that would indicate a complete failure vaccines and their causing the disease they are meant to prevent, is occurring in Asia right now, where 47,500 cases of vaccine-induced polio were reclassified by the WHO as “non-polio” paralysis. The WHO is hiding the falsity and grave harm from Bill Gates’ vaccine campaign while generating a myth that polio is being eradicated, when it is being spread by the vaccines.

But what are mothers supposed to think when governments say “vaccines are safe and diseases are terrifying”? Most do not know that polio was never a scourge or that it was being fulled cured and quickly in 1949? Do they know the same substance has been proven to cure over 70 infectious diseases – all the ones mothers are told they should fear – or that the FDA, which is is working with the pharmaceutical industry to put it out of reach? Mothers can do research as Butler has done, and they can do what mothers have always done – talk to each other, and listen with open hearts to other mothers whose families have been affected, rather than to Bill Gates who has said the those who even question vaccine safety are killing children.

At this point, we know that the government is not telling the truth about many things. A significant government falsehood which relates to vaccines, is the number of annual deaths from flu. They are not 36,000 as the CDC has said, but 18 (and that 18 is not even certain). On the basis of that CDC 200000% exaggeration, flu shots which potentially cause infertility and certainly fetal deaths, were pushed on the public and are being mandated, while the EU and Canada have suspended its use because it doesn’t work. Thanks to a woman researcher who used Freedom of Information in the UK, we know that the government there has been lying to the public about vaccines (the same ones given in the US) for over 30 years. They have hidden the facts that vaccines don’t work, that they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent, that they contain hazards, and that the government has prevented safety studies and colluded with industry in lying to the public about safety.

While all of this has been going on, nursing mothers have been quietly protecting and strengthening their children’s immune system so they can successfully fight off diseases themselves.

It is in this context that one sees the extraordinary thing Hilary Butler is doing in exposing that breast milk protects against SIDS because she is offering mothers something real they can do actually do to protect their babies. She has changed the discussion about breast feeding or bottle feeding from one of “just personal choice” to one of profound medical seriousness. Mothers, in knowing the extremely immunologic requirement that infants and children have for breast milk, will not choose convenience over the life of their child. Nor will mothers remain silent in letting other mothers know how much is at stake.

Until now, how many mothers have had even the slightest idea how starkly biologically different breast feeding and bottle feeding are? Or ever heard anyone, with a grounding in the science of those differences, say adamantly to never, never, never give formula, not even one bottle?

[Butler reports at as early as 1974,] “Dr Robert Reisinger presented a paper at an International SIDS conference. He quoted many authors who found SIDS predominantly among bottle-fed babies. Included in the authors quoted (but not referenced) was Shirley Tonkin from New Zealand:

“Tonkin reported that in her series of 86 SIDS cases, only two were breast-fed. Since twenty-five percent of her control population were breast fed, she should have had 21 cases of SIDS in breast-fed infants if the risk were the same in both breast-fed and bottle-fed.”

“Coombs stated that if SIDS were relatively as common in the breast-fed as in the bottle-fed infant he should have had 17 breast-fed cases in his series, whereas at that time he had not one.” [Emphasis added.]

[And things have gone downhill with formula since then. For at that time, in 1974, there was no genetic engineering of crops. Then the relation between bottle feeding and SIDS was based on formula lacking the protective quality of breast milk and disrupting the gut flora. But now, unless organic, commercial baby formula is toxic by virtue of using genetically engineered ingredients - from milk from cows injected with a genetically modified bovine growth hormone which is linked to breast cancer, or milk from cows eating genetically modified corn, soy or canola associated with infertility and miscarriages or spontaneous abortions, or from soy linked to causing sterility and infant mortality in hamsters. New Zealand is seeking to ban soy baby formula.]

What is there about breast milk that can make such a difference?

Butler points out that

“The immune system of a breast-fed baby functions differently to that of a bottle-fed baby. One of the foremost researchers into breast-feeding, and its effects on the immune system is Dr Catherina Svanborg at Lund University in Sweden. A recent article in DISCOVER described her work as follows:

“she and her group had studied the nature and function of epithelial cells, the gut-lining cells that come into contact with breast milk in nursing infants. And they experimented with mothers’ milk many times. They had shown that it does a terrific job of blocking infection by pneumococcus bacteria, the cause of pneumonia, and that breast-fed children suffer significantly fewer ear and upper respiratory tract infections than babies who don’t nurse. They traced down studies showing that breast milk also protects against cancer (the relative risk of childhood lymphoma is nine times higher in bottle-fed infants), and the risk for carcinoma is also elevated.”

“In August 1995 they announced that breast milk kills cancer cells and pinpointed the killer, which turned out to be one of the most abundant proteins in the milk. It’s called alpha-lactalbumin (alpha lac for short), and it helps produce lactose, the sugar found in milk.”

Butler says that “The key to the explanation of how breastmilk kills cancer lies in the breakneck reproduction of the cells lining an infant’s gut which can proliferate out of control, or never fully mature or stabilize, lurking in the system like time bombs, ever ready to burst forth into tumours. According to Dr Svanborg, alpha-lac;”

“targets not only cancer cells but all kinds of immature, rapidly growing cells, and leaves mature stable cells alone.”

Butler highlights even more wonders of breast milk.

“DISCOVER mentions another key to the equation, a “mysterious” factor in breast-milk which along with the acid level of the milk solution, causes a shape-shift, and transforms alpha-lac into HAMLET (Human Alpha-lactalbumin Made Lethal to Tumor cells) which will be the subject of a future medical article from Lund University. The team is now exploring how to turn HAMLET into a usable treatment for cancer and bacterial infections.

“Along with all that, they confirmed that not only was breastmilk related to possible enhancement of cognitive development, it also protected the baby from [the following protections have been put in list form to accentuate how much breastmilk does:]

• diarrhoa,

• lower respiratory infections,

• otitis media,

• bacteremia,

• bacterial meningitis,

• urinary tract infection,

• necrotizing enterocolitis,

• sudden infant death syndrome,

• insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus,

• Crohn’s disease,

• colitis, and

• allergic diseases.

The immune system impact, Butler considers most significant: “More importantly, breast-feeding may induce an infant’s immune system to mature more quickly that that of a formula-fed child, and the intestines develop faster in newborns that nurse on mothers’ milk. The article further states that the only babies who should not be breastfed are babies who inherit a condition called galactosemia, and whose mothers have TB or HIV. (DISCOVER June 1999, pages 70 –75). The most important statement to understand is this”:

“Because the lining of the gut, a prime meeting point between the inside of the body and the hazards of the outside world, is a headquarters of the immune system, the vigilance may help the child’s immune defenses develop.” Pgs 72-73. [That is, it is valuable for the child to have to cope with viruses and bacteria, which provide the learning required by the immune system.]

She points to more research on breast feeding and its substantial, unique, and numerous protective effects:

“We conclude that breastfeeding is prophylactic against atopic disease – including atopic eczema, food allergy, and respiratory allergy – throughout childhood and adolescence” (Lancet 1995;346: 1065-69)

“Human milk is rich in protective proteins which play a part in the prevention of microbial infection in suckling infants. These include IgA, lactoferrin, lysozyme, antiproteases, complement, and many other factors.” (Arch Dis child 1998;87:235-239)

“Children who are not breast fed tend to have weaker immune systems and are at greater risk from infectious diseases” (BMJ, 1999, Volume 318, pg 688)

“Breastfeeding may, in addition to the well-known passive protection against infections during lactation, have a unique capacity to stimulate the immune system of the offspring possibl[y] with several long-term positive effects” (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1998; 81: 523-537

“Breastfed babies have a better inteferon~ y production (marker of Th1 response) than bottle-fed babies (Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, 1998, Volume 81, pg 527) Anti-idiotypic antibodies as well as T and B lymphocytes are transferred via the milk and seem to actively stimulate the immune system of the offspring – numerous anti-inflammatory factors, cytokines and growth factors in the milk might also direct the immune system of the infants with lasting effects. (pg 529)

Butler’s articles, in bringing this scientific information to mothers, is exposing breast feeding as being of immense as well as pivotal health importance. She is thus raising breast feeding far beyond the vapidity of “personal choice” to absolute biologic necessity. Butler has helped to show that breast feeding is a biologic sine qua non. For nothing else has such a critical and powerfully beneficial effect on the health of a human being for their entire life as breast feeding. That raises breast feeding to a place of grandeur, medically.

That a breast feeding mother can through her breastmilk alone set the course of her child’s health for life as well as protect it from birth from a long list of diseases is spectacular. Breast feeding has deserved to be heralded not just by families and all of society but by science itself. But breastfeeding mothers have never had that acclaim. Worse, in the absence of awareness of what breastfeeding is actually doing to protect from diseases, and how vaccines interfere, the world has been grossly misled into believing vaccines are “immunizing” children (even as vaccines are damaging children’s immune systems). And mothers have unwittingly used baby formula, which is literally harmful. One result has been SIDS.

That said, it would be grossly unfair to mothers who have sued formula to blame them for not breastfeeding. For mothers who have some idea that breast milk is more beneficial than baby formula, have had no inkling that breast milk is an imperative for orchestrating and setting the life0long course of the immune system of their baby . This momentous information has been absent, along with information on the negative effects of baby formula.

So, though nursing is gaining in popularity, most mothers are deciding whether or not to breast feed or not, within a context in which they lack the most vital information possible. They do not know “the choice” is between a normal, highly functioning and life-long immune system, or an immune system thrown toward disease and autoimmunity. Instead, mothers and future mothers are left deciding based on cultural issues, issues of closeness to the baby, issues of work schedules and convenience, issues of their comfort level with nursing itself – denigrated for decades by the medical community, issues of their family or friends’ support, issues of accepting breasts as separate from sexuality, issues of current fashion, etc.

They aren’t being told the truth: Breast milk is the key to regulating what their child needs to survive biologic assaults (including vaccines) and live. Butler says:

“The only neonatal immune system primed today in the correct way is a fully-breast-fed unvaccinated baby.” [Emphasis added.]

Three things are involved here – priming, priming correctly, and not being vaccinated.

1. Bottle feeding doesn’t prime the immune system: Butler says: “Lets be quite blunt here. Breastfeeding not only provides immunity within the milk to many things, it develops, primes and matures the immune system. Bottle-feeding does not.”2. Vaccines negatively affect the immune system, throwing it off course.

From Immunology Today and Modern Vaccinology:

“Modern vaccinations, fear of germs and [o]bsession with hygiene are depriving the immune system of the information input upon which it is dependent. This fails to maintain the correct cytokine balance and fine-tune T-cell regulation, and may lead to increased incidences of allergies and autoimmune diseases.” (Immunology Today, 1998, Vol 19, No 3 pg 113)“Redirection of the immune response following immunization appears to be a fundamental problem ….” Pg 112, “Modern Vaccinology”, By Edouard Kurstak, Pub. 1994.

3. Contracting childhood diseases helps prime the immune system.

From Immunology Today:

“Vaccination replaces recovery from infections with a rather different type of immunological stimulus. … In the measles system [for instance], both vaccination and the infection itself have profound and long-lasting effects on the immune system, but these effects are not the same.”

“For example, recovery from natural measles infection reduces the incidence of atopy ["a predisposition toward developing certain allergic hypersensitivity reactions" - ], and of allergic reactions to house dust mite to half the incidence seen in vaccinated children, suggesting a systemic and non-specific switch to Th1 activity.”

“indeed learning (immunological) is an absolute necessity, and these systems have evolved in the “anticipation” of appropriate inputs provided in an appropriate sequence after birth, and continuing throughout life” [Emphasis added. Comment added: The "inputs provided in an appropriate sequence," are a reference to childhood diseases.]

Mothers need to know this much science – Th1 immunity is good. Th2 immunity is bad.

“The immune system has two “sides”. One is Th1, which is the usual response to diseases caught naturally. A healthy immune system has a “bias” towards Th1. Th2 is the “other” side, and people who have allergies, asthma and disease with an auto-immune origin have what is known as a Th2-skewed immune system. (New England J. Med 1992, Vol 326, No 5, 298-304 was one of the first references, now there are hundreds).

“When a mother is pregnant, her pregnancy is controlled by cytokines, and requires a predominance of Th2 cytokines in order not to reject the baby. (Acta Paediatra 1997; 86: 916-918) A “Th1 driven” immune system would treat the baby as a graft, thereby miscarrying. Drugs are used to suppress the immune systems of transplant recipients for the same reason.

“When a baby is born, it’s immune system is initially Th2-skewed, by virtue of the mother’s immune system. The mother’s immune system changes very quickly, and her breastmilk will help to change the baby’s balance, and will also “buffer” and assist in the development of the baby’s immune system.“ [Emphasis added. And the comment: baby formula will not support the baby in this crucial change.]

“The first years of life [is] the time when the “difference” between “vaccine” and “natural” immunity is so important, because most diseases promote a Th1 immunity. The portal of entry, and learning pathways teaches and matures the immune system, and helps in the prevention of both allergy-development” and auto-immune disease. The “antigen” is processed, with the help of immunological factors in breastmilk and the baby’s cued-in immune system through the mucous membranes and the various “layers” of the immune system, producing an end-point called antibodies.” [Emphasis added. And the comment: The baby's immune system experiences the "learning" through exposure to viruses and bacteria, not through vaccination which throws the infant's immune system in the direction of autoimmunity and allergies.]

Even as mothers are learning how much breast milk is central to their child’s health, how many know their breast milk contains stem cells or the immense significance of that? Butler again.

“Recently, a Lifenews media article announced more recent finding by Hassiotou, that indeed, … breast milk has stem cells by the truck load. Even more spectacularly, these stem cells are identical to embryonic stem cells, so that there is no need for scientists to use ethically questionable aborted babies.

“Naturally, the focus of the medical system appears to be …. harvesting breastmilk for drug companies…. because…… “Human breast milk may be more than just nourishment for newborns. It may contain hope for a multitude of diseases. Hope that does not require the destruction of innocent human life”.

“Hassiotou et al, have not figured out what stem cells in breastmilk are all about in terms of benefits to the baby, but they must suspect some because they say: “Future research should elucidate the role of these cells for the breastfed infant, generating implications for public policy related to early infant nutrition.”

Mothers, put in fear about every little thing related to their new babies, are pressured from the very beginning of their pregnancy to think about storing their infant’s cord blood (at great cost). As hospitals and drug companies stand to make huge profits from this cord clamping (at enormous cost to the infants) Butler has a message for mothers who are confused about what is best for their new baby:

“…. cord blood should not be stored, because the primary reason for stem cells in cord blood is that the baby NEEDS that stem cell transfusion at birth. It’s not “medical waste” as it was once called, … it’s nature’s first stem cell transfusion. These cord blood stem cells can go anywhere in the body, and do anything – because they are pluripotent, and can be used by the body to repair any cells. But only if the baby has them ….”

Mothers are as unaware of the dangers of storing fetal blood versus the necessity of stem cell rich blood going to its owner – the newborn, as they are of the dangers of bottle feeding versus the incomparable medical value of breast feeding. And most have not yet heard that there is yet another life and death difference between breast milk and commercial baby formula. Breast milk has stems cells in it. Bottle feeding lacks stem cells altogether. The astounding stem cell support the infant receives at birth (if the cord is not inappropriately and prematurely clamped) is – equally astoundingly – continued after birth through breast feeding! But with formula, there is nothing that is “pluripotent” or that can “go anywhere in the body, and do anything.” Bottle feeding can’t “used by the body to repair any cells.”

Mothers in the US and around with world are making decisions about breast feeding their babies, while in a separate part of their mind, they are anxious about SIDS and confused about vaccines. They have had no idea these things are related. Whether bottle feeding is a first or second choice for some mothers, whether they are vaccinating or not vaccinating, all new mothers are worried about Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and none has gotten the critical information that bottle feeding and vaccines are strongly associated with it, or that breast feeding can be protective.

Those who are manufacturing vaccines claim vaccines are “miracles of modern medicine,” but science is now exposing that vaccines throw off the immunity of those taking them. “Modern medicine” has been killing infants with vaccines promoted as providing immunity. But it has been “traditional” breastfeeding mothers, through doing something biologically normal – nursing their babies – who are the ones stimulating true immunity in their children. Ironically, mothers delivering breast milk, not doctors injecting vaccines, are the ones preventing diseases and saving lives.