Splenda Contaminates 65% Of Breastmilk Sampled, Gov. Study Finds

A concerning study finds that most of the breast milk samples tested contained artificial sweeteners. Why has this never been discovered until now and what are the implications to our most vulnerable populations? 

An article soon to be published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health on the presence of synthetic sweeteners in breast milk is bound to upset the apple cart when it comes to assessing the toxicological risk of these chemicals to breastfed infants.

In previous articles we have reported extensively on the dangers of artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame and sucralose (aka Splenda), whose presence in tens of thousands of consumer products make exposure to them commonplace.  Despite their present day low-risk regulatory status, we have found highly concerning research that these compounds contribute to a wide range of health conditions such as:

• Brain Damage


• Obesity and Diabetes


• Weight Gain/Overweight


• Addiction

Even more concerning, when Splenda is heated at temperatures that occur in baking applications it produces dioxin, one of the most deadly chemicals known to man. This is a finding that has received almost not attention outside a few scientific studies that we reported on in an article you can familiarize yourself with here: Sucralose’s (Splenda) Harms Vastly Underestimated: Baking Releases Dioxin.

The new study titled, “Nonnutritive Sweeteners in Breast Milk“, was conducted by researchers from the National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda , Maryland , USA. The study abstract is available to read ahead of the study’s full publication later this month:

Nonnutritive Sweeteners in Breast Milk.

J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2015 Aug 12:1-4. [Epub ahead of print]

Sylvetsky AC¹, Gardner AL, Bauman V, Blau JE, Martin Garraffo H, Walter PJ, Rother KI.

Abstract

Nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS), including saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, and acesulfame-potassium, are commonly consumed in the general population, and all except for saccharin are considered safe for use during pregnancy and lactation. Sucralose (Splenda) currently holds the majority of the NNS market share and is often combined with acesulfame-potassium in a wide variety of foods and beverages. To date, saccharin is the only NNS reported to be found in human breast milk after maternal consumption, while there is no apparent information on the other NNS. Breast milk samples were collected from 20 lactating volunteers, irrespective of their habitual NNS intake. Saccharin, sucralose, and acesulfame-potassium were present in 65% of participants’ milk samples, whereas aspartame was not detected. These data indicate that NNS are frequently ingested by nursing infants, and thus prospective clinical studies are necessary to determine whether early NNS exposure via breast milk may have clinical implications.

This groundbreaking study has found for the first time that sucralose and acesulfame-potassium survive maternal metabolism and enter into breast milk in the majority of the breast milk samples tested (65%).  As is the case for many chemicals released into the human food supply, adequate proof of the safety of these compounds in infants is not only not available, but unethical to perform in human subjects. This is one justification for the use of surrogate risk assessments using animals, such as the animal LD50 model, whereby a chemical is tested by determining the amount needed to kill 50% of rodents within a relatively short time frame (so-called “acute toxicity”), and then deducing from that data an “acceptable level of harm” to humans primarily by adjusting for body weight differences between rodents and humans. This system, of course, is extremely primitive, and does not account for low-dose, chronic exposures; nor does it account for the synergistic toxicities of multiple exposures occurring simultaneously in real-world situations, such as the study above.

Clearly, if these artificial sweeteners are being passed directly to newborns through breast milk, and there is no assurance of their safety, an immediate halt to their use by those wishing to conceive, are pregnant, or breastfeeding should be initiated by regulators. Anything less than obeisance to the precautionary principle could be considered a violation of informed consent, and evidence o culpability shared by manufacturers and regulators to for the harm done to exposed populations.

This new study will represent something of a litmus test as far as determining how effectively the media will keep this information buried or will report accurately on it once it is released. Given the high gravitas government source of the research, and the profound implications it has to the health of our most susceptible population: newborns and infants, if it goes un- or under-reported it is our job to make sure it gets widespread exposure. Therefore please share this information and relevant links above with relevant parties and stakeholders who should be aware of the true dangers associated with the use of artificial sweeteners.

The post Splenda Contaminates 65% Of Breastmilk Sampled, Gov. Study Finds appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Breastfeeding: A Natural Way to Prevent Endometrial Cancer

Endometrial cancer, otherwise known as uterine cancer, is the fourth most common cancer in women in high-income countries, including the United States, Canada, and Australia. There’s no shortage of things you shouldn’t do if you want to avoid cancer, such as using tobacco or drinking alcohol. As some research points out, another thing women can do to lower their risk of endometrial cancer is to breastfeed their babies.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that women exclusively breastfeed for the first 6 months of their child’s life and then continue to do so after introducing solid food to their baby. The United Nations also notes how ‘breastfeeding is directly linked to reducing the death toll of children under five,’ encouraging women around the world to breastfeed.

Susan Jordan of the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute in Brisbane, Australia, told Reuters:

“Cancer of the uterus is becoming more common and we need to try to prevent it. The more women know about the things they can do to reduce their risks of future cancer diagnosis, the better.” [1]

Jordan and her colleagues teamed up to investigate possible correlations between breastfeeding and endometrial cancer. They analyzed data from 17 studies participating in the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium. Ten of the studies were from the U.S., and the others were from Canada, Europe, China, and Australia. Data were available from over 26,000 mothers, including 9,000 with endometrial cancer. The team searched for whether the women breastfed and, if so, for how long. [1]

The researchers found that breastfeeding for any period of time lowered the risk of endometrial cancer and that mothers who breastfed for the recommended six months decreased their risk even further. Breastfeeding beyond nine months appeared to offer no additional benefit. However, women who breastfed their children for any length of time lowered their risk of endometrial cancer by 11% compared to those who had children but didn’t nurse them at all.

Said Jordan:

“Although this piece of evidence by itself may not convince women to breast-feed, it contributes to the overall picture of health gains that can come from breast-feeding.” [1]

Jordan explained:

“Breast-feeding has consistently been found to be associated with reduced risk of breast cancer. This provides evidence of another long-term health benefit for women who breast-feed for more than six months.” [2]

The protective effects of breastfeeding remained, even after the researchers accounted for age, race, education, oral contraceptive use, menopausal status, years since last pregnancy, and body mass index.

Source: The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

In women born after 1950, breastfeeding reduced the risk of endometrial cancer by 28%, but the risk reduction was negligible among women born before then, possibly reflecting differences in breastfeeding practices. For example, in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s, breastfeeding rates were considerably lower than in recent decades. [2]

The study does not prove cause and effect, the researchers wrote. But it would make sense that breastfeeding would lower the risk of endometrial cancer, as this type of the disease is fueled by estrogen. Breastfeeding suppresses the hormone.

Jordan said:

“The message is not only relevant for women making decisions about breast-feeding but also for society to understand the benefits so we can support women to breast-feed for reasonably long periods of time.

However, it’s not always possible for women to breast-feed, so it should also be noted that just because a woman chooses not to or can’t breast-feed, it doesn’t mean she’ll go on to develop cancer.” [2]

Jordan and her colleagues have also teamed up with international collaborators to study the effects of breastfeeding on ovarian cancer risk. In addition, the scientists are investigating other factors that may influence endometrial cancer risks, including specific medications. [2]

Breastfeeding has also been linked to numerous other health benefits, including prevention of heart disease.

Sources:

[1] Reuters/Fox News

[2] The Washington Post

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Chemicals Banned in Kids’ Toys Found in Mac and Cheese

Boxed macaroni and cheese is often a favorite food among youngsters, but a recent study suggests the packaged food contains dangerous, endocrine-disrupting chemicals that have been banned in toys: phthalates. [1]

Phthalates are a group of toxic additives in plastics. They’re used to make plastics soft and flexible, and are commonly found in artificial fragrances, inks, coatings, adhesives, and other consumer and industrial products, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) explains.

These chemicals are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in equipment and materials for food handling, processing, and packaging. Because of this, phthalates often wind up in high-fat, highly-processed foods.

The Coalition for Safer Food Processing & Packaging – which includes the NRDC – recently sent a small sample of mac and cheese and other popular cheese-food items for laboratory testing, and received some unsettling results.

Phthalates were found in 10 varieties of macaroni and cheese, including 8 out of 9 Kraft products. [2]

It’s Time to Remove Phthalates from Food Products

The coalition believes the federal government should step in to regulate and ultimately ban phthalates, but since that is unlikely to happen anytime soon, the onus is on Kraft Heinz to remove phthalates from its food products.

Kraft not only has the largest market for powdered cheese in the industry, but the company has taken action in the past to remove unsafe ingredients from its products (largely due to increasing consumer pressure). For example, in 2016, the company quietly removed artificial dyes from its Mac & Cheese recipe and replaced them with paprika, annatto, and turmeric.

In total, the coalition tested 30 samples – 10 cheese powder, 5 sliced cheese, and 15 natural cheese samples – and 29 of them were found to contain phthalates. Some of the products tested were labeled organic. The highest levels of phthalates were found in the powdered macaroni and cheese samples.

Mike Belliveau, the executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center, said:

“The phthalates concentrations in powder from mac and cheese mixes were more than 4 times higher than in block cheese and other natural cheeses like shredded cheese, string cheese, and cottage cheese.” [3]

These chemicals are accidentally making their way into the food system, via processing and packaging. It’s not that Kraft workers are standing over giant vats of powdered cheese, dumping phthalates into them. The key to keeping dangerous substances out of the bellies of hungry kiddos is to ensure safer food processing and packaging methods are in place. [2]

The European Union (EU) has already taken the crucial step of banning phthalates in food contact materials.

Coalition member Peter Lehner said in a statement:

“Parents and their children should not have to wait longer to know that their food does not contain toxic chemicals. We are asking manufacturers to act now.”

No word from Kraft Heinz just yet.

Tom Neltner, the chemicals policy director for the Environmental Defense Fund, said:

“A chemical is not allowed in food unless there is a reasonable certainty it will cause no harm. We don’t think the FDA can say there is a reasonable certainty of no harm.” [3]

Phthalate Dangers

Once you consume phthalates, they can travel through your bloodstream to your organs. Prenatal phthalate exposure is especially concerning, since the chemicals can easily cross from the mother’s body into the placenta. Phthalates can also wind up in breast milk. [1]

Researchers have linked prenatal phthalate exposure to impaired neurological development in children, lower IQ, learning and memory impairment, and antisocial behavior. Boys that are exposed to phthalates in-utero run the risk of genital defects.

In 2008, Congress prohibited the use of DEHP, a chemical known to negatively affect the development of the testicles and the production of normal sperm in young animals, in toys and childcare products. It is considered a “gender-bending” chemical because it can cause males of all species to adopt more female traits.

In 2015, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) proposed a ban on several additional phthalates used in toys and other children’s products, but the proposal has yet to be finalized.

A report released in late 2015 showed that more than 81% of 164 dollar-store products tested contained concerning levels of at least 1 toxic chemical. Everything from toys to jewelry, to personal care products contained chemicals that were carcinogenic, or otherwise hazardous.

Sources:

[1] Natural Resources Defense Council

[2] New York Daily News

[3] Popsugar

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Environmental Working Group Releases its 2017 Guide to Sunscreens

If you’re planning to spend summer days by the pool or beach-side, you’ll likely reach for a bottle of sunscreen to prevent you from becoming red and crispy. These products are not all created equal, however, and it can be difficult to know what to purchase when you’re staring at the multitude of options available at the supermarket. Thankfully, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has put out a list of the best and worst sunscreens every year since 2007 to help you decide.

This year, nearly ¾ of the products EWG examined offered inferior sun protection, or contained ingredients that can harm humans and/or the environment. One of those ingredients is oxybenzone, an endocrine-disrupting chemical which has also been linked to coral reef deaths.

The group says it has discovered a dramatic increase in the availability of mineral-only sunscreens, up from 17% of products in 2007 to 34% in 2017. Zinc oxide and titanium oxide products typically get positive reviews, as they are more stable in sunlight, offer a better balance between protection from both UVA and UVB rays, and rarely contain potentially harmful additives.

EWG says on its website that it remains concerned that a common sunscreen additive, a form of vitamin A called retinyl palmitate, can harm skin. It notes that government test data shows more skin tumors and lesions on animals treated with retinyl palmitate. Fortunately, the use of this potentially hazardous ingredient in sunscreen has decreased greatly – from nearly 40% of products in 2007, to just 14% of products reviewed in 2017.

Read: Synthetic Vitamin A Found in Sunscreens Linked to Skin Cancer

It should be noted that EWG considers sunscreen a last resort, behind the following protective measures:

• Wearing clothing, which can reduce your risk of suffering a nasty sunburn by 27%;

• Planning your day around the sun – the sun is lower in the sky and there is less of a burn risk early in the morning and in the late afternoon;

• Finding or making shade, which can reduce the risk of multiple burns by 30%;

• Sunglasses, which protect the eyes from UV rays;

• Checking the UV index.

Of course if you know that you’ll be out in the sun for any extended period of time, I’d still recommend using sunscreen over turning into a lobster and suffering from UV damage.

Concerning Chemicals

Source: Yahoo Health

• Oxybenzone is the EWG’s biggest concern health-wise, and for good reason. The endocrine disruptor is pervasive and has been detected in nearly every American. It has also been detected in breast milk. Oxybenzone is associated with relatively high rates of skin allergy.

• Octinoxate (Octylmethoxycinnamate) has been detected in breast milk, is an endocrine disruptor, and has been shown to alter animals’ behavior and thyroids in studies. It is associated with moderate rates of skin allergy.

• Homosalate has been found in mothers’ milk; disrupts estrogen, androgen, and progesterone; and leaves behind toxic breakdown products.

• Octocrylene has shown up in breast milk, and is associated with relatively high rates of skin allergy.

A High SPF Doesn’t Always Mean More Protection

If you’re light-haired and fair-skinned, you should not assume that a higher SPF sunscreen offers significantly more protection than a lower one. EWG writes on its website:

“Theoretically, applying sunscreen with a sun protection factor, or SPF, of 100 would allow beachgoers to bare their skin 100 times longer before suffering a sunburn. Someone who would normally redden after 30 minutes in the midday sun could stay out for 50 hours.

But for high-SPF sunscreens, theory and reality are two different things. Many studies have found that people are misled by the claims on high-SPF sunscreen bottles. They are more likely to use high-SPF products improperly and as a result may expose themselves to more harmful ultraviolet radiation than people relying on products with lower SPF values.”

An SPF 100 product should – theoretically – provide twice as much protection as an SPF 50 sunscreen. But, in truth, the difference is negligible. A sunscreen with an SPF of 50 blocks 98% of UVB rays, while an SPF 100 blocks 99%. If you apply a sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or a little more , you should be adequately protected from developing a sunburn, no matter how fair you are.

Source: The New York Times

High-SPF products may come with greater health risks, as well. These sunscreens require higher concentrations of sun-filtering chemicals than low-SPF sunscreens, and these chemicals have been linked to tissue damage and potential hormone disruption, not to mention skin allergies. The risks simply aren’t worth it – they don’t do a better job of protecting you.

Which Sunscreens You Should buy

This year, Environmental working Group gave 239 beach and sport sunscreens a green rating, the highest rating assigned to products by the group. There are also 239 green-rated sunscreen lotions for kids.

EWG also lists the worst of the worst sunscreens in its report, which includes recognizable names such as Banana Boat, Coppertone, CVS Health, Equate (Wal-Mart brand), and Neutrogena.

Source:

Environmental Working Group’s Guide to Sunscreens

Image Sources:

The New York Times

Yahoo Health

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Researchers: Delay Breastfeeding To “Improve” Vaccination?

Over the course of the past few years we have been gathering studies from the US National Library of Medicine on the adverse, unintended health effects of vaccination, in an attempt to offset the one-sided propaganda foisted upon the public, namely, that all vaccines are unequivocally “safe” and “effective” a priori.

Along the way, we happened upon a 2010 study published in the Journal of Pediatric Infections & Diseases which has been shared more than any other article on our database, and which suggests that breastfeeding should be delayed in order to prevent immune factors within breast milk from deactivating vaccine-associated antibody titer elevations and “vaccine potency.” The concluded the study with the following statement:

“INTERPRETATION: The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity in breast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.”

It is not difficult to comprehend what caused the flurry of interest in this study. Readers were obviously disturbed by the suggestion that women in the underdeveloped world temporarily stop breast feeding (often the only source of infant nutrition) in order to increase the vaccine’s purported “efficacy.”  Are we to assume that these breast milk deprived infants should consume formula in the interim, a synthetic ‘breastmilk alternative’ that has been linked to over 60 serious health conditions, as well as increased infant mortality?  And to what end? So that the vaccine can generate a temporary spike in antibody production, which is no measure of real-world effectiveness? [See: Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines]

First, it should be made clear that the term “efficacy,” when used in the context of a vaccine’s antibody-elevating effects, does not equate to effectiveness, i.e. whether or not a vaccine actually works in real life to protect against the infectious agent of concern.

It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing “efficacy” with “effectiveness”) which convinces most of the “developed” world that vaccine research is “evidence-based” and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is primarily a highly successful business enterprise dependent on defrauding its “customers” of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by “health experts,” and the manufacturers who produce, them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be overestimated or understated.

Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a bee hive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the “efficacy” (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern, can not be guaranteed; nor must the vaccine researchers prove antibody-antigen affinity to receive FDA approval.

Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating “false flag” responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A, so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection – and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus. Truth be told, there is actually a shocking lack of evidence to support flu vaccines, in any age or population.

What’s worse, the vaccine response can “blow back” causing loss of self-tolerance and, via the resultant Th2 dominant immune system, the body can attack itself (auto-immunity).  In the meantime, the first line of defense against infection (Th1) is compromised and this “front door” can be left wide open to unmet infectious challenges.

It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not.  One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the developing infant by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.

In the same way that secretory IgA from breast milk deactivates a broad range of “natural” antigenic challenges for the infant, this breast milk derived, indispensable immune factor also deactivates the inherently disruptive and immunotoxic antibody-generating vaccine antigens and adjuvants. Rather than view this as the “enemy,” the reduction in antibodies that accompanies a well-nourished breastfed infant’s blood work, after the highly invasive and unnatural introduction of a vaccine, is a sign of health, not disease.

This study struck a deep psychic chord out there. Images of phallic syringes stabbing away jealously at the symbolic breast of Nature come to mind, as the increasingly invasive ethos of modern medicine — always attempting to “improve on Nature” — drives us sick, mentally and physically. Can’t we just leave the timeless wisdom of mothering and nourishing that is woven into the mother-infant dyad alone?

© April 24, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

Researchers: Delay Breastfeeding To “Improve” Vaccination?

Over the course of the past few years we have been gathering studies from the US National Library of Medicine on the adverse, unintended health effects of vaccination, in an attempt to offset the one-sided propaganda foisted upon the public, namely, that all vaccines are unequivocally “safe” and “effective” a priori.

Along the way, we happened upon a 2010 study published in the Journal of Pediatric Infections & Diseases which has been shared more than any other article on our database, and which suggests that breastfeeding should be delayed in order to prevent immune factors within breast milk from deactivating vaccine-associated antibody titer elevations and “vaccine potency.” The concluded the study with the following statement:

“INTERPRETATION: The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity in breast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.”

It is not difficult to comprehend what caused the flurry of interest in this study. Readers were obviously disturbed by the suggestion that women in the underdeveloped world temporarily stop breast feeding (often the only source of infant nutrition) in order to increase the vaccine’s purported “efficacy.”  Are we to assume that these breast milk deprived infants should consume formula in the interim, a synthetic ‘breastmilk alternative’ that has been linked to over 60 serious health conditions, as well as increased infant mortality?  And to what end? So that the vaccine can generate a temporary spike in antibody production, which is no measure of real-world effectiveness? [See: Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines]

First, it should be made clear that the term “efficacy,” when used in the context of a vaccine’s antibody-elevating effects, does not equate to effectiveness, i.e. whether or not a vaccine actually works in real life to protect against the infectious agent of concern.

It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing “efficacy” with “effectiveness”) which convinces most of the “developed” world that vaccine research is “evidence-based” and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is primarily a highly successful business enterprise dependent on defrauding its “customers” of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by “health experts,” and the manufacturers who produce, them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be overestimated or understated.

Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a bee hive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the “efficacy” (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern, can not be guaranteed; nor must the vaccine researchers prove antibody-antigen affinity to receive FDA approval.

Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating “false flag” responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A, so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection – and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus. Truth be told, there is actually a shocking lack of evidence to support flu vaccines, in any age or population.

What’s worse, the vaccine response can “blow back” causing loss of self-tolerance and, via the resultant Th2 dominant immune system, the body can attack itself (auto-immunity).  In the meantime, the first line of defense against infection (Th1) is compromised and this “front door” can be left wide open to unmet infectious challenges.

It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not.  One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the developing infant by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.

In the same way that secretory IgA from breast milk deactivates a broad range of “natural” antigenic challenges for the infant, this breast milk derived, indispensable immune factor also deactivates the inherently disruptive and immunotoxic antibody-generating vaccine antigens and adjuvants. Rather than view this as the “enemy,” the reduction in antibodies that accompanies a well-nourished breastfed infant’s blood work, after the highly invasive and unnatural introduction of a vaccine, is a sign of health, not disease.

This study struck a deep psychic chord out there. Images of phallic syringes stabbing away jealously at the symbolic breast of Nature come to mind, as the increasingly invasive ethos of modern medicine — always attempting to “improve on Nature” — drives us sick, mentally and physically. Can’t we just leave the timeless wisdom of mothering and nourishing that is woven into the mother-infant dyad alone?

© April 24, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.