Breastmilk: It does a body good. Any body!

This week a blog, called "Don't have a cow, man." took the "lactivist" world by storm when a family announced that the husband was drinking his wifes breastmilk....ONLY breastmilk, no solid food, no other drinks.


Katie, who is a doula, childbirth educator, and lactation educator is one of those amazing women with the ability to pump large quantities of breastmilk.  Because of pumping for her preterm baby, born 9 months ago, she has amassed thousands of ounces of liquid gold in her freezer. When commentors asked why she had kept the milk and hadn't donated it Katie replied:

"About milk banks, they do not want the milk because it is too old, I took Motrin after giving birth, I took Tylenol a few times for headaches, and because I took nutritional supplements. Sick babies on other medications use the donor milk and they are concerned about drug interactions or side effects.
Why don't we pay to ship the milk to another mom? We can not afford to spend the hundreds of dollars that it would cost to ship just a portion of the breast milk. Shipping will be very expensive because it needs to be kept frozen. We are like many other families and are just trying to get by."

So when the family planned a long move and realized the magnitude of trying to move all this milk to another State, her husband Curtis decided to drink the milk himself.

"My wife has hundreds of bottles of frozen breast milk in the freezer that our baby will never have a chance to drink before they get too old. Since breast milk is healthy and we have plenty of it, why not just drink it all myself? In fact, why not drink only breast milk and see how long I can happily make it with no other food?
And yes, I know how weird this may sound, it is kind of weird to me as well but why not? I mean cow milk was made for baby cows, why not drink human breast milk that was made for baby humans?  
The rules:Nothing to eat or drink except breast milk.Blog daily about how I am feeling and how it is going.See how many days I can make it without other food."

I have read their blog, and several other blogs that have commented on it this week, and of course the commentary moves from  "yuck dude!" to  "that milk should be going to babies in need" , but in my mind few have really talked about the issue that stood out for me: The obvious health benefits that Curtis has gained from this "experiment".  Curtis has a history of stomach and digestive problems- from reflux, to vomiting and problems with bowel movements (due to hernia surgery scaring)

Here's the thing:  While Health Canada and all the pediatric societies chant the same Om of "Breast is best", we are still a culture that sees formula feeding as normal.  We hear about the health benefits of breastmilk, yet rarely does the media really report on the reality of the risks of formula. We know that breastmilk is better for babies tummies, yet hospitals, doctors, nurses, and other health care providers still turn to formula as the answer to most breastfeeding problems, without really giving a serious thought to the effects of formula on immature stomachs.

Now suddenly, we have a grown man, with a history of all sorts of stomach ailments, drinking human breastmilk- ONLY human breastmilk.  Three days in and his belly problems are gone. No more reflux, no more vomiting, no more bowel movement problems- not even diarrhea that several people said he'd have.  Here's a grown human, with the ability to speak and reason, telling us how much better his digestive system is feeling.....

....Imagine the difference on a small infant? Incapable of speaking and explaining how their tummy hurts.

I, like many others have said, would love to see this breastmilk going to a baby in need.  I've even messaged Curtis and his wife to ask where they are located to see if I can't guide them find a recipient through Human Milk 4 Human Babies in their area. But even if a family in need isn't found that can afford the shipping and packaging of the milk, I still think that this experiment that they have done has opened doors to other people- to seriously think about the validity of the tremendous health benefits of species specific breastmilk in the area of healing.  Not just in the case of cancer, like the amazing story of Howard Cohen , who was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1999 and has used only breastmilk as his cancer treatment and kept his cancer in remission for 10 years!! , but the healing it can do to the digestive system- especially the digestive systems of fragile infants.  More so, it might make more people aware of the importance that human breastmilk plays on the health of humans of all ages, and give further insight into the dangers of commercial infant formulas.  Parents are constantly inundated with formula ads that grandly announce "Closest formula to breastmilk!".... but when it comes to the health of our babies, is "closest" really good enough?  

Vit D for cancer prevention

More and more studies are coming out proving that Vitamin D might be the greatest single anti-cancer "Drug" of our time and more importantly, the safest anti-cancer "drug"!!!! (Not to mention cheapest too!).  Yet even with all these new studies, and some older studies, the American Cancer Society refuses to admit that Vitamin D is the important addition to everyone's daily regime.  Why would that be?  I mean, Isnt' the ACS interested in reducing life threatening cancers like Breast cancer, colon  and skin cancer and many others.  One would think that that would be their main drive- their main reason for being- yet apparently not.

Let e tell you another story about those people that are suppose to be trying to "cure cancer":

Back in 1990 my grandfather was diagnosed with prostate cancer- SERIOUS prostate cancer- and the doctors didn't give us much hope.  My father contacted a friend of his who had beaten prostate cancer- healed it completely even though it was even further advanced and he had less hope. This friend was completely cured through a series of completely natural treatments and directed him to a group of scientists in the States that had cured him. My father wasted no time trying to contact them. After weeks of phone calls, He finally got a response:  These scientists had been closed down - completely shut down by the government and threatened with legal prosecution and loss of their medical licences (with even worse things being hinted at) if they so much as even hinted at what their anti-cancer therapy consisted of.  My father begged and offered them pretty much anything to help my grandfather, and they refused- no, they disappear.

My grandfather died of Cancer in 1993 after a prolonged battle that left him weaken, miserable and in excruciating pain. So pardon me if I'm a bit jaded against the ACS and the other so called medical associations that are suppose to be supporting and helping people survive atrocious diseases- that are suppose to be looking for "The Cure".....

New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

Friday, June 08, 2007 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com

Exciting new research conducted at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Nebraska has revealed that supplementing with vitamin D and calcium can reduce your risk of cancer by an astonishing 77 percent. This includes breast cancer, colon cancer, skin cancer and other forms of cancer. This research provides strong new evidence that vitamin D is the single most effective medicine against cancer, far outpacing the benefits of any cancer drug known to modern science.

The study involved 1,179 healthy women from rural Nebraska. One group of women was given calcium (around 1500 mg daily) and vitamin D (1100 IU daily) while another group was given placebo. Over four year, the group receiving the calcium and vitamin D supplements showed a 60 percent decrease in cancers. Considering just the last three years of the study reveals an impressive 77 percent reduction in cancer due to supplementation. (The full press release of this study is included below. It provides more details about the findings.)

Note that these astonishing effects were achieved on what many nutritionists consider to be a low dose of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight, which creates even more vitamin D in the body, was not tested or considered, and the quality of the calcium supplements was likely not as high as it could have been (it was probably calcium carbonate and not high-grade calcium malate, aspartate or similar forms). What does all this mean? It means that if you take high-quality calcium supplements and get lots of natural sunlight exposure or take premium vitamin D supplements (such as those made from fish oil), you could easily have a greater reduction than the 77 percent reduction recorded in this study.

American Cancer Society opposes vitamin D

This research on vitamin D is such good news that the American Cancer Society, of course, had to say something against it. An ACS spokesperson, Marji McCullough, strategic director of nutritional epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, flatly stated that nobody should take supplements to prevent cancer.

If it seems surprising to you that the American Cancer Society -- which claims to be against cancer -- would dissuade people from taking supplements that slash their cancer risk by 77 percent, then you don't know much about the ACS. In my opinion, the ACS is an organization that actually prevents prevention and openly supports the continuation of cancer as a way to boost its power and profits. The ACS is the wealthiest non-profit in America and has very close ties to pharmaceutical companies, mammography equipment companies and other corporations that profit from cancer. Notice the name, too: It isn't the American Anti-Cancer Society, it's the American Cancer Society! What they really stand for is right in the name!

Click here to read more about the ACS and its financial ties to chemical companies, pharmaceutical companies and radiology equipment manufacturers.

The cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and I've written extensively about the criminal organizations that protect and promote the industry. Just about everything the public is told about cancer by these cancer institutions is a lie. Those "race for the cure" cancer walks are a complete scam (they really aren't searching for any way to prevent cancer or cure cancer, they're only searching for new patented drugs to profit from cancer).

This research on vitamin D is a huge threat to the cancer industry profit mongers because it reveals a way to prevent cancer for free -- by seeking natural sunlight exposure and letting your skin manufacture your own powerful anti-cancer medicine (vitamin D). The idea that the cancer industry could lose 80% of its patientsscares the living daylights out of the cancer industry. Billions of dollars in cancer profits are at stake here, so the pro-cancer groups have to do everything they can to discredit vitamin D by creating doubt and confusion. The degree of dishonesty at work here is almost unbelievable to those who don't really know what's happening in the cancer industry.

Ten questions to ask yourself about the cancer industry

Consider these questions:

#1: Why does the cancer industry refuse to educate people about cancer prevention?

#2: If people keep donating money for the "search" for a cancer cure, why won't drug companies pledge to "open source" their patents on cancer drugs to benefit the people whose donations funded them in the first place? In other words, why do people donate money for cancer research but then get charged for cancer drugs?

#3: Why does the entire cancer industry so strongly dissuade people from using sunlight exposure to dramatically reduce their cancer risk? (Hint: Follow the money to the sunscreen industry...)

#4: Why have all the really good cancer supplements, clinics and naturopaths been banned, arrested or run out of the country? (Look up the FDA's oppression of Lane Labs over MGN-3 for a fascinating review of this...)

#5: The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into the cancer industry over the last three decades. Cancer cures were promised in the 1970's. Why are cancer rates still essentially the same today as they were in the 1970's?

#6: Why does the cancer industry continue to use chemotherapy, radiation and other toxic procedures to "kill tumors" when the latest science clearly shows that cancer tumors are only the symptoms, not the cause, of cancer? Chemotherapy destroys immune function and causes permanent damage to the heart, brain and liver...

#7: The World Health Organization says that 70% of all cancers are easily preventable through dietary and lifestyle changes. This latest research shows that sunlight and low-cost calcium supplements can slash cancer risk by 77% in women. Why won't conventional medicine embrace this low-cost, safe and highly effective method for preventing cancer?

#8: The cancer industry routinely attacks anti-cancer herbs, superfoods and supplements. Why is the cancer industry opposed to anti-cancer nutrition? Why does it believe that only man, not nature, can manufacture anti-cancer medicines?

#9: Dark skin pigmentation blocks ultraviolet radiation, meaning that people with black skin need far more time under the sun to generate the same amount of vitamin D as someone with white skin. Not surprisingly, black women suffer extremely high rates of breast cancer while black men show similarly high levels of prostate cancer. The white-dominated medical industry pretends to be "mystified" by all this. Why won't conventional medicine simple tell black people the truth about vitamin D, skin pigmentation and cancer? Why do oncologists try to keep black people ignorant about their vitamin D deficiencies?

#10: Why is it illegal for nutritional supplement manufacturers to tell the truth about the anti-cancer effects of their products? Broccoli, garlic, onions and sprouts all have powerful anti-cancer effects, as do dozens of rainforest herbs (Cat's Claw, for example), Chinese herbs and Western herbs. But the FDA threatens and censors any company that dares to mention cancer prevention on its supplement products. Why is the FDA enforcing a policy of nutritional ignorance with U.S. consumers? Why does the federal government

You probably already know the answer to all these questions, because the answer is the same for each one: Corporate profits. Cancer is hugely profitable to treat. Substantially preventing cancer would result in a loss of billions of dollars in profits for the oncologists, drug companies, hospitals and clinics that currently prey upon the finances of cancer victims.

The cancer industry is operated like a criminal racket, using false information, intimidation, political pressure and propaganda to protect its power base and keep its corporations profitable. And that, my friends, is exactly why the industry is against the use of sunlight to prevent cancer. Free medicine from the sky? The very thought of it makes the cancer industry cringe. Sunlight doesn't even need a prescription, you see, and it can't be patented, either.

HERE to read the entire article