Breastfeeding & Bottlefeeding quotes
Child Health    Breastfeeding (Natural immunisation) & Bottlefeeding

Mental health
Health benefits of breast and dangers of bottle milk
Politics and suppression of knowledge

Paediatricians funded by baby milk companies
Infant formula export

Neil Z. Miller  Follow · 9 hrs near Santa Fe, NM, United States · The journal Pediatrics wants everyone to stop calling breastfeeding “natural” because it may cause people to believe that natural is better, and this will undermine public health objectives regarding vaccination (which is not natural). Here is a quote from the article: 
“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, a view examined in a recent report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Promoting breastfeeding as ‘natural’ may be ethically problematic, and, even more troublingly, it may bolster this belief that ‘natural’ approaches are presumptively healthier. This may ultimately challenge public health’s aims in other contexts, particularly childhood vaccination.”  http://pediatrics.aappublications.

  "I have yet to encounter a woman who could not breast-feed at all," Scelza says. "There are women who have supply issues, who wind up supplementing with goat's milk, which is not uncommon. But there's basically no use of formula or bottles or anything like that."...So it's really not that we've lost the natural instinct for breast-feeding. But instead we no longer have a grandma around 24/7 to be a teacher. We've lost the guidance. We've lost the support.[2017 June] Secrets Of Breast-Feeding From Global Moms In The Know

"There was an interesting study done in Australia. They had four groups – breastfed and vaccinated, breast-fed and unvaccinated, bottle fed and vaccinated and bottle fed and unvaccinated… They looked at respiratory illness… The lowest instance of respiratory illness was in breastfed and unvaccinated. What was interesting was what was the second lowest; bottle fed and unvaccinated. That was shocking. This said that breast feeding wasn’t as important as not vaccinating your child."   ~  Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, Homefront Medical Director, Chicago

  According to a new theory being proposed by University of Albany evolutionary psychologist Gordon Gallup and his colleagues, the decision to bottle-feed is tantamount, in the mother’s psyche, to mourning the loss of the child. At least, that’s how a woman’s body seems to respond to the absence of a suckling infant at its breasts in the wake of a successful childbirth. In a soon-to-be-published article in Medical Hypotheses, the authors argue that bottle-feeding simulates the unsettling ancestral condition of an infant’s death:
    Opting not to breastfeed precludes and/or brings all of the processes involved in lactation to a halt. For most of human evolution the absence or early cessation of breastfeeding would have been occasioned by miscarriage, loss, or death of a child. We contend, therefore, that at the level of her basic biology a mother’s decision to bottle feed unknowingly simulates child loss.[2009] Breasts in Mourning: How Bottle-Feeding Mimics Child Loss in Mothers’ Brains By Jesse Bering

Infant formula feeding robs the developing brain of those essential biochemical nutrients, particularly the essential amino acids tryptophan and tyrosine, that are necessary for the normal development of the brain neurotransmitters serotonin and dopamine, which mediate the emotional behaviours of peace or violence; of happiness or depression and suicide.--- James W Prescott, Ph.D. (2007). Why breastfeeding mothers are important. The Mother Sept/Oct 2007.

"There is literature that baby milks lack the oils essential and that  there   is   possibly  an   association  with   poor  brain development but nothing is done about it....Ettissh describes how baby milks are used to greatly reduce our intellect; they do not support proper brain development due to a lack of nutrients called essential fatty  acids, EFA'S.  These EFA'S  are   deliberately  excluded,  even  today Scientists are suppressed,  even killed:  'we don't add them do we- that's deliberate - we don't let the scientists find out - we suppress it - we are the baby milks - we are in all of the baby milks e. g. Nestle, cow and gate, any baby milk company, we're them.  We've killed a baby milk scientist - you'd know him, he's quite well known- heart attack, encircling stuff — he was convinced we were wrong and tried to tell other people.' "  The Body Snatchers by Susan Reed BSC

Most women who are breastfeeding do not menstruate and for thousands of years many have known that there is a connection between the resumption of menstruation and fertility. Certain groups actually shortened the period of breastfeeding so as to increase their birth rate. There has not been a great deal of communication between ordinary women (who may be reticent about discussing their bodies' functions) and researchers who until recently had mostly been men. Consequently this 'old wives' tale' was disregarded for many years.The Politics of Breastfeeding by Gabrielle Palmer

It is also extremely doubtful, given the documented deficiencies of tryptophan in infant formula milk, that such a commercial preparation meets the magnitude of requirements of the other essential amino acids for infants that have been established by WHO. Table 2 lists the infant requirements for the essential amino acids compared to adult requirements (Merck Manual 1987). The damaging effects of such nutritional deficiencies in infant formula milk upon the developing brain, specifically brain neurotransmitters, have yet to be evaluated. The recent authorization by the FDA to provide the nutritional additives of two fatty acids, DHA (Docosahexaenoic Acid) and AA (Arachidonic Acid)-essential nutrients for brain development-to infant formula milk attests to the additional recognition that infant formula milk is malnutrition for normal brain development (Cunnane,, 2000; Brody, 2001). [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

"Breast milk is an organ. It's basically the immune system of a baby. It's how the intestines grow properly, it's how the baby's immune system grows properly, and it's an overlying blanket of protection for that baby against all the microbes that we're told we need to vaccinate for... The reason being because a baby's immune system is programmed to be anti-inflammatory. So what do vaccines do?
    Vaccinologists say, well, we have a problem... that baby's immune system is dormant, it's not doing what it should do, we need to rev it up with aluminum and with vaccination. And that goes completely against the blueprint.
    ... They have to [put aluminum in] because if you were to put a vaccine into a baby without aluminum that baby's immune wouldn't respond at all because the program of the infant immune system is to be anti-inflammatory... Everything about that infant immune system is programmed from the time of birth or slightly after birth to stay anti-inflammatory for the first two years. So anything you do to rev up that baby's immune system is going against the natural God-given blueprint in that baby.
    ... [Breast milk] is beyond good, and they are still discovering... you know, National Institutes of Health scientists in 2013 are still saying they have a lot to learn about breast milk. They're finding molecules in breast milk that nuke cancer on the spot, and oncology is now taking advantage of that. There are molecules in break milk that kill certain kinds of bacteria that have capsules on the outside like pneumococcus, which is another thing that we vaccinate for.
    But what's miraculous about it is that normally when there's killing of a microbe there's massive inflammation, but in the presence of break milk there's almost no inflammation, because you have all those anti-inflammatory molecules...
    So you have this miraculous organ that's transferring over hundreds of thousands of T-cells, stem cells in breast milk to help that baby grow, re-grow anything that went wrong. You have genetic material that can go in and intersperse in that baby's own genetic material and cure genetic diseases. There's medical literature showing that wet nurses can cure genetic certain instances.
    ... What they found, I believe this study was done in the Middle East, is that, with certain genetic disorders, that if a woman who doesn't have that disorder, breastfeeds a baby, her genetic material, called microRNA, can go in there and cure that problem. Now, I'm not saying that it cures all genetic diseases. But I'm saying that there are programs in breast milk that we're only starting to really understand."  — Suzanne Humphries, MD

Mental health [See: Bonding (attachment)]
Breastfeeding On Demand by newborn/infant/child and for “two years or beyond”, as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF. Failure to breastfeed results in positive harm to normal brain development and to the Immunological health of the newborn, infant and child. Encoding the developing brain with the smell of mother’s body through breastfeeding is essential for the later development of intimate sexuality.TEN PRINCIPLES OF MOTHER-INFANT BONDING by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

They are expelled rather roughly and usually taken away from their mother, which is wrong. It's physiologically/psychologically wrong. Both baby and mother need each other more at that time than they ever will again. The baby should be put to nurse at his mother's breast whereupon it induces an enormous number of wonderful changes in the mother, such as an arresting of the postpartum hemorrhage, which no obstetrician can do under the circumstances, but a baby can do. Which indicates that there is more intelligence in the upper and the lower lip of one baby than all the brains of all the obstetricians put together. Ashley Montagu Interview by Michael Mendizza

Mothers, by breastfeeding their children (male and female) for 2.5 years and beyond, can radically alter human societies, reduce depression and violence by over fifty percent, and pave the way for true human equality. [2007] James W Prescott, Ph.D. Why breastfeeding mothers are important

I have stated that it would be a rare event to find any murderer, rapist or drug addict in any of our prisons who has been breastfeed for two years of age and beyond. [2007] James W Prescott, Ph.D. Why breastfeeding mothers are important

Bonding or Violence: An Introduction by Michael Mendizza discovered in the 1960's and 1970's; that lack of affectionate, intimate contact between mothers and infants during the most sensitive periods of brain growth may result in permanent brain abnormalities associated with juvenal and adult patterns of depression, substance abuse, eating disorders, aggression and violence.....Mothers are not valued, nurtured or supported by the culture. Drugs and technological birth practices routinely separate mothers and babies during the most sensitive bonding period. Single parent families, an euphemism for single moms, without the support, mentoring, and nurturing of extended families and communities, routinely place the majority of infants and young children in institutional childcare for extended periods of time, shortly after birth. Lack of initial bonding, institutional childcare, and social pressures, such as work schedules and welfare reform prevent most mothers from bonding with and breast-feeding their babies.

No mammal on this planet, except the human mammal, separates the newborn from its mother at birth and during the crucial and formative postnatal period of brain-behavioral development. No mammal on this planet, except the human mammal, refuses to breastfeed its newborn and during the crucial and formative periods of breastfeeding for brain-behavioral development that varies with mammalian species. The violation of these two mammalian universals by the human primate-homo sapiens-has brought devastating consequences upon itself in terms of damaged biological and emotional-social health that threatens the very existence of the species. [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

It is worth noting that the bonobo chimpanzee, which is the most peaceful primate on the planet, breastfeed their young to about four years of age; the mother carries her offspring on her body through early adolescence (particularly male offspring); and where multiple male/female sexual relationships are commonplace which are characterized by the lack of aggression or violence (Diamond, 1992; De Waal and Lanting, 1997, Prescott, 2001). [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

Newman (1995) has summarized the essential role of breastfeeding for healthy human development where WHO/UNICEF (1990) have recommended breastfeeding for "two years of age or beyond" that, inexplicably, is not supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 1997). Laudenslager, et al. (1982) have documented impaired immune system development from mother-infant separations (includes lack of breastfeeding). We shall see that breastfeeding of the human primate for 2.5 years or greater is essential to optimize the health benefits (biological and psychosocial) of breastfeeding for child and mother. [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

Liedloff (1975) has documented the importance of baby carrying and affectional bonding between mother and infant/child in her single culture study. Joseph Chilton Pearce reinforced the significance of bonding in Magical Child (1977): "Bonding is the issue, regardless of age. Bonding is a psychological-biological state, a vital physical link that coordinates and unifies the entire biological system. Bonding seals a primary knowing that is the basis for rational thought." [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

Cook (1996) has provided a review of how infants and nations are placed at risk with early child institutional care that ensures lack of bonding. For over a century we have been given wrongful and disastrous advice by "authorities" in pediatrics and psychology that continues to this day. Ferber (1985), a pediatrician, states:  "If your child is like this, you may be comforted to know that headbanging, body rocking, and head rolling are very common in early childhood and, at least at this age, are usually normal. If your child exhibits any of these behaviors there is little need for concern about emotional difficulties or neurological illness" p.193; and "In the infant and young toddler, rhythmic patterns are of little significance and you will not need to intervene" (p.197). [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

In a series of subsequent cross-cultural tribal studies, Dr. Prescott found that 77% of 26 tribal cultures whose weaning age was 2.5 years or longer were rated low or absent in suicidal violence. Further, he found significant differences in suicidal behaviors between cultures with weaning age of 2.0 years or less v 2.5 years or greater. This finding suggests that a critical period of brain development exists at this age to mediate this effect. These and other data suggest that breastfeeding for 2.5 years or longer is required to optimize the health benefits of breastfeeding for child and mother (Zheng, 2000). These breastfeeding effects are undoubtedly mediated, in large part, by the rich presence of the amino acid tryptophan in breastmilk that is deficient in infant formula milk and which is necessary for normal brain serotonin development [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

This issue of duration of breastfeeding for optimal biological and mental-social health is particularly urgent when it is recognized that only 6.8% of American mothers are breastfeeding at 12 months; 2.7% are breastfeeding at 24months; and only 1% at 30 months or more (Hediger, 2001; Prescott, 2001). These statistics on breastfeeding become even more alarming in the light of child and youth suicidal deaths which have doubled in the 5-14 year age group over this past generation and has been the third leading cause of death in the 15-24 year age group over this past generation. Further, for the 5-14 year age group the ratio of suicide rates to homicide rates have consistently increased over this past generation, as follows: 1979--36 %; 1994--60%; 1998--73%. It is also a sobering statistic to note that more children and youth (5-24 year age group) have died from suicidal death in the past ten years (est 55,000) than combat lives lost during the ten year Vietnam War (47, 355). Yet, no memorial has been established for these children of suicidal death. [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

It should be noted that the American Academy of Pediatrics in its 1997 revision of its breastfeeding recommendations did not acknowledge the research studies that confirmed tryptophan deficits in infant formula milk which compromises normal brain development and places infants/children at high risk for the development of depression, impulse dyscontrol, drug abuse and suicidal/ homicidal violence. Further and inexplicably, the AAP did not affirm the recommendations of WHO and UNICEF that breastfeeding should be for "two years of age or beyond" (AAP, 1997; WHO/UNICEF, 1990). What does WHO and UNICEF know that the AAP does not know? [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

These data demand studies to evaluate the harmful effects of infant formula milk upon brain development and behavior compared to breastfeeding for "two years of age or beyond" and to evaluate the history of duration of breastfeeding in child and youth suicides and those with a history of depression and psychiatric medication. The NIH, inexplicably, refuses to conduct these studies. [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

The report of the NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) Study of Early Child Care (SECC) found that infants and very young children who spend more than 30 hours a week in child care "are far more demanding, more noncompliant, and they are more aggressive" and "They scored higher on things like gets in lots of fights, cruelty, bullying, meanness as well as talking too much, demands must be met immediately", according to Dr.Belsky, one of the principle investigators" (Stolberg, New York Times, April 19, 2001) (emphasis mine)
    Dr. Sarah Friedman, NICHD Scientific Project Officer was reported as saying ""We cannot and should not hide the findings but I don't want to create a mass hysteria when I don't know what explains these results" (Stolberg, 2001). Unfortunately, no measures of biological stress disorders were incorporated into this study nor was there any awareness of the early NICHD studies in the 1960s and 1970s, which documented these behaviors in the maternally deprived young. [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

It has yet to be recognized that cruelty, bullying and meanness that terrorizes so many of our children and youth in our elementary schools and high schools have their roots in the emotional trauma of mother-infant/child separations associated with institutionalized day care and from other separations These collective emotional-social traumas are sufficiently great to establish an unstable brain that combined with other stress experiences compels many students to despair and the violent acts of homicide and suicide. It is estimated that some 20% of our nation's students have contemplated suicide at one time or another (Moran, 2000; Silverman, et al 200l; Prescott, 2001). What is wrong with America and American families that drive so many of our youth to depression, despair and suicide? [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

Health benefits of breast and dangers of bottle milk
"If you want to prevent SIDS, the one thing you must do is breastfeed with absolutely no bottles of formula "to top up" -as mothers say.   Ridiculous!"  Never never never give formula."--Hilary Butler

Infant formula feeding robs the developing brain of those essential biochemical nutrients, particularly the essential amino acids tryptophan and tyrosine, that are necessary for the normal development of the brain neurotransmitters serotonin and dopamine, which mediate the emotional behaviours of peace or violence, of happiness or depression and suicide. These are only two of the many brain neurotransmitters involved in the development of our emotional behaviours. [2007] James W Prescott, Ph.D. Why breastfeeding mothers are important

Modern formulas are only superficially similar to breastmilk. Every correction of a deficiency in formulas is advertised as an advance. Fundamentally, formulas are inexact copies based on outdated and incomplete knowledge of what breastmilk is. Formulas contain no antibodies, no living cells, no enzymes, no hormones. They contain much more aluminum, manganese, cadmium, lead and iron than breastmilk. They contain significantly more protein than breastmilk. The proteins and fats are fundamentally different from those in breastmilk. Formulas do not vary from the beginning of the feed to the end of the feed, or from day 1 to day 7 to day 30, or from woman to woman, or from baby to baby. Your breastmilk is made as required to suit your baby. Formulas are made to suit every baby, and thus no baby. Formulas succeed only at making babies grow well, usually, but there is more to breastfeeding than nutrients.---Jack Newman, MD, FRCPC.

"There is literature that baby milks lack the oils essential and that  there   is   possibly  an   association  with   poor  brain development but nothing is done about it....Ettissh describes how baby milks are used to greatly reduce our intellect; they do not support proper brain development due to a lack of nutrients called essential fatty  acids, EFA'S.  These EFA'S  are   deliberately  excluded,  even  today Scientists are suppressed,  even killed:  'we don't add them do we- that's deliberate - we don't let the scientists find out - we suppress it - we are the baby milks - we are in all of the baby milks e. g. Nestle, cow and gate, any baby milk company, we're them.  We've killed a baby milk scientist - you'd know him, he's quite well known- heart attack, encircling stuff — he was convinced we were wrong and tried to tell other people.' "  The Body Snatchers by Susan Reed BSC

[2006/7] "Four out of five Norwegian infants are still breastfed at the age of six months. Just one per cent of the infants were never breastfed. This is shown by the first national survey on infantry nutrition in Norway."

"I have never seen a SIDS death in a healthy breastfed baby, unvaccinated, who has slept on anything from here to Timbuctoo. Over the 19 years in IAS, we have never seen one."--Hilary Butler

The immunologist (Catharina Svanborg) had logged hundreds of lab hours documenting ways in which human milk helps babies fight infections........... They applied breast milk to the cancerous lung cells, and all the cells died.     [pdf] Milk Therapy

Baby-milk manufacturers spend countless millions devising marketing strategies that keep their products at the forefront of public consciousness. In the UK, formula companies spend at least £12 million per year on booklets, leaflets and other promotions, often in the guise of ‘educational materials’. This works out at approximately £20 per baby born. In contrast, the UK government spends about 14 pence per newborn each year to promote breastfeeding............The UK babymilk market is worth £150 million per year and the US market around $2 billion. The worldwide market for baby milks and foods is a staggering $17 billion and growing by 12 per cent each year. From formula manufacturers’ point of view, the more women breastfeed, the more profit is lost. It is estimated that, for every child exclusively breastfed for six months, an average of $450 worth of infant food will not be bought. On a global scale, that amounts to billions of dollars in lost profits.  [2006] Suck On This by Pat Thomas 

Read shocking analysis of how formula doubles infant deaths in U.S. -- Dr. Linda Palmer's report on the new NaturalFamilyOnline website. Notice there are a short and a full-detailed version. An NFO Special Report THE DEADLY INFLUENCE OF FORMULA IN AMERICA This groundbreaking analysis from noted author, health educator and advocate Dr. Linda Folden Palmer may be a rude awakening for the millions of Americans who have bought into the myth that infant formula is a perfectly safe breast milk substitute. Read the shocking results here. Dr. Palmer's key finding: Using formula DOUBLES THE DEATH RATE for American infants. For both condensed and full, referenced versions of Dr. Palmer's report, see SHORT VERSION FULL-DETAILED VERSOIN

Compared to breastfed babies, bottlefed babies are twice as likely to die from any cause in the first six weeks of life. In particular, bottlefeeding raises the risk of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) by two to five times. Bottlefed babies are also at a significantly higher risk of ending up in hospital with a range of infections. They are, for instance, five times more likely to be admitted to hospital suffering from gastroenteritis.
    Even in developed countries, bottlefed babies have rates of diarrhoea twice as high as breastfed ones. They are twice as likely (20 per cent vs 10 per cent) to suffer from otitis media (inner-ear infection), twice as likely to develop eczema or a wheeze if there is a family history of atopic disease, and five times more likely to develop urinary tract infections.
    In the first six months of life, bottlefed babies are six to 10 times more likely to develop necrotising enterocolitis – a serious infection of the intestine, with intestinal tissue death – a figure that increases to 30 times the risk after that time.
    Even more serious diseases are also linked with bottlefeeding. Compared with infants who are fully breastfed even for only three to four months, a baby drinking artificial milk is twice as likely to develop juvenile-onset insulin-dependent (type 1) diabetes. There is also a fi ve- to eightfold risk of developing lymphomas in children under 15 who were formulafed, or breastfed for less than six months.
    In later life, studies have shown that bottlefed babies have a greater tendency towards developing conditions such as childhood inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, dental malocclusion, coronary heart disease, diabetes, hyperactivity, autoimmune thyroid disease and coeliac disease. Suck On This by Pat Thomas 

    20 years ago, the research was quite conclusive about breast-fed babies. They didn't usually die of SIDS.  There are records of some "breastfed" babies dying, but if you look at them, those babies also received supplementary formula bottles.  Anyone who has read my paper will know that one formula bottle will create an alkaline environment, and also raises the babies basal temperature by over 1 degree for nearly two weeks.  One bottle of formula wreaks such intestinal havoc that it puts these babies bacterial flora into a completely different catagory to totally breastfed babies.
        A breastfed baby has an acid ph in the gut, and its basal temperature is lower and the bacterial flora is totally different  Bottlefed baby have alkaline guts, 1,000 ties more E.Coli and different bacterial balance, no breast milk immune system and a higher body temperature.  Bottle fed babies also sleep much longer, and are typically "zonked" after a bottle.  Put this together with sleeping on the stomach.  Stomach sleeping babies get much hotter than back-sleeping babies because there is less skin area exposed for heat exchange.
      The one thing in babies, which can and does respond dramatically to heat, is E.Coli.  The outer coating is toxic, but normally trapped by the liver and dealt with.  Humans are exquisitely sensitive to this endotoxin, and the group of babies that have the highest numbers (one thousand times more actually) are bottle-fed babies.  E.Coli replicates in heat and alkaline conditions.  It is a heat-loving putrefactive bacteria which thrives on formula and in heat - the hotter, the better......breast-milk not only keeps e.coli at bay, and has compounds which fight it, breast milk switches on and educates the immune system of the gut, which is the key barrier between the environment and the body.  A bottle-fed baby is not only way behind the 8-ball, it is hotter, has one thousand times the number of E.Coli than breast-fed babies, and is 'deprived of the maternally supplied defences against E.Coli.  And even so, most of these babies do not die of cot death. Hilary Butler

"A ‘cold’, a viral infection, or anything that disturbs immune responses can result in subtle changes in the gram negative bacterial flora of the the gut, stimulating them to produce endotoxin. This is absorbed into the blood stream, not adequately detoxified, and results in inflammatory responses in the mucous membrane linings of the middle ear............ that endotoxin is the initial cause of the inflammatory response in acute otitis media............ Dr Robert Reisinger in America had first alerted me to this group of substances and their relationship to SIDS......The reason why proper breast-feeding provides a known and large amount of protection against otitis media becomes obvious. Breast-feeding tends to prevent the overgrowth of abnormal forms of intestinal organisms that tend, under certain conditions, to produce endotoxin........Finally, there are two substances that are known to be effective as rapid detoxifiers of endotoxin - Vitamin C and erythromycin -they are both in ‘Archie’s triple injection’.  The relationship between SIDS, sudden unexplained shock, sudden unexplained unconsciousness, and otitis media is worthy of consideration. If endotoxin is the ‘cause’ of otitis and also the ‘cause’ of SIDS, sudden unexplained unconsciousness and unexplained shock — as I now know (at least there is a association), then otitis media should be found in a significant number of SIDS cases. That this is so is clearly demonstrated in a number of reported studies. "---Dr Kalokerinos MD (p311 Medical Pioneer)

"Tissier. H (1900 and 1925) reported that bottlefed babies have much higher levels of intestinal E.Coli than breastfed babies, a fact subsequently demonstrated by others. Hauck F.R. (1996) and others have stated that bottle-fed babies had three times the risk of SIDS as breastfed babies."---Hilary Butler

Hanson LA. Human milk and host defence: immediate and long-term effects. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 1999 Aug;88(430):42-6. Review. PMID: 10569222 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Convincing studies demonstrate significant protection during breastfeeding against diarrhoea, respiratory tract infections, otitis media, bacteraemia, bacterial meningitis, botulism, urinary tract infections and necrotizing enterocolitis. There is also good evidence for enhanced protection for years after the termination of breastfeeding against Haemophilus influenzae type b infections, otitis media, diarrhoea, respiratory tract infections and wheezing bronchitis. In some reports breastfeeding has also improved vaccine responses. Several studies show that milk may actively stimulate the immune system of the offspring via transfer of anti-idiotypic antibodies and lymphocytes. This may explain why breastfeeding diminishes the risk of developing coeliac disease. Some investigations suggest that there may also be a similar effect on allergic diseases and autoimmune diseases, as well as inflammatory bowel diseases and certain tumours. This needs to be confirmed.

"Because doctors pushed formula so well by reassuring mothers that this was the best way since God didn’t give you a glass fronted tit so you don’t know if your little darling has enough "input" as they still graciously call it, they created another problem. They had to deal with all these poor women waddling around their wards (with compulsory episiotomies), and breasts the size of a Friesian’s udder that had just come in to milk. And a bellow of equivalent ear shattering proportions. As a dairy herd tester for two years, I became well-acquainted with the verbal responses of engorged Friesian cows. It was known that in animals, oestrogens stopped the pituitary from releasing the hormones that triggered milk production, so doctors figured that the logical solution to the problem they had created was to give hormones to the women to suppress the milk. And the tablets worked. For many years, so it seemed.   It was "self-evident", you know , so logical – so scientific – just like its self-evident that MMR never causes autism. But some doctors got concerned, because stilboestrol could also cause serious illness and blood clots. Admittedly it was rare, but it happened a bit too often for their liking, and, in keeping with the patronising medicine of the time, they kept that little fact well away from the very people they gave stilboestrol to. Even so, they decided they better do a little controlled trial where one half of women who bottlefed their babies, were given Stilboestrol, and the other half were given a look-alike placebo tablet with nothing in it. The conclusions were finally published in the British Medical Journal1968, No 4: page 578, and upset a lot of people. The fact was, it didn’t matter what you gave the mothers. Both stopped lactation equally as effectively. It was, the saying goes, all between the ears."---Hilary Butler

In 1907, Dr. H. C. Emerson, Massachusetts State Inspector of Health, District 14, investigating an epidemic of poliomyelitis in that state, made a careful inquiry regarding the diet. No infant who was fed exclusively on the breast developed poliomyelitis. [1952] The Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis And Obstructions To Its Investigation by Ralph R. Scobey, M.D.

"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 inmore 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.
    In 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."---
Hilary Butler

"Protection against Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) infection is enhanced by breastfeeding up to 10 years after lactation. For each week of breastfeeding, the protection improved." (J Epidemiol 1997;26: 443-50 quoted in Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunol 1998, Dec. Volume 81 on page 530.

Marko Kalliomäki, MDa Arthur Ouwehand, PhDbHeikki Arvilommi, MD, PhDc Pentti Kero, MD, PhDa
Erika Isolauri, MD, PhDa Transforming growth factor- in breast milk: A potential regulator of atopic disease at an early age

Background: According to data from animal and in vitro studies, transforming growth factor- (TGF-) has a crucial effect on 2 essential parts of the mucosal immune system: IgA production and oral tolerance induction.
Objective: We sought to ascertain whether TGF- in breast milk is associated with specific IgA production and atopic disease in human subjects.
Methods: Forty-seven infants with several atopic family members were followed during their first year of life. The concentrations of TGF-1 and TGF-2 in maternal colostrum, mature milk, and the infants’ sera were determined. The enzyme-linked immunospot assay was used to assess the infants’ specific IgA production in response to -lactoglobulin, casein, gliadin, and ovalbumin.
Results: At 12 months, atopic dermatitis was confirmed in 29 of 47 infants; in 11, atopic disease had begun during exclusive breast-feeding (preweaning onset), whereas in 18 the disease manifested itself after weaning (postweaning onset). The concentrations of both TGF-1 and TGF-2 were higher in maternal colostrum, but not in mature milk and infants’ serum, in infants with postweaning-onset atopic disease compared with those with preweaning-onset disease (P = .0008 and P = .015, respectively). The concentration of TGF-2 was, and that of TGF-1 tended to be, higher in the colostrum of mothers whose infants had specific IgA-secreting cells at 3 months in response to at least one of the dietary antigens tested compared with those who did not have such cells (P = .048 and P = .076, respectively).
Conclusion: TGF- in colostrum may prevent the development of atopic disease during exclusive breast-feeding and promote specific IgA production in human subjects. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;1251-7.)

In a surprising newsmaker interview this past April 1999, Dr. Limeback announced a dramatic change of heart.  "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste," he counseled.  "Or drink fluoridated water.  And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water.  Former Fan of Flouridation Now Warns of its Perils

In 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.” ---Hilary Butler

Unfortunately, the road that gained insight into the developmental mechanisms that mediate the aggressive, noncompliant and other disordered emotional-social behaviors.....was blocked and terminated by the NICHD in the late 1970s. The NICHD unlawfully abandoned its agency responsibility to continue to support research on the causes and consequences of violence against children and failed to recommend implementation of national health programs for the prevention of this violence. These unlawful NICHD/NIH actions has not only set-back scientific advances in this field for over a quarter of a century but more importantly has resulted in the epidemics of depression, drug abuse, psychiatric medications and violence that characterizes this nation today with a substantial loss of child and youth life due to suicidal and homicidal deaths that are mostly preventable.
....The children, youth and families of America are worse off today-- by any health statistic-- than they were in 1970-over thirty years ago. This massive failure of America can be laid at the doorsteps of the Congress and its political parties; The White House; the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services [2002] The Origins of Love & Violence: An Overview by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.

  "I have yet to encounter a woman who could not breast-feed at all," Scelza says. "There are women who have supply issues, who wind up supplementing with goat's milk, which is not uncommon. But there's basically no use of formula or bottles or anything like that."...So it's really not that we've lost the natural instinct for breast-feeding. But instead we no longer have a grandma around 24/7 to be a teacher. We've lost the guidance. We've lost the support.[2017 June] Secrets Of Breast-Feeding From Global Moms In The Know

In a recent issue of Parenting magazine, a pediatrician comments, "When I first visit a new mother in the hospital, I ask, 'Are you breastfeeding or bottlefeeding?' If she says she is going to bottlefeed, I nod and move on to my next questions. Supporting new parents means supporting them in whatever choices they make; you don't march in postpartum and tell someone she's making a terrible mistake, depriving herself and her child. Watch Your Language By Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC

In the media frenzy around the publicity, there were many factual errors. The Daily Mail, to whom I gave an interview, fabricated quotes left, right and centre and in one particular quote, wrote the exact opposite of what I said. They hounded me for a family photo on the day of my mother in law's funeral. Not only was my story fabricated, but the other two women involved also had their stories altered in favour of how the Daily Mail thinks their stories should be! In Sophie's case, they stated (wrongly) that breastfeeding caused the break-up of her first marriage.  I also gave an exclusive interview to NOW magazine by email, but they too, sadly, managed to misquote and change the tone of what I said, despite it being written in black and white. Extend Breastfeeding's Benefits By Kyla Steinkraus

"I accused doctors of still failing to give women detailed information about the immunological benefits to babies of breastmilk, at which point the only woman paediatrician got very upset at me, and said that was a mother’s choice, just like abortion. I looked her square in the face and asked if she had children, and her answer was "Yes" I then raised my eyebrows and "Who you bottlefed, right?" She instantly got up and left. I think the unspoken implications got through loud and clear."--Hilary Butler

"Early in my own pediatric training I was taught that if a mother questioned whether she should breastfeed or bottlefeed, the proper answer is: "The decision is strictly up to you; I will assist you in whatever method you decide to use."--Dr Mendelsohn MD

One of the most powerful arguments many health professionals, government agencies and formula company manufacturers make for not promoting and supporting breastfeeding is that we should "not make the mother feel guilty for not breastfeeding". Even some strong breastfeeding advocates are disarmed by this "not making mothers feel guilty" ploy.  Because, indeed, it is nothing more than a ploy. It is an argument which deflects attention from the lack of knowledge and understanding of most health professionals about breastfeeding. This allows them not to feel guilty for their ignorance of how to help women overcome difficulties with breastfeeding, which could have been overcome and usually which could have been prevented in the first place if mothers were not so undermined in their attempts to breastfeed. This argument also seems to allow formula companies and health professionals to pass out formula company literature and free samples of formula to pregnant women and new mothers without pangs of guilt, though it has been well demonstrated that this literature and the free samples decrease the rate and duration of breastfeeding. Breastfeeding and Guilt by Jack Newman, MD, FRCPC.

Babies tend to be loathed by many people, especially where rigidity in childcare has been well established for several generations. It seems likely that the presence of a baby stirs up feelings of a sad period in our own lives and we can project that onto the baby. People in western society get angry or upset when they think a baby is dominating the attention of an adult, perhaps because it unconsciously reminds them of their own inability to get their needs met as a baby. The 'loud noise at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other' definition of a baby denies the vulnerability of a new child. Similar factors may influence the rates of post-natal depression. Post-natal depression is considered by some to be hormonal in origin, yet why the hormonal state is assumed to precede the emotional state is unexplained. .....It is so evident in those societies where babies are nurtured, never left to cry and breastfed whenever they ask, that not only are the babies far more socially pleasing in that they are more content and alert, but also that adults in those societies do not view babies with the alarm and revulsion that so many people show in my own society. Also, where babies are cherished, children usually appear better socially integrated than in some western societies. One rarely meets the whining 'brat' who so often justifies the exclusion of children from adult company. The extremes of bitchiness and horror shown by some adults' over-attention to a baby is more than cultural habit; it has some deeper emotional cause. The Politics of Breastfeeding by Gabrielle Palmer

Breastfeeding in industrialised society is closely bound up with perceptions of sexuality. The very reason it is frowned upon in public is that breasts are perceived exclusively as objects of sexual attention. The extremity of this attitude was brought home to me when a male friend, responding to my statement that I could not see any good reason for women not being able to leave their breasts showing, stated that after all men did not walk about with their penises hanging out.The Politics of Breastfeeding by Gabrielle Palmer

The fact that such abhorrence is absent in some other societies may have another foundation. Few of us in industrialised society can remember suckling our own mothers. Many women have denied themselves the experience of reproduction because they know what a handicap it can be in the economic and career stakes. Others have children but do not breastfeed for the same, reason or because it went wrong in the hopelessly unsupportive medical and social systems. When we see a suckling pair it does not summon up associations of tenderness and pleasure, but of rejection, failure and pain both in our relationships with our own mothers and with our babies if we have them. Men who are jealous of their partners' breastfeeding may have had damaged feeding relationships with their own mothers and seeing the same scene in public may be too inexplicably painful. Women who have not fed their own children, especially if they had wanted to, may feel terrible seeing a breastfeeding pair. My sister taught me this when she admitted how angry she felt whenever she saw a breastfeeding couple. She could not feed her first baby because, as she realised when she was helped with her second, she had never been taught to position him properly. Until she understood her own experience better she had unconsciously projected her anger at failure, and betrayal by those who should have helped her, on to other, luckier women.The Politics of Breastfeeding by Gabrielle Palmer

Here is an account from travellers in Nepal:
"We stopped one night in a tea house in the Himalayas. The mother was cooking, but stopped to breastfeed the baby and the father took over at the stove. After the meal, when everything was cleared and put away, the parents began what was obviously a nightly ritual. The baby was lovingly massaged with oil and it was evident that both the parents and the baby thoroughly enjoyed the procedure. The baby was gurgling, the parents were smiling and sharing the task, one doing between the toes while the other concentrated on another area. Eventually the baby fell into a profound and peaceful sleep and the whole family retired contentedly to bed."
Compare this with a typical British scene where the family are watching television and groan when they hear the baby wake up in its expensively equipped nursery upstairs. The Politics of Breastfeeding by Gabrielle Palmer

Mrs Margaret McNaught, one of Britain's 'champion mothers', had twenty-two single children in twenty-eight years, which is a mean interval of 1.3 years between each birth.8 Mrs McNaught did not breastfeed her children, and was given stilboestrol as a lactation suppressant at birth. If she had breastfed each child for just three months the McNaught family might have been five fewer and this little family population explosion would have been reduced by almost a quarter. I do not wish to show any disrespect to the McNaught family, but their example shows how significant lactation suppression can be on one woman's fertility. The health workers persuaded women around the world to reduce their duration of breastfeeding and the companies which managed to get women to stop even earlier have had a potent effect on the world's population explosion, yet the false presentation of this situation as a problem caused by irresponsible individuals has prompted the unthinking genocidal sentiments of many people like my friend.   What appeals to me about this fascinating strategy of anovulation during lactation is that it destroys the arguments made by some religious and cultural groups that nature designed sexual activity only for procreation.The Politics of Breastfeeding by Gabrielle Palmer

By the twentieth century breastfeeding in much of western Europe and North America was quite different behaviourally from what it had been and what it still is in the areas of the world where it has not been disrupted. As the 'men of sense' (see page 41) took over the management from women, new ideas came into vogue. First came the limiting of feeds to an ideal of not more than five times a day, the prohibition of night feeding and then a limiting of the actual feed times. Only someone who did not spend twenty-four hours a day with a baby could have thought of restricting feeding time. These ideas had arisen from the dread of overfeeding, but they actually caused the problem of under­feeding, as the baby was prevented from stimulating the amount of milk she actually needed. Consequently there was a greater requirement for supplements which in turn decreased the baby's control of the breast milk supply. The discouragement of sleeping with the baby at night, which had been the norm since the dawn of human life, spread throughout the nineteenth century. In England, the early twentieth century health visitors zealously handed out banana boxes (available via cheap colonial labour) to serve as cradles in order to try and stamp out the habit of mothers and babies sleeping together. This was to prevent overlaying, supposedly a common cause of infant death, though this is debatable. Such deaths are unreported in those countries where it is still custom for babies and mothers to sleep together. What this separation did do was increase the risk of infant hypothermia, maybe cot (crib) death and lessen the important contraceptive protection of night suckling which is crucial for the maintenance of the frequent nipple stimulation necessary to maintain anovulation. A mother sleeping with her baby in her arms might not even be awakened, but that occasional mouthing is an important contraceptive. With these reductions in suckling time and the increasing promotion and use of other infant foods, mothers were truly breastfeeding less and less. Even the use of a dummy or boiled water given by spoon can reduce the nipple stimulation needed to maintain infertility.The Politics of Breastfeeding by Gabrielle Palmer

Both late menarche and breast­feeding contributed significantly to child spacing in pre-industrial Europe and still does in the developing world, for breastfeeding prevents more births worldwide than all other forms of contraception put together.......the west's export and promotion of artificial baby foods, together with the grosser errors in infant feeding techniques disseminated by health workers, have had a serious effect on birth spacing, which is a key factor in both demographic trends and in the well-being of individual women. This method of fertility control had been recognised since ancient times, but its importance was forgotten and ignored during the last two centuries because the changes in social organisation and in breastfeeding practices damaged its effectiveness. A seventeenth-century working Englishwoman married late and had well-spaced pregnancies. She used breastfeeding both to supplement her living and to space and limit her own childbearing. As unrestricted breastfeeding was the normal practice in those days she would have been unlikely to ovulate. Wealthy women were discouraged from feeding their own babies in order to reproduce greater numbers of the nobility. Slaves had their breastfeeding time limited so that they could breed more slaves for their owners. Yet by the twentieth century in Europe the use of lactation as a means of child spacing was not discussed or considered by doctors or advocates of birth control. The Politics of Breastfeeding by Gabrielle Palmer


Paediatricians funded by baby milk companies
"Received $548,000 from two of the four major formula makers in 1993." (Mothering magazine, July-August 2000, p.60)

"Friends of Children Fund" Annual Report, July 1, 1996 - June 30, 1997, indicates $2.085 million in funding from corporations. Donors include Procter & Gamble, Gerber, Infant Formula Council, McNeil Consumer Products Company, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Abbott Laboratories, Wyeth-Lederle Vaccine & Pediatrics, Mead Johnson Nutritionals, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Schering Corp., Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Food Marketing Institute, Sugar Association, International Food Information Council, Merck Vaccine Division, and others. Also gets foundation support (RWJ, Pew, etc.).
   Formula manufacturers "donate $1 million annually to the American Academy of Pediatrics in the form of a renewable grant that has already netted the AAP $8 million. The formula industry also contributed at least $3 million toward the building costs of the AAP headquarters." (Mothering magazine, July-August, p.60; refers to a book Milk, Money and Madness by Naomi Baumslag and Dia L. Michels (Westport, Conn.: Bergin and Garvey, 1995, p. 172))

Infant formula export
"I saw mother after mother in the paediatric wards, head in hands, crying beside the cribs where their babies lay, malnourished, dehydrated, sick from Bottle Baby Disease. It doesn't need to happen. A decade ago we knew the truth about irresponsible marketing of infant formula. Allowing the companies to continue these practices is an inexcusable outrage of humanity, if not outright criminality." Janice Mantell, Action for Corporate Accountability (USA)

Third World export of babymilk