“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

Breastmilk stem cells.

Hilary Butler - Wednesday, October 10, 2012

A long time ago - 2007 to be precise, the first medical article was published showing that breast milk contained stem cells. Perhaps the mainstream media didn't know what to do with this information. After all, most discussion is about the use of stem cells from aborted foetuses, for trying to correct disease, or  parents who stored their child's cord blood, then want to use it to cure the child of some disease

Stem cells are a big deal.


And frankly, cord blood should not be stored, because the primary reason for stem cells in cord blood is that the baby NEEDS that stem cell transfusion at birth. It's not "medical waste" as it was once called, ... it's nature's first stem cell transfusion. These cord blood stem cells can go anywhere in the body, and do anything - because they are pluripotent, and can be used by the body to repair any cells.  But only if the baby has them.  They are no use to the baby stored in a cord blood bank.

Thirty percent of naturally born babies have intracranial haemorrhages and other birthing issues as a result of being squeezed down a 10 cm wide drain pipe... which are best dealt with by cord blood stem cells getting in there and mopping up. Nothing else will do it, as colostrum and milk is not yet on tap.  In order to go anywhere though, it also makes sense that stem cells require easy thin blood to manoeuvre through.

The medical profession however, has this strange idea that the very thin blood which babies naturally have in the first 7 days, must be "abnormal" because it's not like adult blood, so they give vitamin K at birth.

The problem is that this vitamin K raises the vitamin K levels much higher than in adults.   Since 1985, the medical profession has known that oral vitamin K raises blood levels 300 - 4,000 times higher.  The injectable vitamin K, results in vitamin K levels 9,000 times thicker than adults blood. Why?  Because the medical profession says that baby blood is deficient of vitamin K which makes the blood not clot properly and can cause haemorrhages.  God didn't know what he was doing.  So vitamin K is given, to "thicken" up a baby's blood.

By the same token, the medical system says that older people's blood is too thick, so they prescribe warfarin, to thin the blood.  How does it do that?  By completely screwing with the vitamin K cycle, so that older people's blood becomes thinner than baby's blood because there is no vitamin K in it. The medical system doesn't give a thought to the fact that that also means that older people without vitamin K2 will also have bone problems as a result!    

Baby's blood thickened with vitamin K, causes a situation where stem cells have to move through sludge, not nicely greased blood vessels full of blood which can allow stem cells easy acess to anywhere. Maybe one day it will dawn on the medical profession that not only are cord blood stem cells important and useful to the newborn baby, but that stem cells need thin blood for a reason.  But I digress.....

Back to breast milk.

Recently, a Lifenews media article announced more recent finding by Hassiotou, that indeed, ... breast milk has stem cells by the truck load. Even more spectacularly, these stem cells are identical to embryonic stem cells, so that there is no need for scientists to use ethically questionable aborted babies.  Naturally, the focus of the medical system appears to be the  harvesting breastmilk for drug companies.... because...... "Human breast milk may be more than just nourishment for newborns. It may contain hope for a multitude of diseases. Hope that does not require the destruction of innocent human life". 

Hassiotou et al, have not figured out what stem cells in breastmilk are all about in terms of benefits to the baby, but they must suspect some because they say: "Future research should elucidate the role of these cells for the breastfed infant, generating implications for public policy related to early infant nutrition."  Clearly, one of the functions of stem cells also appears to be, to alter gene expression.  I would suggest that the functions of stem-cells are huge.  As I've always said:

Breast milk is NOT just food.

Breast milk has functions which go far beyond nutrition.

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

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

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


Add stem cells to that list.

There is absolutely no doubt that breastfed babies have completely different and far healthier health profiles than formula fed babies, both short and long term. Formula feeding parents are kidding themselves if they belive that is not the case.

Previous research had found that stem cells are present in breast milk for as long as a baby is breast fed.

What does this mean for a baby in practical terms?

Let's hypothesize, since science isn't yet talking about that. If the baby for instance has an illness, what might the stem cells do? Heal the child?

If a baby is involved in a car accident, what might stem cells do? Fix brain damage? Bone damage? Liver damage?

Interestingly, in my 30 years of working with parents of children who have been damaged after vaccines, by far the worst damage I've ever seen, has been seen in formula-fed children. It's got to the point where, if a mother comes to me wanting help with a child with serious health issues showing up after vaccines, I can pretty much predict the answer to the question, "Is your baby breastfed?"

I can pretty much predict the answer to the question, "Was your baby born naturally?"

Mothers with children affected after vaccines have another trait as well.  Their children are often at the doctors and are given a lot more antibiotics, pamol and other needless drugs than breastfed babies.

It's my contention that the "non-nutritive" functions of breast milk are far more valuable than the medical profession admits to parents, and that is why breastfed babies have far lower rates of infections, diseases and health issues short or long term, than formula fed babies. 

What you eat during pregnancy can also have a big impact on the long term health of your child.

In short, real commitment to health and "lifestyle", matters. All the "little" things - nutrition, rest, plenty of sun, good water, natural birth, long term breastfeeding - avoiding all medical system interference, and doing things - dare I say it... "God's way...." add up to one very big result.  Whether it's either a plus, or a minus, comes down to which voices you listen to and which choices you make.

Bookmark and Share