So, the thing I don't understand about this whole animals versus human business is when did humans become non-animals? I mean, I'm not talking the whole biblical “we are above” blah-di-blah, because in terms of reality, this has no bearing. I'm talking the scientific “we have found this substance to have [insert negative effect] in animal tests, but we have yet to discover if it has a similar effect in humans.” It grates me every time I hear it – it is nonsensical in every way. Are humans not simply a species within the animal world or did I miss a page in my biology book?

I find it almost insufferably arrogant to think that what makes baby boy mice lack a penis at birth would not have the same effect on human baby boys - to a lesser or greater extent, of course. Nothing can be directly translated - not even from one human to another. But finding that human baby boys are increasingly being born with misshapen or missing bits should really make the arrogance wilt.

But it's the smoking business all over again. If we can't prove that smoking is actually the cause, then we cannot say smoking is bad for you.

A few months back an esteemed Danish professor, who've studied breast milk for some 30 years, recommended that women should stop breast feeding at 4 months because by 4 months the damage outweigh the benefits.

What did you just say???

So, because mother is full of carcinogenic toxins, she cannot breastfeed baby. Shouldn't that make the collective motherhood of Planet Earth take to the streets and demand all the toxins banned so that our daughters and their daughters and their daughters after that can breastfeed like nature intended? And don't be fooled for a moment into thinking that breast milk substitutes are not also contaminated with an ever increasing amount of toxins, because they are. They were not created on another planet free of toxins, so it's not as though there's a real and sustainable alternative!

I predict that in a few generations from now, Western women of wealth will be employing wet nurses from uncontaminated places. Or, at least, I predict that in a few generations from now, breastfeeding will become extinct. Women will be given a pill when they have given birth so as to prevent the milk from coming in. It will be classed as unsafe for babies.

Fewer than 1 in 100 babies are EXCLUSIVELY breastfeed for 6 months anyways (the NHS and WHO recommendations), and if we see the rates beyond 6 months – well, it's quite obvious that breastfeeding is not the main culprit when it comes to the rise in abnormalities and falling sperm count (Danish men have the lowest (recorded) sperm count in the world) when so few babies are actually breastfed. But that's also completely besides the point. You shouldn't be in a situation where not breastfeeding is safer and better for the baby. It's just outrageous!

The good news – for women – however is that the longer you breastfeed, the greater the health benefits are – for you. Now, maybe I'm adding two and two and getting four [!] here, but to me these facts SCREAM at me. I mean, they “don't know for sure” why women who breastfeed for longer have lower rates of breast cancer and other cancers. Yet, the esteemed Danish professor clearly states in his research that the only way a human can rid his or her body of toxins is through breast milk. Toxins in our body binds mainly to our fat cells, and milk is made from these. Am I the only one who's left thinking: Duh! The reason why women who breastfeed for a long time are healthier is because they have effectively purged their toxins – into their babies.

No. I'm not making this up. Leaflet handed to me by the NHS when I was expecting Raven clearly stated that breastfeeding women should not diet due the release of toxins bound in fat cells. However, as milk is made from the fat cells, we really don't need to diet to release toxins. It happens automatically! Tests have shown that by age 4 months, a baby's levels of toxins in their blood and body is greater than that of their mother. Also, tests have shown that only breastfeeding women have a decreasing level of toxins.

Well, it's been 3 years and 4 months since I started breastfeeding, so I'm pretty sure my milk is now as safe as it's ever going to be.

At least Raven will be able to pass on the burden to her own offspring and as for Arthur... well, I guess we'll see if he is even able to produce offspring.

Still don't understand why we're not all demanding our breast milk back.

Why is it we think so much about the products we use on and around children, yet seem to think it has no effect on us adults? If it's bad for baby, it's most likely also bad for mummy and daddy.

Anyways, here's a link to the esteemed professor's older publications:
http://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Contaminants-Human-Astrup-Jensen/dp/0849366070

Shocking, really, to see that the info re. chemicals in humans has been widely available for nearly 20 years, yet the chemicals and toxins and pollutants are still widely used.

His name is Allan Astrup Jensen and his CV can be found here: http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/all/AutorenAnzeigeESS/autorenId/587

[See bottom of today's entry for the articles to which I am referring]

Having said all that, we're living longer, so... I guess... I should just shut my mouth and think happy thoughts.

So, in other news, today I bought “normal” clothes. And by normal, I mean clothes that were not Big Size clothes. Admittedly they were L within the “normal” range, but not XL nor Big Size clothes. I bought some 12 pair of pants – kinky new lingerie, one might call them. In the sale, so only about £1 a pair. Bargain. A pair of sweat pants – always wanted a pair of those but always just looked like a slob in 'em. Not any more. Bought a nice top, an under shirt type top to have on under my see-through tops, and a cardigan. All in the sale and cheap as chips and really nice!







__________________

Below, the articles discussed above. Translated from Danish into English by me. No need to read – just felt it was appropriate to put them here in case anyone was interested or just wondering where it all came from:

__________________

Breastfeeding Poisons Your Baby

The recommendation today is that new mothers should breastfeed for at least half a year. But the milk transfers hazardous chemicals into your baby, so it is a good idea to stop after four months, says an expert.

Prolonged breastfeeding can give your young child at greater risk of cancer and heart disease later in life. Therefore, it is a good idea to stop breastfeeding when your baby is four months old, says environmental chemist Allan Astrup Jensen. He has researched human milk poisoning for 30 years, and has worked for the Danish Environmental Agency and as an advisor to the European Commission.

The baby get chemicals from the mother from the first drop of milk, but milk also contains many healthy things.

"Therefore, of course, the mother should breastfeed in the beginning. But after four months, the child has received the majority of benefits from the breast milk, so why not stop there and minimise hazardous chemicals in the baby?" asks Allan Astrup Jensen.

Equally as chemical as mummy

At four months the baby has the same concentration of chemicals in the blood as the mother. Additional breastfeeding will give the baby more poisons than the mother has, explains Allan Astrup Jensen. A chemical cocktail that the children carry with them virtually the rest of their lives - unless it is a girl, of course, because she will transfer them to her own children through her breast milk.

We all have toxic chemicals in the body. Everything from the paint on the walls, TV and computer fumes, fish, meat, blankets and clothing could expose us to a dangerous chemical cocktail which is stored in body fat.

"You do not get sick from the chemicals immediately. But all indications are that they cause serious long-term effects on hormones and enzymes in the body," says Allan Astrup Jensen.

Deformed genitalia and poor semen

We're already seeing a dramatic increase of new borns with malformed genitals, and 18 year olds have poorer sperm quality than ever. Today, all pregnant mothers are told that it is healthy for the child to be breastfed for at least six months. These are the World Health Organization's recommendations, which the Danish Health Board comply with.

"But the recommendations are not specifically directed at us in the West. We are exposed to more chemicals and have good alternatives to breastfeeding. In many developing countries it will, however, be a good idea to breastfeed for a long time, because the alternative may be contaminated drinking water and hunger," explains Allan Astrup Jensen.