What do you think about this comment?

[JessasMilkMama]

And if mercury was really related to autism we would see an increased incident of this developmental disorder in breastfed babies. A baby who is nursed exclusively will absorb more than ten times the amount of mercury used in all his childhood vaccines combined yet there's no evidence that suggests breastfed babies are at any higher risk than formula-fed infants.


http://www.worldfitness.ca/articles/...auseautism.php

[frontierpsych]

The article seems to be awfully one-sided, does not provide sufficient evidence to support its claim, and was poorly researched.

[Belle]

Why would breastfed babies absorb mercury better? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[sapphire_chan]

Because *all* breastfeeding mothers consume mercury-laden fish? Because babies absorb the iron and other minerals in breastmilk better than the iron in formula and therefore breastfeeding babies must absorb all elements more effectively? Because Mercury, the Greek God, has a fondness for boobies?

[Arwyn]

How about: because although breastfed babies DO get more contaminents (PCBs, heavy metals) than babies fed formula, they are also, because of the beneficial properties of breastmilk, MUCH better able to deal with them.

Read Having Faith for a really fascinating discussion of contaminents in pregnancy and breastfeeding, and why breastfeeding is still far superior (or rather, why formula is still far inferior and more dangerous).

[guestmama9911]

The logic is flawed because mercury consumed is not the same as mercury injected directly into your blood stream.

[Arwyn]

Originally Posted by alisaterry

The logic is flawed because mercury consumed is not the same as mercury injected directly into your blood stream.

:

[JSerene]

Originally Posted by Arwyn
Read [u

Having Faith[/u] for a really fascinating discussion of contaminents in pregnancy and breastfeeding, and why breastfeeding is still far superior (or rather, why formula is still far inferior and more dangerous).

:

I LOVE THIS BOOK!!! Just wanted to second the recommendation.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by Arwyn

How about: because although breastfed babies DO get more contaminents (PCBs, heavy metals) than babies fed formula

Can you share the evidence you found for this? I'm curious to see if they have any theories as to why and what sort of environmental factors were involved. Thanks!

[ColoradoMama]

Wow - that was a poorly done article. When you're discussing two different types of mercury you should DISCUSS the two different types of mercury. When you're trying to debunk a theory with studies, you ALWAYS need to site the studies, what is relevant about the studies, etc. When you are making a statement about mercury being present in bm, you need to site the studies that support that claim. If their is a concern with mercury in bm, you should state that concern - not just some blanket statement! (Yes, there actually can be a concern about too much mercury in bm IF a mother is consuming too much mercury in her diet - but come on - a blanket statement about ALL bm. That's like saying that babies are getting too high of concentrations of meth through bm because a few moms who use also bf! What a dumb thing!) Okay, the scientist in me is taking this to the extreme, so I'll shut up now. Well, one more statement. WHAT A DUMB ARTICLE!

[courtenay_e]

Originally Posted by Arwyn

How about: because although breastfed babies DO get more contaminents (PCBs, heavy metals) than babies fed formula, they are also, because of the beneficial properties of breastmilk, MUCH better able to deal with them.

Read Having Faith for a really fascinating discussion of contaminents in pregnancy and breastfeeding, and why breastfeeding is still far superior (or rather, why formula is still far inferior and more dangerous).

My thoughts exactly!

[Mama Poot]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

Because *all* breastfeeding mothers consume mercury-laden fish? Because babies absorb the iron and other minerals in breastmilk better than the iron in formula and therefore breastfeeding babies must absorb all elements more effectively? Because Mercury, the Greek God, has a fondness for boobies?

Shoot I'm in trouble. I eat fish once sometimes twice a week, and I love sushi. What about all the mothers in Japan who eat fish all the time? Do we see huge numbers of Japanese children with autism? Whoever wrote the article is obviously anti-BF.

[Ellien C]

"Ethylmercury is broken down in the body and excreted relatively quickly. While methylmercury is stored in the tissues of the body, ethylmercury is not."

On what basis does she make this claim? Studies in the last 2 years indicate that Ethylmercury is actually MORE toxic than Methylmercury.

"A newly-released primate study published in Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), a NIEHS publication, is getting fluffy reviews today. The NIH-funded study, conducted by Dr. Thomas Burbacher, a University of Washington researcher, found that Thimerosal, best known for its use as an ethylmercury-based preservative in infant vaccines and pregnancy shots, is actually more toxic to the brain than methylmercury (MeHg)."

http://monkeydaynews.blogspot.com/20...y-used-in.html

Even JAMA in a pro-vaccine article from 1999 writes:
Based on the limited data available, experts have concluded that the toxicity of ethylmercury may be similar to methylmercury.

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/daily...urethimvax.htm

[lilsparrow]

I like this line ...

"...these marginalized scientists have built compelling cases by preying on the fears of worried parents who have neither the time nor resources to de-bunk them."

: ... so anti vax parents are the followers who don't do the research and take things at face value!!

[My4Boys]

Originally Posted by JessasMilkMama

yet there's no evidence that suggests breastfed babies are at any higher risk than formula-fed infants.
http://www.worldfitness.ca/articles/...auseautism.php

I have a friend whose son has autism and is participating in a family study on the disorder. In all of the millions of pages of questions they had to fill out the only reference to breastfeeding was asking one time if the child had been breastfed. No reference to duration, exclusivity, etc. If all studies on autism are designed like this, any breastfeeding stats they have are extremely skewed. For example...my friend of course said yes, her son was breastfed. But I know that he was supplemented early and often and "weaned himself" when her "milk went dry" at 4 months. The benefits of the breastmilk he did recieve were amazing, because all breastmilk is amazing. But, the more you get the better the benefits, so asking about breastfeeding without also asking about duration and exclusivity is almost pointless. I know....preaching to the choir, and slightly off topic. Didn't mean to get off on a tangent, but I was interrupted so many times I forgot what my original point was anyway!

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by Mama Poot

Shoot I'm in trouble. I eat fish once sometimes twice a week, and I love sushi. What about all the mothers in Japan who eat fish all the time? Do we see huge numbers of Japanese children with autism? Whoever wrote the article is obviously anti-BF.

Yep, and children of vegan mothers get autism too. I thought maybe the author was theorizing that all women eat fish that have tons of mercury (not all fish have lots/any mercury) and that was how the mercury got into breastmilk.

[Sustainer]

Isn't cow food even more contaminated than human food?

[Arwyn]

sapphire_chan - Having Faith has lots of info about contaminents in breastmilk.

Quicky explanation: The food chain for, at least omnivorous, humans is longer than for cows, so the contaminents biomagnify - fancy word for concentrate - so yes, our food and our milk are more contaminated than those of cows. Especially for omnivores, by definition if cows' food is contaminated, our food - cows, or milk from cows - are contaminated worse. And yet breastfed babies STILL do much better than formula fed babies! Imagine how much bigger the difference would be if we hadn't polluted our planet so severely and if we treated our food supply more humanely (like by feeding them good, safe food!) so our milk was even purer.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by Arwyn

The food chain for, at least omnivorous, humans is longer than for cows, so the contaminents biomagnify - fancy word for concentrate - so yes, our food and our milk are more contaminated than those of cows.

It sounds like you're describing cows that eat what they're *supposed* to eat, i.e., organic cows, who are in the minority. Most cows (including the ones that produce the milk that most brands of formula are made from, I'm sure) are fed whatever cheap, disgusting material the factory farmers can get their hands on, including blood, fecal matter, and slaughterhouse waste (which includes bits of other cows).

[Meiri]

I'm sure) are fed whatever cheap, disgusting material the factory farmers can get their hands on, including blood, fecal matter, and slaughterhouse waste (which includes bits of other cows).

No. One of the reasons that Mad Cow has not been the issue in this country that it became in Britain is that we have had laws in place for years forbidding the feeding of such offal to cows. I remember that point from the news stories back when this issue was in the news.

I think the logic is flawed anyway, despite the effect of biomagnification. The cows are eating grass and oats and corn and whatever plant feeds that would have had the same mercury dropping out of the sky as we humans do, plus whatever herbicides and pesticides.

The soy crops will have the same contamination as the cattle feeds, plus whatever herbicide and pesticides.

Thus that contamination WILL be in the formulas, but the babies fed those formulas will NOT have the gut lining protection or brain building proteins or immunological support that breastfed babies do have.

On top of that, we humans wash our food, what we can of it. I've yet to see a cow washing her grass before chowing down.