Skip to main content

Breasts have extra features

Scientsts investigating breast milk have found a number of startling features of the breasts’ output.

For example,

They applied breast milk to the cancerous lung cells, and all the cells died. Breast milk killed cancer cells.
“From that moment on, we’ve been working with it,” Svanborg says.

Breast milk’s third-largest ingredient is “is a mixture of indigestible sugars known as oligosaccharides. Many of these sugars occur only in human milk” and the scientists wondered why breasts “wasted” effort producing these. It turned out that the oligosaccharides protect against diseases like diarhhoea caused by campylobacter.

The list goes on. “Unlike the antibodies that mothers pass along to their infants through breast milk, oligosaccharides can protect the baby from pathogens to which the mother has never been exposed.” They do this, in part by offering binding sites to hostile bacteria which mimic real gut-lining sites, then carry the bacteria harmlessly through with them. It turns out that some useful bacteria do flourish in the presence of oligosaccharides, theoretically making them stronger than the harmful ones.

Because the oligosaccharides use an entire existing mechanism for their work, they might be useful for helping things like gut-recolonisation after an infection. They’d be difficult to build resistance to, because a greeblie which changed form to avoid binding to them would also fail to bind to the cell walls of any victims.

Another useful ingredient is lactoferrin, which fights inflammation, weakened immunity, viruses, bacteria & fungi. Even its broken-down components fight urinary-tract infections as they’re filtered out & discarded from the system. Lactoferrin’s abilities set it up so that it “seems like a golden bullet, but it really is so” according to Michal Zimecki, an immunologist.

And as I said before, the list goes on. The next breast-milk I get fed is going down with extra respect. (-:

It turns out that only an acidified “alpha lactalbumin” protein was responsible for wiping out the cancer cells. “Svanborg dubbed the acidified form of the protein HAMLET, for human alpha-lactalbumin made lethal to tumors” & has been testing HAMLET against various other cancers, including baldder cancer, with good results.

She has found 40 kinds of tumour cells which HAMLET is effective against, so far. Oddly enough, a “cancer” which HAMLET turns out to be effective against is warts. “Why are you doing that?” “To remove my warts, of course!”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...