Bride of Frankenfood: Hillary Clinton pushes GMO agenda... hires Monsanto lobbyist... takes huge dollars from Monsanto
Monday, May 18, 2015
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
(NaturalNews) Democrats who had been programmed to blindly vote for
Hillary Clinton are picking their jaws up off the floor after learning
the truth about Hillary's ties to Monsanto. The ties run so deep that
she's now being dubbed the "Bride of Frankenfood." (Tweet this story)
Shockingly, Hillary Clinton's ties to Monsanto are new information to her liberal support base. It drives home the important point that nearly everyone supporting Hillary Clinton has no idea who she really is, as evidenced by this stunning new video from Mark Dice and Luke Rudkowski.
"Hillary Rodham Clinton's ties to agribusiness giant Monsanto, and her advocacy for the industry's genetically modified crops, have environmentalists in Iowa calling her 'Bride of Frankenfood'" reports the Washington Times. "A large faction of women voiced strong support for Mrs. Clinton's candidacy until the GMO issue came up, prompting them to switch allegiances to Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, a liberal stalwart challenging her for the Democratic nomination."
Oh my, how little they really know about the real Hillary Clinton... keep reading to find out more...
Bill Gates, of course, pushes vaccines on the world, while Monsanto pushes GMOs. It's a toxic one-two punch for global depopulation.
Hillary Clinton's donors also include the drug maker Pfizer, ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and many more. It's a who's who compilation of the most evil corporations and institutions on planet Earth, and they've all given huge money -- tens of millions of dollars -- to Hillary Clinton.
All the corporations are, of course, buying influence with the Clintons. This obvious fact was wildly attacked by extreme leftist Democratic party operatives like George Stephanopoulos, who turned out to have hidden his own $75,000 in donations to the same Clinton Foundation. He claims he thought he was donating to halt "deforestation." Hillaryious!
As True Activist reports:
Hillary Clinton recently announced that she will be appointing long-time Monsanto lobbyist Jerry Crawford as adviser to her "Ready for Hillary" super PAC... Over the years, Crawford has been instrumental in fighting against small farmers in court and protecting Monsanto's seed monopoly.
Crawford is an "equal opportunity payola operative" who hands out political bribes to members of both parties. "Crawford has mostly worked with Democratic politicians in the past, but has also put his support behind Republican candidates as well. Anyone who was willing to support Monsanto's goals would receive support from Crawford," says TrueActivist.com.
"Her history of backing GMO dates back to her early days in Arkansas as a lawyer with the Rose Law Firm, which represented Monsanto and other agribusiness leaders," reports the Washington Times.
Almost none of today's activist voters are even old enough to remember the Rose Law Firm, the Clintons' Whitewater scandal, or even the fact that Hillary Clinton ran the media attacks on all the women who tried to go public with claims of being sexually violated by Bill Clinton. (Yes, Hillary ran the "blame the victim" campaign to protect Bill!)
Yet in an age where progressives demand full transparency on all the issues that matter to them most -- immigration, gay marriage, gun control and so on -- Hillary finds herself squarely on the wrong side of the GMO issue. She's a puppet for Monsanto and all its toxic practices that destroy life and destroy the environment.
"In the GMO debate, Mrs. Clinton has consistently sided with the chemical companies," says the Washington Times. "A new scientific study bolstered environmentalists' concerns by finding the herbicide Roundup could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson's, infertility and cancers. The study published last month in the scientific journal Entropy also reported evidence that residue of glyphosate, a chief ingredient in the weed killer, has been found in food."
That food, of course, enriches Monsanto and the other biotech firms, many of which kick back huge donations to Hillary Clinton as long as she keeps pushing poison.
A vote for Hillary, it turns out, is a vote for Monsanto.
All the while, money was flowing into the Clinton foundation from uranium interests:
In total, people affiliated with Uranium One or its predecessor gave more than $8 million to the Clinton Foundation between 2008 and 2010. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow, paid for by a bank boosting Uranium One stock.
Why does this matter to the Clinton voter support base? Because progressives are rightly anti-nuclear power and anti-nuke weapons. Yet their gender champion Hillary Clinton is out there promoting the proliferation of nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons, all while raking in millions of dollars for her own foundation in exchange for selling her influence to the highest bidder. Suddenly a Clinton presidency doesn't sound so "progressive," does it?
In 2014, she spoke at the Biotechnology Industry Organization and practiced running Monsanto's talking points, saying:
I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record ... And to continue to try to make the case for those who are skeptical that they may not know what they're eating already. The question of genetically modified food or hybrids has gone on for many many years. And there is again a big gap between what the facts are and what perceptions are...
During the speech, Clinton basically says that all anti-GMO people are anti-science idiots who don't know "the facts." Those "facts," of course, are all contrived by Monsanto itself and its deep network of financial influence over scientists, universities and even the lamestream media. Hillary Clinton basically concludes that since you don't know you've already been eating GMOs, then it's safe to keep doing so.
See the sickening video here:
https://youtu.be/Hypwb_SYaAc
As the joke goes, Hillary Clinton not only knows where all the bodies are buried... she ordered them put there in the first place!
For decades, the Clintons were able to control the official narrative and construct a false image of who they really are and what they really believe. But now, thanks to the Independent Media which is now dominating in viewership and is trusted far more than the mainstream media, the Clintons can't roll out their usual revisionist history and expect it to work.
The simple truth -- to the great horror of progressives everywhere -- is that Hillary Clinton has long sold out to chemical agriculture and biotech. She's your RoundUp-Ready she-whore... your Monsanto Matriarch... the "Glyphosate Mamma" armed with fists full of toxic fury. And she wants your vote because she's gonna dethrone the one percent? Seriously? Pathetic. Hillary Clinton is FUNDED by the one percent!
If you think Hillary Clinton opposes the one percent, you must also believe ExxonMobil opposes drilling for oil.
Clinton / Monsanto for President, 2016!
And if Clinton becomes president, you can expect the full Monsanto agenda to be aggressively pushed as national policy:
• A nationwide federal ban on GMO labeling.
• Immediate USDA approval of all experimental GMO crops.
• Extreme, politically motivated attacks against all anti-GMO activists, scientists and journalists.
• Huge increases in taxpayer-funded subsidies for farmers who grow GMO crops.
• Aggressive corporate imperialism push to overturn bans on glyphosate and GMOs by other nations.
• Possibly even attempts by the FDA to outlaw non-GMO Project Verified labels in the same way they attacked hormone-free labels for cow's milk.
Make no mistake: A vote for Hillary is a vote for Monsanto.
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Shockingly, Hillary Clinton's ties to Monsanto are new information to her liberal support base. It drives home the important point that nearly everyone supporting Hillary Clinton has no idea who she really is, as evidenced by this stunning new video from Mark Dice and Luke Rudkowski.
"Hillary Rodham Clinton's ties to agribusiness giant Monsanto, and her advocacy for the industry's genetically modified crops, have environmentalists in Iowa calling her 'Bride of Frankenfood'" reports the Washington Times. "A large faction of women voiced strong support for Mrs. Clinton's candidacy until the GMO issue came up, prompting them to switch allegiances to Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, a liberal stalwart challenging her for the Democratic nomination."
Oh my, how little they really know about the real Hillary Clinton... keep reading to find out more...
Monsanto and Bill Gates are top donors to the Clinton Family Foundation
A quick look at this table of Clinton Family Foundation donors reveals both the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Monsanto as two of the heavy-hitting donors to the Clinton "Crime" Family Foundation.Bill Gates, of course, pushes vaccines on the world, while Monsanto pushes GMOs. It's a toxic one-two punch for global depopulation.
Hillary Clinton's donors also include the drug maker Pfizer, ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and many more. It's a who's who compilation of the most evil corporations and institutions on planet Earth, and they've all given huge money -- tens of millions of dollars -- to Hillary Clinton.
All the corporations are, of course, buying influence with the Clintons. This obvious fact was wildly attacked by extreme leftist Democratic party operatives like George Stephanopoulos, who turned out to have hidden his own $75,000 in donations to the same Clinton Foundation. He claims he thought he was donating to halt "deforestation." Hillaryious!
Hillary Clinton hires former Monsanto lobbyist to run her campaign
If you're still not convinced that Hillary Clinton has strong ties to Monsanto, ask yourself why she just hired a prominent Monsanto lobbyist to run her campaign.As True Activist reports:
Hillary Clinton recently announced that she will be appointing long-time Monsanto lobbyist Jerry Crawford as adviser to her "Ready for Hillary" super PAC... Over the years, Crawford has been instrumental in fighting against small farmers in court and protecting Monsanto's seed monopoly.
Crawford is an "equal opportunity payola operative" who hands out political bribes to members of both parties. "Crawford has mostly worked with Democratic politicians in the past, but has also put his support behind Republican candidates as well. Anyone who was willing to support Monsanto's goals would receive support from Crawford," says TrueActivist.com.
Hillary Clinton's law firm used to have Monsanto as a client
Back in the 1990s, during the era when Vince Foster was murdered for what he knew about the Clintons, Hillary Clinton was a partner at the Rose Law Firm. This law firm counted Monsanto as its client:"Her history of backing GMO dates back to her early days in Arkansas as a lawyer with the Rose Law Firm, which represented Monsanto and other agribusiness leaders," reports the Washington Times.
Almost none of today's activist voters are even old enough to remember the Rose Law Firm, the Clintons' Whitewater scandal, or even the fact that Hillary Clinton ran the media attacks on all the women who tried to go public with claims of being sexually violated by Bill Clinton. (Yes, Hillary ran the "blame the victim" campaign to protect Bill!)
Yet in an age where progressives demand full transparency on all the issues that matter to them most -- immigration, gay marriage, gun control and so on -- Hillary finds herself squarely on the wrong side of the GMO issue. She's a puppet for Monsanto and all its toxic practices that destroy life and destroy the environment.
Hillary Clinton pushes toxic pesticides, herbicides and other agricultural chemicals
At every opportunity, Hillary Clinton pushes toxic chemicals, pesticides and herbicides that contaminate the food supply, promote human diseases like Alzheimer's and even threaten destruction of the environment. Hillary Clinton, Bride of Frankenfood, is also a "chemical holocaust" pusher who works hard to make sure every woman and child in America eats food laced with cancer-causing glyphosate."In the GMO debate, Mrs. Clinton has consistently sided with the chemical companies," says the Washington Times. "A new scientific study bolstered environmentalists' concerns by finding the herbicide Roundup could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson's, infertility and cancers. The study published last month in the scientific journal Entropy also reported evidence that residue of glyphosate, a chief ingredient in the weed killer, has been found in food."
That food, of course, enriches Monsanto and the other biotech firms, many of which kick back huge donations to Hillary Clinton as long as she keeps pushing poison.A vote for Hillary, it turns out, is a vote for Monsanto.
Hillary Clinton hands nuclear fuel resource deal to Russia
It's not just GMOs, either, that haunt the real history of Hillary Clinton. As The Atlantic reported this year, Hillary Clinton was also instrumental in handing the Russian government a near-monopoly over nuclear weapons uranium supplies.All the while, money was flowing into the Clinton foundation from uranium interests:
In total, people affiliated with Uranium One or its predecessor gave more than $8 million to the Clinton Foundation between 2008 and 2010. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow, paid for by a bank boosting Uranium One stock.
Why does this matter to the Clinton voter support base? Because progressives are rightly anti-nuclear power and anti-nuke weapons. Yet their gender champion Hillary Clinton is out there promoting the proliferation of nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons, all while raking in millions of dollars for her own foundation in exchange for selling her influence to the highest bidder. Suddenly a Clinton presidency doesn't sound so "progressive," does it?
Hillary Clinton parrots Monsanto's talking points as speaker for the Biotechnology Industry Organization
Just to make sure no one is confused about where Hillary Clinton really stands on the issue of GMOs and biotech, she openly parrots Monsanto's quack science talking points in public.In 2014, she spoke at the Biotechnology Industry Organization and practiced running Monsanto's talking points, saying:
I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record ... And to continue to try to make the case for those who are skeptical that they may not know what they're eating already. The question of genetically modified food or hybrids has gone on for many many years. And there is again a big gap between what the facts are and what perceptions are...
During the speech, Clinton basically says that all anti-GMO people are anti-science idiots who don't know "the facts." Those "facts," of course, are all contrived by Monsanto itself and its deep network of financial influence over scientists, universities and even the lamestream media. Hillary Clinton basically concludes that since you don't know you've already been eating GMOs, then it's safe to keep doing so.
See the sickening video here:
https://youtu.be/Hypwb_SYaAc
Will anybody stand up and challenge the Bride of Frankenfood?
If you've ever wondered why there's almost no willingness among 100+ million Democrats to challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination, it's because Democrats are terrified of Hillary.As the joke goes, Hillary Clinton not only knows where all the bodies are buried... she ordered them put there in the first place!
For decades, the Clintons were able to control the official narrative and construct a false image of who they really are and what they really believe. But now, thanks to the Independent Media which is now dominating in viewership and is trusted far more than the mainstream media, the Clintons can't roll out their usual revisionist history and expect it to work.
The simple truth -- to the great horror of progressives everywhere -- is that Hillary Clinton has long sold out to chemical agriculture and biotech. She's your RoundUp-Ready she-whore... your Monsanto Matriarch... the "Glyphosate Mamma" armed with fists full of toxic fury. And she wants your vote because she's gonna dethrone the one percent? Seriously? Pathetic. Hillary Clinton is FUNDED by the one percent!
If you think Hillary Clinton opposes the one percent, you must also believe ExxonMobil opposes drilling for oil.
What you can expect from a Clinton / Monsanto presidency
There are so many ties between Clinton and Monsanto that the evil biotech corporation is practically Hillary's running mate.Clinton / Monsanto for President, 2016!
And if Clinton becomes president, you can expect the full Monsanto agenda to be aggressively pushed as national policy:
• A nationwide federal ban on GMO labeling.
• Immediate USDA approval of all experimental GMO crops.
• Extreme, politically motivated attacks against all anti-GMO activists, scientists and journalists.
• Huge increases in taxpayer-funded subsidies for farmers who grow GMO crops.
• Aggressive corporate imperialism push to overturn bans on glyphosate and GMOs by other nations.
• Possibly even attempts by the FDA to outlaw non-GMO Project Verified labels in the same way they attacked hormone-free labels for cow's milk.
Make no mistake: A vote for Hillary is a vote for Monsanto.
Had the internet existed in the 19th century, people would have been complaining about pasteurized milk! Do you love "raw milk"?
ReplyDeleteThe US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says improperly handled raw milk is responsible for nearly three times more hospitalizations than any other food-borne disease outbreak, making it one of the world's most dangerous food products.[15][16] Diseases prevented by pasteurization can include tuberculosis, brucellosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, and Q-fever; it also kills the harmful bacteria Salmonella, Listeria, Yersinia,
Is pasteurized milk also "frankenfood"? We live in an advanced society, where most people do not live close to the earth from which they're fed. Many if not all of the advances that you rail against 24/7 result in more people having access to food. The alternative is worse - starvation, ingesting pathogens from spoiled chicken, milk etc.
The blog has become a surrogate for Templeton Times, which received very few page views. All of these foil hat issues could be addressed over at Templeton Times.
By Dr. Mercola
ReplyDeleteThe United States lags far behind many other nations when it comes to food safety and nutritional recommendations, and this is perhaps particularly true when it comes to raw milk.
The fact is, large dairy farmers operating under the factory farm model simply cannot produce raw milk safe for human consumption.
They're too large, and therefore end up being hotbeds for pathogenic contamination. They also cannot provide enough open pasture for tens of thousands of cows to continually graze on.
Cleanliness and pasture are critical parameters for producing healthy milk fit for raw consumption. So really, the war on raw milk boils down to control—controlling the competition, which is selling a superior product. It's NOT an issue of safety at all.
In fact, several studies have demonstrated the superior safety of raw milk compared to pasteurized, yet the vilification of raw milk continues unabated—science and statistics be damned...
Europeans Can Buy Raw Milk from Vending Machines
In sharp contrast to the US, some European nations sell raw milk in vending machines! And contrary to popular (American) belief, the bodies are NOT piling up as a result. As reported by Modern Farmer:1
"Europe's embrace of raw milk vending machines isn't new. Such daring dispensers of unpasteurized dairy can be found in France, Croatia, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands and, as one map2 shows, all over the place in Italy."
The safety measures are remarkably simple. If the temperature of the milk rises above the regulated level, the machine will stop dispensing milk, and the farmer is notified via text message. The milk spout is sterilized by a UV light between each purchase.
In the US, several states have outright banned the sale of raw milk for fear of contaminated milk despite the fact that, statistically, such fears are completely and udderly unfounded (pun intended).
Research by Dr. Ted Beals, MD,3 featured in the summer 2011 issue of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, shows that you are actually about 35,000 times more likely to get sick from other foods than you are from raw milk!
Pasteurized Dairy and Processed Foods Top the List of 'Most Dangerous'
Pasteurized Dairy and Processed Foods Top the List of 'Most Dangerous'
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of foodborne illnesses in the US are linked to factory farmed and highly processed foods, not raw foods. For example, late last year, Chobani Greek yogurt was recalled following reports of gastrointestinal illness.4 The yogurt, which is pasteurized and not raw, was found to be contaminated with a fungus called Murcor circinelloides.
In 2011, Cargill recalled a whopping 36 million pounds of ground turkey.5 An antibiotic-resistant strain of Salmonella in the meat ended up causing 107 illnesses and one death.
An investigation revealed that this strain of Salmonella had been found four times over the course of one year, yet the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), took no action against the producer. And, from the time the first illness was reported and the recall took effect, five months passed, allowing over a hundred more people to become ill from the contaminated meat.
A major part of the problem is that, despite being in charge of food safety oversight of meat and poultry, the USDA does not have the authority to take action against a meat or poultry producer—even if the permissible limits of pathogenic contamination are repeatedly exceeded.
Clearly, this does not bode well for food safety. As explained in a previous Food Safety News article discussing this case:6
"For example, take ground turkey. When USDA tests for Salmonella, they take individual 1-pound samples on 52 consecutive days of production. Sometimes it takes a year to complete a set — and the establishment gets a heads up that a sample is going to be taken!
In addition, if 26 or fewer are positive, the sample set passes. If more than 26 are positive, the sample set fails.
ReplyDeleteBasically, these are like open book exams — not pop quizzes — where a 50 percent is still passing! And even when a sample set fails, USDA does another set of testing. And they keep doing testing until a set passes."
What this means is that if 50 percent of the samples are contaminated with disease-causing bacteria, it's deemed "safe." But if it hits 51 percent, it's tagged as "unsafe." And testing simply continues until illness is reported. What sense does this make?
Yet anytime the lack of food safety is discussed, the focus is suddenly turned to raw milk! It's almost as though US agencies are using raw milk as a scapegoat to keep you from looking at the real problem, which is that factory farms produce inherently unsafe foods. It's like a propaganda machine sleight of hand maneuver...
CDC Stance on Raw Milk—As Biased as It Gets
Mark McAfee, CEO of Organic Pastures Dairy and an internationally recognized expert in raw milk production and safety, has on numerous occasions tried to set the record straight with US authorities, to no avail. In a 2012 letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), he writes:7
"As a grade A producer of retailed-approved raw milk in California, I find your raw milk page filled with highly erroneous and very misleading information... In California, we have legal retail-approved raw milk in 400 stores consumed by 75,000 consumers each week. This retail legal raw milk is tested and state inspected and far exceeds pasteurized milk product standards without any heat or processing.
It is clean raw milk from a single source dairy. There have been no deaths from raw milk in California in 37 years. Two years ago, I submitted a FOIA request to the CDC to request data on the two deaths that the CDC database claims were from raw milk. The data I received back from the CDC showed that in fact there had been no death from raw milk at all.
The two deaths had been from illegal Mexican bath tub cheese and not raw milk from any place in America. Why does the CDC persist in publishing this erroneous information? ...The last people to die from milk died from pasteurized milk at Whittier farms in 2007, not from raw milk."
While both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the CDC warn that raw milk can carry disease-causing bacteria, they completely overlook the fact that these bacteria are the result of industrial farming practices that lead to diseased animals, which may then in turn produce contaminated milk.
They make no distinction whatsoever between disease-riddled factory farmed milk and the milk from clean, healthy, grass-fed cows. This is indeed a key issue, as raw milk from a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) IS dangerous and must be pasteurized in order to be fit to drink, whereas raw milk from cows raised on pasture IS NOT dangerous and DOES NOT need pasteurization. The source of the milk makes all the difference when it comes to raw milk.
What the CDC Doesn't Tell You About Raw Milk Is Worth Knowing...
What the CDC Doesn't Tell You About Raw Milk Is Worth Knowing...
ReplyDeleteThe CDC also fails to inform visitors in its website that legal raw milk producers oftentimes adhere to stricter safety standards than CAFOs do. California, specifically, has its own special set of standards for raw milk for human consumption, in which farmers must meet or exceed pasteurized milk standards, without pasteurizing.
Instead of giving you the facts, the CDC lists raw milk as one of the riskiest foods in America, without any real proof to back up such a proclamation. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has even called for a complete ban on raw milk because it is so "dangerous." But on what do they base their assumptions? On the CDC's unproven opinion? If safety was truly the issue, then pasteurized dairy would be banned, as that's what's causing the most disease.
So you've got to ask yourself, is this really about our personal safety or the safety of the milk industry? Eating directly from the farm is prohibited by industry so they can control our food supply. They make it very difficult for farmers to sell directly to us, whether dairy products or meat products. They claim this is done for our safety, but it's really just a plot to control our food system.
"The FDA does not mention raw milk on their top 10 most risky foods in America list," McAfee notes. "Pasteurized ice cream and pasteurized cheeses make the top 10 risky foods list... According to the Cornell study performed on CDC data, there were 1,100 illnesses caused by raw milk between 1973 and 2009. There were 422,000 illnesses caused by pasteurized milk. No deaths from raw milk and at least 50 deaths from pasteurized milk or pasteurized cheese—the CDC left out the 29 or more people that died from the pasteurized Jalisco cheese listeria incident in 1985."
Raw Milk Has Many Health Benefits
The CDC, as McAfee notes, is absolutely riddled with bias. While most of it is obvious, some of the bias is hidden by the way the CDC counts its statistics. For example, it counts outbreaks rather than the number of people affected by the outbreak. In one outbreak caused by pasteurized milk, 200,000 people fell ill! Yet it's only counted as one incident. Its website also makes no mention whatsoever to studies showing how raw organic milk differs, nutritionally, from CAFO milk, and how it improves health. For example, raw milk is:
Loaded with healthy bacteria that are good for your gastrointestinal tract High in omega-3 and low omega-6, which is the beneficial ratio between these two essential fats
ReplyDeleteFull of more than 60 digestive enzymes, growth factors, and immunoglobulins (antibodies). These enzymes are destroyed during pasteurization, making pasteurized milk much harder to digest Loaded with vitamins (A, B, C, D, E, and K) in highly bioavailable forms, and a very balanced blend of minerals (calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and iron) whose absorption is enhanced by live Lactobacilli
Rich in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which fights cancer and boosts metabolism Rich in healthy unoxidized cholesterol
Rich in beneficial raw fats, amino acids, and proteins in a highly bioavailable form, all 100 percent digestible It also contains phosphatase, an enzyme that aids and assists in the absorption of calcium in your bones, and lipase enzyme, which helps to hydrolyze and absorb fats
Pasteurizing milk, on the other hand, destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamins, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamin B12 and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria, and actually promotes pathogens.
Max Kane's Self-Healing Is a Testament to the Power of Raw Dairy
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs139/en/
ReplyDeleteWHO says you should avoid drinking raw milk.
There may be a difference between living on a farm and drinking raw milk. But most people do not live on farms (I made this point with my initial post).
You like to quote Dr. Oz, the WHO or Max Kane. Whoever supports your view. WHO says don't drink raw milk. Pasteurize milk is better, according to WHO. And CDC.
Why not have two blogs? This blog to discuss Templeton issues, and Templeton Times to discuss conspiracy theories, Frankenfoods, GMOs, contrails, 9-11 conspiracy etc? Why clog up Pauly's Templeton Watch with stuff you can't get any views for on Templeton Times? You are forcing people who do not care about these fringe issues to either abandon the blog or to put up with this nonsense.
Apparently I am not the only one who thinks outside of the box, I did not post this article. Many people have become a little weary of believing everything our government (big business married to our central bank) has to offer. If you think our leaders have been straight with us just watch this short video on the origins of Aids and remember who holds the patent on Aids and Ebola. Aids
ReplyDelete