Damn that cleverness.
You can prove anything with facts!
BTW, high quality Vodka in place of tap water probably reduces the effects of the NWO soft kill food additives, so long as your liver holds up...
But you can always get a new liver...
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”― Stephen Hawking
Who are 'they' who have done the linking with autism? That silly tart from Baywatch? Oprah? Seriously that is nonsense. Autism has been studied to incredible degrees and no one knows what causes it if it even is an it. Autism rises are due to diagnosis, when we were young they were called funny kids, oddballs, weird. The kid with the banjo in Deliverance would now be diagnosed with autism giving his village a scary 100% increase hotspot. 'We never had no autism back when we were fucking that guy in the woods in the 1970s!'
Kids with autism drank pasteurised milk before developing it because all kids drink milk at that age - correlation not causation.
Also it's ok to be against GM crops but you can only be against them in rich countries. Without them billions of people would die, it's that simple.
Fluoride in the water has been tested to super fuck and found to be fine; I wish we had it in our water but some mad old bat managed to win a legal case years ago.
Some of the other stuff you said is true, some unproven.
For example I sometimes had been buying the best quality but still worrying cheap frozen chicken burgers from the store until very recently. I would have one maybe once a month in an emergency. I had been avoiding McD's chicken for years because of the sludge thing but thought these were ok because they said chicken breast.
Anyhoo I noticed that the smaller than small print actually said pure chicken breast + marinade but when you go to the marinade ingredients expecting maybe some salt, spices, maybe a little oil it turned out it's chicken fat and cornstarch. Sneaky cunts.
I'm sure that the occasional one of these was doing me no harm but that's another thing off the menu.
Some of the stuff is killing us but it's by a lack of design or regulation.
And do you not support politicians who are trying to get rid of the very thin line of protection you have?
I don't get that big corporations will protect us from nasty public health doctors thing at all.
In a related story, the manufacturer of the pink slime image in Sesh's post filed for bankruptcy the other day. I saw the story yesterday morning in my local paper.
Pink Slime Bankruptcy: Ground Beef Processor Files For Chapter 11 After Heated Backlash
IBT
"Pink slime" is certainly not the way to America's heart or stomach; and one ground beef processor found that out the hard way.
AFA Foods filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Monday, saying the backlash over the meat filler dubbed "pink slime" hurt its business.
"An orderly sale through Chapter 11 will unlock value and provide a smooth transition for employees, customers and other business partners," Ronald Allen, interim chief executive of AFA Foods, said in a statement, according to Reuters.
The Prussia, Pennsylvania, company is one of the largest ground beef processors in the U.S., processing more than 500 million pounds of ground beef products each year, it said in documents filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware, according to Reuters. In court documents, the company said, "recent changes in the market" have forced it to sale some or all of its assets; these "changes" were related to the public backlash against pink slime.
AFA said it has $219 million in assets and $197 million in liabilities. AFA also said it has secured a commitment for $56 million in debtor-in-possession financing from its lenders GE Capital and Bank of America. AFA, which is owned by Ron Burkle's investment firm, Yucaipa Cos., employs about 850 full-time employees and had revenue of $958 million, according to Bloomberg.
"Pink slime" is a mix of meat trimmings washed in ammonium hydroxide and used in fast food burger patties. It's called "finely textured beef" by meat processors; however, when the public got wind of what they were consuming at fast food chains like McDonald's, Burger King and Taco Bell in January, much harsher terms were used to describe the gooey, bubble gum-colored substance.
The term "pink slime" was first used by former USDA microbiologist, Gerajd Zirnstein, who included the phrase in a 2002 email to coworkers after taking a tour of a Beef Products Inc. plant. Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver made the "pink slime" term popular after using it during his show, "Food Revolution," last year. He decried the fatty, rejected meat and said that it's abhorrent for humans to eat this way.
"Basically, we're taking a product that would be sold at the cheapest form for dogs and after this process we can give it to human," Oliver said on his show.
"Why would any sensible human being want to put ammonia-filled meat into their children's mouths? The great American public needs to urgently understand what their food industry is doing," said Oliver.
"Pink slime" isn't only common in meat sold at fast food chains. Oliver said that it makes up 70 percent of the hamburger beef in America.
The backlash over "pink slime" impelled companies like BPI to half production at some of its plants in the U.S. and has led U.S. supermarket operations to say they'll stop buying the "pink slime" products. McDonald's, Burger King and Taco Bell also distanced themselves from the PR nightmare, stating that they would no longer accept the meat filler for their products.
"At the beginning of 2011, we made a decision to discontinue the use of ammonia-treated beef in our hamburgers," Todd Bacon, senior director of quality systems for McDonald's, said in a statement. "This product has been out of our supply chain since August of last year. This decision was a result of our efforts to align our global standards for how we source beef around the world."
AFA's bankruptcy filing is one more example of how far-reaching the "pink slime" controversy is, said Gary Acuff, director of the Center for Food Safety at Texas A&M University in College Station.
"The public view of this product is pretty damaged at this point," Acuff told Reuters. "I'm not sure they'll recover from something like this."
Jeremy Russell, of the National Meat Association, told Reuters, "This is certainly going to have an economic impact on the industry," affecting thousands of jobs, from cattle ranchers to meat processors.
My picture came from a bunch of stories saying it was how they made McDonalds chicken nuggets.
http://www.tineye.com/search/c0c1c24...4ce866190f071/
McD's are shorthand in these arguments though, this is all about food being too cheap, it's not a conspiracy.
If you choose the kids meal option at Denny's or wherever and expect a main course, a drink and a sweet for ....
Hah! I went to check the latest price and it's free.
Ok so as I was saying, if you expect Denny's to feed your kids for nothing and you for a few bucks then you cannot be surprised when the free market and technology work out a way to do that using horrible bits of processed animals in such an ingenious way you don't vomit.
We need more regulation. 'But regulation pushes up prices' says Ron Paul and your answer at that point should be 'Fine, I fucking hope so'!
The whole pink slime issue has been pretty interesting to watch unravel. Do a Google search for Jamie Oliver - pink slime and you get all sorts of articles and video clips. Really, who thought that cutting beef with fucking ammonia was a good idea?
Hollywood needs to make Pink Slime, the movie.
In 3D of course...
n 1994, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of the recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).LinkBovine somatotropin (abbreviated bST and BST), or BGH, is a peptide hormone produced by the cow's pituitary gland.[1] Like other hormones, it is produced in small quantities and is used in regulating metabolic processes.[1] Since 1994 it has been possible to synthesize the hormone using recombinant DNA technology to create recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone. Monsanto was the first to develop the technology and marketed it as "Posilac" - a brand now owned by Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company.
Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), by 2000 or earlier.
Of greater concern is the fact that milk from rBGH-treated cows has higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone that normally helps some types of cells to grow. Several studies have found that IGF-1 levels at the high end of the normal range may influence the development of certain tumors. Some early studies found a relationship between blood levels of IGF-1 and the development of prostate, breast, colorectal, and other cancers, but later studies have failed to confirm these reports or have found weaker relationships. While there may be a link between IGF-1 blood levels and cancer, the exact nature of this link remains unclear.
Some studies have shown that adults who drink milk have about 10% higher levels of IGF-1 in their blood than those who drink little or no milk. But this same finding has also been reported in people who drink soymilk. This suggests that the increase in IGF-1 may not be specific to cow's milk, and may be caused by protein, minerals, or some other factors in milk unrelated to rBGH. There have been no direct comparisons of IGF-1 levels in people who drink ordinary cow's milk vs. milk stimulated by rBGH.
This study shows how the FDA only uses data from the companies' own research and not verified by independent research......link
Milk and Autism..
LinkFindings from two animal studies indicate autism and schizophrenia may be linked to a person's inability to properly break down a protein found in milk. The digestive problem might actually lead to the disorders' symptoms, whose basis has long been debated. This research was done by a physiologist at the University of Florida Dr. J. Robert Cade.
When not broken down, the milk protein produces exorphins, morphine-like compounds that are then taken up by areas of the brain known to be involved in autism and schizophrenia, where they cause cells to dysfunction. The animal findings suggest an intestinal flaw, such as a malfunctioning enzyme, is to blame. Preliminary findings from that study -- which showed 95 percent of 81 autistic and schizophrenic children studied had 100 times the normal levels of the milk protein in their blood and urine -- have been presented at two international meetings in the past year but have not yet been published.
LOL no one gets out of here alive... what exactly are you worrying about..?
Humans are living 2-3 times longer than we did just 100 years ago. The longevity factor continues to grow. All this fuss over these things is wasted time and energy...
We all fucking die... what does it matter of what does us in?
The statistics for brain or mental disorders are skewed... there really isn't any significant increase per capita. We're just reproducing at extremely high rates.
Last edited by ZahZoo; 04-04-2012 at 02:18 PM.
"If you want to be a monk... you gotta cook a lot of rice...”
Somehow those people think that by saying regulation you are killing free enterprise......in a way, yes you are but that's only if you look at it from the bottom line, maximum profit to the corporations and overlook that producing cheap food has horrendous health benefits.
I could make a coffee creamer out of used oil and sell it for pennies compared to other creamers.....does that mean we should?
Trusting that the markets will regulate themselves is insane......how many decades did the tobacco companies know for a scientific fact that cigarettes caused cancer but covered it up!
Asbestos companies knew for how many decades that their product caused cancer?
Sure the market corrected itself after how many thousands of people died needlessly?
The way our food is grown and processed is causing serious health problems and no one really seems to care and yet the solutions some people are suggesting is to take away regulation to solve it
Excellent point, Kwame...those calling for complete deregulation are morons - like any industry poisoning their customers and getting away with it (in some cases for decades) will ever suddenly develop a conscience and begin to police themselves...
Best dietary rule to live by- If Dad & I did not create it, then don't expect thy bodies to know what to do with it.
Faced with the decision to retool or replace defective parts in cars.......an accountant came up with a formula that basically factored in recalls/retooling versus lawsuit payouts. The resulting formula was used to decide if it was cheaper to settle lawsuits than recall the defective problem, that the automaker should allow the defect and just settle the lawsuits as they came up.
Guess what stopped that practice?
Yep, regulation and not market correction
So basically it was a lie by the Man for the good of His people
No, it wasn't a lie. Since there was no way to safely eat pork, then it was actually unclean and would kill you, at that point. Even with today's technology, those who keep a Kosher diet are eating much healthier than those who do not. Compare those Hebrew National hotdogs to a competing brand, for example. Not that hotdogs in general are the best example of health food, but ye know what I mean
I was just jerking Your chain, Your Most Holiness!
I suppose you're right...
I think the government has the right to inform people of the dangers but it doesn't have to be big daddy in everything. Life is about making choices and learning from them. When every decision is made for you, life sucks. That's the way the Soviet Union was in 1978 when we went there. It was the government telling everyone what to do and they were scared to think for themselves. Government is pretty much ran by control freaks anyways. They are attracted to it. Not exactly the type of people I want dictating everything we do.
I agree and it's like pulling teeth just to get them to label things properly
Just to let you know, it´s legal here for personal consuption when a third parties are not affected. You even can grow it.
Copied fron www.druglawreform.info :
Argentina
Decriminalization
Overview of drug laws and legislative trends in Argentina
Trend
On August 25, 2009, the Supreme Court of Argentina unanimously declared unconstitutional the second paragraph of Article 14 of the national Narcotics Law (Law No. 23,737) which punishes the possession of drugs for personal consumption with imprisonment, ranging from one month to two years (replaceable with educational measures or treatment). According to the Court the unconstitutionality of the article is applicable to cases of drug possession for personal consumption, when third parties are not affected.
Although the Court's ruling does not specifically refer to one particular substance, and the case on which it ruled dealt with cannabis, it opens the door to judicial reform of drug laws in Argentina, since these arguments also apply to other drugs. A bill to decriminalize the possession of all drugs for personal consumption was expected in 2010, but will now most likely be discussed in 2012.
"Ya know what they say about angels... An angel is a supernatural being or spirit, usually humanoid in form, found in various religions and mythologies. Plus Roth fan boards..."- ZahZoo April 2013
Well, one thing a friend and I figured out the other day....if Law Enforcement agencies are worried about their budgets for going after reefer people will be cut if pot is legalized, the answer is just to shift their efforts to meth-heads. There are armies of meth-heads out there just waiting to be busted, and currently there is not enough cash in the budgets to bust all of them. Legalize the reefer, that frees up resources to fight meth, heroin, etc.
Not cocaine though. That is how the CIA makes their money.
jesus talking about hotdogs!
(not a curse, actually happened.)
I Feel Like Smoking A Big Fat Kiwi Bud.
First Roth Army Kiwi To See Van Halen Live 6/16/2012 Phoenix Arizona.
Im nearing 12 months now of living off rainwater and fresh milk.
Fresh produce and hormone/preservative free meat.
Im sure the clean air helps too, but my digestion system
seems heaps better, my skin looks better, I still knock
back the beers (as you do) but its interesting in just one year
eating fresh meat and fresh water what a difference you feel.
Theres freakin 90 year old dudes up here running several hundred head of
catlle a day ! Those buggers seem like they will live to 150... lol...
The proof is in the pudding, (hope thats an international saying)
Fresh air, water, food....
Thats why I asked the question about city water and preservatives in food.
Maybe our governments know and dont care that we will fall off the perch
earlier ?
BABY PANA 2 IS Coming !! All across the land, let the love and beer flow !
Love ya Mary Frances!
Ha!
I invested in a farm with a friend a couple years ago and we raise all organic meat!
We use no GMO feed or any growth hormones. Everything free-ranges and we rotate the animals to naturally fertilizer the fields. The cows, Belted Galloways, graze the fields first followed by the chickens and then the pigs. They spread the manure while eating the insects and root up the fields. By doing this, every animal on the farm contributes to putting nutrients back into the fields and our hay/alfalfa is amazing. We're able to get 2 cuttings a year even after allowing the animals to graze.
The trade off is it takes a bit longer for the animals to grow but the taste of the meat and poultry is amazing. Pigs are leaner but still taste better than anything store bought. The lambs, ducks, rabbit and turkeys all taste better, too! Fresh creamer in your coffee is to die for
The eggs we have are 1,000 times better than store bought.
This year we've finally broke even, feed costs + land development, and are on pace to make money! Not bad for only starting from scratch three years ago.
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/03...ter_just_5.php
Feds Remove Anti-Tumor Cannabis Info After Just Days Online
By Steve Elliott ~alapoet~ in Medical, News
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Just 11 days after adding a section on medical marijuana to its treatment database, the National Cancer Institute has altered the new page, removing any mention of the evidence that marijuana can diminish and even reverse tumor growth.
LINKY
In an edit appearing Monday afternoon, NCI replaced a sentence about marijuana's direct anti-tumor effect with one saying that it is prescribed mainly to control nausea, pain and insomnia for cancer patients, reports Kyle Daly at The Colorado Independent.
LINKY
The original language, published to the Web on March 17, had read:
The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.
After being changed Monday, it now reads:
The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. Though no relevant surveys of practice patterns exist, it appears that physicians caring for cancer patients who prescribe medicinal Cannabis predominantly do so for symptom management.
Information which acknowledges that marijuana has been used medicinally for thousands of years was left on the site, as were statements regarding cannabinoids and their benefits in ameliorating the side-effects of conventional cancer treatments.
Was Big Pharm behind the changes? Were the pharmaceutical companies protecting their profits derived from harsh and often ineffective chemotherapy?
Do we live in a free, science-based society or one where medical research can be deleted and ignored for political reasons?
300 Economists....some of them Nobel Laureates, say legalizing pot could save our government over 13 BILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1431840.html
Your plans to celebrate 4/20 this Friday could actually make the government some money, if only such activities were legal. That’s according to a bunch of economists, and some prominent ones too.
More than 300 economists, including three nobel laureates, have signed a petition calling attention to the findings of a paper by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, which suggests that if the government legalized marijuana it would save $7.7 billion annually by not having to enforce the current prohibition on the drug. The report added that legalization would save an additional $6 billion per year if the government taxed marijuana at rates similar to alcohol and tobacco.
That's as much as $13.7 billion per year, but it's still minimal when compared to the federal deficit, which hit $1.5 trillion last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
While the economists don't directly call for pot legalization, the petition asks advocates on both sides to engage in an "open and honest debate" about the benefits of pot prohibition.
"At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current policy to show that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues, and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition," the petition states.
The economic benefits of pushing pot into mainstream commerce have long been cited as a reason to make the drug legal, and the economists' petition comes as government officials at both the federal and local levels are looking for ways to raise funds. The majority of Americans say they prefer cutting programs to increasing taxes as a way to deal with the nation’s budget deficit -- marijuana legalization would seemingly give the government money without doing either.
Officials in one state have already made the economic argument for pot legalization, but to no avail. California Democratic State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano proposed legislation in 2009 to legalize marijuana in California, arguing that it would yield billions of dollars in tax revenue for a state in dire need of funds. California voters ultimately knocked down a referendum to legalize marijuana in 2010.
Economist Stephen Easton wrote in Businessweek that the financial benefits of pot legalization may be even bigger than Miron's findings estimate. Based on the amount of money he thinks it would take to produce and market legal marijuana, combined with an estimate of marijuana consumers, Eatson guesses that legalizing the drug could bring in $45 to $100 billion per year. Easton’s name doesn't appear on the petition.
Some argue that the economic argument for pot legalization is already proven by the benefits states and cities have reaped from making medical marijuana legal. Advocates for Colorado's medical marijuana industry argue that legalization has helped to jumpstart a stalled economy in cities like Boulder and Denver, according to nj.com.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)