cows-milk-allergy-joyI received this from my PA the other day, I thought I would share it with you.
Whilst waiting in the Fish and Chip shop yesterday eve I had the dubious pleasure of glancing through the only available newspaper, The Sun. This article caught my eye:-

Cows Milk Allergy Joy!

A genetically modified cow is producing milk without a protein that causes millions of people to have allergic reactions. Samples of the milk show it has no beta-lactoglobulin, the main cause of lactose intolerance. Human breast milk does not contain the protein. The young New Zealand cow’s DNA was genetically altered to block the production of beta-lactoglobulin. Milk from the cow, which was born without a tail, also has high levels of calcium – a quality prized by cheesemakers. Researchers say more tests are necessary to see if similar milk can be produced by adult cows. Article ends.

So there we go, pharmaceutical companies produce the allergies in humans in the first place with the drug chain, creating allergic reactions to a food which is not designed for human consumption but created by nature for baby cows, which causes untold anguish to dairy cows then scientists create a Frankenstein cow with no tail to cure the problem. Modern science and medicine? Hmmm……

Cup of tea anyone? Want milk with that?

Originally posted 2012-10-24 18:42:17.

bon-appetit-from-monsantoI am sitting writing this piece feeling hotter than a penguin in a sauna whether from rage or just getting out of a hot bath I am not sure, but the latest research carried out on rats, by the Caen University in France makes me hot under the collar.
It highlights the fact that Genetically Modified Products should not be considered foods at all, as they are laced with carcinogens.

However, they have been shown to kill rats, so maybe GM products have a use after all. Apart from the obvious danger to humans who may unknowingly consume GM products they are included in many animal feed mixes. Chickens, pigs and cattle unless organic are very likely to be fed on a Frankenstein diet.

Monsanto have been very clever by naming their prized herbicide Round Up. It makes you think of vast herds of cattle being driven across the planes to Chicago, by Roy Rogers, John Wayne and many others who graced our silver screens. But nothing could be further from this vision of pastoral perfection.

The Monsanto method of Beef production in the US, could at best be described as horrific. Cattle are kept in large sheds, separated in stalls with nothing to do but eat. They are fed GM Soya Meal laced with steroids to promote rapid growth and antibiotics due to the risk of infection. As a result, the muscle tissue rapidly bulks up but due to the de-calcifying effect of the steroids, their bones weaken. To such an extent that often their legs are no longer able to withstand the extra weight gain, the problem is solved by suspending them in slings. As cattle are ruminants grass eaters their specialised digestive systems are quite often unable to cope with the Soya. This unsuitable diet can cause their bellies to rupture, spilling their intestines which can no longer be accommodated in the body cavity. Vets are on hand to bundle the guts back in and repair the rupture. But when this fails the intestines are placed in containers next to the animal so that they are able to continue eating and bulking until ready for the market to provide that juicy steak. Enjoy!

Originally posted 2012-09-24 18:49:38.

curcuminI have two cases at the moment that are most topical as there is in the news this week an article where senior medical people ask for the capping of costs for IVF treatment. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34658354. Whatever one thinks, and Nature appears to be ignored in this discussion, the creation of a child other than by natural means is clearly a huge lot of trouble not to mention the cost to the State. So, is there possibly a way round this, and avoiding noxious chemicals? There just might be, for some.

 

I have a friend, who does not believe in natural remedies, who has produced twin boys after three attempts at IVF. I also have a client who was troubled with serious menstrual pains. She had uterine fibroids that she asked me if I could help with. I immediately suggested Home Cures Serrapeptase Strong ™ and Home Cures Curcumin99™. She has recently emailed me to say she is so delighted, she is pregnant and deliriously happy after trying for years to have a baby.

serrapeptaseThe first lady did not take any Serrapeptase or Curcumin, despite entreaties; the second has had a good result. However, one thing is clear from this;  that infertility is not always insurmountable. Yes it is on the increase, lifestyle taking a massive part of the blame. No, it is not always the end of the story before the IVF route. And natural remedies are known to be better than any chemicals. Here are extracts from Lady N° 2’s emails of her route to happiness.

In November 2014 I stopped « The Pill » because of the risks of the possible cancerous and other unwanted side effects…. I rather think that it is possibly the pill that was the cause of my pains and almost certainly my fibroids.

In July 2015 I saw a Consultant for my painful periods and it was found that I had small , 8mm, fibroids, considered too small to do anything about with conventional medication. As I said I had stopped contraception in November 2014, … and then, thanks to an article on the internet, in September this year I contacted you. Then in October I got pregnant. I am so happy !

If you would like to Use Serrapeptase and Curcumin to help you get Pregnant you can buy Serrapeptase ™ or buy Curcumin 99™ they are available from Home Cures Natural Remedies.

John Osborne, a Naturopath of many years experience, works with the leading authorities in the world on the natural ways to cure serious illness. John is readily contactable via his web site, www.homecures.co.uk where he is happy to advise on all forms of natural treatment for bodily sickness. (John is not a doctor so is not able to offer any diagnosis.)

Originally posted 2015-10-30 11:19:27.

European nations are leading the world in rejecting genetically modified organisms in food and crops, with two more countries recently joining the list: Italy and Austria.

As reported by Nation of Change, Italian ministries have opted to utilize the newly created European Union rules that permit member countries to opt out of growing GM crops. Austrian officials joined in as well, with both nations making the decision to stop growing eight varieties of GM maize, which essentially amounted to a complete ban on GM crops.

The EU’s opt-out regulations were implemented earlier this year. They allow member states to decide on their own if they want to continue using GM crops or ban them altogether.

As reported by Sustainable Pulse, a number of other countries in the EU have also opted out of GM crops:

Wales: “These new rules proposed by the European Commission provide Wales with the necessary tools to maintain our cautionary approach by allowing us to control the future cultivation of GM crops in Wales,” said Welsh Deputy Minister for Farming and Food, Rebecca Evans. “It will allow us to protect the significant investment we have made in our organic sector and safeguard the agricultural land in Wales that is managed under voluntary agri-environment schemes.”

She added: “Farming and food processing businesses remain the driving force of our rural economy. Our emphasis is on competing on quality, strong branding and adding value through local processing. We, therefore, need to preserve consumer confidence and maintain our focus on a clean, green, natural environment. ”

Poland: In 2013, the Polish government actually adopted a regulation that banned GMO farming in the country, well ahead of the EU action. But once the EU approved its regulation giving member nations the right to ban if they chose, that was more than enough authority for the Polish government to act.

“Now we no longer have to explain the scientific aspects and we can already relate to social issues,” Polish Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki said at the time of the country’s ban.

Germany: German government officials announced in late September that the country would no longer permit the cultivation of GM crops, as stated by German Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt.

Slovenia: Slovenian Agriculture Minister Dejan Zidan said in announcing the country’s ban that “the government adopted the decision for a request for the exclusion of the entire geographical territory of Slovenia for GM maize to the EU, including the already registered variety MON 810 and seven other varieties which are in the process of registration with the European Commission. This allows me to formally send the request as the Ministry of Agriculture in accordance with the law for the exclusion of Slovenia with the regards to the cultivation of GM maize.”

Serbia: State Secretary in the Serbian Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Danilo Golubovic recently announced the country’s GMO ban. In making the announcement, Golubovic said the decision was based on a desire to improve public health and safety.

Bulgaria: This government has decided to burnish its clean and green image by banning GM crops. As noted by Sustainable Pulse‘s director, Henry Rowlands, “Bulgaria is home to a wide variety of unique flora and fauna and is also the base of many ancient civilizations, it is with this background that Bulgarians know what is at risk when it comes to using an untested and unnecessary technology.”

European nations that have opted out of growing GM crops thus far are Latvia, France, Austria, Cyprus, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Poland, Germany, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia and Italy, Sustainable Pulse reported.

Sources:


BullHorn.NationOfChange.org


SustainablePulse.com

Reuters.com

EcoWatch.com

Reuters.com

Originally posted 2015-10-19 10:13:53.

It’s happening all around the world, and emerging research suggests that the environmental impact of its use is absolutely devastating: geoengineering, a man-made climate control scheme marked by criss-crossing air sweeps that leave behind streams of shimmering “chemtrail” debris across our skies, is now being linked to widespread drought and famine throughout the world, not to mention the complete breakdown of Earth’s agricultural systems.

Geoengineering expert Dane Wigington of GeoengineeringWatch.org says chemtrail operations represent the “greatest single source of damage on many fronts,” and he might just be right. In some areas of the world, persistent drought conditions brought about by artificial weather manipulation have led to massive reductions in crop output and ever-dwindling fresh water supplies.

In Mongolia, for example, an astounding 80 percent reduction in crop yields is the direct result of persistent drought conditions, suggests Wigington. Similarly, in Thailand, farmers are struggling to produce enough food as water supplies dry up. In some areas, military soldiers are having to protect what little water remains at gunpoint.

A little closer to home, California and many areas of the Pacific Northwest continue to hobble through epic drought conditions that have left many formerly flourishing crop fields completely bone dry. California farmers are reportedly pulling in higher revenues for the crops they’re able to procure, but this is likely due to the fact that supplies continue to dwindle, which, economically speaking, drives food prices higher.

For a more thorough explanation as to how geoengineering and “chemtrails” are affecting precipitation patterns, refer to our earlier piece citing evidence of artificial weather manipulation as a driving factor in the California drought crisis.

Geoengineering isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s conspiracy FACT

If you’re still of the mindset that geoengineering is some kind of loony conspiracy theory, then you’re not keeping up with the latest science. The United Nations’ (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) openly referred to geoengineering in a 2013 report, noting that stratospheric aerosols are used to produce artificial “clouds” designed to alter weather patterns.

A more recent paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters examines how geoengineering programs — they’re stated matter-of-factly because it’s now general knowledge that they’re taking place to combat “climate change” — are affecting crop yields. The paper talks about a geoengineering method known as “marine cloud brightening” that was offered up as a solution to climate change nearly 25 years ago.

The paper erroneously concludes that such methods will improve crop yields, but the latest science suggests otherwise. Nevertheless, the paper admits that geoengineering, cloud “brightening,” and other weather manipulation tactics are real. Those of us watching these developments are here to say that they don’t work and are actually making the problem worse.

“A primary stated goal of the geoengineering programs is to provide a ‘solar shield’ to slow ‘runaway climate change’ by spraying tens of millions of tons of highly toxic metal nano particulates (a nanometer is 1/1,000,000,000 of a meter) into the atmosphere from jet aircraft,” reports Wigington.

“The ‘hydrological cycle’ of the planet is being completely disrupted by the geoengineering aerosol saturation of the atmosphere,” he says.

Wigington has been researching the damaging effects of man-made geoengineering programs for years, noting that much of Northern California and the Pacific Northwest is now polluted with particulates of aluminum, barium, and other toxic metals as a direct result of chemtrail spraying throughout the region. These chemicals are not only damaging soils by acidifying them, but they’re also affecting the quality of water, food and air.

Sources for this article include:

GeoengineeringWatch.org

MBTMag.com

NaturalNews.com

ScientificAmerican.com

IOPScience.IOP.org

Originally posted 2015-10-01 10:21:47.

Setting the record straight on a controversial toxicity study that links Monsanto’s transgenic corn and glyphosate herbicide (Roundup) to liver and kidney toxicity in mice, a new paper published in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe exposes the criminal science cartel that actively censors research into genetically-modified organisms and biotechnology that goes against the status quo.

Doctors John Fagan, Terje Traavik, and Thomas Bohn want the world to know that Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini’s famous study on GM maize NK603 and Roundup is a toxicity study that just so happened to uncover carcinogenic effects from NK603 and Roundup, both in combination and individually. The findings of this important study are indeed valid, they reiterate, and serve as a legitimate baseline for further research into this controversial segment of industrial agriculture.

Their peer-reviewed paper entitled “The Seralini affair: degeneration of Science to Re-Science?” warns that retracting studies simply because they don’t fit the official narrative for a particular subject is the antithesis of what true science is supposed to entail. They emphasize that the normal scientific process involves investigating new ideas and publishing the results, which then encourages others to do the same in either support or rejection of the earlier findings.

Prof. Seralini’s toxicology study into NK603 and Roundup lays groundwork for further inquiry into GMO and herbicide safety

Prof. Seralini’s study, in case you missed it, was retracted from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology after a swarm of “skeptics” and other anti-science fanatics demanded that it be pulled for primarily political reasons. It basically boils down to the fact that these control freaks didn’t like what Prof. Seralini discovered concerning the carcinogenic nature of Monsanto GMO corn and Roundup, so they pressured and bullied the editors of the journal who published his paper to retract it.

Their reasoning and criticisms were quickly exposed as invalid, as revealed in this comprehensive rebuttal, but little was done to vindicate Prof. Seralini and his study and make things right. That’s where this latest paper comes into play, challenging the corruption within scientific circles that stifles honest inquiry into controversial subjects, including GMO safety.

Dr. Fagan and his colleagues say the growing trend towards pulling papers from journals simply because some people don’t like their findings — Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his famous Lancet paper represent another textbook example of this — overshadows the normal scientific process “in which peer-reviewed publication stimulates new research, generating new empirical evidence that drives the evolution of scientific understanding.”

NK603 and Roundup are toxic and might cause cancer, researchers affirm

After thoroughly examining Prof. Seralini’s original findings and research methods, Dr. Fagan, Dr. Traavick, and Dr. Bohn determined that NK603 and Roundup are not only toxic to the kidneys and liver below current regulatory thresholds, but they might also cause cancer in mammals. They say that these preliminary discoveries warrant further inquiry by regulatory authorities and the scientific community at large rather than animosity towards those who made these discoveries.

“Follow-up long-term carcinogenicity studies, using test animal strains and numbers of animals that assure robust conclusions, are required to confirm/refute this preliminary evidence,” they write. “The inherent tension between the scientific process and commercial interests of product developers necessitates implementation of safeguards that protect the scientific process and prevent degeneration of Science to Re-Science (typified by retraction and republication disputes).”

For more on Prof. Seralini’s study, what it revealed, and where critics went wrong in condemning it as “invalid,” visit GMOSeralini.org.

Sources for this article include:

GMOSeralini.org

ENVEurope.com

GMOSeralini.org

GMWatch.org

Originally posted 2015-09-27 10:21:24.

A petition is circulating to persuade three of the top infant formula brands in the U.S. — Abbott Laboratories (Similac), Mead Johnson Nutrition (Enfamil) and Nestle (Gerber Good Start) — to stop using genetically modified (GM) ingredients in their baby products. Each of these powdered formulas is loaded with corn and soy byproducts, along with sugar, which means they are more than likely GM in nature and harming children.

Several years ago, Natural News warned our readers about these dangerous food products for infants, focusing specifically on Similac’s “Go & Grow” formula. The product, which is marketed for babies aged 9 to 24 months, claims it contains “balanced nutrition for older babies.” But as we pointed out, the product is nearly half composed of corn syrup solids (sugar), with the remaining 50-or-so percent composed of soybean oil, soy protein isolate, safflower oil and more sugar in the form of sucrose.

Besides being an absolutely unhealthy product in general, based on these ingredients, Similac Go & Grow is an utter freak show of GM additives, which are particularly harmful for developing children. GMOs have been linked to hormone disruption, gut damage and other problems that, again, especially in children, can lead to a lifetime of chronic health problems.

But Similac isn’t alone — practically every major brand of commercial infant formula is composed mostly of corn, soy, and sugar components, each of which is more than likely GM due to the fact that upwards of 90 percent of corn, soy and sugar beet crops planted in the U.S. are GMOS.

For the infant that is unable to nurse I insist upon an organic commercial formula,” stated pediatrician Michelle Perro, warning against commercial, GMO-laden infant formulas.”Because of the toxic effects of herbicides, particularly glyphosate (due to its prolific usage) as well as other organophosphates and genetically engineered foods in non-organic commercial formulas, these are not an option for infant feeding. In order to ensure the health of our infants and children, there is no amount of acceptable herbicide or GMO that should be in their diets.”

Major infant formula brands spent millions defeating GMO labeling

Beyond just poisoning our children, Abbott, Mead Johnson and Nestle all want to keep this poisoning a secret. As explained by GMOInside.org, each of these companies spent big bucks fighting California’s GMO labeling initiative, Proposition 37, which would have required that infant formulas contain warnings about GMO content.Abbott reportedly spent $334,500 in support of the “No on 37” campaign, while Mead Johnson, which has a much smaller market share, spent $80,000. Nestle, an industry leader in commercial infant formula,  contributed $1,461,600 to block Californians from knowing what’s in their food. Combined, these three companies raked in about $135 billion in sales in 2012.

“It’s infuriating that parents in the United States are not given the same assurances as citizens in more than 60 other countries including China, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia, when it comes to GM ingredients,” said Green America President Aliza Gravitz. “All parents have a right to healthy food options for their children.”

A Green America petition calls on these Big Three infant formula manufacturers to stop using GMOs, which have never been proven safe for human consumption. The long-term effects of GMOs in humans have never been studied, and because babies’ bodies are already less equipped to deal with processing toxins, it is only logical to stop feeding them untested genetic materials that could lead to permanent health damage.

Originally posted 2015-01-28 16:41:02.

genetic modificationTraditional plant breeding techniques are dramatically outperforming genetic modification in the quest to develop crop verities that can be grown in more marginal conditions, according to researchers from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico City.

Researchers have expressed concern that, as global warming leads to higher temperatures and lessened rainfall, more and more food crops will need to be drought-resistant. For example, drought has been shown to reduce corn yields in African by as much as 25 percent.

In addition, ongoing degradation of topsoil and rising chemical agriculture costs are driving a need for crops that can better tolerate nutrient-poor soils.

New, non-Genetic Modification varieties have 30 percent higher yield

In 2006, the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa project was launched, in partnership with CIMMYT and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture in Ibadan, Nigeria. Researchers searched CIMMYT’s seed bank for drought-tolerant corn varieties, then crossed these varieties. These new varieties were then cultivated, and seed was saved from the most drought-tolerant individuals. That seed was then grown and crossed with other corn varieties already known to thrive in Africa.

“It is a painstaking and expensive process,” said Kevin Pixley, director of CIMMYT’s genetic resources program.

In spite of the difficulty of the process, the project has already developed 153 new corn varieties suitable for cultivation in 13 countries. Field trials have shown that, under good rainfall conditions, these varieties match or surpass the yield of existing crop varieties. Under drought conditions, the new varieties outperform existing varieties by as much as 30 percent.

According to recent analysis, published in The Journal of Developing Areas, the extra yields from these 153 varieties could reduce the number of people living in poverty by 9 percent in the 13 countries. This would amount to more than half a million people in Zimbabwe alone.

In contrast, CIMMYT’s efforts to produce drought-resistant genetically modified (GM) corn (in collaboration with six other research groups and Monsanto) have yet to produce a single viable variety. That’s because most plant traits, including drought tolerance, involve multiple genes. Genetic engineering technology is only able to work on a single gene at a time.

Reducing fertilizer dependence

CIMMYT has also been working to develop corn varieties able to tolerate nitrogen-poor soils. According to CIMMYT corn breeder Biswanath Das, one of the biggest problems African farmers have is that they are only able to afford about 10 percent of the fertilizer recommended for their fields.

Globally, soil quality is diminishing and topsoil is vanishing. Indeed, a study conducted by researchers from the University of Sydney and presented at the Carbon Farming conference in 2010 found that all the topsoil on Earth will be gone by 2110, if farming practices do not change. Factors contributing to soil depletion include overuse of synthetic fertilizers, overuse of plowing and poor erosion control. All of these factors are reported to be intensified by global warming and are expected to contribute to a food crisis as the planet’s population continues to grow.

Since 2010, CIMMYT researchers have been working on the Improved Maize for African Soils (IMAS) project in collaboration with the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, the South African Agricultural Research Council and DuPont Pioneer to develop new corn varieties. The IMAS project uses both conventional breeding and genetic engineering to try and develop corn varieties that can thrive in nitrogen-poor soil.

In just four years, IMAS has already developed 21 such varieties through conventional breeding techniques suitable for eight countries. Field trials show that in nitrogen-poor soil, these varieties produce an extra metric ton of yield per hectare than currently available varieties.

Yet IMAS researchers say that a GM corn variety suitable for nitrogen-poor soil is still at least 10 years away.

Article Source: Crop breeding, drought tolerance and genetic modification.

Originally posted 2014-11-09 08:41:01.

avoid processed meatWhile the meat packers kill the “24 hour sickness” with chemicals so you won’t get it, your cells are being destroyed and mutated by industrial chemicals NEVER meant for mankind to consume.

The conventional meat industry is SO POLLUTED that they have to bleach the meat to kill bacteria, viruses and especially E-coli and Salmonella. This goes for infected cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, and even fish that are shot up with artificial growth hormones and antibiotics. Ammonia is also used for the same reasons.

Flavors and color are easily added back in using MSG, red dyes, nitrates, and other poisons on top of the fact that you’re eating TOXIC meat from animals that most likely led horrendous lives full of pain, misery and shock upon their day of death.

For the most part, meat is “murder” in the US and the fast food and restaurant chain junkies are oblivious, until the oncologists and heart specialists break the “bad news,” and that’s if they ever do.

#1) Ammonia at the Factory equals Cancer at Home – Should you be asking the US food industry key questions or just boycotting meat altogether?
Have you ever smelled ammonia and been drawn back quickly, as if you’ve taken a whiff of some smelling salts? You probably know the potent industrial chemical smell from glass and window cleaning products.

The federal school lunch program uses over 5 million pounds of ammonia-injected beef trimming each year. The ammonia “sterilizes” the beef and kills some pathogens, but E. coli and salmonella still contaminate cow-derived products and the USDA has been hiding this industrial chemical ingredient from public awareness.

Become aware! – that ammonia changes DNA cell structure in humans and warps cells, fueling cancer development, especially in cleansing organs like the pancreas, liver, and the list goes on.

Are you eating pink-slime-ammonia burgers? Are you eating an industrial chemical that is allowed to be “classified as a processing agent” and not listed on labels, and just how long does it take to get cancer this way? Learn more about this well-kept secret.

#2) Since most conventional meat contains bleach, why isn’t it white? The US meat industry uses nitrates for the red “color trick” that makes you sick
What’s your poison, a steak or a burger? Does it look real fresh at the butcher’s station at your favorite grocer, just that right, distinctive tint of red? Is it turning a little brown in the package now? Does it even matter?

Carnivores know the distinctive color of bacon and hot dogs. It looks like that “healthy flush of just-slaughtered meat,” but processed meat sold in stores was slaughtered long ago, then bleached to kill bacteria, so what happened?

Nitrates and Nitrites are additives that increase meat’s shelf life but shorten human life. It’s that simple.

Nitrates give meats that “Junk Science” high salt content flavor, and most carnivores are just plain addicted. Don’t say bacon three times in a row and ring a bell or Pavlov’s dogs (all the carnivorous humans) will start salivating!

Pay close attention, meat eaters, to what it is your organs are consuming.

#3) Hormones given to cows to make them fatter cause cancer in ALL animals, including those who consume them
In the United States of America, two out of every three cattle are pumped full of hormones because it makes the meat industry more money. Period. The only problem is that rates of breast and prostate cancer are skyrocketing correspondingly.

Hormones like progesterone, oestradiol, verall and zeranol disrupt the human body’s natural balance, causing more than one kind of biological “effect.” Much less European women are afflicted with breast cancer than US, as the EU (European Union) bans these sex hormones that speed up the maturity of cattle and “fatten them up.”

Children are particularly sensitive to sudden growth or breast development at levels that can rarely be detected in any laboratory. Of course, the United States has tried to coerce this Union of countries into accepting this hormone-laden meat, but the ban has not been lifted. Sounds like common sense is being used by the EU.

#4) Antibiotics are highly overused in cow, turkeys, pigs and chickens to stave off infections – how many are YOU getting from THAT?
Why in the world are so many people becoming immune to antibiotics and more vulnerable to infectious diseases and infections from surgery and hospital bacteria, viruses and Superbugs?

The answer is that most antibiotics sold and utilized in America are inside animals at the confined animals feeding operations that fuel the meat and dairy industries.

So what is a Superbug? A Superbug is an incredibly dangerous infection from deadly bacteria that the World Health Organization, W.H.O., calls “one of the three greatest threats to human health.”

All known antibiotics are useless in treating certain ones, like the CRE, which rose out of the systematic ABUSE of antibiotics by doctors and also factory farms (CAFOs) that fuel the fast food industries and chain, corporate restaurants.

Originally posted 2014-11-01 12:37:14.

Post Navigation