Food – How Should We Rate its Safety and Quality?

Hi, healthy-food lovers,

The New Yorker magazines RAW DEAL article was so far more favorable to our right to have the foods we want in a major magazine, including raw milk but the details of the article are not so favorable.

Everyone continues to argue bacteria.
New Yorker Profile of Rawesome Highlights Stresses of Raw Milk Producers in the Spotlight, As James Stewart Faces New Charges

Bacteria is not the problem.

I do not understand why the New Yorker author reiterated the fraudulent disease-“statistics” from CDC, health department, university and processed-food employees and investors as if the statistics were based on science and fact, especially since they possess such a superstitious prejudice against raw milk. I gave her research that proved calling bacteria the food problem is an intentional misdirection and a way for government/industry to gain control of our food.

The misinformation starts with the Pasteur info, was stated as if it were case history. The Sorbonne's Pasteur Institute of the time was hot on the heals of Pasteur's heat-process that stopped the molding of his friend's wine grapes, thereby saving his friend's land that he would have lost if his grapes were not made into wine and sold. The Sorbonne jumped on Pasteur's coat tails at the time to ride the notoriety as if they had helped Pasteur with his idea.

However, they gave credibility to each other, captured the ears and lips of Europe with the publicity that pasteurization arrested the mold in picked grapes. The medical community jumped on the band wagon stating that Pasteur's process proved that germs caused disease as well as molds, and that they could be stopped.

However, it was not widely publicized that the wine was abominable to the connoisseur, not sold at posh markets and restaurants but sold to the impoverished who normally could not afford wine. The grower nor Pasteur would drink it.

The pasteurized wine was of tainted quality mainly because of pasteurization. It was sold cheap, but it sold.

The affluent class that experienced failed wine crops in their past, now had a market for a processed cheap and inferior food in case mold grew in their grapes. They would never suffer a complete loss again. The market was the trusting poor public in Paris that thought they were getting a drink from the rich man's table. It was sold and marketed as such. There were many reports of illness from consumption of the pasteurized wine, including irrational behavior, increased home and job accidents and violence. Pasteurization alters enzymes, minerals and trace fats that would normally restrict the quickest absorption of radical sugars and alcohol that often cause undesirable personality alterations.

While being interviewed for almost 2 hours for this article, I explained to the author how the CDC and health departments base their statistics about raw-milk borne disease on surveys not science. That should have been obvious when it could have been verified that Organic Pasture's milk did not cause those children's illnesses because there was none of that bacteria in the milk. Bacteria in a calf that does not produce milk, and the fact that that bacteria does not survive airborne, should be enough facts to demonstrate that the illnesses were not caused by the raw milk they consumed but something else.

Also, the girls who were obviously sick and hospitalized in San Diego – whose sicknesses were caused by something other than Organic Pastures' raw milk - received massive amounts of antibiotics such as Ciprofloxacin that caused kidney disorders exactly like those of HUS in laboratory animals.  Therefore, it was likely the antibiotics in such massive concentrations that caused the kidney damage, not the bacteria for which the suffering girls were being treated, and wrongly blamed on raw milk.
The article misleads every reader to believe that raw milk caused and causes illnesses because it falsely presumes that raw milk is innately prone to "bad" bacteria. It seems that even David and Mark believe it.

Utilizing the statement from a health "authority" that pasteurization makes milk safe was a blatant falsehood. The word "claim" did not appear before that statement. In the history of pasteurized milk, there have been over 500,000 cases of scientifically- proved incidences of food-poisoning, literally epidemics, one involving 197,000 people. Raw milk is condemned by accusations - not science but surveys and statistics.

When a doctor or hospital reports bloody vomit or diarrhea, usually it is 2-12 weeks after the incident that a health-department clerk calls the person who suffered and asks what they ate when they got sick. Who remembers all that they ate yesterday much less weeks after an intense illness? If the person states that they drank raw milk, raw milk is automatically determined to be the cause. That is not science but prejudicial survey-spinnable false statistics. CDC and others certainly spin it, creating misleading statistics.

Technically, we should not call vomit and diarrhea sicknesses. We should call them what they are. A person's body rejects something that is toxic with vomit or diarrhea.  Those is not sicknesses but detoxification of something poisonous. If the tests were done to detect industrial chemicals in the vomit and diarrhea instead of the microbes, we would have a proper answer of their causes.

I have seen literally thousands of very sick individuals recover from disease by drinking raw dairy and eating raw meats. I do not know how "investigative" journalists sleep at night with their poor research. It seems nothing is very thoroughly investigated and the status-quo concepts continue to be regurgitated and acepted as unquestionable truth. A proper investigation would entail a study of the children and elderly who completely recovered from their illnesses while drinking raw milk. A good comparative study would entail children and elderly who remained trapped in their diseases while not drinking raw milk but taking medical drugs that offer no cure or proper healing.

Take for example Walker Kerhrer who was an asthmatic boy on medication. At 7 years old, he stopped taking his medical and began consuming raw milk.  At 8 years old in 2001, he testified before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors that before he drank raw milk he suffered terrible asthma and that when he did not have his raw milk, he suffered terrible asthma. In 2009, Walker was the top high school tennis champion in the USA. From asthma to tennis champion; will that fact be filed away in the minds of the medical- and university- indoctrinated minds as anecdotal information? How will you file it?

Notice that the the New Yorker article stated that my recovery from blood, bone, lymphatic and stomach cancers were merely my personal claims. She could have easily researched the truth by seeking the records at the hospitals where I was treated. She didn't ask for proof.
I could have shown her and given her photos of my surgical scars to verify but she did not ask and I did not think to offer. I have a letter written by one of my doctors 44 years ago that berated me for discontinuing chemo-treatments with a 1% chance of living miserably for one more month. In the letter, the doctor tried to emotionally manipulate me into continuing a process that caused me to vomit, defecate and urinate all over myself 5-20 times daily. Such doctors are insane. From medical treatments, I was a hairless worm on the floor in excruciating pain 24 hours daily, only able to sleep 6-10 minutes before I would awaken in greater excruciating pain. I suffered other severe side effects from all of the medical treatments.

However, when I began drinking raw milk and raw carrot juice, my symptoms immediately began to diminish little by little. After awhile, I notice that when I drank more raw milk than carrot juice, I experienced less pain. When I drank more carrot juice than raw milk, I suffered more. I was able to achieve a measurable balance. The correlation between foods and health became very apparent to me even though doctors were in complete denial about it. To them, only pharmaceuticals - industrial chemicals - favorably altered health.

ALL health departments and universities are controlled by medically indoctrinated propaganda instituted by the money and power of the pharmaceutical industry. They have only drops of objectivity when it comes to their brainwashed bacteria-phobic thought processes.

Every bodily process occurs by the interaction of numerous species of bacteria, inter-cellularly, extra-cellularly, and bodily fluids, including all of the activities in and of the body. We are 150 bacteria genes to every 1 human gene. We are about 1/2% human and 99.5% bacteria. The concept that bacteria cause diseases is called the germ-theory. It entails the ludicrous notion that a tiny colony of certain terrorist bacteria can willy-nilly overwhelm the body, even cause the body to attack itself. That is as accurate as a small village of 200 natives with primitive weapons arresting and annihilating all of the people in the United States of America. That sort of phenomenon only happens in fictional movies. It is an absurdity. Why do people believe it? Because
our minds are literally turned against natural fact.

The bacteria that is being accused of causing diseases (so-called "pathogenic") are actually cellular janitors. They clean up organic waste. We all have varieties of bacteria that digest (disassemble), construct (reassemble) and cleanse (collect waste, neutralize toxins, and select reusable waste and discard waste that is not reusable).

When laboratory technicians put live animal cells in an unnatural industrial chemical fluid environment that sustains cellular life it also denigrates the cells simultaneously. Cells that are not in their natural biological fluids degenerate and/or transmogrify.

The bacteria that are naturally part of the cleansing of such degeneration are propagated within the cells, coming out of hibernation so-to-speak to eat and/or transform the chemically damaged tissue of the cells. In cases wherein the chemical environment causes mutations, bacterial genes are transmogrified and resultantly so are the cells. In laboratories, Petri-dish observers see that the cells are being eaten, dissolved or transmogrified by the cleansing (janitorial) bacteria and say, "See, those cells are causing cellular disruption and dissolution. They cause disease." The naturally occurring followup-thinking becomes, " How can we make money off of this? Let's create millions of weapons of mass destruction that we will call antibiotics, antiseptics and antimicrobials. We'll make a fortune."

Do we blame the janitors for the waste they clean in our homes and offices? Do we blame the janitors who clean the pollution that mutates our janitors and gives them diseases? Some day soon, I hope that people will awaken and realize that industrial chemicals, including those formed by cooking and processing, cause all diseases. We must stop blaming bacteria or we will never understand our bodies. Bacteria are never the problem.

However, bacterial waste can be highly toxic when bacteria are fed foods containing industrial chemicals.

Take for instance, intestinal bacteria that are supposed to be 90% of digestion. They eat the food we eat.
Their waste is our food that we absorb. Their feces, urine and perspiration are our foods. When the bacteria eat foods with gross toxins, they release those toxins as a natural product of the toxic food.

Bacteria are not to blame for our diseases. The chemical farmers and processors are to blame. If people acknowledge those facts, who would they

find to buy non-organic and processed food, and medical drugs? Our politicians and business people say the economy is at stake so to hell with health, let's keep up the economy. Is the economy more important than living in a healthy body? That is a question each of us must answer.

The drugs that cause most disease are vaccines. Every ingredient is toxic in every vaccine. There are not exceptions. Together, the ingredients are a soup of toxins that have no proof of effectiveness for preventing the disease for which they are given. However, there are volumes of science that prove those toxins cause illness and disease in laboratory animals.

The reason that those toxins in vaccines may seem to work in some people is that the body stops the janitorial bacteria from cleaning old organic waste and accumulated toxins. Instead, most bodies focus on the immediate toxins from vaccines. It will take a body many years to handle, neutralize, eliminate or store those toxins from a direct injection of toxic fluids. So the normal diseases that result from toxic
living are temporarily subdued but increasing.

The body responds to most drugs the same way, temporary cessation of disease symptoms but increased toxicity that leads to greater disease. The people who benefit are all of those who invest and work in medically-related fields while decaying the health of people. If everyone were healthy, medical-related businesses and employees would be out of business and work.

Only if you are sick, do they profit. Do you really think they want you healthy? Those who want people to be healthy yet continue to work in the medical fields are in total denial and ignorant of the results of what they really do.

I want to return to the article Raw Deal. The author and/or editors failed to investigate the validity of Sharon Palmer's response that all of the thousands of dollars of commercial food she bought were sold to restaurants, inferring that they were not sold or distributed at farmers' markets or Rawesome. Did the author contact the restaurants and verify Palmer's statement? Did the author and fact checkers fail to contact the employees who testified that the commercial food Palmer bought were sold at farmers' markets and Rawesome. They testified that Palmer sold those commercial foods as being truly organic and/or Grass-fed food.

When I speak of organic, I do not refer to the USDA's corrupt version of organic that allows hundreds of industrial chemicals to enter the grounds that grow plants and animals for food as long as it does not exceed 15%. Fifteen percent chemicals can and does cause massive harm to animal cells, most often gradually but sometimes immediately. Those are the chemically- laced commercial foods that Palmer peddled as truly organically and/or grass-fed raised-on-her-farm products. Go to: www.UnhealthyFamilyFarms.com  to see much of the facts in this case.

James Stewart was complicit in distributing that commercial toxic food to all Rawesome's trusting members. I am witness to that for the many times he lied to me for 2 years. James went off track many years ago and let's hope he gets back on track, at least with his own foods. I will never trust him again to handle my foods. For 2 years, he told me repeatedly that Sharon's products were completely organic by my standards and completely raised on Sharon's farm. He stated I was being irrational and ridiculous to question the quality of those foods. Often he screamed at me at Rawesome in front of many members. The investigators that were hired and the Los Angeles City investigators found that Sharon had peddled the commercial foods for at least 2 years to Rawesome members and people at farmer's markets.

James Stewart and Sharon Palmer robbed, cheated and stole from all Rawesome members. The worst of their actions was that they harmed the health of people who consumed those chemically tainted foods. They harmed the people with the very products that members joined Rawesome to avoid.

I have been criticized and ostracized for reporting Stewart's and Palmer's criminal behavior to law enforcement. Stewart and Palmer left me no choice. I approached them about the quality of foods produced at Sharon's farm numerous times in 2 years but most often they yelled at me. If I hadn't arranged for the independent investigation and stopped them, members would still be defrauded into consuming the poison.  Members thought they were avoiding at very high prices FOR 2 YEARS - not some isolated incident.

Furthermore, James Stewart does not have any significant experience in farming. His experience involved acquiring food and food sales. He is not the protector that he purports to be. He simply peddles the food for which others establish quality.

I worked very hard to achieve the best quality of food possible by working with our Amish farmers who supplied Rawesome. I visited the farms in Pennsylvania. They changed their farming habits to accommodate exactly what I found was best because it was common sense farming. However, it is only common sense when you extricate your mind from agricultural-brainwashing produced by the food and chemical industries. Under Right To Choose Healthy Food, I contracted the farmers to grow and deliver our food in the safest manner possible for our times with the most nutrition.

People need to realize that Stewart has harmed our food-movement immeasurably. He did not leave me a choice but to stop him the way I did. If he had truly been about our right-to-food-choices movement, he would not have supplied toxic commercial food and sold it a high prices to people he had contracted with to not supply those industrial foods for 2 YEARS. Additionally, he did not take the brave approach as the farmers Vernon Hershberger and Micheal Schmidt did. Vernon and Michael were ready to go to jail for the well-fare of their food-club members and all of our rights to healthy food. Michael was ready to die for them.

James, however, opted to take actions to save himself, resulting in the closing of our club, depriving us of Rawesome and put all other raw food clubs in the country in jeopardy. For other people's sake, I hope that James Stewart has changed for the better if ever in the future he supplies food to people who care for their health. I will not trust him to handle my food. How could I trust a supposed friend who knowingly defrauded and poisoned my patients and other Rawesome members, including me, for 2 years with the chemically tainted commercial foods Sharon fraudulently peddled as grown on her tiny "family" farm? If people earn trust, have Stewart and Palmer earned our trust?

In closing, our food safety should not be predicated on the notion of bacteria, species of bacteria or bacterial behavior. The safety and quality of our food should be solely based on absence of industrial chemicals in food that causes diseases, even if those chemicals do their damage ever so slowly for the purpose of growing fast, pretty food with long shelve lives. What is more important?

Let me drive it home: The bacterial chemistry jargon of the medical/chemical industries is used to terrorize people into believing it has validity. Common sense observation will tell you what is truth. Observe how many creatures on this planet lick their rectums 5-100 times daily without getting diseases. How many lick others' rectums daily and do not get diseases from it? How many infant creatures suck mother's milk without teat-dips and washes and do not get diseases from that? How many creatures eat the feces of other animals when they eat another creature?

No, I am not saying that those are desirable activities for humans but they are not innately dangerous. I would never suggest that anyone eat their own feces or any human feces, although, it has proved to save lives.  There is no more toxic animal than human on this planet, except domesticated dogs and cats fed foods that are the worst commercial foods of all. Their feces are contaminated with toxic pathogenic industrial chemicals.
Bacteria is not our problem of disease.

Healthfully,
aajonus vonderplanitz, ph.d nutrition

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.