Answer to subscriber's question
by aajonus vonderplanitz, ph.d. nutrition
Hi, Aajonus. What do you make of this?
"Meat contaminated with resistant bacteria by Marissa Cevallos, HealthKey, 6:05 AM PDT, April 15, 2011.
Meat in the U.S. may be widely contaminated with strains of drug-resistant bacteria, researchers reported Friday. Nearly half of all meat and poultry sampled in a new study contained drug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus.
"Translational Genomics Research Institute produced the research. It claims to be a nonprofit biomedical research center in Phoenix. They reported that they analyzed 136 samples of beef, chicken, pork and turkey from 80 brands from 26 grocery stores in five cities: Los Angeles, Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Flagstaff, Ariz., and Washington, DC.
"DNA testing suggested the animals were the source of contamination. The research was funded by the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming.
"'The fact that drug-resistant S. aureus was so prevalent, and likely came from the food animals themselves, is troubling, and demands attention to how antibiotics are used in food-animal production today,' said Lance Price, lead author of the study and director of TGen's Center for Food Microbiology and Environmental Health, said in a news release.
"Antibiotics are routinely given to livestock to promote growth and prevent disease in crowded pens. Last summer, the Food and Drug Administration urged the meat industry to cut back on antibiotics use over concerns that the bacterial resistance bred in stockyards makes antibiotics less effective in humans.
"About 11,000 people die every year from S.aureus infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and more than half of those deaths are from the hospital "superbug" methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA).
"The direct risk to meat consumers - a staph infection from the meat - can be reduced by cooking meat thoroughly and washing all foods or surfaces that come in contact with raw meat. But the wider danger is to public health-that antibiotics will become increasingly ineffective in humans.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
Aajonus: Hi, William. There are several factors to consider whenever we are confronted with such laboratory examinations. Firstly, it is expensive to develop a bio-research laboratory. It costs about $2 million per month just to maintain one idle laboratory that is not doing any research. If research is performed, the costs can run an average of $2 million per day with very expensive laboratory equipment, technicians and security who have to follow incredibly expensive safety precautions. Large corporations usually fund such work for selfish reasons.
In this particular resistant-bacteria study, consider how much it costs to fund a laboratory to do DNA research. Who funded that expensive research? Why would someone fund such research? Who would gain, and would anyone profit? Always it would be the medical industry which is controlled by the pharmaceutical industry and all of its millions of agents, including politicians. Several scenarios could create riches for them.
One would be to create a need for something. New antibiotics means instant sales. Call the old ones bad and bring in the new; just throw away the other ones. In the research about a particular newly resistant strain of bacteria, there will be a new drug to pharmaceutically address the problem. All of the other rhetoric, such as immunity and feeding animals fewer antibiotics, is pertinent issue but is it just smoke screen for the bottom line mentioned in this paragraph?
Are antibiotics a sham? They do not correct a bacterial-infestation problem that they are purported to correct. Consider that it is admitted with the most recent bio-research that humans are 99.5% bacterial. All of the bodily functions are the result of bacterial exchanges, including digestion, smiling, singing, breathing and running. The bacteria that pharma and medical industries call pathogens are merely janitors.
Researchers observe that janitorial bacteria fragment, consume and/or dissolve cells. The cells that are acted upon by the bacteria are those that are damaged, non-recoverable weak or dead. They are not healthy cells. Usually those affected cells are low in bacteria and bacterial exchanges. They all have been damaged by industrial toxins, including toxic byproducts from cooking food, as well as small amounts of normal bio-waste. Researchers and observers look at this occurrence as if the janitorial bacteria are the reason for the degeneration of those damaged or dead cells. Consider that the janitors did not cause the mess and it is wrong to label them "pathogenic". They do not create disease. They remove the toxins and waste accumulations that cause disease.
We must investigate why antibiotics seem to work half of the time. If blood is observed uniformly following antibiotics, we will find elevated waste, hormones and related products that elevate energy levels. Also, janitorial-bacterial activity shifts following antibiotics. Rather than detoxify damaged cells, the body focuses on removing the toxic antibiotic. Together, elevated hormonal-related substances and the cessation of dead-cell removal elevate bodily energy.
Symptoms are often temporarily alleviated. However, the problem of stored toxicity and accumulations of damaged cells advance a body toward disease. We get sicker as pharma/medicine profit. That serves those industries well. When we are sick and have them attend to us, they profit.
When there is weakness in the body, it would make sense to supply certain types of bacteria, such as janitorial. That is exactly the opposite of what pharma and medicine prescribe.
However, more importantly, we must supply the body with nutrients to effect proper cleansing, to assist the bacteria. We must feed the body's system that eliminates waste and poisons, the lymphatic system. Ninety percent of all cleansing is supposed to be done by the lymphatic system. The lymphatic system does most of its work with fats, often with all sorts cholesterols that are often referred to as lipids.
Another way we are conned into thinking we need help, pharma and medicine tell us our immune system is deranged, deficient or non-functional. There is no such thing as a definable immune system. Pharma and medicine are all over the place about it, making stuff up as they go.
The body does not need to defend itself in natural environments. The medical/pharma industries created the term immune system to brainwash people into thinking that our bodies have to always defend themselves from nature and themselves. The lymphatic system is the only major system designed to cleanse the body when natural or unnatural toxic substances interfere with functions. There are literally millions of natural chemicals that result from lymphatic activity which pharma/medicine call immune-system activity.
Pharma/medicine knows that if you really knew how the body works (as I describe in my DVD Lecture set) you would not be afraid of your body and you would not attack it with their treatments. They do not see any profit in you understanding your body and taking care of it. They have phenomenal resources to convince you that you need them and would dissolve in an instant from some tiny microbe that could take over your whole body.
That is the stuff that bad Hollywood writers create. Yet, people believe it, just as they believed all of the religious jargon about possession that was part of the Inquisition. Religious minds devised elaborate scenarios, theosophy and philosophy to convince and scare people that spooks could take over bodies and cause plague, famine and suffering. They wrote books on it. Pharma and medicine are the same ilk with well-developed minds conditioned at medical universities that are directly and/or indirectly controlled by pharma. Those minds are conditioned to have no holistic wisdom but are politically, socially and financially motivated.
Basically, your question is answered without speaking of Staphylococcus aureus. However lets discuss that so-called pathogen. If you ask CDC for its scientific case-data on Staphylococcus aureus, you will get reports but not any actual science-based laboratory facts. You will get one or two past study references and lots of theory and conclusions based on other laboratory work. Most of those past studies are based on skewed laboratory conclusions and theory rather than natural science.
All of the reports about Staphylococcus aureus are not science based on what naturally occurs but what occurs in laboratories under completely unnatural conditions in unnatural fluids and industrial chemical environments. Additionally, the strain did not come from a natural source and was not naturally occurring bacteria. Most of the actual data written while trying to investigate so-called bacterial disease are complete nonsense.
Who gains by such skewed science? Health departments, their officials and the companies that control them, control them for profit and power motives. It is historically documented fact that the FDA has been directed for at least 40 years by executives of pharmaceutical and chemical companies. The present head of FDA, appointed by Obama, is a former executive of and lobbyist for Monsanto, Michael Taylor.
There are only two major culprits directly connected to profits from the nonsense, they are big pharma and medicine. Trailing with them are all of its millions of agents. Bacterial disease is the smoke screen that keeps people from investigating the true cause of disease. The true cause of disease is industrial chemical pollution in our food, environment and especially our industrial medicines. As the article about antibiotic issues, antibiotics are a problem but not in the way they are framed in the article.
Most reports on bacterial-related food-contamination are guesstimates at best based on the false premise that bacteria caused illness and disease. When reports point to laboratory experiments involving Staphylococcus aureus, or any other bacteria, it is based on surveys about what people ate, not science. That is, a person who was sick will get a call from the health department and ask what they ate. If the person replies raw milk or a raw meat dish, that is automatically documented as the cause. There are no laboratory processes, just a simple survey.
The pharma/medical industry needs an enemy for everyone to believe in so that people can be terrorized into taking medication. Their enemy is bacteria and they will do everything, lie, cheat and steal to get us to ally against bacteria. Is it about the money, like 95% of all wars. Believe them and fear will overtake us and we will not know truth. We will harm ourselves by attacking our bodies. We will be conned by their slight-of-mind "scientific" jargon. The jargon is elaborate. I would use Staph. aureus as the focus but I do not have with me any reports about that bacteria.
However, I have a recent one on campylobactor. That report involves local, state and federal health departments trying to frame raw milk with an "outbreak" of 25 cases of Campylobacter in Michigan in 2010. The milk attacked by government was that of Amish farmer David Hochstetler. He contracted with me and members of Right To Choose Healthy Food, Trust to board its animals and produce raw dairy products from members animals for members only.
Notice as you read the report that it is all over the place about how bad Campylobacter is, how it can kill children, how it is prevalent in raw milk, what health departments can do to detect it, and hunt down farmers such as David. Yet, through all of the intellectual banter and scientific nonsense, there is NOT one trace of Campylobacter in any of the laboratory results of the many products that government agents seized from David and consumers. NOT A TRACE.
Did they find a food-culprit to blame the 25 incidents of Campylobacter? No. They did not look anywhere else. Why? Because looking for a culprit of Campylobacter is like looking for a needle in a haystack. In reality, when a natural strain of Campylobacter is introduced (spiked) into raw milk, it does not survive (University of California Davis 2004). All you will find is a fingerprint, that is DNA of Campylobacter.
The odds of getting Campylobacter from any raw food is 1 in 10,000,000. They lied and continue to lie. If anyone knows statistics, no food with that statistic could ever be concluded as campylobactor-related. Yet, as you read the inane report, health departments concluded and made all types of rate-manipulations that raw milk was campylobactor-related in those 25 cases. They use one skewed study that they reference at the end of the report.
Even the title of the document is misleading. The title states, "Summary report of the March 2010 Campylobacter outbreak involving consumption of raw milk". There was no outbreak involving raw milk, multiple elaborate tests proved and documented!
Finally, William, industrial chemicals being fed, coated or injected into any animal is a serious problem. The way we avoid such contaminated meat is to find and eat truly organically grown meats that are pastured, especially grass-fed.
The following document was recovered with the Freedom of Information Act by raw-milk advocate Max Kane in Wisconsin. Some of the wording was redacted by government before it was surrendered to the public.