August 16, 2018

They Want Us to Eat Their Mass-Produced Poison Instead

*Editor’s Comment* – If, as is repeated in this column, these leaders of world genocide don’t want us to kill living animals for sustenance, then we must learn to do what the other animals do and eat them while they are still alive – truly fresh meat. From videos I have seen, a slowly-eaten prey animal can live a long time. Learning how to carve out steaks, chops, and roasts while ensuring the longest possible life for the animal will allow those of us who don’t want to eat Bill Gates poison he and others have invested heavily in.

Of course, once the animal dies we will have to stop eating it and move on to the next living animal.

Which reminds of a story about the traveling salesman, the farmer, and his pig. The traveling salesman, while driving down a country road, noticed a pig next to a farmer’s barn that had what appeared to be a peg leg. Curiosity was overwhelming and so he stopped to inquire.

Finding the farmer he asked him if his pig had a peg leg and why. He had never seen such a thing before.

The farmer explained to the traveling salesman that one day while working in the field with his tractor, he got trapped under his tractor. The farmer calling desperately for help was greeted by his prize pig. The short of the story is that the pig saved the farmers life.

Still looking puzzled, the traveling salesman asked, “But how did the pig get the peg leg?” The answer was simple (and perhaps a lesson on how to eat meat from a live animal so you don’t have to kill it), “A pig that good can’t be eaten all at once!”

8 Business Leaders Who Are Investing to Close Slaughterhouses for Good

From Silicon Valley tech moguls to business executives and entrepreneurs, these people know that the future of food means not slaughtering animals.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Climate Change “Busybodies” May Be Behind Latest Meat-Causes-Cancer Scare

National Center Risk Analysis Director Jeff Stier and Food Writer Julie Kelly are arguing in an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal that there may be a climate change-related political activism agenda behind the recent “eating meat causes cancer” scare.

Stier and Kelly argue that the cancer-causing risk of red meat described in the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report has been exaggerated in many news stories.

“First, the report largely addresses only one cancer–colorectal–while making passing mention to other cancers, like stomach and prostate,” say Stier and Kelly in the op-ed. “Yet the evidence linking red meat and colorectal cancer is unconvincing. The authors write that ‘positive associations were seen with high versus low consumption of red meat in half of those studies’–hardly enough conclusive evidence to justify a stern cancer warning. The working group even admits in the same paper that ‘there is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat’ and ‘no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies.’ Despite this, the agency placed red meat in its second-highest risk category, alongside DDT and the human papillomavirus, HPV.”

“The case against processed meat is dubious, too,” say the authors. “According to the IARC report, each 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That might sound scary, but the absolute risk is what really matters. As an example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2% of 40-year-olds will develop colorectal cancer over the next 30 years of their lives. What the IARC study suggests is a slightly higher rate–say, 2.4% over 30 years–for those 40-year-olds who tear through a 16-ounce package of bacon every week without fail.”

Yet NBC News, the authors say, ran with headlines such as “Ham, Sausages Cause Cancer; Red Meat Probably Does, Too, WHO Group Says.” Cox Media Group wrote: “Bacon poses same cancer risk as cigarettes, world health group claims.”

What’s worse, all this exaggeration may be in service of a political agenda. The IARC’s parent group, the World Health Organization (WHO), also issued a report calling for national governments to impose policies to deter the purchase of “high-GHG foods” (foods whose production emits a relatively large amount of greenhouse gases, such as meat). WHO recommends that governments impose high taxes on high-GHG foods so people will be less likely to buy them.

Is it a coincidence that the same group calling for high taxes on meat to deter its purchase has now issued a report linking meat to cancer?

Kelly and Stier conclude: “Hang on to your T-bones and sausages, folks.” The climate busybodies are after them.

Share

86% Of Deer Hunters Hunt for Meat

I’ve written some about this before, in dispelling the lie often bandied around by the schilling Media that hunting is about trophies. In a recent survey of hunters in Massachusetts, 86% of hunters responding in a survey said they pursued whitetail deer, “for the delicious meat afforded them.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Tick Bites Causing Allergic Reaction to Meat

According to an article published at CNN, people are suffering an allergic reaction from eating meat. The real culprit, say scientists, comes from the bite of a tick. Only people who have been bitten by a tick seem to suffer from the allergic reaction. <<<Read More>>>

Share