Category: Featured Articles

Educated parents can either get their children out of harm's way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) – are a miracle of modern medicine.

Freedom of Information Act filed in the US with the CDC by a doctor with an autistic son, seeking information on what the CDC knows about the dangers of vaccines, had by law to be responded to in 20 days. Nearly 7 years later, the doctor went to court and the CDC argued it does not have to turn over documents. A judge ordered the CDC to turn over the documents on September 30th, 2011.

On October 26, 2011, a Denver Post editorial expressed shock that the Obama administration, after promising to be especially transparent, was proposing changes to the Freedom of Information Act that would allow it to go beyond declaring some documents secret and to actually allow government agencies (such as the CDC) to declare some document "non-existent."

Simultaneous to this on-going massive CDC cover up involving its primary "health" not recommendation but MANDATE for American children, the CDC is in deep trouble over its decades of covering up the damaging effects of fluoride and affecting the lives of all Americans, especially children and the immune compromised. Lawsuits are being prepared.  Children are ingesting 3-4 times more fluoride by body weight as adults and "[t]he sheer number of potentially harmed citizens — persons with dental fluorosis, kidney patients tipped into needing dialysis, diabetics, thyroid patients, etc — numbers in the millions."

The CDC is obviously acting against the health of the American people. But the threat to the lives of the American people posed by the CDC's behavior does not stop there. It participated in designed pandemic laws that are on the books in every state in the US, which arrange for the government to use military to force unknown, untested vaccines, drugs, chemicals, and "medical" treatments on the entire country if it declares a pandemic emergency.

The CDC's credibility in declaring such a pandemic emergency is non-existent, again based on Freedom of Information Act. For in 2009, after the CDC had declared the H1N1 "pandemic," the CDC refused to respond to Freedom of Information Act filed by CBS News and the CDC also attempted to block their investigation.  What the CDC was hiding was its part in one of the largest medical scandals in history, putting out wildly exaggerated data on what it claimed were H1N1 cases, and by doing so, created the false impression of a "pandemic" in the US.

The CDC was also covering up e financial scandal to rival the bailout since the vaccines for the false pandemic cost the US billions. And worse, the CDC put pregnant women first in line for an untested vaccine with a sterilizing agent, polysorbate 80, in it. Thanks to the CDC,  "the number of vaccine-related "fetal demise" reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriage statistic [700% increase].

The exposure of the vaccine hoax is running neck and neck with the much older hoax of a deadly 1918-19 flu. It was aspirin  that killed people in 1918-19, not a pandemic flu. It was the greatest industrial catastrophe in human history with 20-50 million people dying but it was blamed on a flu. The beginning of the drug industry began with that success (and Monsanto was part of it). The flu myth was used by George Bush to threaten the world with "another pandemic flu that could kill millions" – a terror tactic to get pandemic laws on the books in every state and worldwide. Then the CDC used hoax of the pandemic hoax to create terror over H1N1 and to push deadly vaccines on the public, killing thousands of unborn children and others.  (CDC will not release the data and continues to push the same vaccine.)

The hoax of the vaccine schedule is over, exposed by FOIAs in the UK.

The hoax of the CDC's interest in children's lives has been exposed by its refusal to respond to a doctor's FOIAs around its knowledge of vaccine dangers.

The 1918-19 pandemic hoax has been exposed by Dr. Karen Starko's work on aspirin's role in killing people.

And despite refusing to respond to FOIAS, the CDC's scandalous hoax of a 2009 flu pandemic and its part in creating it, was exposed by CBS NEWS.  

And the Obama administration, in attempting to salvage the last vestige of secrecy around what is really happening with vaccines, by declaring agency documents non-existent, has made its claim of transparency, non-existent.

But pandemic laws arranging for unknown vaccines to be forced on the entire country are still in place with HHS creating a vaccine mixture that should never be used on anyone and all liability for vaccines having been removed. Meanwhile, a Canadian study has just proven that the flu vaccine containing the H1N1 vaccine which kills babies in utero, actually increases the risk of serious pandemic flu.

Americans who have been duped into submitting their children to the CDC's deadly vaccines, have a means to respond now. People from every walk of life and every organization, must

1. take the information from the UK FOIAs exposing 30 years of vaccine lies, the refusal of the CDC to provide any information on what it knows about those lies, and the Obama Administration's efforts to hide the CDC's awareness of those lies, and go to their state legislatures, demand the immediate nullification of the CDC vaccine schedule and the pandemic laws.

2. inform every vet. active duty military person, law enforcement people, DHS agents and medical personnel they know, of the vaccine hoax, for their families are deeply threatened, too, but they may not be aware of it or that they have been folded into agency structures by the pharmaceutical industry (indistinguishable from the bankers and oil companies) that would make them agents of death for their country with the declaration of a "pandemic" emergency or "bio-terrorist" attack. It is completely clear now that the terrorism/bioterrorism structures are scams so that any actions taken to "protect" this country using those laws would in fact be what threatens the existence of Americans.

It was aspirin that killed millions in 1918-19.  Now it is mandated and unknown, untested vaccines with banned adjuvants in them that threaten the country with millions of deaths.  At the same time, the CDC is holding 500,000 mega-coffins, built to be incinerated, on its property outside Atlanta.  Not to put to fine a point on this, but it's clear now that the CDC should not be involved in any way with public health.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we know that vaccines are not a miracle of modern medicine.  Any medical or government authority which insists vaccines prevent diseases is either ignorant of government documents (and endless studies) revealing the exact opposite or of the CDC's attempts to hide the truth about vaccines from the public, or means harm to the public.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we know the vaccine schedule is a hoax.

The health danger to American children and adults are vaccines.

The Vancouver Sun reports via Reuters that a whole new "alternative" feed market is emerging out of the ongoing crop crunch, as farmers all across the U.S. are running out of common feed options for their herds. Because corn-based feeds are now too expensive or simply unavailable, feedlot operators in Indiana, North Dakota, and elsewhere are buying leftover candy scraps, pastries, extruded cereals, gummy snacks, and even food waste to feed to their cows, which end up directly fueling the production of conventional meat and dairy products sold nationwide to American consumers.

"Brokers are gathering up discarded food products and putting them out for the highest bid to feed lot operators and dairy producers, who are scrambling to keep their animals fed," says Reuters. "In the mix are cookies, gummy worms, marshmallows, fruit loops, orange peels, even dried cranberries. Cattlemen are feeding virtually anything they can get their hands on that will replace the starchy sugar content traditionally delivered to the animals through corn."

What this means, of course, is that those standardized cartons of pasteurized, homogenized milk in the dairy case and those attractive-looking cuts of meat at the butcher counter are actually the worst kinds of junk food disguised as supposedly wholesome nutrition. If the phrase "you are what you eat" holds any real merit, then consumers might as well just skip buying conventional meat and dairy altogether and have some cake or an ice cream sundae for dinner instead, since this is what American cattle are now eating.

What happened to good, old-fashioned grazing on natural grass pastures?
At the same time, it is somehow not all that surprising that even animals in America are now being forced to eat junk foods rather than the fresh grass, silage, and other natural foods they were designed to eat. American consumers, after all, have been shoveling these unnatural poisons down their throats for many decades now, so why should the animals get anything different?

As if being forced to eat loads of GM corn and soy for subsistence was not bad enough, American cattle are now being forced to eat things like candy corn and Oreos, both of which, ironically, are made from all sorts of processed GM corn and soy byproducts. But what is even more pathetic than this is the fact that the struggling American farmers who have resorted to this travesty of animal husbandry have not even considered trying to pasture their animals.

Cows are ruminant animals, which means their digestive systems were designed to eat grass and other plant-based foods, not fruit snacks and cream pies. So if corn and soy feed prices are too high — cows were not meant to eat these grains either, by the way — then why not try pasturing the animals instead? Not only do grass-fed animals produce high-quality, nutrient-dense meat and dairy, but grass tends to be a self-sustaining food that, last time we checked, is essentially free. Pasture-based animal husbandry also enriches the land and promotes healthy environmental stewardship.

According to recent reports, the Russian consumer-rights watchdog agency, Rospotrebnadzor, said recently it made the decision to suspend importation and use of genetically engineered corn made by Monsanto Co., after release of a study alleging that the crop causes cancer.

Rospotrebnadzor said in a statement that Russia's Institute of Nutrition has been asked to gauge the validity of the study's results, while the European Commission's Directorate General for Health & Consumers has also been contacted, in order to lay out the European Union's position on the issue.

The study was conducted by the University of Caen in France and published earlier this month. Researchers alleged that rats that were fed over a two-year period with the U.S. crop-biotech company's GMO corn, called NK603 and marketed under the brand name "Roundup Ready," "developed more tumors and other severe diseases than a test group fed with regular corn," Fox Business reported.

French government to decide whether it will also ban GMO corn importation

The study also proffered that rats fed with the modified corn and then exposed to the St. Louis-based Monsanto's Roundup weed killer tended to suffer more pathologies that did the test group.

The corn variety is genetically engineered to stave off glyphosate, a weed killer that Monsanto offers under the Roundup brand, the report said.

As expected, a number of scientists and nutritionists discounted the study, greeting it with skepticism. For example, the Science Media Centre, a London-based independent organization that gathers reactions to published research, posted a number of comments by several experts that were critical of the research. Most said the sample size was too small while the data was incomplete, among other concerns.

The study prompted the French government to order its food-safety agency to quickly review its results. Officials said they planned to seek an immediate ban on EU imports of the crop if the findings of the study were deemed to be legitimate and conclusive.

Again, as expected, Monsanto repeated earlier claims that nothing in the French study warranted any sort of ban of the company's biotech-engineered seed.

In particular, the company bashed the study in a statement released shortly after the research published its findings, saying they did "not meet minimum acceptable standards for this type of scientific research," adding that "the findings are not supported by the data presented, and the conclusions are not relevant for the purpose of safety assessment."

Call for GMO labeling in the U.S. by congressman

Fox Business went on to report that an unnamed spokesman from Monsanto downplayed the effect of the Russian ban, pointing out that Moscow imports little American-grown corn anyway.

"Russia is a net exporter of grain, so the actual impact of their temporary suspension, if any, is likely to be small," the spokesman said.

Further, the company said any impact on its sales of corn seed to farmers will also be similarly limited, most likely because the Russian government doesn't allow farmers to plant transgenic crops.

The Health Ranger, Mike Adams, wrote this week that U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, has called for a national GMO labeling law here in the U.S.

"The FDA has received over a million comments from citizens demanding labeling of GMOs. Ninety percent of Americans agree," Kucinich has said. "So, why no labeling? I'll give you one reason: The influence and the corruption of the political process by Monsanto. Monsanto has been a prime mover in GMO technology, a multi-million dollar GMO lobby here and a major political contributor."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037370_Russia_GM_corn_Monsanto.html#ixzz289dbj8RW

The research
Although some define CR as a 30 to 40 percent reduction in calorie intake (as determined by daily energy expenditure) there is no "official" definition of caloric restriction, and investigations have revealed CR benefits can still occur with less-restrictive caloric intakes. The National Institute on Aging (NIA) sponsored a randomized, human clinical study to assess the safety and efficacy of CR in non-obese but overweight, healthy individuals. Researchers followed overweight, middle-aged (average age, 37) individuals for six months who reduced their daily caloric intake by 25 percent or by 12.5 percent with an additional 12.5 percent caloric expenditure from exercise. Both intervention groups demonstrated reduced body weight and abdominal fat, as well as reduced liver fat deposits and DNA damage. In addition, the participants were able to improve two markers of longevity (reduced body temperature and reduced fasting plasma insulin), as well as reduce cardiovascular risk factors (LDL, triglycerides, and blood pressure).

Similar results have also been observed from another study on slightly older 50-60-year-old non-obese, overweight volunteers after one year of CR. However, some of the older volunteers also experienced decrease in muscle mass, strength, and aerobic capacity. Exercise is therefore very important for this age group in order to minimize these consequences.

Ways CR may improve longevity
There are many hypotheses on how CR minimizes aging-associated diseases and improve longevity. Possible mechanisms include protection from oxidative damage, increased cellular and DNA repair, reduction in the inflammatory molecules and therefore inflammation that may be responsible for a wide range of conditions from cancer to cardiovascular diseases and neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's.

Resveratrol may mimic CR
The significant impact of CR on delaying aging and preventing aging-related diseases has motivated efforts to identify natural or synthetic compounds that mimic the effects of CR. Resveratrol is such a compound that has garnered much research as a CR mimicker. Resveratrol is a compound found in the skin of red grapes and it is a potent antioxidant. Studies have revealed promising and universal effects of resveratrol by favorably increasing cellular detoxification, protecting DNA damage, modulating metabolic processes such as blood sugar and insulin regulation and inhibiting tumor formation and growth, all of which significantly improve human health and lead to increased human lifespan.

While there is no specific and definite composition of the CR diet, the potentially significant reduction in caloric intake requires the consumption of nutrient-dense foods, and the avoidance of "empty" calories from foods such as white flour and refined sugar. It is also important to mention that the focus of CR is on health and longevity and not merely weight loss. When adopted long-term, the CR lifestyle may be a simple way to prevent various potentially debilitating diseases and promote longevity.

In a new, major study published in the American Heart Association journal Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, researchers from the University of Kansas found that low levels of vitamin D are associated with a markedly higher risk of heart attack and early death. Scientists determined that in people with low blood levels of vitamin D, boosting them with supplements more than halved a person's risk of dying from any cause compared to someone who remained deficient.

The study set out to investigate the connection between vitamin D levels and the incidence of heart disease and early death in a cohort of more than 10,000 people from Denmark. In addition, the researchers included meta-data from 35 pertinent studies covering a lengthy time span of 29 years. Study author, Dr. James Vacek noted "We expected to see that there was a relationship between heart disease and vitamin D deficiency; we were surprised at how strong it was… it was so much more profound than we expected."

Optimal vitamin D blood levels lower risk of early death by more than 80 percent
In this study, scientists compared those individuals with the lowest levels of vitamin D (fewer than 15 nanomol per liter, accounting for five percent of the population analyzed) to those considered in the normal range (more than 50 nanomol per liter, or approximately 50 percent of the cohort). The researchers noted that declining levels of vitamin D were directly associated with increased risk of ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction and early death.

The authors found that those with the lowest levels of vitamin D experienced a 64 percent higher risk of heart attack, 57 percent higher risk of early death, 40 percent higher risk of ischemic heart disease and at least an 81 percent higher risk of death from heart disease. The researchers concluded "We can ascertain that there is a strong statistical correlation between a low level of vitamin D and high risk of heart disease and early death. The explanation may be that a low level of vitamin D directly leads to heart disease and death."

In addition to the cardiovascular findings, the team determined that people with deficient levels of vitamin D were more than twice as likely to have diabetes, 40 percent more likely to have high blood pressure and about 30 percent more likely to suffer from cardiomyopathy (heart muscle weakening). The bottom line is simple: supplement with an oil-based form of vitamin D3 (most adults require 5,000 to 7,000 IU per day, depending on weight and individual metabolism) to reach ideal blood levels of 50 to 70 ng/mL (as measured by a 25(OH)D blood test) to thwart heart disease and chronic illnesses leading to an early death.

Damian Carrington, of The Guardian, has written recently that a growing body of evidence indicates that common crop pesticides "have been shown for the first time to seriously harm bees by damaging their renowned ability to navigate home."

This new research indicates there is a strong link between the pesticides and a dramatic decline in the numbers of honey bees both in the United States and United Kingdom to the tune of about 50 percent in the last 25 years alone.

"The losses pose a threat to food supplies as bees pollinate a third of the food we such as tomatoes, beans, apples and strawberries," he wrote.

Declining bee numbers mean fewer to pollinate our food

Researchers have found that bees consuming one particular pesticide suffered an 85 percent loss in the number of queen bees produced by their hives, while another study indicated a doubling of "disappeared" bees – those that were unable to return to hives after foraging for food.

The significance of these studies, according to the journal Science, is that they are among the first to be done in realistic, open-air conditions.

"People had found pretty trivial effects in lab and greenhouse experiments, but we have shown they can translate into really big effects in the field. This has transformed our understanding," Prof. David Goulson, of the University of Stirling, who led one of the research teams, said. "If it's only one meter from where they forage in a lab to their nest, even an unwell bee can manage that."

Prof. Mickael Henry of INRA in Avignon, France, who led a separate research team, added, "Under the effects we saw from the pesticides, the population size would decline disastrously, and make them even more sensitive to parasites of lack of food."

The reason for such large declines in bee numbers remains unclear, researchers note, but pesticides, the varroa mite and other parasites, and the destruction of flower-rich habitats in which bees are known to feed are believed to be some of the primary reasons, the Guardian reported.

Pesticide makers, as well as the British government, have denied that one class of pesticide chemicals – neonicotinoids – are causing significant problems for bees, but other countries including Germany, France and Italy have suspended key insecticides over fears they are causing bees problems.

UK ministers ready to act

"The UK has a robust system for assessing risks from pesticides and all the evidence shows neonicotinoids do not pose an unacceptable risk to honeybees when products are used correctly. However, we will not hesitate to act if presented with any new evidence," said a spokesman from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the paper said.

But Henry said the new research showed that current approval processes for pesticides are not adequate.

"We now have enough data to say authorization processes must take into account not only the lethal effects, but also the effects of non-lethal doses," he said, according to the paper.

Carrington said a powerful group of British lawmakers (Ministers of Parliament, or MPs) is questioning why, despite strong evidence, that nothing is being done to stop the bee carnage.

"We will be announcing details of the inquiry soon. In the meantime, Defra ministers may want to start doing their homework on pesticide policy and biodiversity, because we will be calling them before parliament to answer questions on these issues," wrote Joan Walley MP, who chairs the House of Commons environmental audit committee, a powerful cross-party group that acts as parliament's green watchdog, in a letter to the Guardian.

Intramax
Liquid Life Complete

The results of the study, which Natural News has already covered extensively (http://www.naturalnews.com), were so shocking that even many mainstream media outlets in the U.S. covered them, although with plenty of obvious bias. Even so, the U.K.-based media has largely ignored the findings altogether, which most certainly call into question to whom their allegiances lies — with the people or with the biotechnology industry, who appear to be trying to protect from public scrutiny?

"These newspapers have sycophantically reported on small GM research trials about purple tomatoes, blood oranges and cooking oil as if civilization depended on such things. Yet, they completely ignore this new research which reveals significant health risks and the inadequacy of the GM regulatory system," writes Lawrence Woodward for NYR Natural News. "The research on rats, carried out at the University of Caen in France, found that GM maize, GM maize sprayed with Roundup, and Roundup itself causes tumors, multiple organ damage, and premature death."

Among those media sources that did give the research at least a cursory mention, many peppered their reporting with doubt and skepticism about the legitimacy of the research. With the exception of the U.K.'s Guardian, which published an editorial urging regulators to take the research seriously (http://www.guardian.co.uk), as well as IBTimes UK (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk) and the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk), virtually no other media groups have given the research a fair shake, according to Woodward.

Industry-backed American media largely ignores GMO study, dismisses it as invalid
Sadly, the situation is not much different in the U.S., except for the fact that the mainstream media there, when it did report on the study, largely dismissed it as invalid. Even though the research was conducted in accordance with the generally recognized protocols for studies of this nature, industry-backed news corporations like Forbes, Slate Magazine, and CBS News, among many others, basically insinuated that the research could not be trusted.

Forbes, for instance, ran a headline asking the question, "Does genetically modified corn cause cancer? A flawed study fails to convince." And Slate ran this obnoxious little gem of a headline, "GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left," followed by the unbelievably false and incendiary statement urging readers, "Don't worry. Genetically modified corn isn't going to give you cancer."

That any so-called journalist would dare make such an inane statement in light of the new research, regardless of any potential flaws it may or may not have, is highly irresponsible. Since not a single long-term study other than this one has ever been conducted on the safety of GMOs — and not a single study ever has proven GMOs to be safe — how, exactly, is it in any way scientific or rational to tell the world that eating GM corn will not cause them to develop cancer?

The "retained surgical items," as they are called in the medical world, are items left in a patient's body following surgery, with the vast majority of them being gauze sponges that surgeons and surgery staff use to soak up blood. "During a long operation, doctors may stuff dozens of them inside a patient to control bleeding," said the Times.

No two cases are alike, experts say, but the main issue is that surgical teams rely on what has been described as an old-fashioned method to avoid the very thing that is occurring.

In most operating rooms nurses and doctors both keep a manual count of sponges used in procedures. But in some cases, things get hectic and busy during surgery, which can lead to miscounts in the chaos.

Old system just doesn't cut it anymore

In recent years; however, new technology and sponge-counting methods have made it simpler to fix the problem. Nevertheless, a number of hospitals have resisted adopting the new methods, even though industry groups like the Association of Operating Room Nurses and the American College of Surgeons have appealed to hospitals to update their practice.

As a result, experts like Dr. Verna C. Gibbs, a professor of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, say patients are at higher risk.

"In most instances, the patient is completely helpless," Gibbs, who is also the director of NoThing Left Behind, a national surgical patient safety project, told the paper. "We've anesthetized them, we take away their ability to think, to breathe, and we cut them open and operate on them. There's no patient advocate standing over them saying, 'Don't forget that sponge in them.' I consider it a great affront that we still manage to leave our tools inside of people."

In addition to gauze and bandages, all sorts of surgical instruments – including clamps, scalpels and, at times, even scissors – are left in patients by mistake (the Times says two-thirds of the items are sponges, however).

But how can this happen? It's not as unlikely as it seems, experts say, given the surgical environment.

Understand that, during many surgeries, patients are bleeding, hence the need for so much gauze to soak up the blood. The bandages, as a result, can sort of become camouflaged inside the body; a 4×4 cotton sponge, therefore, becomes rather easy to miss, especially inside large cavities.

As a result, abdominal operations are most frequently associated with these cases of retained sponges. Also, statistics show that surgeons are more likely to leave items in patients who tend to be overweight as well.

In the past, hospitals have required surgical team members – most often a nurse – to count, and then count again, a number of surgical items. That includes every sponge used in any procedure.

"But studies show that in four out of five cases in which sponges are left behind," the Times said, "the operating room team has declared all sponges accounted for."

A small price to pay – $10

Enter new technology, which is capable of tracking sponges through the use of radio-frequency tags.

A study published in the October issue of The Journal of the American College of Surgeons by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill examined 2,285 cases in which surgical sponges were tracked with a system called RF Assure Detection.

Each sponge contained a small radio-frequency tag the size of a grain of rice. Following the operation, a detector can alert a surgical team to the presence of sponges left behind.

"In the UNC study," the Times said, "the system helped recover 23 forgotten sponges from almost 3,000 patients over 11 months."

The technology only adds about $10 to a procedure.

"It's a small price to pay to enhance patient safety," Dr. Leo R. Brancazio told the Times. Brancazio is the medical director of labor and delivery at Duke University Hospital in North Carolina; the hospital adopted the Assure system about 18 months ago, after a sponge was left inside a patient during a Caesarean delivery.

"It's one extra step that takes 12 seconds at the end of a procedure," he said.

Detox Protocol

Horrifyingly, these Frankenscientists cloned a cow and then altered the embryo using RNA interference. After gestation, the mutant GMO cow was born without a tail! But these scientists say that's no problem, and that the mutation of having no tail couldn't possibly be related to anything they did with the cow's DNA.

I'm not making this up. This is the insanity of the quack science world in which we now live.

Milk causes allergies primarily because of pasteurization
The entire project is a fool's errand to begin with since the reason most humans are allergic to cow's milk is because of pasteurization which destroys lactase enzymes. RAW MILK is far easier to digest, but of course raw milk has been all but criminalized in America, where the FDA along with Ventura County and LA County in California actually stage armed raids on raw milk distribution centers and throw people in jail. James Stewart, for example, remains in jail this very day for the "crime" of being involved in raw milk. Sign the petition HERE to demand freedom for James.

So while criminalizing fresh milk and pushing an inferior, dead, pasteurized milk that causes allergies in those who drink it, the corrupt food system in America is almost certain to embrace mutant genetically modified cloned cow's milk and call it "safe" for infants!

Never mind the fact that the genetically altered milk produced by this cow had "double the concentrations of caseins," as The Guardian is reporting.

Oh, and by the way, the milk being produced by this mutant, cloned, tail-less GMO cow is of course 100% driven by artificial hormones! As the BBC reports:

"It has not yet become pregnant and produced milk normally so the scientists used hormones to jump-start milk production."

How to make a mutant GM cow and tell your friends you're a mad scientist
This story gets even more disturbing. Take a look at how this cow was produced! According to The Guardian:

To make Daisy [the cow], scientists took a cow skin cell and genetically modified it to produce molecules that block the manufacture of BLG protein. The nucleus of this cell was then transferred into a cow egg that had its own nucleus removed.

The reconstituted egg was grown in the lab until it formed what is called a blastocyst, a ball of around 100 cells, and then transplanted into the womb of a foster cow.

The cloning technique is not efficient. Of around 100 blastocysts the scientists implanted into cows, more than half of the pregnancies failed early on, and only one live calf, Daisy, was born.

And even that calf was a mutant calf, born without a tail, rendering the whole thing a horrifying example of genetic mutilation.

STOP the genetic mutilation of animals and humans
These outrageous experiments on animals are rightly called "genetic mutilation." These animals are being mutilated. Ninety-nine percent of them DIE before they're even born, and the ones that somehow manage to be born are mutants.

This research is a dangerous journey into the horrors of "unanticipated consequences." And to think… these Frankenscientists want human babies to drink this milk! It must be great for babies!

So let me get this straight: It's illegal in America to milk a cow, sell that fresh milk to a neighbor and have their baby drink fresh milk with all the digestive enzymes intact. But it's perfectly acceptable in our world to engineer mutant cloned genetically modified cows to produce hormone-induced, artificially-engineered milk that will be fed en masse to human babies?

What's wrong with this picture?

Humanity is risking a genetic apocalypse
This has got to stop, friends. The mad GMO scientists are operating in gross violation of natural law. They are playing genetic roulette with Mother Nature. They're fumbling in the dark with dangerous tools, like children with suitcase nukes and a happy red button that seems inviting to just push and see what happens.

Our modern-day human civilization has neither the ethical foundation nor the wisdom to pursue such technologies. Altering the digital code for the expression of life is not something to be pursued under the crude selfishness of corporate greed, nor the wild fantasies of naive scientists who relish in playing "what if" experiments with all remaining life on our planet.

These experiments on animals — and crops — are worse than foolish. They are inherently evil… even demented. Just because we know how to alter DNA doesn't mean we have the wisdom to understand the consequences of doing so. Yet in the race for the next biological profit machine — a cow, a crop, or even a pharmaceutical — caution is thrown out the window and replaced by pure mindless greed.

With the GM crops, the GM wheat that alters human liver function, the GM corn that causes cancer tumors, the GM cows and the GM seeds being carelessly strewn about, we are risking a genetic apocalypse that could destroy humanity in a cosmic blink of an eye.

No one knows what happens when the genetic engineering of mutant chimera animals get unleashed across the land. Nobody really knows the long-term effects of genetic pollution. Nobody even knows the long-term effects of humans eating GM crops!

So it's all a grand, malicious, conceited genetic experiment being carried out on us all: our bodies, our children, our lands, our animals, our crops and our planet.

The GM "scientists" are risking EVERYTHING. And they do so blindly, while mutilating animals and calling it "progress."

It is disgusting. It is an abomination. I pray for the sake of humanity that all genetic engineering activity in our planet is halted by any means necessary.

We are floating through space, my friends, on a blue ball of water inhabited by fools who call themselves "scientists."