On Bovaer in the cow feed.
Times when regulatory agencies have been wrong or mislead about additives and medication after assuring the public that they are safe and effective
:
*Vioxx/recoxifib being safe, drug companies straight up lied about the heart issues they were seeing.
*Gardisil in terms of deceptions over cost to taxpayer, efficacy and danger of it causing HPV cancers.
*mRNA Sars CoV2 vaccines being "safe and effective", even recommending them to children who are the least at risk by covid.
*Thalidomide was recommended for morning sickness in pregnant women and it in fact caused deformities, it was thought that it was impossible for it to pass to the baby so it was never looked at.
*slow release oxycontin being non addictive
Times when experts and doctor thought a medicine. food additive, therapy or medical was safe, valid or effective but have since been found not to be:
*calomel/mercury
*the chemical imbalance theory of "mental illness".
*heroin being non addictive
*radium being health promoting
*tape worms for weight loss
*phentermine for weight loss
*doctors believing it is possible to take benzodiazipines every day without getting withdrawal symptoms when you stop.
*hydrotherapy
*lobotomy
The UK gives out less than 1% of the world's emissions and cows are much less than that, it simply is not worth messing with the food supply of an entire nation to have almost no effect on "man made climate change" even if one does accept the validity of that theory.
The government can't possibly know the effects long term because there have not been long term studies of humans drinking Bovaer fed milk.
Also the line that it metabolises in the cow's system, of course it does!
Most drugs metabilise when you swallow them, what chemicals does it metabilise in to?
Why aren't we told that?
We have a right to know if we are eating it. We have a right to informed consent.
It says here that Bovar doesn't go in to the cow's milk, but what about it's meat? What about it's tripe? Are we supposed to believe that a cow can be fed with Bovaer and it will not be present in it's stomach?
Have tests been done on it's presence in tripe and other meats/offal?
There have been many instances of big pharma simply hiring ghost writers to write up studies that show the pharma company's product in a positive light and then paying well known experts in their field to put their name to the paper.
With the huge amounts of money up for grabs with putting this in to the cow feed of an entire country it would make basic economic sense for whoever produces Bovaer to do exactly what I outlined above.
There could be billions to be made here, a few million in the pockets of some experts to declare this product safe is not much of an expenditure.
Also humans have a very delicate gut microbiome, if some metabolite of this drug gets though in to the milk, what will that do to the human microbiome? Does anyone know?
I personally don't believe in man made climate change (at least not at anywhere near the rates we are asked to believe from the mainstream climate alarmists and Lord Monkton thoroughly disproved these figures, it doesn't matter what sort of "consensus" there is if the maths and the models are simply wrong) but even if I did; changing a big portion of the country's food supply with something there could not possibly be long term studies on humans for simply to affect less than 1% of the world's greenhouse emissions simply doesn't make sense from a risk benefit perspective.
However from a profit maximisation perspective; it of course makes sense for these companies all the while being able to claim brownie points for being "environmentally friendly".
I do not consent to this being in the food supply anywhere in the UK or in the food supply of any animal in the UK
NB: we are told in the studies what they think Bovaer metabolises in to but we were not told on the government's page claiming Bovaer is safe in the cow feed supply and this post was a reply to that.
:
*Vioxx/recoxifib being safe, drug companies straight up lied about the heart issues they were seeing.
*Gardisil in terms of deceptions over cost to taxpayer, efficacy and danger of it causing HPV cancers.
*mRNA Sars CoV2 vaccines being "safe and effective", even recommending them to children who are the least at risk by covid.
*Thalidomide was recommended for morning sickness in pregnant women and it in fact caused deformities, it was thought that it was impossible for it to pass to the baby so it was never looked at.
*slow release oxycontin being non addictive
Times when experts and doctor thought a medicine. food additive, therapy or medical was safe, valid or effective but have since been found not to be:
*calomel/mercury
*the chemical imbalance theory of "mental illness".
*heroin being non addictive
*radium being health promoting
*tape worms for weight loss
*phentermine for weight loss
*doctors believing it is possible to take benzodiazipines every day without getting withdrawal symptoms when you stop.
*hydrotherapy
*lobotomy
The UK gives out less than 1% of the world's emissions and cows are much less than that, it simply is not worth messing with the food supply of an entire nation to have almost no effect on "man made climate change" even if one does accept the validity of that theory.
The government can't possibly know the effects long term because there have not been long term studies of humans drinking Bovaer fed milk.
Also the line that it metabolises in the cow's system, of course it does!
Most drugs metabilise when you swallow them, what chemicals does it metabilise in to?
Why aren't we told that?
We have a right to know if we are eating it. We have a right to informed consent.
It says here that Bovar doesn't go in to the cow's milk, but what about it's meat? What about it's tripe? Are we supposed to believe that a cow can be fed with Bovaer and it will not be present in it's stomach?
Have tests been done on it's presence in tripe and other meats/offal?
There have been many instances of big pharma simply hiring ghost writers to write up studies that show the pharma company's product in a positive light and then paying well known experts in their field to put their name to the paper.
With the huge amounts of money up for grabs with putting this in to the cow feed of an entire country it would make basic economic sense for whoever produces Bovaer to do exactly what I outlined above.
There could be billions to be made here, a few million in the pockets of some experts to declare this product safe is not much of an expenditure.
Also humans have a very delicate gut microbiome, if some metabolite of this drug gets though in to the milk, what will that do to the human microbiome? Does anyone know?
I personally don't believe in man made climate change (at least not at anywhere near the rates we are asked to believe from the mainstream climate alarmists and Lord Monkton thoroughly disproved these figures, it doesn't matter what sort of "consensus" there is if the maths and the models are simply wrong) but even if I did; changing a big portion of the country's food supply with something there could not possibly be long term studies on humans for simply to affect less than 1% of the world's greenhouse emissions simply doesn't make sense from a risk benefit perspective.
However from a profit maximisation perspective; it of course makes sense for these companies all the while being able to claim brownie points for being "environmentally friendly".
I do not consent to this being in the food supply anywhere in the UK or in the food supply of any animal in the UK
NB: we are told in the studies what they think Bovaer metabolises in to but we were not told on the government's page claiming Bovaer is safe in the cow feed supply and this post was a reply to that.
posted by Simeon at 8:44 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home