What do you make of @this article?

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.

===

