The Billy Madison Ultimate Insult Award for 2017 Once Again Goes to the Daily Fail

The New Nationalist (TNN) is now set to award the Billy Madison Ultimate Insult Award for the most absurd story of the year coming out of the Lugenpresse.

To review, it was quite a contest in 2016, with the ludicrous Muslim demonization fiction story involving a epic ISIS dingy voyage going to the Daily Mail, aka the Daily Fail. Its cartoon-world headline at left was one for the ages. The scheme described here and dispensed to the dumb dumbs was that Muslim terrorists planned to take a small dingy 5,000 miles over open ocean to Indonesia, and then make it from there to Syria to fight for ISIS.

Yes, this year the Daily Fail wins again. In the runner up spot, the Fail stuck with their time-tested Muslim demonization buffoonery. Fail went with an all-about-da’-love theme, claiming that one “Susanne K,” a vaguely identified German woman (with no photo), hooked up with the brother of Anis Amri, the Berlin Christmas truck attacker. Susanne messaged condolences to Walid Amri “on Christmas Day,” two days after the event. One thing led to another and viola, the pair are now hoping to get married. Walid is said to call Susanne “my love” and is happy to adopt her children as his own. Naturally, they will live in Berlin. What kind of New Age hocus pocus is this?

For more on the Berlin Christmas truck attack, see:

Something Happened at the Berlin Christmas Market — The Question Is What?

Faux Media Run Headlines That Fail to Corroborate Berlin Dash-Cam Video

Also contributing to our choice as the 2017 first prize winner is the Daily Fail’s fiction around Stephen Paddock, the alleged Vegas shooter. We have a feeling Paddock will be the gift that keeps on giving, so we will go ahead and present the award now. Why wait.

The Fail managed to locate one of Steve’s hookers, who gave them an ear full. First, we learn that Steve loved hard, violent sex (aka rape fantasies), “especially after gambling wins.” Paddock had also bragged about having “bad evil blood” from his criminal father. More on that in a second.

Elsewhere, we learn the hooker charged Steve $6,000 for her services! For those who haven’t seen Steve’s bro Eric and his incredible insights into the character, don’t miss this. Bro Eric is hereby awarded the Billy Madison Ultimate Insult award in the best Deception Actors category. When discussing Steve’s expensive taste in hookers, bro Eric offered us this little gem (satire ahead):

Some people need to remember that we don’t all work at Taco Bell. A $6,000 hooker for Steve would be like a normal person’s trip to Publix. That’s what Steve does. The hooker is usually comped though. Thousands of dollars in hookers. Steve actually paying for a hooker would be like the bug from Men in Black 3 wearing a Steve suit.

The 27-year-old hooker, who in typical Fail fashion was not named, described Paddock as “paranoid” and “obsessive” and said he ranted about conspiracy theories, including 9/11 being “an inside job.” Eureka! That’s the ticket! Explains why he opened fire on low-value, innocent country music fans.

What happened to the old days when high-value belly of the beast targets were sought? During the last several years, it’s been all about nobodies and targets that make zero sense in terms of giving up your own life. Why the stark change? Perhaps adding clues toward answering these questions, the ever vigilant TNN has birddogged a new factoid: Steve’s bad-to-the-bone father, Ben Paddock, had another name — (((Leo Genstein))). You can’t make this stuff up.

Absurd and insulting all the way around at the Daily Fail. Here’s this year’s award:

Ben & Jerry’s Responds to Boycott Dirty Dairy

By Dr. Mercola

Many health and environmentally conscious individuals who enjoy ice cream as an occasional treat feel good about choosing Ben & Jerry’s brand. They’ve painted the idyllic image of a socially responsible company “with a continued commitment to incorporating wholesome, natural ingredients and promoting business practices that respect the Earth and the environment,” as they put it.1 Yet, it’s just that — an image, not a picture of reality.

As I wrote about earlier this year, Ben & Jerry’s has succeeded wildly in one of the greatest greenwashing scams of all time. They promote their Caring Dairy program as involving 300 “family operated” farms, giving the illusion that happily grazing cows produce the rich, creamy milk with which they make their premium ice cream.

Yet, rather than supporting grass fed organic agriculture, they’re simply riding on its coattails, pretending their ice cream is a premium product when in fact it’s made from the same CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) milk you can find in many other brands. It’s true that Ben & Jerry’s gets most of its milk from Vermont farms, but that’s the rub.

Many people assume that Vermont is home to vast acres of rolling pastures. In reality, as noted by nonprofit advocacy group Regeneration Vermont, the CAFO dairies supplying Ben & Jerry’s are unethical for the animals and destroying the state’s waterways. According to Regeneration Vermont, in a report titled, “A Failure to Regulate: Big Dairy & Water Pollution in Vermont:”2

“[C]ontamination from the mega-dairies that supply Vermont’s big brands, like Ben & Jerry’s and Cabot Cheese, is nothing new to Vermonters,3 especially when it comes to the contamination of our waterways. For decades, these iconic brands have garnered enormous profits – each hovering around the $1 billion-a-year level – while pushing a kind of confinement, non-grazing dairy production, resulting in a toxic farm runoff that is literally choking our lakes and streams.

Even the beloved Lake Champlain is one of more than 100 other bodies of water in Vermont that are classified as ‘impaired.’ And, in many cases, ‘impaired’ means filled with the green slime that is cyanobacteria, smelling so badly that summer camps have become uninhabitable, and beaches are posted with signs that warn, ‘no swimming.’”

Ben & Jerry’s Has Been Polluting Vermont for 20 Years

This isn’t news to Ben & Jerry’s, of course. Despite being told of the damage their dairy suppliers are creating in the environment, the company has refused to transition their farmers to an organic, regenerative solution for two decades. Michael Colby, former editor of Food & Water Journal and co-founder of Regeneration Vermont, stated:4

“It was 20 years ago last month that Food & Water published our report on Vermont’s atrazine addiction, a toxic herbicide that is banned in Europe but continues to be used in abundance on Vermont’s 92,000 acres of GMO-derived feed corn — all for dairy cows. We used the report to get the attention of Ben & Jerry’s, and it worked. We thought when the doors swung open to the offices of Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield themselves that we’d be able to make the case to them.

Our plea at the time was the same as it is today: Ben & Jerry’s should practice what it preaches and help transition its farmers to organic production. If they took the lead, we argued, the entire state could begin a transition away from the kind of industrial, commodity-based dairy system that is wreaking so much havoc with Vermont’s agriculture …

We thought the obvious imbalance — and even direct, outright hypocrisy — between what Ben & Jerry’s was doing and what they were saying would be enough to get these do-good hippies to do the right thing. We were using logic. Because, certainly, the corporation that wanted to ‘save the planet’ and ‘put the planet before profits’ would want to stop being one of the state’s top polluters, right?

Wrong. We were told at the time, by Ben himself, after a year’s worth of meetings and even an offer of a job to me ‘to work with us instead of going after us,’ that Ben & Jerry’s was not going to transition to organic because it wouldn’t allow them to ‘maximize profits.'”

Ben & Jerry’s Executives Forced to Visit Contaminated Lake Carmi


Lake Carmi in Franklin, Vermont, is a favorite spot for recreation and supports northern pike, walleyes and other warm-water species — or at least, it once did. The once pristine lake is now in environmental crisis, plagued by blue-green algae, also known as cyanobacteria. It can produce toxins that are harmful to humans and marine life. Skin rashes and respiratory issues can result from exposure to the algae, and should it get into an open wound, it can lead to a staph infection.5

As fertilizer and manure from industrial farms run off and enter waterways, they lead to an overabundance of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, in the water — nutrients that fertilize the growth of the algae blooms now taking over. What does this have to do with Ben & Jerry’s? Regeneration Vermont explained:6

“Lake Carmi sits at ground zero for the state’s industrial dairy industry, Franklin County, home to more than 36,000 confined cows (and only 47,000 people), creating a staggering amount of phosphorus-rich manure. This county’s mega-farms are the primary dairy suppliers for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.”

Ben & Jerry’s continues to turn a blind eye toward the devastation, so Regeneration Vermont and members of the Franklin Watershed Committee made them an offer they couldn’t refuse: tour Lake Carmi and the surrounding watershed to see the damage firsthand.

In a commentary by Jostein Solheim, Ben & Jerry’s CEO, it’s noted, “Ben & Jerry’s recognizes that we are connected to the farms in the Lake Carmi watershed. Our Caring Dairy farm program, which we implement through the St. Albans Cooperative, has members in the Lake Carmi watershed.”7

Solheim then goes on to state, “[The Ben & Jerry’s team] found it tragic to see the polluted condition of this usually beautiful lake, which is currently experiencing the worst cyanobacteria bloom in recent memory. The condition of the lake, the hardship it’s forced upon local residents and businesses is, well, heartbreaking.” At least progress is happening in that Regeneration Vermont was able to get Ben & Jerry’s CEO out to see the contaminated lake.

The rest of the commentary, though, reads like a piece of fluff, with Solheim praising the company’s Caring Dairy farm program and stressing that the problems created “are not ours alone to solve.”

It mentions a “renewed vision for dairy farming in Vermont” and notes that “many more details of our vision for the future of our farms” will be available soon. In other words, it’s reminiscent of the many conversations Regeneration Vermont has had with Ben & Jerry’s in the past. As noted by Will Allen, owner of Cedar Circle Farm, a regenerative farm in Vermont, and Regeneration Vermont co-founder:8

“Stalling has been refined to an art form with Ben & Jerry’s social mission and dairy teams. In April 2016, they felt that they would have a decision on changing their dairy sourcing by September/October 2016. When October came, they felt that they would have a decision by December. In December, we were told that February or March would be when they made their sourcing decision.

In February, a Unilever director offered to set up meetings with Ben & Jerry’s CEO and us (Regeneration Vermont) and Roger Allbee, the former Vermont secretary of agriculture. Six months later, we are still hoping to have that meeting. Finally, April or May was to be the target date for making sourcing decisions. [As of] … July — still no decision, still no meeting with the CEO. Still stalling.”

Ben & Jerry’s Is Not Organic; Ice Cream Tested Positive for Glyphosate Residue

Ben & Jerry’s has managed to scoot by under the radar of even the most environmentally conscious consumers by creating an aura of a socially responsible organic company without actually being one.

They have no reason to switch to organic or grass fed farming because, as Colby put it, “the marketing is working just fine.” “’People think we’re organic,’ is what we were told time and time again in private meetings,” Colby says, “while asking them to actually go organic. If fooling people allows for maximizing profits, why stop fooling them?”9

Yet, you might be surprised to learn that, in July 2017, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) reported that 10 of 11 samples of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream they tested came back positive for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide and/or its main metabolite AMPA.10

In response, OCA called on Ben & Jerry’s to immediately transition to using only organic ingredients, including milk, “or face a national and international consumer boycott.” Echoing Regeneration Vermont, OCA international director Ronnie Cummins also called out Ben & Jerry’s for deceiving the public with a greenwashed image:11

“Ben & Jerry’s falsely advertises its products as ‘natural’ and its brand as ‘sustainable’ and ‘socially responsible.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. Ben & Jerry’s profits are built on the back of an industrial dairy system that poisons the environment and produces pesticide-contaminated food products. Ben & Jerry’s sales, driven in large part by its deceitful claims, damage the organic industry by cutting into the sales of authentic natural, grass-fed and organic producers.”

On a brighter note, more than 200 (about 20 percent) of the dairy farms in Vermont have already made the transition to organic farming, through no help from Ben & Jerry’s. This is a good start, but hundreds more need to follow suit. Also, these problems are hardly restricted to Vermont. Industrial dairy farms across the U.S. are contributing to the destruction of our environment and human health.

Support Grass Fed Organic Farmers, Even When Buying Ice Cream

A key message both Cummins and Allen deliver is the importance of avoiding all CAFO animal products, be it beef, poultry, eggs, milk or other dairy products such as ice cream. One of the most impactful changes you as an individual can make is to switch from CAFO animal products to organic, grass fed beef and dairy that doesn’t rely on such destructive practices. Many do not realize this, but grazing animals are actually a very important part of the ecology and can even play a role in regenerating the environment.

Since the early 1800s, grasslands in North America have decreased by 79 percent — and in some areas by 99.9 percent,12 oftentimes to plant GMO corn and soy fields, which in turn are fed to herbivores that could be grazing instead of eating grains fed to them on concrete. As Allen stated:13

“It’s time to stop pretending that Ben & Jerry’s is a socially or environmentally conscious corporation. They know how damaging their milk supply chain is. They know that labor is being abused. They know that cows are burning out before they are five years old. They know that antibiotics were being misused.

They know that the dairies that supply their milk are polluting our drinking water and most of the rivers and lakes in Vermont. They can’t pretend that they didn’t know how damaging their supply chain is, because we shared all this data with them. Yet they refuse to act.”

Indeed, Regeneration Vermont is among those urging the ice cream maker to source milk from organic/regenerative farmers, which would signal to desperate dairy farmers struggling to make a living amid an industrial milk glut that there’s another, viable option, another way to farm. Until that time, support dairy farmers who are producing raw, grass fed milk products, and food manufacturers sourcing grass fed milk, not those perpetuating the CAFO model.

Getting your raw grass fed milk and other food from a local organic farm or co-op is one of the best ways to ensure you’re getting high-quality food, and if you’re in the mood for a treat, you can make your own grass fed milk ice cream at home. In the Midwest, the Kalona SuperNatural brand is the first dairy brand to become certified by the American Grassfed Association (AGA).

An AGA logo on a product lets you know the animals were fed a lifetime diet of 100 percent forage, were raised on pasture (not in confinement) and were not treated with hormones or antibiotics.14 I strongly encourage you to seek out AGA certified dairy products as they become more widely available. You can also locate a raw, grass fed milk source near you at the Campaign for Real Milk website. California residents can find raw grass fed milk retailers by using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.

Tell Ben & Jerry’s to Start Living up to Their Image

OCA has created a petition15 to encourage Ben & Jerry’s to convert to organic and stop hoodwinking customers into thinking they’re organic by claiming to be all-natural and environmentally responsible. Please show your support for this initiative by signing the petition below. Better yet, call Ben & Jerry’s directly (802-846-1500) and ask the company to fulfill their mission statement and go organic.

You can also send them a message using the online contact form at the bottom of their contact page. Please give them a call, and ask your family and friends to contact them as well. Remember, you have the power to make a difference.

OCA petition

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Monsanto Banned From Parliament

By Dr. Mercola

Members in the European Parliament (MEPs) announced that Monsanto officials would no longer be able to meet MEPs, attend committee meetings or even use “digital resources” in Brussels or Strasbourg parliament premises, essentially banning them from parliament.1

The blow came after the biotech giant refused to attend a hearing organized by environment and agriculture committees over allegations that Monsanto engaged in regulatory interference, by influencing studies into the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in their Roundup herbicide.

The Guardian quoted Green party president Philippe Lamberts, who stated, “Those who ignore the rules of democracy also lose their rights as a lobbyist in the European parliament … U.S. corporations must also accept the democratic control function of the parliament. Monsanto cannot escape this.”2 This is one of the harshest examples yet in terms of a large government body not allowing Monsanto lobbyists to talk to its members going forward.

In the U.S., Monsanto has significant influence on government agencies, but even in the U.K., which was originally more resistant to Monsanto’s genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the company has made a lot of headway in changing their image. That being said, European Commission leaders met in March 2016 to vote on whether to renew a 15-year license for glyphosate, which was set to expire in June that year.

The decision was tabled amid mounting opposition, as more than 180,000 Europeans signed a petition calling for glyphosate to be banned outright. Ultimately, more than 2 million signatures were collected against relicensing the chemical. In June 2016, however, the European Commission granted an 18-month extension to glyphosate while they continued the review. A ruling is expected by the end of 2017, which means the lobby ban could not have come at a more inopportune time for Monsanto.

Monsanto Refuses to Attend EU Hearing, MEPs Withdraw Parliamentary Access

NGO Corporate Europe Observatory spokesman Martin Pigeon told The Guardian it was “extremely important that parliament has been prepared to meet Monsanto’s unbelievable arrogance with real retaliation and consequences.”3 Indeed, in a stark departure from the U.S. government’s cozy ties with Monsanto, the European Parliament has taken a much-needed stand. As for why Monsanto refused to attend the hearing, they said in a letter to MEPs, seen by The Guardian:4

“The joint hearing could be viewed as the latest attempt by those opposed to modern agricultural practices to influence and frustrate the EU scientific and regulatory process to suit their own agenda … We have observed with increasing alarm the politicization of the EU procedure on the renewal of glyphosate, a procedure which should be scientific but which in many respects has been hijacked by populism.”

The European Parliament, however, wanted to get answers regarding reports that they were misled regarding studies on Roundup’s toxicity. One study in question was conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini. The lifetime feeding study, published in 2012, revealed numerous shocking problems in rats fed GMO corn, including massive tumors and early death. Rats given glyphosate in their drinking water also developed tumors.

The following year, the publisher retracted the study saying it “did not meet scientific standards,” even though a long and careful investigation found no errors or misrepresentation of data.

Interestingly enough, in the time between the publication of the study and its retraction, the journal had created a new position — associate editor for biotechnology, a position that was filled by a former Monsanto employee. The editor of the journal that retracted the study was also reportedly paid by Monsanto.

As GM Watch reported, “ … [E]mails released show that Monsanto was active in the retraction process, though it tried to hide its involvement.”5 Séralini not only republished the study in another journal, he also took legal action, and at the end of 2015, he won two court cases against some of those who tried to destroy his career and reputation.

In the first case, Marianne magazine and a journalist by the name of Jean-Claude Jaillette — who accused Séralini of “scientific fraud in which the methodology served to reinforce pre-determined results” — were found guilty of public defamation. In a second case, Marc Fellous, former chairman of the Biomolecular Engineering Commission of France, was indicted for forgery and the use of forgery in a libel trial.

Glyphosate Front Group Tells EU Not to Consider Critical Roundup Study

Follow-up research by Séralini showed that long-term exposure to even ultra-low amounts of Roundup may cause tumors, along with liver and kidney damage in rats. In this study, the dose used was “environmentally relevant in terms of human, domesticated animals and wildlife levels of exposure,” prompting the authors to suggest Roundup may have significant health implications.6,7

However, because the original study was “retracted,” it was excluded from the EU glyphosate assessment. The Glyphosate Task Force, an industry front group, even said it was “not considered reliable anymore.”

Hans Muilerman of consumer group Pesticide Action Network (PAN) recently sent letters to EU Health and Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), stating that the study’s exclusion amounts to “a very serious case of manipulation” of science.8 GM Watch further reported:

“Muilerman writes in his letters, ‘We conclude from these facts that the Glyphosate Task Force’s characterization of the Séralini study as ‘not reliable’ is itself not reliable, originating, as it does, from a campaign orchestrated by Monsanto” … He explains: ‘The Séralini study is the longest chronic experiment with the full formulation of glyphosate — and we know that the co-formulants change its toxicity.

Since data requirements for chronic toxicity of formulations are missing in the Regulation, the Séralini study fills an important knowledge gap as well as serving the obligation in the Regulation … to take into account cumulative and synergistic effects.

It is a bitter shame that the Rapporteur Germany accepted this manipulation by the Glyphosate Task Force.’ Muilerman calls on Andriukaitis to ‘commission a fully independent panel of top level scientists that have no link whatever to industry to redo the review.’”

US Scientists Decide to Skip Monsanto’s Dicamba Summit

Roundup isn’t Monsanto’s only controversial and toxic herbicide. Equally contentious is dicamba, which is prone to drifting. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Monsanto’s new weedkiller, XtendiMax, which goes along with its Roundup Ready Xtend cotton and soybeans — GE plants designed to tolerate both glyphosate and dicamba, in November 2016.

However, Monsanto sold dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean seeds to farmers before the herbicide designed to go with them (which is supposedly less prone to drifting) had gotten federal approval. In 2016, when farmers sprayed their new GE crops with older, illegal formulas of dicamba, and it drifted over onto their neighbors’ non-dicamba-resistant crops, devastating crop damage was reported in 10 states.9

Meanwhile, Monsanto held a “dicamba summit” in September 2017 near its headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri, hoping to gain approval from more scientists about its damaging weed killer, but of the approximately 60 people invited, only about 30 reportedly planned to attend. University of Missouri plant sciences professor Kevin Bradley, who’s been tracking crop damage due to dicamba sprayings across the U.S., was among those who declined to attend, citing the company’s unwillingness to discuss volatilization.10

Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee are presently investigating more than 2,000 reports of dicamba damage.11 As of August 2017, an estimated 3.1 million acres across the eastern half of the United States have been damaged by dicamba drift.12 Meanwhile, by June 2017, Arkansas had received more than 400 complaints from farmers whose crops were damaged by dicamba drifting over from neighboring farms.13

In response, the Arkansas Plant Board voted to pass an emergency temporary ban on spraying the weedkiller, and by September 2017 state officials were “just one step away” from banning dicamba sprayings in the summer of 2018.14

Widespread Monsanto Manipulation Coming to the Surface

Monsanto continues to contest the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) 2015 determination that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen,” even as it’s become clear that they may have worked with a U.S. EPA official to stop glyphosate investigations.

Email correspondence showed Jess Rowland, who at the time was the EPA’s deputy division director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on Monsanto’s behalf.

In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he’d had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, “If I can kill this I should get a medal,”15 referring to the ATSDR investigation, which did not end up occurring. Meanwhile, former Reuters reporter Carey Gillam has written a revealing book on Monsanto’s long-term and continuing corruption of science, titled “Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science.”

She details the approximately 3,000 plaintiffs in the U.S. who believe exposure to glyphosate caused their, or a loved one’s, cancer, while Monsanto knew it was toxic and covered up the evidence. Court-ordered unsealed documents have revealed that Monsanto scientists ghost-wrote studies to clear glyphosate’s name and even hired a scientist to persuade the EPA to change its cancer classification decision on the chemical.16

Gillam also told Corporate Crime Reporter that Monsanto would bully journalists who dared to go against the “corporate narrative.” “Monsanto has made a concerted effort to train reporters on how to report on the industry,” she said. “They are holding boot camps and bringing in these supposedly independent professors and others to train these reporters and others how to think about the science and the issues. They are trying to influence press coverage.”17

In addition, she describes the company’s ongoing manipulation of science and the press, and the revolving door that keeps Monsanto in control of government regulations. With the manipulation that continues to come to the surface, the EU Parliament was wise in their decision to withdraw Monsanto’s access. Gillam told Corporate Crime Reporter:

“[Do]cuments show that Monsanto has put together an army of surrogates and soldiers — professors, academics — people who appear to be independent of Monsanto, but who in fact, behind the curtains, are having money funneled to their organizations, to their universities, to their research programs.

In exchange, some of them are having Monsanto write the presentations that they deliver. They are taking drafts that Monsanto will put together and their name will be put on an independent positive review of glyphosate.

In fact, Monsanto wrote it. That is not disclosed anywhere … There is also the revolving door. When officials leave the EPA, they can get lucrative jobs within the chemical industry — if they are friendly, if they are useful. There was an EPA official overseeing the glyphosate cancer review. He left the EPA and almost immediately started getting work with the chemical industry. And Monsanto loved this guy.

They talked about it in their internal documents, how useful he could be. And how they wanted him to be the one they were dealing with, instead of somebody else on the glyphosate issue.”

You Can Find Out How Much Glyphosate Is in Your Body

Laboratory testing commissioned by the organizations Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse revealed that glyphosate is now showing up virtually everywhere. The analysis revealed glyphosate in levels of 76 ?g/L to 166 ?g/L in women’s breast milk. As reported by The Detox Project, this is 760 to 1,600 times higher than the EU-permitted level in drinking water (although it’s lower than the U.S. maximum contaminant level for glyphosate, which is 700 ?g/L.).18

This dose of glyphosate in breast-fed babies’ every meal is only the beginning. An in vitro study designed to simulate human exposures also found that glyphosate crosses the placental barrier. In the study, 15 percent of the administered glyphosate reached the fetal compartment.19 Glyphosate has also been detected in a number of popular foods, including oatmeal, coffee creamer, eggs and cereal, such as Cheerios.

If you’d like to know your personal glyphosate levels, you can now find out, while also participating in a worldwide study on environmental glyphosate exposures. The Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide.

Ordering this kit automatically allows you to participate in the study and help HRI better understand the extent of glyphosate exposure and contamination. In a few weeks, you will receive your results, along with information on how your results compare with others and what to do to help reduce your exposure. We are providing these kits to you at no profit in order for you to participate in this environmental study.

In the meantime, eating organic as much as possible and investing in a good water filtration system for your home are among the best ways to lower your exposure to glyphosate and other pesticides. In the case of glyphosate, it’s also wise to avoid desiccated crops like wheat and oats.

Whooping Cough Reemergence Traced Back to Vaccine Failure and Flawed Assumptions

By Dr. Mercola

The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is included as a component in "combination" shots that include tetanus and diphtheria (DPT, DTaP, Tdap) and some pertussis-containing shots now also include polio, hepatitis B and/or Haemophilus Influenza B (Hib). Whole cell pertussis vaccines in DPT, used in the U.S. from 1949 until the late ‘90s, were estimated to be between 30 and 85 percent effective, depending upon the type of DPT and vaccine manufacturer, with protection lasting only two to five years.1

The DPT vaccine was highly reactive and carried a high risk of serious allergic reactions and brain inflammation leading to permanent brain damage, as detailed in the groundbreaking 1985 book DPT: A Shot in the Dark, co-authored by Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder of the National Vaccine Information Center.

DTaP shots — which contain the less reactive acellular pertussis vaccine licensed for infants in the United States in 1996 — are given five times to children under age 6, with additional Tdap booster doses recommended for teenagers and adults. Since the late 1980s, CDC data shows that kindergarten children in the U.S. have maintained a high vaccination rate with four to five DPT shots and, today, more than 94 percent of kindergarten children have had four to five acellular DTaP vaccines.

Very high pertussis vaccination rates in the U.S. and many other countries for the past several decades should be more than sufficient to achieve vaccine-acquired herd immunity, if the theory of vaccine-acquired herd immunity is correct.2 Yet, despite high vaccine coverage, statistics show reported whooping cough cases continue to rise. So, what’s really going on?

Studies Show Pertussis Vaccine Doesn’t Work

Scientific findings suggest whooping cough vaccines — both whole cell and acellular — fail to provide adequate protection against infection and the transmission of infection. There are indications that subclinical and undiagnosed pertussis infections have been occurring since the early 1980s among both vaccinated and unvaccinated persons.

Now, a recently published scientific study3,4 confirms the acellular whooping cough vaccine does not work as expected — and that the continued circulatioin of the disease can be traced back to the vaccine itself. Unfortunately, the study authors still maintain the false notion that the older, more toxic whole cell pertussis vaccines were more effective at preventing the spread of whooping cough than the current acellular versions. According to the authors:

“Fundamental aspects of pertussis epidemiology and immunology were left unexplained following the introduction of wP [whole cell] vaccines in the 1950s. The wP vaccines worked: disease rates plummeted, mortality fell, and the pertussis problem appeared largely solved. The fact that we did not know then, and still do not know now, how wP vaccines did this was inconvenient and has remained problematic …

Had carriage studies been conducted … then this might have provided supportive evidence that infections were being blocked. But carriage studies were not done. Rather, it was assumed that because wP vaccines appeared to confer herd immunity, they therefore blocked carriage. In hindsight and in light of subsequent evidence, that assumption was probably correct.

It was subsequently assumed that aP [acellular] vaccines, most of which include combinations of adhesion protein antigens … that enable B. pertussis to bind to respiratory epithelium, would also block carriage. But, while logical, that assumption appears to have been incorrect.”

Whooping Cough Resurgence Traced Back to Vaccine Failure and Flawed Assumptions

In a nutshell, the authors of the new pertussis study blame the apparent global resurgence of whooping cough cases on the failure of acellular pertussis vaccines, which were licensed for infants in the U.S. in 1996 after parents in Japan in the 1970s, and parents in the U.S. in the early 1980s, lobbied for a purified pertussis vaccine to cut down on the numbers of children being brain damaged and dying from DPT shots.

The authors allege that acellular pertussis vaccines, which demonstrated superior safety and effectiveness in prelicensure clinical trials conducted in the 1990s, do not work the way older whole cell pertussis vaccines did, and that it is this difference that is causing reported cases of whooping cough to increase. In 2014, there were more than 32,000 reported cases of whooping cough in the U.S., most of which occurred in vaccinated populations.

However, evidence shows pertussis deaths dropped by 75 percent between 1922 and 1948, a year before the introduction of DPT in 1949. In 1948, the mortality rate was less than 1 pertussis death per 100,000, and this rate has not been surpassed since.5,6 So, the plummeting disease and mortality rates noted in the recently featured pertussis review were not the direct result of the whooping cough vaccine.

The authors allege that, while both acellular and whole cell pertussis vaccines may inhibit symptomatic disease (the actual coughing fits), the older whole cell vaccines to a large degree also appeared to block the spread of infection, while acellular vaccines do not as efficiently prevent disease transmission.

However, when you take a much closer look at this assumption — that only acellular vaccines produce asymptomatic carriers capable of spreading the disease while whole cell vaccines are incapable of doing the same thing — the scientific evidence demonstrates that the assumption is incorrect.  

The paper’s authors cite evidence that pertussis transmission “readily occurs” between infected animals vaccinated with an acellular pertussis vaccine and nearby uninfected and unvaccinated animals. As noted in the paper:

“Disease among infants <3 months old (i.e. too young to have been vaccinated) increased sharply in the late 1970s, coincident with declines in wP coverage rates. As wP coverage improved in the 1980s, pertussis incidence fell, including among young infants. Surprisingly, though, the infant rates stabilized in the 100–200 cases/100,000 infants/year range, even as disease among older age groups fell almost to zero.

Since those infants are unlikely to be their own reservoir for infection, a more plausible explanation was transmission from a sustained pool of asymptomatic older individuals in the population. This also emphasizes that even very high rates of wP vaccination may fail to completely interrupt pertussis transmission.”

However, a seminal 2014 infant baboon study published in PNAS gave strong evidence that both whole cell and acelullar vaccines are incapable of preventing infection or transmission of infection. The scientists found that whether baboons were vaccinated with whole cell or acellular vaccines, they were all capable of being infected, sometimes asymptomatically, and transmitting infection to other baboons.

The only difference was that baboons that had previously recovered from pertussis, or had been given whole cell pertussis vaccine, were infectious for a shorter period of time than those vaccinated with acellular vaccines.7

Both Pertussis Vaccines Have Been Proven Ineffective

While the admission that acellular pertussis vaccines don’t work may be shocking to some, it is important to point out that this paper seriously minimizes the evidence for the ineffectiveness of whole cell pertussis vaccines.

As detailed in Fisher’s fully referenced 2016 article, “Pertussis Microbe Outsmarts the Vaccines as Experts Argue About Why,”8 scientific evidence dating back decades shows that the whole cell pertussis vaccine in DPT shots ALSO failed to prevent infection and transmission of infection that could be spread to vaccinated persons by carriers who were asymptomatic or had few symptoms.9

This article, published on Mercola.com, was the first in-depth analysis written for the lay public to make this important point. The B. pertussis organism actually began evolving to evade whole cell pertussis vaccine soon after DPT was introduced in 1949, developing new strains that produce more pertussis toxin to suppress the human immune system and cause more serious disease. Today, the pertussis strains included in the vaccine no longer match the pertussis strains causing the disease.

Evidence also shows that subclinical, asymptomatic pertussis capable of being transmitted to vaccinated and unvaccinated alike has been circulating for several decades — regardless of which vaccine has been in use.

Doctors assume that when children and adults have been vaccinated and present with mild respiratory symptoms, they do not have whooping cough, and so cases of pertussis have been systematically underdiagnosed in vaccinated persons for decades. By perpetuating the myth that whole cell pertussis vaccine did in fact work, it opens the door for those who want to simply reintroduce the older, more toxic whole cell pertussis vaccine for infants and children. As noted by Fisher in 2016:

“When there are a lot of people with silent asymptomatic pertussis infections, it is impossible to know who is a carrier and who is not, which means that reported cases of pertussis are just the tip of a very big iceberg. It also means that articles blaming whooping cough cases on unvaccinated or partially vaccinated children are nothing more than wishful thinking and scapegoating.

Bottom Line: Both natural and vaccine-acquired immunity is temporary and while vaccination may prevent clinical symptoms, it does not block infection, carriage or transmission. If vaccinated people can get silently infected and transmit infection without showing any symptoms — even after getting four to six pertussis shots — then pertussis vaccine acquired "herd immunity" is an illusion and always has been.”

In other words, the whole cell pertussis vaccine was no more effective than the acellular pertussis in blocking infection and transmission of infection. So, while the featured paper offers some important admissions, it doesn’t go far enough.

Vaccine manufacturers selling vaccines, medical trade groups promoting vaccines and public health officials responsible for regulating and making policy for vaccines clearly do not want to be held responsible for the failure of both DPT and DTaP/TdaP vaccines. At the same time, the failure of the whooping cough vaccine has become so obvious it cannot be swept under the rug much longer.

In that respect, this paper is a timely one, providing the perfect message for propagandists: The more toxic whole cell pertussis vaccine had a superior effectiveness compared to the less toxic acellular vaccine and should not have been replaced. But this is simply a way of trying to deflect attention away from the fact that vaccines, including pertussis vaccine, not only cause harm but also fail to work as advertised.

Public Distrust in Vaccine Safety Is Becoming a Public Relations Crisis

The study authors do recognize that by not openly and honestly addressing vaccine failures, public distrust will only continue to grow. As noted by the authors, “We are approaching a critical decision point … The resurgence of pertussis in the [acellular] vaccine era is evolving into a slow-moving global public health crisis,” and that “with the public’s trust in vaccines waning, this has also become a public relations crisis.”

At present, infant deaths associated with pertussis infection are at a 70-year high, despite the fact that uptake of pertussis vaccines is higher than ever. According to the authors, this casts “doubt on whether further increasing aP vaccine coverage can ever compensate for their fundamental limitations.” Lead author Dr. Christopher Gill, infectious disease specialist and associate professor of global health at Boston University added:10

“This disease is back because we didn’t really understand how our immune defenses against whooping cough worked, and did not understand how the vaccines needed to work to prevent it. Instead we layered assumptions upon assumptions, and now find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of admitting that we may made [sic] some crucial errors.”

They also stress the importance of making sure that any future pertussis vaccines can clearly demonstrate ability to both prevent clinical disease AND prevent the transmission of infection. But, unfortunately, by perpetuating the false idea that whole cell pertussis vaccine was able to prevent transmission, we may actually end up taking a huge step backward. As noted by Fisher:11

“The whole cell DPT vaccine used until the late 1990s in the U.S. was an extremely reactive vaccine. DPT vaccine reactions like fever, pain and irritability were experienced by between 50 and 85 percent of children and seizures and collapse/shock reactions followed 1 in 875 DPT shots.12,13 Brain inflammation was reported following 1 in 110,000 DPT shots with permanent brain damage after 1 in 310,000 DPT shots.14

The Problem With Modern Pertussis Vaccines

Shortcomings aside, the paper does make a few other points of note. In summary, they discovered that:

Contributing factors such as detection bias, waning immunity and evolutionary shifts in the pertussis’ genome alone cannot fully explain the epidemiologic data. Importantly, vaccine refusal was one hypothesis considered as a cause behind the resurgence of whooping cough that was ultimately discounted. In other words, they agreed that reemergence of whooping cough cannot be blamed on parents who opt not to vaccinate their children.

According to the authors: “[G]iven that U.S. pertussis vaccine uptake is so high on average, the impact of vaccine-refusing communities must, by definition, be small and largely limited to those communities. It is difficult to see how this could significantly affect the overall increases seen across the general population in the U.S.”

Ever since the pertussis scare of summer 2010, the attacks on religious and conscientious belief exemptions have intensified and spread across the U.S., and it’s completely unwarranted.

The practice of “cocooning,” where Tdap is given to all household contacts of a newborn to prevent whooping cough in the infant does not work. As noted by the authors, “Cocooning is logical but presupposes that aP vaccines prevent asymptomatic infections.

Unfortunately, several controlled trials of cocooning in the U.S. found no efficacy. These counterintuitive results conflict with expectations if aP vaccines block carriage and transmission but fit well if aP vaccines only prevent disease but have more limited ability to block infections.”

Th1 Versus Th2 Immune Responses

To understand why vaccine-induced immunity is so short-lived compared to naturally-acquired immunity, you have to understand how your immune system works. Your immune system is divided into two different parts, each of which fights disease in your body in its own way, and the second of them is further subdivided into two arms with separate immune functions:

1. The innate immune system, which is always at the ready and a first-line defense against foreign invaders

2. The adaptive immune system, which in turn consists of two separate arms

  1. Th1, commonly known as the cell mediated arm
  2. Th2, known as the humoral or antibody arm, i.e., the part of your immune system that produces antibodies

Most vaccines, including acellular pertussis vaccines, preferentially stimulate Th2 — a fact that other research suggests may compromise your immune function in the long term and increase your risk of cancer. Vaccine efficacy is determined by measuring antibodies, which is a sign of humoral immunity activity. The benefit of measuring antibodies as a means of assessing vaccine effectiveness is that it can be easily determined by drawing blood samples.

If specific vaccine-induced antibodies are present, the person is presumed to be immune to that infection and protected because vaccine developers and regulators have maintained that if vaccines stimulate antibody production, it is a demonstration of vaccine-acquired immunity that is protective against infection and transmission of infection.

The theory goes back to the early days when it was believed that the humoral (antibody) arm of the immune system was the most important part of stimulating immunity. There’s a problem with this theory, however.

Research reveals that individuals who, due to a genetic variation, are unable to generate antibody production, actually recover from infectious illness just as well as those able to make normal antibodies.15 They also usually have protection in the future upon re-exposure.

This demonstrates the importance of the Th1 arm of immunity, and suggests humoral immunity may only play a secondary role in natural resistance against targeted “vaccine-preventable” diseases. This, and the fact that vaccines fail to confer lifelong immunity, suggests that having a cell mediated (Th1) response is in fact necessary to confer robust, long-lasting immunity.

Today, vaccine manufacturers are developing genetically engineered vaccines and adding novel vaccine adjuvants that hyperstimulate immune responses in an attempt to generate cell mediated immunity, not just humoral immunity.

A Timeline of Whooping Cough Failures and Science

Since 2011, I’ve reported studies showing the whooping cough vaccine is failing, and the many reasons why. Here’s a quick summary of such findings. For more information, follow the hyperlink provided for each year.

2011

A 2011 investigation found the pertussis bacteria mutated nearly 20 years prior. Newer strains, such as the strain called P3, produces more pertussis toxin and/or have evolved to become vaccine resistant. Another Bordetella organism called parapertussis — for which there is no vaccine — can also cause symptoms of whooping cough, and this too is contributing to rising rates of infection.

Canadian researchers also published evidence showing “cocooning” is grossly ineffective. They determined at least 1 million parental immunizations were needed to prevent a single infant death from whooping cough.16

2012

Research published in 2012 found that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under 18 occurred in those fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine.17 It also confirmed that acellular pertussis vaccines only stimulate a type of immunity that lasts about three years at best.

In an article published in the journal Pediatrics, Dr. James D. Cherry also revealed that estimates for pertussis vaccine efficacy18 have been significantly inflated due to the case definitions adopted by the World Health Organization in 1991, which required laboratory confirmation and 21 days or more of paroxysmal cough.

All less severe cases were excluded. As a result of these updated case definitions, the efficacy of the vaccine Infantrix was boosted from 71 to 84 percent. A New England Journal of Medicine study19 also reported that after the fifth dose of DTaP, the odds of acquiring whooping cough INCREASED by an average of 42 percent per year.

2013

An infant baboon study20 led by U.S. Food and Drug Administration researchers showed that while the pertussis vaccine in DPT and DtaP reduces serious clinical disease symptoms, it does not eliminate infection or transmission of B. pertussis whooping cough.

The study’s lead author Tod Merkel explained that when exposed to B. pertussis after recently getting vaccinated, you could be an asymptomatic carrier and infect others, adding,21 "When you’re newly vaccinated, you are an asymptomatic carrier, which is good for you, but not for the population." Another study22 published in the BMJ found the Tdap booster shot is only 53 to 64 percent effective.

2014

A British study showed that of the 20 percent of children diagnosed with whooping cough, 18 percent were fully vaccinated against it. Another study,23 which analyzed the genomes of whooping cough bacteria, found that the "acellular vaccine antigen encoding genes are evolving at higher rates than other surface protein encoding genes,” again suggesting the disease is not being prevented with mandatory, mass vaccination programs.

2015

Noting the reemergence of pertussis as a major public health concern despite very high vaccine uptake, a 2015 paper addressed the scientific and practical problems of developing an optimal booster vaccination schedule. According to the authors, “Our results argue that booster vaccination schedules developed based on misdiagnosis of the problem are likely to be epidemiologically ineffective and economically costly.”

Here, the four hypotheses presented for the rise in prevalence were: insufficient vaccine coverage; frequent primary vaccine failure; waning of vaccine-derived protection and vaccine “leakiness” (when a vaccinated individual somehow becomes infected upon exposure). Significant variations were noted in the proposed booster schedule depending on which of these scenarios were chosen as the basis for the algorithm.

2016

A U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)24 report highlighted the transmission of whooping cough among vaccinated children. The outbreak occurred at a Tallahassee, Florida, preschool in 2013. Twenty-six students between the ages of 1 and 5 contracted whooping cough, as did two staff and 11 family members.

The majority of the students were fully vaccinated against whooping cough according to the CDC’s recommended schedule. In one particular classroom in which all students had received the pertussis vaccine, 50 percent still developed whopping cough. According to the authors:

"This outbreak raises concerns about vaccine effectiveness in this preschool age group and reinforces the idea that recent pertussis vaccination should not dissuade physicians from diagnosing, testing or treating persons with compatible illness for pertussis … Reports of genetic changes in circulating B. pertussis have raised concern that this organism could be adapting to vaccine-induced immunity …”

Questions Abound

The new pertussis study authors attempted to answer a number of pressing and unresolved questions about the whooping cough vaccine in their paper, such as:

  • Why is whooping cough increasing in the U.S. despite record rates of pertussis vaccine uptake?
  • Why has vaccinating household contacts of newborns (so-called “cocooning”) failed to prevent pertussis among infants?
  • Does B. pertussis exist in an asymptomatic infection state?
  • Can pertussis be transmitted from asymptomatic individuals?
  • Do pertussis vaccines interfere with transmission processes and, if so, how?

All of these questions have been raised in the past, and a number of scientific studies have offered compelling clues to their answers. Unfortunately, concerns have been largely swept under the proverbial rug, and the “solution” has been to simply add booster shots. Based on the conclusions in this new paper, the real problem — the fact that the B. pertussis bacteria have evolved to survive vaccine pressure and will continue to do so as long as we insist on mass-vaccinations — may well continue to be ignored.

How Great a Concern Is Whooping Cough?

Whooping cough can indeed be serious, especially for newborns and babies whose tiny airways can become clogged with the sticky mucus produced by the toxins in B. pertussis bacteria. That said, the vast majority of children and adults get through a bout with whooping cough without complications, and it’s important for them to get proper nutrition, hydration and rest to support the healing process that sometimes can take as long as two to three months before coughing ends.

For a list of natural remedies that can help someone with whooping cough move more comfortably through the healing process, please see “Whooping Cough Vaccine Not as Effective as Thought.” Similarly, while some children and adults get pertussis-containing vaccines and experience no complications, others suffer serious reactions and injuries, or have died after getting vaccinated.

It is well known, for instance, that whole cell and acellular pertussis vaccine in DPT and DTaP/Tdap vaccines may cause brain inflammation and permanent brain damage in both children and adults.

If you want to learn more about vaccines, consider picking up a copy of Neil Z. Miller’s book, "Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers" — a book written in response to the common refrain that ‘there are no studies showing vaccines are unsafe or ineffective.’ In it, he reviews the concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy raised by 400 peer-reviewed published studies.

Migrant Unemployment Hits Record High in Germany- 2 Million on the Dole

Merkel’s dream of ‘refugees’ replacing the aging German workforce goes up in flames as 2 million immigrants go on the dole.

By Vijeta Uniyal | 6 October 2017

TRUTH REVOLT — Remember the Progressive claim that ‘refugees’ swarming into Europe will boost the continent’s workforce? “What the refugees bring us is more valuable than gold,” Germany Social Democratic leader politician Martin Schulz assured his countrymen witnessing the migrant stampede.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, too, assured the anxious Germans that a labor market boom was just around the corner.

“Angela Merkel says Germany needs ‘viable solutions’ to integrate refugees into the workforce,” reported the Germany broadcaster Deutsche Welle last year. “Many [refugees] are in integration courses or waiting to get into them,” Merkel said. “I think we will need to show some patience, but must be ready at any time to develop viable solutions.”

More than two years after Merkel fateful decision to open the country’s border to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, Germany still has an aging workforce, but migrants lining up to ease the country’s workforce demands are nowhere to be seen. The migrants, mostly Arab and Muslim man of fighting age, instead heeding the call of the Teutonic workforce, have taken refuge in the fatherland’s generous welfare system. […]

Vegas Shooter — Who’s ‘Not an Avid Gun Guy’ — Supposedly Leaves Note in Hotel Room With Details of Bullet Trajectory

Note in Las Vegas gunman’s hotel room included details of bullet trajectory

In their first in-depth interview, the officers who stormed Stephen Paddock’s hotel room reveal new details to ’60 Minutes’

7 October 2017

CBS NEWS — A note found in the hotel room of the man who shot into a crowd from his perch in a Las Vegas high-rise included hand-written calculations about where he needed to aim to maximize his accuracy and kill as many people as possible.

In an interview airing Sunday on “60 Minutes,” three police officers who stormed Stephen Paddock’s hotel room in the Mandalay Bay hotel tell correspondent Bill Whitaker new details about the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. The officers were the first to see Paddock’s body and the arsenal of weapons and ammunition he had stockpiled.

Officer David Newton from the Las Vegas Police Department’s K-9 unit said he noticed a note on the shooter’s nightstand once officers breached the room. He said the note was located near one of the windows that Paddock had smashed with a hammer to fire onto the crowd below with high-powered semi-automatic rifles outfitted to increase their rate of fire.

“I could see on it he had written the distance, the elevation he was on, the drop of what his bullet was gonna be for the crowd,” Newton said. “So he had that written down and figured out so he would know where to shoot to hit his targets from there.” […]

Disturbing Photos Of Muscly Cambodian “Buff Superpigs”

We’re seeing a lot of overweight animals on farms these days, as farmers will often pump animals full of growth hormones and specific antibiotics to make them plumper and meatier. Producing larger animals means big bucks for farmers, as it makes for greater yields of meat, fur, skin, or whatever else it is they’re selling.

However, overweight animals suffer gravely because they often gain so much weight that they can no longer support their own bodies. Their bones break and they can barely see through the fat that wells up around their face and eyes.

Not only is this cruel for the animals, but it’s terrible for human health as well. If you’re consuming any meat or dairy from a conventional farm, odds are that you’re also intaking a nice dose of pharmaceuticals, too. That’s right, all of the drugs force fed to these animals can inadvertently end up in your system as well.

Much like any other pharmaceutical, these drugs can pose adverse side effects, one of which includes antibiotic resistance. In fact, the more you eat meat, the greater your risk  of being exposed to antibiotic resistant bacteria and the gene mutation that causes it. Although there are many natural alternatives to antibiotics, this is still a very serious issue.

Even mainstream media has addressed this problem, as The Independent reported: “So the only way that we can tackle antibiotic resistance now, and prevent the terrifying prospect of entering a post-antibiotic world, is to think differently about what how we eat.”

Despite the health risks this practice poses, farms continue to pump these animals full of drugs to promote growth, and they continue to suffer as a result.

There are lots of other ways to create larger animals too, such as using steroids, overfeeding them, and genetic modification/alteration/selection. Regardless of the method, if an animal is severely overweight, it’s likely in pain, unhealthy, and unhappy.

Photos of GIANT Pigs in Cambodia Go Viral

The correlation between overweight animals and animal cruelty has been a popular subject recently, as disturbing images of massive pigs have gone viral. These pigs live on a farm in Cambodia, and once you see the photos, you’ll understand why they went viral.

Not only have animal rights organizations been speaking up for these pigs, but other internet users have raised concerns over the potential health risks associated with eating them as well. After all, if an animal is extremely unhealthy, would you really want to eat it?

These pigs are enormous, and you can see them locked up in tiny cages where they clearly cannot move.

A video was also taken at the pig farm, making it clear that these pigs struggle to walk because they can barely support their own weight, which you can watch here.

Final Thoughts

I completely understand how difficult looking at these images can be, but it’s important that we raise awareness surrounding animal cruelty! Sometimes people fail to associate meat or leather with the actual animals that were required to die in order to make these products. When we’re not killing the animals ourselves, it can be sort of “out of sight, out of mind.”

When you really think about it, these photos aren’t a “bad” thing. They’re helping to raise awareness surrounding the conditions in which most farm animals are forced to live, and the more people who feel compassion for these animals, the better! Likewise, the more photos, the better, because without pressure from the public, farmers are more likely to continue these cruel practices.

I encourage you to remember the real value of a dollar. When you pay for products that support the meat and dairy industry, you’re directly supporting this type of animal cruelty. If you don’t want to support the exploitation of animals, then either make a conscious effort to consume less of these products, or don’t consume them at all.

Every purchase you make has a ripple effect; each and every time you spend money, you’re affecting someone or something, whether that be the environment, an animal, the seller, or whatever else.

In reality, if it weren’t for the high demand for meat and dairy, none of this animal cruelty would be happening in the first place. Sure, you may not have killed that animal with your bare hands, but you’re still responsible for its death because you vote with your dollar.

Much love!