#Pizzagate Declared a ‘Debunked Conspiracy Theory’ by Wikipedia Disinfo Agent

Wikipedia has increasingly become a source of blatant black propaganda skulduggery. Wikipedia-speak uses a formula that centers on — but is not limited to — accusations of unreliable sources, undue weight and straw-man fallacies.

In this example, Winter Watch examines a Wikipedia “debunking” article titled “Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory.” You will see liberal use of citations that direct to other mafia-like debunkers, including The New York Times aka Slimes, etc. This bulking technique is designed to razzle dazzle the reader. These operators know that few readers have an attention span longer than a minute, and virtually no one will click through to the citation links. If you did, you would see more fluff, little content and just a big circle jerk.

This “pizzagate conspiracy theory” debunking work is carried by a “user” who goes by the handle “Dr. Fleishman”. His self-description is not the least bit surprisingly to regular Winter Watch readers. Notice how he links six times to distractions in a similar manner as his main text. He implies that he is a “non-medical doctor,” which is to convey that he “speaks from authority.” The reader has no way to verify this. Specifically, he pays “homage” to a neurotic anti-social “Jewish doctor” from Manhattan. Whodathunk!

I am not a doctor. At least, not a medical one. My username is a homage to a “young, somewhat uptight, Jewish doctor from Manhattan” whose “neurotic, almost Woody Allen-like, urban mindset” clashes with “the easy-going, community-minded people around him.”

In addition, this operator links to interests of his. One stands out: Stop Islamization of America, an organization run by arch-Zionist Pam Geller.

Tame version

What is even more remarkable about Dr. Fleishman is how prolific he or she is. The German name “Fleishman” translated to English means “meat man.” It that supposed to be some sort of perv justice warrior SM pun? He has managed to crank out 20,000 edits and articles over the last three years, making him a major presence in the Wikipedia conspiracy space. That is 18.26 per day, which suggests Fleishman may be a cadre or cell of several writers using the same contributor name.

Of late, the so-called “doctor” writes (click user contributions) on subjects such as hit pieces on Ben Swann and James O’Keefe, Pizzagate (of course), and “fake news sites,”  If you look at the time stamps of contributions, Wikipedia disinformation doesn’t appear to be “Dr. Fleishman’s” day job, but it would absorb nearly all his remaining waking hours. Is this individual (or individuals) really so devoted to Crime Syndicate cover ups and disinformation that he/she/they toil for free? Winter Watch suspects not.

The Reason Why

By Anna Von Reitz

The reason all these defamatory hit pieces are suddenly being pelted at me is because I am taking on the corrupt Generals who set up the Nevada Corporation to run the phony UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and who are trying to run another round of the Great Fraud on us.

These — Sun-Tzu and Destry et alia — are the guys trying to sell the French Rothschild “Neu Republique” to us—and if they can’t sell it honestly, are trying to bring it in the back door. These same bunch of Freebooters have been running all the UN-DOD-NWO scams.

It’s not me who is the “Cabal Agent”. Remember: it’s always the pot calling the kettle black. It’s their MO to accuse their enemies of what they are doing themselves.
Just watch and see who the actual Cabal Agents are —- those who are spreading a LOT of disinfo about me and about other things, too —- telling Notaries that they could lose non-existent “bonding” if they Witness our expatriation paperwork, telling people that Tim Turner’s “Act of State” will protect them, when it didn’t protect Tim Turner (he got an 18 year prison sentence because he relied on an “Act of State” he had no capacity to do).
All sorts of crazy crap coming out of those boys now, but manure is manure and it costs those who spread it as well as those who listen to it.
The Thinking People will see the logic and abandon the fake stuff, and all the Dunderheads who can’t think beyond their Eighth Grade indoctrination into La-La-Land, will be left behind. I am sorry for them, but— goats to the left, sheep to the right. It isn’t as if I haven’t spent eight years trying to educate everyone.

See this article and over 1600 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.

Act of State is Insufficient

By Anna Von Reitz

Now we have more Disinformation hitting the streets— people saying that you don’t have to expatriate, and that an “Act of State” is sufficient.

Tell that to Tim Turner, presently serving —- is it 18 years? —-in Federal Prison. 
Ever play with an Oriental Puzzle Box when you were a kid?

These wooden boxes are often intricately carved and have all sorts of hidden locks and slides and cut out “keys” that are part of the box. My Dad would give me one of these things that appeared to be solid blocks of intricately carved wood — a bit like a Rubik’s Cube — and see how long I had to fiddle with it to get it open. Inside, he would have hidden some little treat….

What our Employees have done is similar to the Puzzle Box. They have set things up so that “you can’t get there from here”.

You can’t do an “Act of State” until you have a “State” and you don’t have a “State” if you are any kind of “US Citizen”.

US Citizens live, work, breathe, and have their being in the world of “inchoate” States of States. They can’t access or operate actual States. They are by definition “stateless”.

So when a US Citizen attempts to do an “Act of State”, the courts just laugh at him and ignore him—- and rightly so. 
Tim Turner was trying to act in a capacity he couldn’t act in. He couldn’t access any “State” because as a US Citizen he wasn’t on the land and soil to begin with.

He hadn’t done the groundwork of re-conveying his Proper Name to the land and soil and hadn’t expatriated from US Citizenship, so, he couldn’t do a valid Act of State.

Tim will spend 8 to 10 years of his life in jail for making that mistake, and now members of the Michigan General Jural Assembly are telling you that an “Act of State” without returning to the land and soil and without expatriating from US Citizenship is sufficient?

They want you to make the same mistake Tim Turner already made— ? Hello? Houston…..


See this article and over 1600 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.

Correction: Notaries Cannot Lose Their Bonds

By Anna Von Reitz

Among the other Disinformation being spread is the idea that Notaries could “lose their bonds” if they Witness our Acts of Expatriation. 

Those making such comments are in true La-La-Land.

All your life, you have been signing for a fictional entity — your Person.

In fact, no “State of State” Notary has ever Witnessed anything but people signing as Persons, so you are not doing anything unusual or wrong or even questionable by signing our paperwork, and neither is the Notary doing anything questionable by witnessing it.

Here’s what you’ve got to know:

In international jurisdiction there are Lawful Persons and Legal Persons, but no living people at all.  So, Question One—- which one are you? Lawful Person or Legal Person?

We settle the first question — Lawful Person or Legal Person? —  with the Act of Expatriation and the Deed of Re-conveyance

We record the fact and create the evidence that our Proper Name is a Lawful Person standing on the land and soil of our State, so that it is no longer open to any interpretation and we are not subject to being mistaken for Legal Persons and attacked as such.

In municipal jurisdiction there are also only commercial corporations functioning as LEGAL PERSONS.  Again, no living people at all. 

Question Two: where those PERSONS domiciled on Earth and who do they belong to? 

We settle the second question regarding LEGAL PERSONS  with the Certificate of Assumed Names and the Form 56, which re-flags the PERSON as an American PERSON (not Puerto Rican) and then Form 56 makes the Secretary of the Treasury responsible for paying ITS debts. Not us.

Everyone (including the Notaries) needs to realize that  “State of State” Notaries, like State of State Sheriffs, don’t have any public bonds associated with what is in fact a private corporate office providing a public service as a paid or unpaid contractor.

Instead, the State of State corporations “self-insure” and have risk management departments.  In reality what that means is that they carry private liability insurance like any big corporation.

You can’t lose bonding you don’t have.  


See this article and over 1600 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.

Portions of Measles Outbreaks Are Due to Vaccine Reactions and Not Wild Measles Virus

When you hear about reported cases of measles, did you know that a portion of those affected may be experiencing a reaction to the live virus measles vaccine?

In a Journal of Clinical Microbiology paper,1 researchers describe new technology developed to “rapidly distinguish between measles cases and vaccine reactions to avoid unnecessary outbreak response measures such as case isolation and contact investigations.” According to this paper:

“During the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccines. Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences.”

In other words, about 38 percent of suspected measles cases in the 2015 Disneyland measles scare in California were actually vaccine-related and not caused by transmission of wild-type measles.

New York, Washington2 and Texas have reported measles outbreaks in January and February of this year (a total of 127 confirmed measles cases by Feb. 14, 2019),3 and now there are renewed calls for state legislatures to eliminate personal belief vaccine exemptions and restrict medical exemptions. Do health officials know for certain that none of those cases were, in fact, a vaccine reaction and not actual wild measles?

The irony of this should be clear to everyone. Each time a measles outbreak occurs, it’s always blamed on the unvaccinated. Yet a portion of those who become sick actually could be sickened by the vaccine-strain measles virus.

California Senator Calls for Extreme Measures

Despite evidence showing there are gaps in vaccine science and that the safety of the early childhood vaccine schedule has not been clearly established,4,5,6,7 and despite evidence showing measles disease outbreaks also may involve vaccine reactions, there’s an ongoing effort to simply shut down all public discussion about vaccines and their side effects.

For example, California state Sen. Dr. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, is now urging U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams to push mandatory vaccinations to the top of the public health agenda. In a letter to Adams, Pan wrote:8,9

“Our nation requires your leadership to stop this attack on our nation’s health by addressing the spread of vaccine misinformation causing unwarranted vaccine hesitancy and recommending policies that restore community immunity which protects our children and the most vulnerable among us …

As we just celebrated Presidents’ Day, I would recall George Washington mandated smallpox inoculation of his army during the Revolutionary War to ensure our country’s freedom. I call on you to protect our right as Americans to be free of preventable diseases in our own community.”

Lawmakers Demand CDC Get Involved to Stop Vaccine Misinformation From Spreading

In a similar vein, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., have penned a letter to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Assistant Secretary for Health overseeing the National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO).

Alexander and Murray are demanding the federal agencies step up to fight the spread of vaccine misinformation, which they claim is hurting states’ ability to properly address outbreaks.10

House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has also sent letters to Google and Facebook, in which he accuses the companies of enabling distribution of misinformation about vaccines that “discourages parents from vaccinating their children.” According to Schiff’s website:11

“Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), sent a letter to Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg, the Chief Executive Officers of Google and Facebook, respectively, to express concern that the company’s platforms including YouTube, Facebook and Instagram, are surfacing and recommending information that discourages parents from vaccinating their children, contributing to declining vaccination rates which could reverse progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases.

‘As a Member of Congress who is deeply concerned about declining vaccination rates, I am requesting additional information on the steps that you currently take to provide medically accurate information on vaccinations to your users, and to encourage you to consider additional steps you can take to address this growing problem,’ Schiff wrote in the letter.

‘I was pleased to see YouTube’s recent announcement that it will no longer recommend videos that violate its community guidelines, such as conspiracy theories or medically inaccurate videos, and encourage further action to be taken related to vaccine misinformation.’

The scientific and medical communities are in overwhelming consensus that vaccines are both effective and safe. There is no evidence to suggest that vaccines cause life-threatening or disabling diseases, and the dissemination of unfounded and debunked theories about the dangers of vaccinations pose a great risk to public health.”

Massive Push to Demonize Vaccine Safety Discussions and Dehumanize the Vaccine-Injured

As I recently reported in “The Hill Says Vaccine Injuries are Exaggerated Personal Anecdotes,” Rachel Alter, a graduate research assistant at the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, and Dr. Irwin Redlener, president emeritus and co-founder of the Children’s Health Fund, have also called for vaccine censorship on social media, and Pinterest has already started blocking vaccine searches.12

Meanwhile, the head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Scott Gottlieb, whose agency is legally responsible for regulating vaccine products produced by pharmaceutical companies for safety and effectiveness, is calling for federal intervention “if states don’t require more schoolchildren to get vaccinated.”13

He told CNN, “Some states are engaging in such wide exemptions that they’re creating the opportunity for (infectious disease) outbreaks on a scale that is going to have national implications.”

Who’s Behind the Push to End All Vaccine Discussion?

In addition to all that, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) reports that as of February 18, 2019, more than 100 bills have been filed in 30 states that either expand, restrict or eliminate informed consent rights for vaccines altogether.14

Bills have been proposed that mandate the use of new vaccines; restrict the list of providers authorized to approve vaccine exemptions; allow HPV and hepatitis B vaccines to be given to minors without parental consent; allow forced vaccination under certain circumstances; mandate doctors track and report vaccine status of both children and adults in electronic medical records; require schools to publicly post vaccination rates; and much, much more.15

The NVIC monitors, tracks and reports on all vaccine-related bills that impact vaccine informed consent rights at the state and federal level. Targeted action alerts are sent to registered users of the NVIC Advocacy Portal, who are also electronically connected with their own legislators. To stay on top of what is happening with bills that can affect your right to make vaccine choices, be sure to register (for free) so you can take action to protect your rights.

“Out of 114 vaccine-related bills which have been filed in the states, NVIC is supporting 50 good bills this legislative session that protect or expand vaccine informed consent rights,” said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. “That is because after California lost the personal belief vaccine exemption in 2015, families started to educate legislators in other states about the need to protect exemptions.

It is definitely a fight now between people attacking the legal and human right to make voluntary vaccine choices and those defending that right.”

In support of the families across the U.S. who are defending vaccine exemptions, NVIC has posted a “No Forced Vaccination” and “Vaccinations: Know the Risks and Failures” message on a giant 56-feet by 29-feet electronic screen in the heart of New York City’s Times Square. The digital ad celebrating freedom of thought and conscience in America will run through April 2019 and can be viewed here. What’s driving this modern-age witch hunt?

The short answer is drug company money. As just one example of many, before California voted to eliminate the personal belief and religious vaccine exemption for schoolchildren in 2015,16 vaccine makers donated millions of dollars to state lawmakers,17 and Pan, a pediatrician who has a long history of working with drug companies, was a primary sponsor of the bill (SB 277).

Currently valued at more than $34 billion a year, the vaccine industry is projected to exceed $49 billion by 2022.18
It’s an enormously lucrative field, and one of the absolute safest in terms of liability, as drug companies cannot be held liable for injury or death occurring from the use of FDA licensed and government mandated vaccines. Governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are also engaged in the marketing of vaccines, which eliminates their ability to be impartial.

Vaccine Injuries Are Very Real

In a recent interview with CBS News,19 Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), went so far as to flat-out deny that vaccines can cause injury or death.

But to say that all vaccines are safe, that there are no risks and that vaccine damage does not occur — that is not only misinformation, it’s an outright lie. And the effort to silence those speaking out about vaccine damage and the need for better quality vaccine science, that is the real danger to public health.

Since 1988, the federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 has paid out about $4 billion in awards to vaccine injured victims, and that’s just 31 percent of filed petitions for compensation.20 One of these cases is discussed in the 2008 CNN video above. In it, Dr. Sanjay Gupta interviews Dr. Jon Poling, a neurologist and father of Hannah Poling, who received VICP compensation for her vaccine injury.

Canadian research also suggests that vaccine reactions are far more common than publicly stated. The CDC claims serious reactions occur “at a rate of approximately 1 per million doses for many vaccines.” Yet this study21 found 1 in 168 children require emergency room (ER) admittance following their 1-year wellness check, during which vaccines are given, and 1 in 730 children end up in the ER after their 18-month vaccination appointment.22

The researchers also point out that an additional 20 febrile seizures occurred for every 100,000 vaccinated at 12 months. According to the authors of this study:

“There are significantly elevated risks of primarily emergency room visits approximately one to two weeks following 12- and 18-month vaccination. Future studies should examine whether these events could be predicted or prevented.”

The situation could potentially be even worse than that. In the following video, Del Bigtree,23 an Emmy Award-winning producer of “The Doctors” talk show for six years, and one of the producers of the 2016 documentary “Vaxxed,” reveals preliminary data compiled by a company contracted by the CDC to automate the federal vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) suggests vaccine reactions may affect as many as 1 in 10.

The automation was designed in such a way that any potential vaccine reactions reported to doctors participating in the Harvard Pilgrim HMO would automatically be uploaded into the VAERS database. Out of 376,452 individuals given 45 different vaccines, 35,570 possible vaccine reactions were identified.

The CDC dropped the program, and to this day, vaccine reactions are estimated to be underreported by as much as 99 percent,24 which of course is a very handy way of hiding risks and grossly overstating vaccine safety.

Fact: Vaccines are ‘Unavoidably Unsafe’

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that government licensed and recommended childhood vaccines mandated by states are “unavoidably unsafe,”25 and vaccine manufacturer product inserts list a wide array of possible side effects, including:

Autoimmune diseases

Food allergies



Juvenile diabetes

Rheumatoid arthritis


Tourette syndrome



Speech delay

Neurodevelopment disorders

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

Seizure disorder


Vaccines also have the highest number of recalls of any drug, which speaks to their “unavoidably unsafe” nature. In a recent Full Measure report,26 award-winning investigative reporter and former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson further highlights the need for open and balanced discussion about vaccine risks.

Government Witness Admits Vaccines Can Trigger Autism in Certain Children

In her report, Attkisson reveals how the opinion of the government’s own top vaccine expert, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, was silenced in order to turn down autism claims in vaccine court. She writes:

“Zimmerman … claims that during the vaccine hearings all those years ago, he privately told government lawyers that vaccines can, and did cause autism in some children. That turnabout from the government’s own chief medical expert stood to change everything about the vaccine-autism debate …

[H]e has come forward and explained how he told the United States government vaccines can cause autism in a certain subset of children and [the] United States government, the Department of Justice [DOJ], suppressed his true opinions.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of the World Mercury Project and the Children’s Health Defense, was the one who convinced Zimmerman to speak out about the cover-up. In a sworn affidavit dated September 7, 2018, Zimmerman states that in 2007, he told DOJ lawyers that he had “discovered exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism.”

“I explained that in a subset of children … vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation … did cause regressive [brain disease] with features of autism spectrum disorder,” Zimmerman writes.

A week after this 2007 meeting, the DOJ fired him, saying his services were no longer required. According to Zimmerman, the DOJ then went on to misrepresent his opinion in future cases, making no mention of the exceptions he’d informed them of. Kennedy has now filed a fraud complaint with the DOJ Inspector General.

Senior CDC Scientist Has Confessed to Covering Up Links Between Vaccines and Autism

William Thompson, Ph.D., a senior scientist at the CDC’s National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, has also confessed to covering up links found between vaccines and autism, in this case the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.

According to Thompson, this scientific fraud was committed for the express purpose of covering up potential safety problems so the agency would be able to maintain that the MMR vaccine had been proven safe to give to all children. By eliminating the incriminating data, the link vanished, and this research has been cited as proof that vaccines don’t cause autism ever since.

Attkisson’s report also reveals how congressmen who wanted to investigate the autism-vaccine link were bullied, harassed and threatened. Dan Burton, R-Ind., Dr. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., and Bill Posey, R-Fla., are among 11 current and former members of Congress and staff who told Attkisson they were warned by PhRMA lobbyists to drop the vaccine safety issue.

Bill Proposed to Ban Drinking Milk From Hoofed Animals

Who should decide what type of milk you’re allowed to drink or serve to your children? Introduced in Tennessee by Sen. Richard Briggs, Senate Bill 15 (SB15) suggests amending a Tennessee code relating to milk products to make it illegal for a partial owner of a hoofed animal to drink the milk from said animal.1

While graciously allowing a person who is the sole owner of a hoofed mammal to drink the milk personally, the bill is aimed at snuffing out herdshare programs. Congress has never banned raw milk outright, but it’s banned in interstate commerce, which means small farmers can’t transport it across state lines.

Private agreements called herdshares are often formed between farmers and individuals as a result, which entitle you to the benefits of owning a “share” of a cow, such as a certain amount of milk each week.

However, SB15 would not only make it illegal for herdshare owners to obtain raw milk, but it would also become against the law for the farmer running a herdshare to drink milk from their own cow (or other hoofed mammal), as they would not be considered a “sole owner.”

“[W]hether you own a three-quarter, one-half, one-quarter or 1/100 interest in a cow, it doesn’t matter; it would be illegal to get milk from your cow,” the Weston A. Price Foundation explained.

“Even if you board the cow on your own property, it’s illegal to drink milk from the cow unless you are a 100 percent owner; in other words, herdshare farmers can’t drink milk from cows or other dairy animals on their property unless they own animals outside of the herdshare agreement.”2

‘It’s a Liberty Issue’

SB15 is posed as a bill to protect the public welfare, but raw milk is a nutritious and safe food when it comes from cows raised on pasture.

Many other foods cause more illnesses and deaths but are not subject to the same scrutiny as raw milk. Suzanne Thomspon, a dairy farmer in Madisonville, Tennessee, told WTOL News, “I think it’s a liberty issue. If people want to drink raw milk from their cow, then that’s what they should be able to do.”3

Thomspon stands to lose her farm, which is her livelihood that she planned to pass down to her daughter, if the bill passes. And she pointed out the irony in targeting raw milk when other foods are the subject of regular illness outbreaks. “There was a huge romaine lettuce recall in 2018,” she said. “No one is suggesting we pasteurize lettuce.”4

Briggs reportedly introduced SB15 to close the herdsharing “loophole” after 10 children in the state were sickened by E. coli that was blamed on drinking raw milk from a Knoxville shareholder dairy. But according to Weston A. Price, “No E. coli was found in any of the dairy’s milk that public health officials tested.”

“This was the second foodborne illness outbreak blamed on raw milk consumption in the nearly 10 years that herd share agreements have been legal in Tennessee,” they continued. “If two outbreaks in 10 years are enough to ban a food then many other foods would be illegal to obtain as well.”5

The Two Kinds of Raw Milk in the US (Only One Fit for Drinking)

There was a period of time, from 1860 to the 1920s, when raw milk went through what Mark McAfee, founder and chairman of the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI), describes as a “dark age.”

The cow diets, combined with unsanitary conditions, raw sewage mixed with water and lack of refrigeration, led to the spread of diseases like tuberculosis and typhoid. A lot of people died from raw milk that came from these unsanitary distillery dairies raising malnourished cows.

The same could be said today should anyone choose to drink raw milk from cows raised on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Most commercial dairy comes from CAFOs, and it is not suitable for raw consumption. In fact, although this type of milk is regulated according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), it has no requirement that the milk be tested for pathogens.

It can legally contain high levels of bacteria because it’s intended to be shipped off for pasteurization. Milk produced under the PMO is collected from many dairies and combined together at the creamery for processing and the production of final processed dairy products,” RAWMI notes.6 It has to be pasteurized, as drinking this type of CAFO milk raw could easily make you sick.

The other raw milk is that produced with the intent of being directly consumed by humans, without pasteurization. While there are no national regulations for human consumption of raw milk, individual states may have their own. RAWMI has also created standards to ensure its quality and safety, which include:7

Have a Risk Analysis and Management Plan (RAMP) for raw milk production; this is a basic food safety plan that includes risk assessment and mitigation for milk handling, manure management, feed sources, human factors (such as health of the milking team), nutritional management of the cow, cleaning protocol, health screening of animals and much more.

Raw milk shall not contain zoonotic pathogens including salmonella, E. coli, campylobacter and listeria.

Testing for coliform bacteria, with a target rate of less than 10 coliforms per milliliter (ml) raw milk over a three-month average

Testing for Standard Plate Count, with a rolling three-month average of less than 5,000 per ml raw milk.

Sell raw milk for direct human consumption only from their own farm (not comingled with raw milk from other dairies)

Provide documentation and assurance that herds are tuberculosis (TB) free and tested once per year or meet local TB requirements.

Provide documentation or assurance that herds are brucellosis free.

Are There Health Benefits of Raw Milk?

You may be surprised to learn that in Europe, raw milk vending machines are not unusual. Self-service machines may be found at farmers markets and small farms as well as in shopping centers and near schools and playgrounds in England, Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, France, Ireland, Germany and several other countries.8

Many people seek out this milk not only for its taste and creaminess, but also for its health benefits. Children who drink raw milk have a lower risk of developing allergies and asthma, for instance.9 And early human studies suggested raw milk was superior to pasteurized milk in protecting against infection, diarrhea, rickets, tooth decay and tuberculosis.10

Raw milk also contains protective components that aren’t found in pasteurized milk, including antibodies and beneficial bacteria that help kill pathogens in the milk, as well as compounds that prevent pathogen absorption across the intestinal wall. There are a variety of immune-strengthening components in raw milk as well, including lymphocytes, immunoglobulins and growth factors.11

There’s also alkaline phosphatase, an enzyme found in raw milk, that’s known to be anti-inflammatory, along with fat-soluble vitamins, including A, D and K2, vitamin E and beta-carotene and the healthy fats omega-3 and cancer-fighting conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). Other vitamins in raw milk include B1, 2, 6 and 12, folic acid, C and niacin.12,13

Raw milk is also free from thickening agents that are found in many low-fat dairy products and is not subjected to homogenization, which pasteurized milk goes through to break down fat particles, oxidizing them in the process.

While raw milk is noninflammatory and inhibits MAST cell release of histamines, pasteurized milk is the most allergenic food in the U.S., McAfee notes. He also points out that pasteurized milk is often associated with lactose intolerance and is often not digestible by children, whereas raw milk is highly digestible and gut friendly.

Which Foods Cause the Most Illness Outbreaks?

According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics, of all the foodborne outbreaks between 2009 and 2015, chicken was responsible for the most, followed by pork and seeded vegetables.14 Further, at least one multistate E. coli outbreak linked to romaine lettuce may have been caused by runoff from a nearby CAFO into a canal; water from the canal was used to irrigate the lettuce.15

From ice cream to romaine lettuce, many foods have caused widespread illness in the U.S., but none have been banned or targeted for restrictive legislation as a result. So why is raw milk being singled out?

“There have been numerous and deadly foodborne illness outbreaks in the past few years involving ice cream, cantaloupe, and romaine lettuce, and there have been no calls to ban any of those foods,” the Weston A. Price Foundation noted. “Raw milk should be no different. There shouldn’t be any double standard. Raw milk has a good overall track record for safety.”16

An analysis by Dr. Ted Beals, a retired physician and board certified pathologist, who once served on the faculty of University of Michigan Medical School, shows that most raw milk may be associated with an average of 42 illnesses a year out of the more than 9 million people who choose to consume it.

“Using this average of 42 illnesses per year, we can show, using government figures, that you are about 35,000 times more likely to become ill from other foods than you are from raw milk,” Beals says.17

You Have a Right to Food Freedom

Ultimately, whether you drink milk or not, and whether it’s raw or pasteurized, it’s a personal choice — and it should remain that way. You have the right to choose what to eat, regardless of the government’s opinion on what’s healthy or what’s not.

Once a healthy food like raw milk is outlawed, it’s s slippery slope of what other foods may next be deemed too “dangerous” for the public. Sustainable agriculture pioneer and farmer Joel Salatin shared his thoughts on the absurdity of making it illegal to drink milk from your own cow:18

“Safety is highly subjective. I don’t think it’s safe to drink three cans of Coca-Cola a day, but that’s legal. I don’t think it’s safe to eat veggie burgers, but people do. If we’re going to pick and choose everything that could be unsafe and outlaw it, we might as well all go live in a bubble room and put on respirators. We pick and choose risks. Some eat at McDonald’s; others don’t.

Some take the flu vaccine; others don’t. The critical thing to understand is that if the government is responsible for my health, then it necessarily has a fiduciary responsibility to penetrate every health-impactful decision I make in order to protect itself from economic liability.

It comes down to who owns the person. As long as the state owns the person, which is where America is right now, nothing is beyond the regulatory purview of the police, the ultimate enforcer of the laws.

As the state micromanages our lives, the need for more police to enforce those regulations increases. The more police, the less freedom. Any society needing more police per capita is a society heading toward tyranny.”

If you want to get involved, the Weston A. Price Foundation has compiled the following action plan to voice your opinion about SB15 — and the fight to keep food freedom intact.19

  1. Email the members of the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee asking them not to hold a hearing on SB15 and asking that they vote against the bill if a hearing is held.
  2. Call and/or email Sen. Briggs and ask him to withdraw SB15.
  3. Call and/or email Rep. Patsy Hazelwood, the sponsor of the companion bill banning herdshares in the Tennessee General Assembly and tell her to withdraw the herdshare bill.

Latest Updates on Pink Slime

In 2012, ABC News published an exposé that revealed a beef filler product that looked eerily similar to pink slime could be found in upward of 70 percent of ground beef sold in the U.S.1 The moniker quickly took off, and ultimately cost ABC News a reported $177 million in settlement costs, after the pink slime’s maker, South Dakota-based Beef Products Inc. (BPI), sued them for defamation.2

The pink-colored sludge not only can still be found in ground beef but now, according to a ruling by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), can be labeled simply as “ground beef.” Most consumers in the market for ground beef would have a hard time stomaching the idea of creating a hamburger out of this pink beef product, so why has the U.S. government greenlighted its “ground beef” label?

The product apparently “meets the regulatory definition of ground beef under the law,”3 but there’s good reason why this “soft serve” ground beef product is still stirring up controversy more than a decade after the ABC News investigation.

What Is ‘Pink Slime’ Ground Beef?

The meat product that looks like pink slime is technically called “lean, finely textured beef” (LFTB), according to BPI. It’s made from beef trimmings once reserved for pet food, from the scraps of fat that are cut off bones. Those scraps inevitably have a bit of meat left on them, and BPI realized it could heat them up and then use a centrifuge to separate the bits of meat from the fat.

The resulting LFTB, sometimes referred to as “boneless beef trimmings,” is sterilized using an ammonia puff then sold to companies who mix the filler product with their ground beef. LFTB is a sought-after product by meatpackers because it’s 95 percent lean with only 5 percent fat.

In the U.S., ground beef must be no more than 30 percent fat, so adding in LFTB is a simple way to lower the fat content of ground beef products. It’s also a recipe for spreading foodborne illness, as meat and fat trimmings come from multiple animals.

According to Consumer Reports, this contributes to the high bacteria levels often found in ground beef, as “meat from a single contaminated cow can end up in many packages of ground beef.”4

Part of the original controversy centered around the fact that this highly processed beef product could exist in ground beef without being disclosed, and now the USDA will allow it to continue. Further, BFI could even sell LFTB directly to consumers, labeled as ground beef, although it’s unclear if they have plans to do so.

Beef Trimmings Labeled a High-Risk Product

LFTB is used in many commercial ground beef products sold at fast-food chains, grocery stores, hospitals and schools. Prior to 2012, LFTB was widely used in school lunches, with the USDA purchasing it in massive quantities.

Following the 2012 media coverage of pink slime, 47 states dropped out of the USDA’s option to receive LFTB for their school lunch programs. By September 2013, however, four of those states decided to opt back in, with cost being a major factor.

“Lean finely textured beef brings down the cost of ground beef by about 3 percent, which can add up quickly in a program that feeds more than 31 million school children each day,” Politico reported.5

Both BFI and the USDA claim the processed beef trimmings are safe, but microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein, a former USDA scientist who coined the term “pink slime,” and food scientist colleague Carl Custer concluded in a study that the pink slime is a “high risk product,” as the trimmings come from parts of the cow that are most likely to be contaminated with dangerous bacteria like E. coli.6

Government and industry records obtained by The New York Times found, in fact, that in testing LFTB for the school lunch program, E. coli and salmonella showed up three and 48 times, respectively, between 2005 and 2012, showing that the ammonia treatment is not foolproof.7

In testimony during the BPI versus ABC News trial, Zirnstein explained why he called it pink slime to begin with: “Because it looks pink and I already said the way to control it, the product is uncontrollable unless it’s frozen on a drone or liquid nitrogen … The L[F]BT looked pretty weird, so I have to say yeah I didn’t have a very good impression when I first saw it.”8

Zirnstein did not agree that the meat product should have been used in ground beef, especially without labeling, stating that it contains excess collagen, making it a lower quality protein than pure ground beef. He stated:9

“It’s lost the functionality of meat. It has a different composition entirely of meat. Just a lot of different things that doesn’t really meet the definition … It should not have been included in ground beef or hamburger unless you were going to be fair to the consumer and let them know there was something else in their with lower quality.”

No Way of Knowing Which Products Contain Pink Slime

McDonald’s and many major grocery chains vowed to stop using the pink slime in 2012 after all the negative publicity, causing sales to plummet. But by 2014, sales began to creep back up, and BFI even had so much demand that they reopened one of its previously shut down plants.

As of 2014, production of LFTB doubled since its low in 2012, but, as the Los Angeles Times reported, no one was fessing up to using it. “As to who’s using it now, that’s a mystery. McDonald’s said in May [2014] that it still wasn’t using pink slime,” business columnist David Lazarus reported. “In fact, I couldn’t find a single company that’s admitted using it again. But obviously someone is. Otherwise production of pink slime wouldn’t be up 100 percent.”10

Now with the USDA’s decision that LFTB can simply be called “ground beef,” despite its appearance as a strange, pink playing dough-like blob, it will be even harder, if not impossible, to know whether the ground beef at your grocery store or favorite restaurant contains it.

In case there was any doubt, it was BFI that asked the USDA to reconsider pink slime’s classification, which led to the USDA conducting a monthslong review and quietly changing its labeling requirements. In December 2018, BFI let its suppliers know of the change that the product formerly known to the public as pink slime could now be called ground beef.11

Prior to the USDA’s reclassification, BFI created a major advertising campaign called “Dude, it’s beef!” aimed at changing pink slime’s image. According to Modern Farmer, the campaign was promoted not only by BFI but also “by politicians in states with large cattle industries, like Texas.”12

Further, when LFTB was originally allowed to be called “meat,” it was courtesy of USDA officials once again, including one in particular who later went on to earn millions while serving on BPI’s board of directors. Although the article has since been removed from the ABC website, it’s still “live” on YouTube.13 In it, ABC News reports:14

“The ‘pink slime’ does not have to appear on the label because, over objections of its own scientists, USDA officials with links to the beef industry labeled pink slime meat. ‘The under secretary said, ‘it’s pink, therefore it’s meat,’’ Custer told ABC News.

ABC News has learned the woman who made the decision to OK the mix is a former undersecretary of agriculture, Joann Smith — a call that led to hundred of millions of dollars for Beef Products Inc., the makers of pink slime. When Smith stepped down from the USDA in 1993, BPI’s principal major supplier appointed her to its board of directors, where she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years.”

After the report was aired, BPI filed a $1.9 billion lawsuit against ABC for defamation, claiming the company had lost business over ABC’s depiction of pink slime as unsafe.

Had a jury returned a verdict in favor of BPI, the news agency could have faced nearly $6 billion in penalties under a South Dakota food libel law, but three weeks into the trial, Disney, which owns the network, disclosed that they had paid $177 million in a settlement with BPI.15

According to Fortune, the details of the settlement were confidential, but it appeared that Disney’s payment was an adjunct to an unspecified amount that insurers paid.16 In a follow-up statement, ABC said that they continue to stand by their reporting and that they had “accurately presented the facts and views of knowledgeable people.”17

More Reasons to Avoid CAFO Meat

Most of the ground beef produced with pink slime fillers comes from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which themselves come with a litany of problems, not the least of which is the huge quantities of waste produced and how it’s managed.

The trickle-down of toxins from industrial agriculture affects all of us on the planet, from contaminated drinking water and produce to the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease, which is proliferated by the use of low-dose antibiotics in animal feed.

CAFOs are also directly contributing to the growing dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, which is a serious and increasing threat to marine life, while pesticide usage and other industrialized farming methods may be killing off insects at an alarming rate.

All of these complex problems have a common thread, and that is that their solution lies in changing agricultural practices from industrial to regenerative. Choosing grass fed products like grass fed beef and bison over that raised in CAFOs is a solution that we can all take part in — and it’s also one of the best ways to avoid pink slime in your beef.

Where to Find Real, Filler-Free Ground Beef

As long as there are people willing to buy cheap, “imitation” meats made from beef trimmings formerly regarded as scraps, the industry will continue to produce it. The average American ate about 800 burgers’ worth of beef in 2018, or about 222 pounds.18 Where you get this beef, how it’s raised and, ultimately, the way it is prepared make all the difference in how it affects your health and the environment.

Source matters — greatly — and part of that includes knowing where your beef was raised. You’ll want to avoid getting your beef from so-called “hamburger central,” or CAFOs, instead opting for organic, grass fed beef that’s raised without antibiotics and produced without fillers like pink slime.

Sourcing your foods from a local farmer is one of the best ways to do so, and you can also look for the American Grassfed Association (AGA) logo,19 which allows for greater transparency and conformity20 and is intended to ensure the humane treatment of animals and to meet consumer expectations about grass fed meat and dairy, while being feasible for small farmers to achieve.

As far back as 2009, Zirnstein said he had doubts about “pink slime,” writing in an email, “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.”21

Now, 10 years later, pink slime will be labeled as ground beef with the USDA’s approval. If you want to eat ground beef that’s just that — ground beef without fillers — find a local farmer near you — or at the very least call your supermarket and ask them if their ground beef products contain it.