Alafair

in all my infinite wisdom

Meet the sleazy Monsanto operatives pretending to be journalists for Discover, Slate, The Washington Post and the New York Times

By

On October 1, 2015

In Truth

Mainstream media journalists are also Monsanto prostitutes.

Thursday, October 01, 2015
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: Monsanto operatives, Keith Kloor, Jon Entine

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/051393_Monsanto_operatives_Keith_Kloor_Jon_Entine.html#ixzz3nLS0tWKJ

(NaturalNews-http://www.naturalnews.com/051393_Monsanto_operatives_Keith_Kloor_Jon_Entine.html) One of the truly fascinating revelations in the recent Freedom of Information Act emails acquired from university professors who whore themselves out to Monsanto is the fact that mainstream media journalists are also Monsanto prostitutes.

These Monsanto operatives pretending to be journalists write for The Washington Post, New York Times, Discover, Slate, Nature and various “science” websites. Many of them openly admit to being paid by Monsanto and gladly accepting the money. Then they turn around and write stories attacking clean food activists or hawking whatever GMO propaganda Monsanto is pushing that day.

It’s all coordinated by sleazebag Monsanto front men like Jon Entine, a man seething with so much evil that he tried to strangle his wife in front of their own daughter, and installed surveillance equipment to spy on her activities in their own home, according to court documents published here on Natural News.

One of Jon Entine’s “friends” in the industry is Monsanto prostitute Keith Kloor, another industry sleazebag who blogs for Discover and Nature where he systematically lies, distorts evidence, and fabricates false claims against clean food activists. He also writes for Slate, which was just named one of America’s top 12 evil news publishers by EVIL.news.

Entine also rubs elbows with discredited Univ. of Florida academic prostitute Kevin Folta, recently exposed as a Monsanto shill by secretly taking $25,000 from Monsanto and promising them a “return on the investment” to push GMO propaganda. Folta even scammed The Atlantic into printing his propaganda as fact, and The Atlantic seems fine with it, refusing to issue a retraction after it all came to light that Kevin Folta was a paid Monsanto operative.

Folta appears to be guilty of committing a second class felony crime under Florida’s anti-corruption laws, by the way. The University of Florida so far refuses to fire him. Apparently, academic shillery and fraud are totally acceptable to the U of F.

See how Monsanto’s dark operatives tell The New York Times what to write…

Now, the U.S. Right to Know campaign has published an overview of a few of the sleazebag journalists named in the now-public emails acquired via FOIA. These journalists include Tamar Haspel, a Monsanto prostitute writing for The Washington Post, and Amy Harmon, another biotech prostitute writing for The New York Times. These are all journalists who allow themselves to be influenced by people like Jon Entine, a biotech industry dirtbag who attacks women and deliberately fabricates the most outrageous lies imaginable about his intended targets. (He once claimed I ordered Natural News readers to murder him, and to back it up he dredged up a police report of somebody else named Mike Adams who wasn’t even born in the same decade as me. He then insinuated that that person was me. These are the type of sleaze tactics used by these Monsanto front men who interface directly with The New York Times and Washington Post. They wake up each morning, look in the mirror, and asks themselves, “What LIES can we spread today to discredit clean food activists?”)

“FYI, I think I’ve talked Amy Harmon into doing a Hawaii story…” — Jon Entine emailing Renee Kester about how Amy Harmon of The New York Times is on board with his agenda to smear anti-GMO activists in Hawaii. Kester is tied to the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, an agrichemical industry front group.

Read more about Jon Entine in these Natural News stories, and remember that this is the person The New York Times allows to propose story ideas and influence editorial coverage of GMOs:

Forbes.com writer and biotech shill Jon Entine exposed as violent instigator who physically attacked wife and traumatized daughter – court documents
http://www.naturalnews.com/047665_Jon_Entine…

Jon Entine, biotech shill and character assassination operative, committed domestic violence and child abuse, states wife in court documents
http://www.naturalnews.com/047666_Jon_Entine…

Biotech front man Jon Entine exposed as wikipedia vandal and violent wife abuser in public court documents
http://www.naturalnews.com/047667_Jon_Entine…

Biotech front man Jon Entine part of an shameless gang of propagandists and character assassins targeting GMO skeptics
http://www.naturalnews.com/047668_Jon_Entine…

Why Jon Entine is a poster boy for the biotech industry: violence against women, corporate-funded hate speech and gross journalism misconduct
http://www.naturalnews.com/047685_Jon_Entine…

A Short Report on Journalists Mentioned in our FOIA Requests

To help summarize the dirty tactics and misdeeds of journalists that are corrupted by Monsanto money, the U.S. Right to Know campaign director Gary Ruskin posted an overview of the journalists named in the documents.

Here’s his full text, without all the hyperlinks. To see the fully hyperlinked version of this article, visit the original source:

On September 23rd, Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel admitted to receiving “plenty” of money from pro-agrichemical industry sources.

Following her admission, I thought it might be useful to report on journalists – including Haspel — mentioned in the documents we have received from state public records requests.

U.S. Right to Know is conducting an investigation of the food and agrichemical industries, their PR firms and front groups, and the professors who speak for them.

So far, three reporters come up in interesting ways: Amy Harmon, Keith Kloor and Tamar Haspel.

These reporters appear in the context of Jon Entine, who is perhaps the leading PR operative working to promote the views of the agrichemical industry, and its pesticides and GMOs. Entine is founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, which, along with the PR firm Ketchum’s GMO Answers, are the agrichemical industry’s two most visible front groups. Entine is also founder and president of the PR firm ESG MediaMetrics, whose clients have included the agrichemical giant Monsanto.

Amy Harmon

Amy Harmon is a reporter for the New York Times. She was part of a Times team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001, and in 2008 she won a Pulitzer for explanatory reporting.

On September 23, 2013 at 7:44pm, Jon Entine emailed Renee Kester: “FYI, I think I’ve talked Amy Harmon into doing a Hawaii Hawaii [sic] story. . . and I gave her your and Kirby’s email information, so she may call at some point if she indeed pursues this.” Kirby Kester is president of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, an agrichemical industry front group.

On January 4, 2014, the New York Times published a front-page article by Amy Harmon, titled “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.” The story is datelined from Kona, Hawaii.

In 2014, Harmon won second place for the Society of Environmental Journalists “Kevin Carmody Award for Outstanding In-depth Reporting, Large Market” for “The Facts About GMOs,” a series that included the article “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.”

On September 30th, Harmon is scheduled to speak to the Cornell Alliance for Science, a group funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to promote GMOs. The group is running a petition against U.S. Right to Know’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Keith Kloor

Keith Kloor is a freelance journalist who has written for Nature, Science Insider, Discover, Slate and other outlets. Kloor has written many pro-GMO articles that have been featured by Jon Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project.

Kloor is mentioned in two places in the FOIA documents.

In one email, Jon Entine refers to Keith Kloor as a “very good friend of mine”.

In another email, on October 18, 2014, Dr. Channapatna Prakash, a GMO advocate and dean at Tuskegee University, emails Adrianne Massey of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), along with several others, to forward an alert from Lorraine Thelian, vice chairman of the PR firm Ketchum that “the hacker community Anonymous is planning a series of attacks on biotechnology and food industry websites…Trade association and corporate websites of CBI [Council for Biotechnology Information] members are being targeted in this planned attack.” Dr. Prakash writes, “Adrianne I have copied Kevin Folta, Karl von Mogel, David Tribe and Keith Kloor here as well.”

Dr. Prakash cc’d the email to Jay Byrne (former director of corporate communications for Monsanto), Jon Entine, Bruce Chassy (agrichemical industry advocate) Val Giddings (former VP of BIO), Henry Miller (agrichemical industry advocate), Drew Kershen (agrichemical industry advocate), Klaus Ammann, Piet van der Meer, Martina Newell-McGloughlin (agrichemical industry advocate), Karl Haro von Mogel (member of the board of directors of Biology Fortified, a pro-GMO website), Kevin Folta (agrichemical industry advocate), Keith Kloor and David Tribe (agrichemical industry advocate).

Keith Kloor was the only journalist who received this email.

The email implies that Kloor works closely with the agrichemical industry’s prominent advocates.

Kloor has written three articles that were critical of U.S. Right to Know’s FOIA requests, in Science Insider, Discover and Nature.

On March 23rd, 2015, Kloor gave a talk for the Cornell Alliance for Science, which is hosting a petition against U.S. Right to Know’s FOIA requests.

Tamar Haspel

Tamar Haspel is a columnist at The Washington Post. She has written many columns for the Post defending or praising GMOs that have later been featured by Jon Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project.

In 2015, Haspel won the James Beard Foundation Award for her Post columns.

In June 2014, Haspel spoke to a pro-industry conference about “How can scientists best engage the GMO debate with a skeptical public?” The conference was coordinated by Jon Entine and Cami Ryan, who is currently social sciences lead for Monsanto. The conference was led by two agrichemical industry front groups, the Genetic Literacy Project and Academics Review, along with the University of Florida, which receives major funding from agrichemical companies, as noted in a September 6 article in the New York Times.

Haspel also moderated a panel organized by the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, which “provides long-term economic and societal benefits to North Carolina through support of biotechnology research, business, education and strategic policy statewide.”

In a September 23 chat hosted by The Washington Post, answering a question about whether she receives money from industry sources, Ms. Haspel wrote that, “I speak and moderate panels and debates often, and it’s work I’m paid for.” Later that day, I asked Ms. Haspel on Twitter how much money she had received from the agrichemical industry and its front groups. She replied, “Since any group believing biotech has something to offer is a ‘front group,’ plenty!”

Is it appropriate for a Washington Post columnist to write glowing columns about GMOs while appearing at such pro-industry conferences? Is it a conflict of interest for Haspel to accept money from agrichemical company interests that she covers as part of her beat as a Post food columnist? How much money has Haspel received from agrichemical industry interests?

Some journalists have criticized journalists for “buckraking” on speakers’ circuits. For example, former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee said, “I wish it would go away. I don’t like it. I think it’s corrupting. If the Insurance Institute of America, if there is such a thing, pays you $10,000 to make a speech, don’t tell me you haven’t been corrupted. You can say you haven’t and you can say you will attack insurance issues in the same way, but you won’t. You can’t.”

Haspel wrote in the Washington Post that she will only speak at events where “if for-profit companies are involved in the event (which they often are), they can’t be the only voice. So, I will speak at a conference co-sponsored by, say, Monsanto and the USDA and NC State University, but not an event sponsored by Monsanto alone.” However, at the June 2014, conference at which Haspel spoke, no consumer advocates were slated to speak, only pro-industry advocates.

On October 16, Haspel is scheduled to speak to the Cornell Alliance for Science, a pro-GMO group that is hosting a petition against U.S. Right to Know’s FOIA requests.

Haspel has been critical of the U.S. Right to Know FOIA requests. On August 17, on Twitter, she wrote: “The money/time/brainpower wasted on @garyruskin’s mean-spirited, self-interested attack on @kevinfolta! Can we move on to something useful?” Others did not agree with her news judgment. On September 6th, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Eric Lipton wrote an article largely based on our FOIA requests – especially of University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta – which ran on the front page of the Sunday New York Times. The article revealed how Folta, who repeatedly denied ties to Monsanto, in fact had received an undisclosed $25,000 grant, as well as writing assignments from the company, and worked closely with it and its PR firm Ketchum, which ghostwrote text for him and organized media and lobbying meetings for him.

U.S. Right to Know is a consumer advocacy group. We try to expose what the food industry doesn’t want us to know. We believe it is useful for the public to see how the food and agrichemical companies do their public relations work. That is one way we can help consumers to assess the claims and information they receive from the companies involved in our food production, their PR firms and operatives, and the journalists who work with them.

Sources for this article include
http://usrtk.org/gmo/a-short-report-on-journ…
http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16438-ne…
http://gmo.news/2015-09-15-academic-hall-of-…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/051393_Monsanto_operatives_Keith_Kloor_Jon_Entine.html#ixzz3nLR61MeI

Share to your social media, print, email, text, copy link

Meat and dairy mafia are fighting back as Cowspiracy is a huge success on Netflix

By

On September 22, 2015

In Truth

The meat and dairy industry have their puppets trolling Netflix and posting negative reviews for Cowspiracy! Feel threatened Big Ag?

cowspiracy

From Kip and Keegan:

Dear Friends,

We’re so thrilled that the Netflix release of Cowspiracy was such a huge success! Since the release just a week ago, we had a restaurant start the transition of going entirely vegan, helped a reporter from the Huffington Post to re-consider her stand on veganism and thousands of people are currently taking our 30-Day Vegan Challenge on our website.

But proponents of meat and dairy are noticing the impact our film is having, and they are fighting back!

Right now there are hundreds of negative reviews popping up on Netflix in order to give the film a bad rating. Studies show, a film with a low rating is watched overwhelmingly less, than a film with a solid 5 stars.

So, today we’re asking you to please help us to fight off this attack! If you watched Cowspiracy and liked the film, will you please leave a review on Netflix? Every positive review will have a huge impact on how many people will be watching the film.

Thank you so much in advance!

Kip & Keegan

Share to your social media, print, email, text, copy link

“I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!!”

By

On September 15, 2015

In Truth

[wpvideo zIzmRtHS]

“I don’t have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It’s a depression. Everybody’s out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel’s worth; banks are going bust; shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter; punks are running wild in the street, and there’s nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there’s no end to it.

We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat. And we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that’s the way it’s supposed to be!

We all know things are bad — worse than bad — they’re crazy.

It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don’t go out any more. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we’re living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, “Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone.”

Well, I’m not going to leave you alone.

I want you to get mad!

I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to riot. I don’t want you to write to your Congressman, because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write. I don’t know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street.

All I know is that first, you’ve got to get mad.

You’ve gotta say, “I’m a human being, xoddammit! My life has value!”

So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!!~howard beale from the 1976 movie network

Share to your social media, print, email, text, copy link

Watch “Kim Kardashian is selfish and disgusting!!” on YouTube

By

On September 13, 2015

In Funny

Share to your social media, print, email, text, copy link

Going Vegan WOULD end word hunger

By

On September 12, 2015

In Funny

U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists

MONTREAL — From one ecologist’s perspective, the American system of farming grain-fed livestock consumes resources far out of proportion to the yield, accelerates soil erosion, affects world food supply and will be changing in the future.

“If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal. Or, if those grains were exported, it would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year, Pimentel estimated.

With only grass-fed livestock, individual Americans would still get more than the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of meat and dairy protein, according to Pimentel’s report, “Livestock Production: Energy Inputs and the Environment.”

An environmental analyst and longtime critic of waste and inefficiency in agricultural practices, Pimentel depicted grain-fed livestock farming as a costly and nonsustainable way to produce animal protein. He distinguished grain-fed meat production from pasture-raised livestock, calling cattle-grazing a more reasonable use of marginal land.

Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist’s analysis.

Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist’s analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)

Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States, Pimentel noted. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. “Water shortages already are severe in the Western and Southern United States and the situation is quickly becoming worse because of a rapidly growing U.S. population that requires more water for all of its needs, especially agriculture,” Pimentel observed.

Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.

“More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans,” Pimentel said. “Although grain production is increasing in total, the per capita supply has been decreasing for more than a decade. Clearly, there is reason for concern in the future.”

EIGHT MEATY FACTS ABOUT ANIMAL FOOD

From “Livestock Production: Energy Inputs and the Environment”

By David Pimentel

— WHERE’S THE GRAIN? The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population.

— HERBIVORES ON THE HOOF. Each year an estimated 41 million tons of plant protein is fed to U.S. livestock to produce an estimated 7 million tons of animal protein for human consumption. About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from grains and 15 million tons from forage crops. For every kilogram of high-quality animal protein produced, livestock are fed nearly 6 kg of plant protein.

— FOSSIL FUEL TO FOOD FUEL. On average, animal protein production in the U.S. requires 28 kilocalories (kcal) for every kcal of protein produced for human consumption. Beef and lamb are the most costly, in terms of fossil fuel energy input to protein output at 54:1 and 50:1, respectively. Turkey and chicken meat production are the most efficient (13:1 and 4:1, respectively). Grain production, on average, requires 3.3 kcal of fossil fuel for every kcal of protein produced. The U.S. now imports about 54 percent of its oil; by the year 2015, that import figure is expected to rise to 100 percent.

— THIRSTY PRODUCTION SYSTEMS. U.S. agriculture accounts for 87 percent of all the fresh water consumed each year. Livestock directly use only 1.3 percent of that water. But when the water required for forage and grain production is included, livestock’s water usage rises dramatically. Every kilogram of beef produced takes 100,000 liters of water. Some 900 liters of water go into producing a kilogram of wheat. Potatoes are even less “thirsty,” at 500 liters per kilogram.

— HOME ON THE RANGE. More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to producing feed for the U.S. livestock population — about 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.

— DISAPPEARING SOIL. About 90 percent of U.S. cropland is losing soil — to wind and water erosion — at 13 times above the sustainable rate. Soil loss is most severe in some of the richest farming areas; Iowa loses topsoil at 30 times the rate of soil formation. Iowa has lost one-half its topsoil in only 150 years of farming — soil that took thousands of years to form.

— PLENTY OF PROTEIN: Nearly 7 million tons (metric) of animal protein is produced annually in the U.S. — enough to supply every American man, woman and child with 75 grams of animal protein a day. With the addition of 34 grams of available plant protein, a total of 109 grams of protein is available per capita. The RDA (recommended daily allowance) per adult per day is 56 grams of protein for a mixed diet.

— OUT TO PASTURE. If all the U.S. grain now fed to livestock were exported and if cattlemen switched to grass-fed production systems, less beef would be available and animal protein in the average American diet would drop from 75 grams to 29 grams per day. That, plus current levels of plant-protein consumption, would still yield more than the RDA for protein.
source: Cornell University

Share to your social media, print, email, text, copy link

BANNED FROM FACEBOOK FOR 30 DAYS FOR POSTING THIS PICTURE

By

On September 8, 2015

In Discrimination, Truth

BANNED FROM FACEBOOK FOR 30 DAYS FOR POSTING THIS PICTURE
So they can wear it but i can’t show where it came from?

wpid-wp-1441672630321.jpg

banned blockedByFacebook

Share to your social media, print, email, text, copy link

Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet

By

On September 8, 2015

In Funny

Agent Smith: I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You’re a plague and we are the cure.

[wpvideo cZo4Rf5t]

Share to your social media, print, email, text, copy link

What Did God Tell Us We Should Eat?

By

On August 26, 2015

In Funny

~George M. Malkmus
“What Did God Tell Us We Should Eat.” We now move on to Chapter 9 of the book of Genesis:

“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat (food) for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things (See Genesis 1:29), but flesh with the life there-of, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”
~ Genesis 9:3

This is the verse concerning the consumption of animal source foods that is used more often than any other in an attempt to refute Hallelujah Acres’ teachings.

When I use Genesis 1:29 as a proof text that God intended His human creation to consume a 100% plant-based diet, it is Genesis 9:3 that critics immediately point to in their attempt to prove me wrong. In fact, most of the opposition to the Hallelujah Diet has been based on this one verse!

As we begin to examine this verse, let’s take a moment to review what we have learned thus far in this series…

In Genesis 1:29, God, immediately after creating Adam, gave him a pure, raw, 100% living plant foods diet to sustain the physical body He, God, had just created!

And for approximately the next 1,700 years (after Adam and Eve had sinned and sin had entered the human race), which takes us from Genesis 1:29 through chapter 8, there is absolutely no indication of God giving mankind permission to eat anything other than that pure raw plant-based diet He had given His human creation in Genesis 1:29.

Flood Covers and Destroys All Plant Life

As we come to chapter 9, let’s remember what had just transpired. In Genesis, chapters 6, 7, and 8, we learned that a great flood had covered the entire earth, destroying all plant life.

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth: and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered.”
~ Genesis 7:19

“And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.”
~ Genesis 7:24

The flood had destroyed all the fruits and vegetables, seeds and nuts that God had originally told man in Genesis 1:29 that he was to eat for food and the nourishment of their bodies — the very foods man had consumed to sustain his physical life for the 1,700 years preceding the flood! But now the flood had destroyed all of these raw plant foods!

God Gives Permission To Eat Flesh For The First Time

With their 100% plant food source destroyed by the flood, what were they going to eat in order to sustain their lives and thus stay alive?

God tells them what they can eat to stay alive in Genesis 9:3:

“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat (food) for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things, but flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”

It would appear from this verse, that in order to sustain man’s life after the flood had destroyed all plant foods, God gives man permission to eat the raw flesh of the clean animals they had brought with them onto the ark, at God’s instructions.

However, God did place some restrictions on how they were to eat that flesh in Genesis 9:4:

“…but flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”

This was a brand new experience for Adam and his family, who had previously consumed a 100% raw, plant-based diet. Now God is telling them that they can eat the flesh of the clean animals they had brought with them onto the ark, but with certain restrictions.

Here God is clearly telling them they can eat the flesh of the animals, but that they were not to eat the flesh of the animal while it was still alive, while the blood was still in its flesh.

So God gives them permission to slay an animal for food for the very first time, and to eat the raw flesh of that animal.

When I say that they were given permission to eat the raw flesh of the animal, I am often challenged by those trying to refute my “raw flesh” theory. But let’s remember that there is absolutely no Biblical evidence that man cooked the flesh God had given man permission to eat here in Genesis 9.

Bible’s First Mention of Fire

According to both my Young’s and Strong’s concordances, the very first use of the word “fire”, recorded in the Bible, did not occur until Genesis 19:24 where we read “then the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.”

This first mention of fire occurred around the year 1898 BC, which is some 2,000 years after creation.

The second time we find the word “fire” in the Bible — and the first time man is recorded as using fire — is found in Genesis 22:6-7:

“and Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son, and he took the fire in his hand…”

The estimated time of this first mention of man using fire, occurred around the year 1872 BC, almost 30 years after God had “rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire.”

And it is not until we get to the book of Exodus we are told not to eat the flesh raw anymore:

“eat not of it raw . . . but roast with FIRE . . .”
~ Exodus 12:9

Thus, it wasn’t until this event took place around the year 1491 BC — some 500 years after Abram took “fire” to the mountain in order to offer a sacrifice and 2,500 years after creation — that we find fire being used for the first time in the preparation of food.

I find the Scriptures in Exodus Chapter 12 to be most interesting concerning all we have been talking about.

In verses 4-12 of Exodus 12 we read:

“and the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying . . . take a lamb . . .your lamb shall be without blemish . . . take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post . . . and they shall eat the flesh . . . eat not of it raw . . . but roast with fire . . . and ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it . . . shall ye burn with fire.”

I find several things of great interest in these verses:
1.Here we find fire being used in the preparation of food for the very first time in the Scriptures.
2.God says they should not eat the flesh raw.
3.They are to burn any leftover flesh.

If it was not until Exodus 12 that God told man he should not eat the flesh of the lamb raw, but rather to roast it, would it not stand to reason that in Genesis 9:3 and all those years prior to Exodus 12, man did eat the flesh of animals raw?

Note also, that God told them to burn any leftover flesh. Why? Because man had no means of refrigeration. Without refrigeration, animal flesh putrefies quite rapidly. Thus God, for health reasons, told them to burn the leftovers so that they wouldn’t get sick by eating rotten flesh.

Back When I Was A Kid…

I was born in 1934. When I was a boy, I remember the iceman delivering ice, by horse-drawn wagon, to my grandmother’s icebox. My other grandmother didn’t even have electricity when I was a boy, and the only means she had of keeping food was in the basement, which had a year round temperature around 50F.

Today, we tend to think in terms of what we have available to us at the current time.

Here are a few questions for those who so vehemently oppose the idea that man was intended to consume animal-source foods…

Man’s Anatomy Was Not Designed To Process Flesh

This might be a good time to examine the anatomy of man; to see how God designed our bodies to process food, and see what happens when animal flesh is introduced into it:
1.Our body was designed by God to move food quickly through a very lengthy digestive tract, comprised of many pockets and loops and bends, by means of fiber. Fiber can only be found in plant-source foods. There is absolutely no fiber in anything of animal origin!
2.Because there is no fiber in animal source foods, animal flesh moves very sluggishly through a very lengthy digestive tract, in an almost 100F degree atmosphere, and putrefies. That is why those who consume animal source foods have to use a deodorant, to cover the rotting flesh odor coming through the skin.
3.The human physical body also has a weak solution of hydrochloric acid in the stomach; it cannot properly break down animal flesh as can carnivorous animals, which have very high hydrochloric acid content.
4.Carnivorous animals, in contrast, have very sharp claws and teeth, with which to catch its prey, rip the flesh off in chunks, and have a very short digestive tract with a very high concentration of hydrochloric acid in its stomach to break down the flesh and get it clear out of its body before it putrefies, causing health problems.

There is much more that could be shared here, but it might be well to remember that it is the highly acidic, putrefied animal source foods being consumed today, that cause almost all of man’s digestive problems, especially colon problems. Also, the high protein found in animal source foods is one of the primary causes and feeders of cancer.

How much animal flesh man consumed immediately following the flood, or what percentage of his daily food intake consisted of animal flesh in those early Bible days is not known. But once the flood waters had receded and crops had been re-planted, I believe that man was intended to go back to consuming a primarily plant-based diet!

Something else we need to remember here is that point I raised earlier: no refrigeration. Once an animal was killed, it had to be consumed almost immediately, before it had time to putrefy. Thus it is very doubtful that, once the gardens were producing, humans ate very much animal flesh.

Also, in those Bible days, a man’s wealth was not determined by how much paper money he had in cash or in the bank, or in stocks and bonds. A man’s wealth was determined by the number of animals in his herd, and it is doubtful he would have killed and eaten very much of his wealth.

One thing we know for sure, man did not have bacon and eggs, or sausage and pancakes for breakfast, a hamburger for lunch, and some kind of a meat entrée (i.e. fried chicken) for dinner.

Our research and experience here at Hallelujah Acres reveals that animal-source foods are either the cause or a contributing cause of up to 90% of all the physical problems being experienced today.

If this is true, and it can be proven to be so, is it not foolish to cling to Genesis 9:3, to justify the consuming of animal source foods?

Share to your social media, print, email, text, copy link

PATRICK

By

On August 20, 2015

In Funny

[wpvideo 6T67yzb9]
At 30-years-old and 79lbs Patrick is the oldest and biggest wombat in the world

Share to your social media, print, email, text, copy link

That dog’s a menace to the community. I’m taking him to the sheriff to make sure he’s destroyed.

By

On August 7, 2015

In Funny

 

[wpvideo TWvWbT4s]

Miss Gulch: That dog’s a menace to the community. I’m taking him to the sheriff to make sure he’s destroyed.
Dorothy: Destroyed? Toto? Oh, you can’t! You mustn’t! Auntie Em, Uncle Henry, you won’t let her, will ya?
Uncle Henry: Course we won’t. Will we, Em?
Dorothy: Please, Aunt Em. Toto didn’t mean to. He didn’t know he was doing anything wrong. I’m the one that ought to be punished. I let him go in her garden. You can send me to bed without supper.
Miss Gulch: If you don’t hand over that dog, I’ll bring a damage suit that will take your whole farm! There are a law protectin’ folks against dogs that bite!
Auntie Em: How would it be if she keeps him tied up? He’s really gentle, with gentle people, that is.
Miss Gulch: Well, that’s for the sheriff to decide. Here’s his order, allowing me to take him unless you want to go against the law.
Auntie Em: We can’t go against the law, Dorothy. I’m afraid poor Toto will have to go.
Miss Gulch: [holding up a basket] Now you’re seeing the reason. Here’s what I’m taking him in, so he can’t attack me again!
Dorothy: No, no, I won’t let you take him! You go away, you, or I’ll bite you myself!
Auntie Em: Dorothy!
Dorothy: You wicked old witch! Uncle Henry, Auntie Em, don’t let her take him! [struggles with Miss Gulch]
Miss Gulch: I’ve got an order!
Auntie Em: Put him in the basket, Henry.
Dorothy: Oh Toto. [runs out, crying]
Miss Gulch: The idea!
Auntie Em: Elmira Gulch, just because you own half the county doesn’t mean you have the power to run the rest of us. For twenty-three years, I’ve been dying to tell you what I thought of you. And now, well, being a Christian woman, I can’t say it!

 

Share to your social media, print, email, text, copy link

Page 7 of 8

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén