Mutant GMO cows to produce hormone-induced ‘engineered’ milk

By MIKE ADAMS | NATURALNEWS.com | OCTOBER 2, 2012

The world of genetic engineering has fallen even further into the surreal with the announcement that New Zealand “scientists” have unveiled a genetically modified mutant cloned cow which they say produces a reduced-allergen milk for consumption by human babies. This is being reported by the BBC and elsewhere.

Horrifyingly, these Frankenscientists cloned a cow and then altered the embryo using RNA interference. After gestation, the mutant GMO cow was born without a tail! But these scientists say that’s no problem, and that the mutation of having no tail couldn’t possibly be related to anything they did with the cow’s DNA.

I’m not making this up. This is the insanity of the quack science world in which we now live.

Milk causes allergies primarily because of pasteurization

The entire project is a fool’s errand to begin with since the reason most humans are allergic to cow’s milk is because of pasteurization which destroys lactase enzymes. RAW MILK is far easier to digest, but of course raw milk has been all but criminalized in America, where the FDA along with Ventura County and LA County in California actually stage armed raids on raw milk distribution centers and throw people in jail. James Stewart, for example, remains in jail this very day for the “crime” of being involved in raw milk. Sign the petition HERE to demand freedom for James.

So while criminalizing fresh milk and pushing an inferior, dead, pasteurized milk that causes allergies in those who drink it, the corrupt food system in America is almost certain to embrace mutant genetically modified cloned cow’s milk and call it “safe” for infants!

Never mind the fact that the genetically altered milk produced by this cow had “double the concentrations of caseins,” as The Guardian is reporting.

Oh, and by the way, the milk being produced by this mutant, cloned, tail-less GMO cow is of course 100% driven by artificial hormones! As the BBC reports:

“It has not yet become pregnant and produced milk normally so the scientists used hormones to jump-start milk production.”

New MRSA superbug discovered in cows’ milk

by Catherine de Lange
New Scientist
June 3, 2011

A new strain of MRSA has been identified in cows’ milk and in people, but don’t stop drinking milk – the bug is killed off in pasteurisation.

However, the strain evades detection by standard tests used by some hospitals to screen for MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), potentially putting people at risk.

Laura Garcia Alvarez, then at the University of Cambridge, and colleagues were studying infections in British cows when they discovered antibiotic-resistant bacteria that they thought were MRSA. However, tests failed to identify the samples as any known strains of the superbug.

Sequencing the mystery bacteria’s genomes revealed a previously unknown strain of MRSA with a different version of a gene called MecA. The new strain was also identified in samples of human MRSA, and is now known to account for about 1 per cent of human MRSA cases.

Most tests look for the original MecA gene to identify MRSA. However, they do not detect the new version of the gene, which means the tests need to be updated.

In countries such as Denmark, for example, where the new strain has been identified in humans, hospitals use this kind of test to screen patients for MRSA when then enter the hospital, says study co-author Mark Holmes. People carrying the new strain might therefore be allowed into hospitals by mistake, or treated with the wrong antibiotics.

People in the UK should be at less risk, because most British hospitals screen for MRSA by testing whether it will grow in the presence of antibiotics; this should pick up any strain of MRSA, although further tests would be needed to identify which it is.

Pasteurising contaminated milk makes it safe to drink, but contact with infected animals or drinking unpasteurised milk containing MRSA could increase the risk of becoming a carrier.

Journal reference: The Lancet Infectious Diseases, DOI: 10.1016/s1473-3099(11)70126-8