SUPPRESSED TRUTH: Milk Pasteurization is BASED ON FRAUD (Part 2)

This may officially be the most insane sh*t you never knew...

In Part 1 of this series we discussed how in the late 1800s and early 1900s livestock began being fed factory waste as a cheap alternative to real food. When the animals became sick the Tuberculosis “germ” was blamed. Entire farms were falling ill which was claimed to be because Tuberculosis was highly contagious, but reality was they were all becoming sick at the same time because they were all eating the same nutrient-less poisoned food. Without considering the food supply, the government rushed to make laws demanding all infected animals be slaughtered to “stop the spread” of the uncurable disease.

While that was going on, stable owners saw the opportunity to save money on feed and began providing their horses the “cow diet”. Within only a few months of the diet change the horses contracted Tuberculosis, just like the cows. One stable owner called a vet to try to save his beloved animals. When the vet arrived he immediately knew these creatures did not have a disease; their symptoms were caused by what they were being fed. The vet ordered the horses to be put back on their correct, natural diet and all quickly recovered to full health.

Some dairy farmers, desperate to save their livelihoods, also began contacting veterinarians as a last resort before slaughtering their cows. A few of those farmers got lucky because the vet that arrived happened to be the same dude that just saved the horses. The veterinarian told the farmers the same thing he told the stable owners. When the cattle were switched back to their normal diet, they too all recovered - but all of this has been hugely suppressed from history because science needed to make the public believe Tuberculosis was (and is) a contagious disease caused by a terrible “germ”. Then something major happened: in the early 1900s, the newest claim the medical-science industry made was that people were being infected by the awful bacteria because they were drinking raw, unpasteurized milk. Science and the media failed to mention the ridiculously poisoned human food supply which was full of industrial byproduct waste and non-foods.

Now that we recapped Part 1; I’m sure by this point you have all heard why pasteurized milk is terrible for us, but has anyone ever told us exactly how it was determined that dangerous stuff was hiding inside milk in the first place? If so, nobody had ever shared this information with me, so I decided to look for myself… and what I discovered was not scientific studies leading to milk pasteurization to save the American public. What I instead found was a story of total lunacy and outright FRAUD...

Let’s start by quickly looking at what science claimed: Brucella (an allegedly diabolical bacteria aka “germ” aka “virus”) was hiding away inside cows and coming out in milk. Here’s modern-day Wikipedia:

Science claimed (and still claims) when the infected milk was drank, people developed Tuberculosis symptoms which were fevers, cough, pain, weakness and more. These happen to be the exact same symptoms as Yellow Fever, Malaria and Typhoid, so it was difficult to tell if a “disease” came from a germ in milk, a mosquito, poor sanitation, a virus hiding on a door handle or something else.

In the early 1900s the media informed the public that we were all going to die because of “Tuberculosis Milk” which was the cause of “The Great White Plague”:

By 1916, flies were aiding in the spreading “the germs” in milk and 400,000 children were falling ill with the disease each year.

Pasteurization was the only way we could survive!

Now that you know how pasteurization came to be, let’s learn how we first determined a Satan-bacteria-germ-virus was harboring itself away inside of cows in the first place.

I located a really interesting paper from 1921 that outlines the transmission studies which date back to the beginning of the experiments; Pasteur Institute, 1893 ← Louis Pasteur was the crazy germ-obsessed guy who was also very active in vaccine development. The other studies in this paper are from 1918 through 1920. These are the experiments which proved two types of pathogenic Brucella bacteria were not only inside cows but were also in sheep. Big names were involved with this history-changing project including the University of California Medical School.

These studies are why milk began being pasteurized. Let’s check them out:

The criteria for proving transmission through milk was based on inducing a fever in animals. This was because fever was the main symptom of Tuberculosis (and all of the other diseases mistaken for it), so science figured if a fever could be produced in animal studies they could claim they found the culprit - and should they say the culprit was milk, they already knew pasteurization was the solution. This meant the solution was already on deck before the 1918 study even began. In fact, pasteurization plants had been built immediately following the release of Pasture’s 1893 study.

THE STUDIES “STUDIES”

In order to conduct the experiments, science first needed to obtain “the bacteria” - which is a logical first step to proving transmission of such, right? Now how do you suppose science went about obtaining “the milk germs”? I would think they would simply milk a cow, hand the milk to someone, have them consume it, then see if they fall ill… but this was not the case. No sir, this was not at all, in any way, shape or form, the case. On a scale of 1-to-10 with 10 being “it’s not the case”, this was a 39.

In the 1919 experiments, the bacteria was obtained from “urine and testes of guinea pigs”. Whatever they got from the guinea pig’s balls and piss was then grown in a culture in a lab then “infected”. I assume it was something like this:

That infected culture was injected into a guinea pig and a syringe was used to withdraw blood from the guinea’s lymph node. Science claimed it was from this blood withdrawal that they were able to replicate the bacteria found in milk which they claimed was making so many people sick.

They were also able to obtain the (milk) pathogen from the liver of aborted hog fetuses. This bacteria was then injected into the balls of the guinea pigs - and it was “very lethal” for the tiny creatures, thus somehow proving “the bacteria” has potential to cause serious harm in humans.

Now that the lab coat industry had determined this was indeed a deadly bacteria in guinea pigs, they needed to show it did the same in monkeys being that monkeys are closer species-wise to humans. The super-scientific pig-nut-sack-blood-piss-grown-in-a-lab “bacteria” would be used for the monkey experiments because the beaker lords said it was the exact same as the bad bacteria in raw milk.

MONKEY BUSINESS… LITERALLY

Monkeys were purchased from India and underwent lengthy travel to labs. Upon their arrival they were confined to tiny cages and starved. They had to be starved because the scientists needed the monkeys to consume whatever they wanted to feed them which, in this case, was “the bacteria” (you already know what that means) smeared on carrots or mixed into milk. The problem was, even with terrified, hungry monkeys trapped in cages and fed tainted milk, not all of the monkeys developed fevers or died. Many recovered. The lab men ultimately concluded this must be because they primates had spilled too much of the milk. The same studies were repeated, this time smearing the lab-concocted “bacteria” on apples, bread or other foods. The same results occurred. Larger amounts of “the bacteria” were put on, or in, the consumables but the outcome did not change. Using these methods, the only way science could prove infection of the surviving monkeys was by euthanizing them, dissecting them, then claiming to have located lesions on their organs - lesions which were assumed to have been caused by “the bacteria”.

In other experiments, the monkeys were given “blood stream inoculations” of “the bacteria” directly into their jugular or veins. After this was complete, the scientists would perform multiple tests on the animals which included repeated anal probing to get their temperature to check for fever. Simultaneously the creatures underwent constant blood withdrawals and other prodding. Despite being fed a poisoned diet and experimented on, some of the animals did not fever or die from the initial studies. But, after a number of weeks of poor nutrition and torture, the monkeys would pass away or be euthanized. In nearly 100% of cases, the freshly deceased creatures, which recently arrived to the labs healthy and active, were reported as being emaciated - just like the malnourished cows we discussed in Part 1.

In other instances “the bacteria” was obtained by injecting milk into a guinea pig, withdrawing blood from the pig, injecting it into another pig, withdrawing it, injecting it into another, and so on. Once enough “pass throughs” had been completed “the bacteria” was deemed to be a pathogen (this is identical to how science makes a “flu virus”). Interestingly, the news kind of, sort of admitted to one of these experiments.

The guinea pig-milk-injection-withdrawal-injection-withdrawl pathogen was then injected into the starving monkey’s necks. After the jugular jab, one monkey began bleeding from its ear. Scientists performed a blood smear and claimed to have found “the bacteria” they just injected, therefore reenforcing how dangerous the germ is. This identical experiment was be repeated on the monkeys every 6 to 7 days.

I should point out that it is unknown what food, or how little (if any), the monkeys were fed in between experiments, but we do know that when the animals developed diarrhea they were executed and their organs were examined for lesions. We also know, within a matter of weeks after arrival, most of the captive animals died emaciated. Few were able to survive three months of torture without passing away. Those that did not die on their own were killed and dissected. Lesions and occasional worms were found in their bodies. One monkey had severe lesions in its anal cavity but the scientists said this might not be from the disease and could instead be from careless anal probing.

Although the studies were overall successful at proving “the bacteria” caused harm when injected, there were still issues with proving it was harmful when eaten. For this leg of the experiments, science had a new idea - feed monkeys “the bacteria” then take their feces and inject it into guinea pigs. Unfortunately for the lab men, after the pigs were killed and cut to bits, even this utterly insane method did not produce the lesions they had hoped to see.

On May 14th of 1920, a new experiment began. This time around, for 10 consecutive days, a monkey was fed “artificially infected milk” and given cascara (coffee cherry tea) along with lab-grown “bacteria” on 14 carrot slices. On the 11th day the monkey was provided the same number of bacteria-carrots in addition to milk mixed with magnesium sulphate (a laxative), accompanied by 6 aloin pills (another laxative). The lab lords knew if the monkey developed a fever, had diarrhea or other symptoms, it would have meant transmission was successful… but… to the scientists dismay, nothing happened. Larger and larger quantities of “the bacteria” were added into the primates diets by putting the manmade concoction on the starving, terrorized animal’s food. Thankfully for science, eventually they were able to say these “experiments indicate that a fairly high percentage of monkeys can be successfully infected via the alimentary tract when large and repeated doses of B. abortus [“the bacteria”] are fed on sliced carrots, bread or apples.” - it was official, the bacteria “found in milk” can indeed cause illness when consumed orally!

Now it was clear, the only way the public could be kept safe was through pasteurization.

Only a few years after the publication of the studies, in 1924, “Grade A Pasteurization” became recommended federal policy. And that, my friends, is how pasteurized milk came to be. Now here’s what’s really interesting…

You can go to FDA.gov right now and read their article outlining how dangerous raw milk is:

The article includes tons of sources for studies… but if you look closely, all of these studies are from the 1970s - 2000s.

Milk has been pasteurized since the early 1900s and the entire reason it is called Pasteurization is because the crazy-germ-vaccine-dude’s name was Louis Pasteur (he was the one that came up with the scheme), so why is there is no mention of his studies, or any of the foundational studies in the FDAs resources list? To take it a step further, the internet is trying to tell us pasteurization was not used in the US until the 1960s which clearly is not true because the newspaper archives show otherwise. Pasteurization may not have yet become law but it sure as hell was being deployed:

And what was milk being pasteurized based on? The 1893 Louis Pasture Institute study and the other studies shown in the paper we reviewed. Why are these not on the FDAs site?! It's almost as if the FDA doesn't want us to learn how the heroes of medical-science bravely played with urine, feces and aborted hog fetuses and injected them into the nut sacks of little guinea pigs and the necks of monkeys to save us from the bad bacteria in milk!

A MASSIVE thank you to those who have supported me! It is because of your support that I am able to afford Newspapers.com, a new computer and all of the other costs that go into writing free articles to spread Truth. You guys are amazing and I really need to spend more time letting you know how much I appreciate you. Thank you again!

NEXT READ

---

---

SOURCES, NOTES & OTHER STUFF

The other trick the FDA, CDC, NIH, even Wikipedia use is not providing you with links to any of the sources they don’t want you to read. If you are reading an article, such as the one on FDA.gov and notice they failed to link to any of the sources, those are the studies you want to read - but they are usually incredibly difficult to locate because we are not supposed to read them. We are supposed to look at the lists…

… then say to ourselves “it looks like there’s a lot of evidence that raw milk is bad!”. They use this tactic intentionally because they know few, if any, will ever take the time to try to track down any of these studies. Then, when you try to track down these studies, such as this one:

You are led in circles

---

---

But the document is out there, you just have to keep digging for it. Personally, I think nearly everything written in the 1970s and later is a waste of time. I hunt for the foundational papers which are even more difficult to find but are worth the search because it is through the foundational papers that we learn the truth.

In fact, ANYONE who doesn’t give you links should be questioned. Of course, all authors are human (except for the bots and AI authors), so we all do make mistakes and forget to link to something here and there BUT if there are no links anywhere - not in the article, not at the bottom of the page, not in the Sources section, not anywhere - that should be a major red flag. With that being said, there are some occasions where you cannot provide a link to the exact page of a document (for example, you may have to have an account with a site to access something or download a file to access the document, in this case it is not possible to provide a link to the exact document) BUT the author can still provide a link to site or file. At a minimum, the source (url) should be shown in a manner that a reader can access the information for themselves to verify. The other instance where a link would not be possible to provide is if the author found a book at a yard sale (or similar) and cannot locate it online. In this case screenshots along with the book tile and author name are sufficient - either way, there should be a way to see where the information originated from.

---

---

https://ia803209.us.archive.org/22/items/jstor-30082490/30082490.pdf

infecting guinea pigs with

Feces - page 10

page 13

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30061563

1914

Another cure gone wrong https://www.newspapers.com/image/825453246/?match=1&terms=Tuberculosis%20%20virus

These people are insane https://www.newspapers.com/image/840314628/?match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/34204122/?match=1&terms=Tuberculosis%20germ

Very insane: https://www.newspapers.com/image/849843155/?match=1&terms=Tuberculosis%20%20virus

https://www.cdc.gov/tb/signs-symptoms/index.html