Відео

44:59 No way does 1.5 tsp of unrefined salt have 800mg of magnesium in it. Celtic salt has the most and only has about 30mg.

When real scientists debunk convemtional "Science" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Dose your austin tx store carry pure brand od magnesium potassium

I would be curious to know how/where the beef is slaughtered and packed. I can't find any transparency on this online. Is there a mobile slaughter operation where the cattle never leave the farm? Or do they endure the additional stress of trucking to and processing at the packing plant? Also, I would be really curious to know what type of packer they work with if it's off the farm, small scale, large scale, etc. My experience in this industry leads me to think about this stage of meat production and to be cognizant of meat processing's role in rural midwestern communities, (immigrant especially) worker safety and the ability to take the time to focus on animal husbandry when the speed at which production must take place is not inhibiting humane slaughter.

I've been looking for a way to consume the peels of the citrus fruit I put in my hot and cold beverages (so they're already technically watered-out of their bitterness). Thanks much for just a simple, quick tutorial as fast as I'd like to take my thoughts and soggy beautiful plant matter to the stove instead of the trash! 😊💚🍊🌿

May God bless Sally! She is my hero🩷🩷🩷

Corn fuel- Thanks Obama

Invaluable!! Life changing information. Thank you so much for posting this presentation!

Thanks Pitman family, have enjoyed your excellent products, both chicken and turkey for many years, just the best.

Has the stupid context box lie about climate change and falsely claims it's man made when it's proven it's sun spots. Don't confuse pollution with climate.

Looking for the referenced USDA definition of forage and couldn't find. Only found this : ask.usda.gov/s/article/What-is-grass-fed-meat#:~:text=The%20diet%20shall%20be%20derived,pasture%20during%20the%20growing%20season. Please share your references. Thanks!

its not the slow way

Wonderful information! Thank you Sally Fallon-Morrell!

OK, I got past the introduction to the beginning of substance, at 3:10. There's a picture in front of me, a hypodermic syringe, next to an absurd picture of an apple and an orange stitched together. I recognize this as a preview of what is to come, propaganda, not education. Bye bye.

Now we are at 17:20 and she is about to take up allergies. There's a slide with text, so I can read it as I write this, and you should read it as you read this. First, it is, of course, possible to take a gene that tells the plant to produce an allergen. That's a bad idea. Genetic engineers knew that from the start, even before they were able to create transgenic plants. I don't know if the anti-GMO groups ever thought about that on their own. It certainly wasn't in their anti-GMO propaganda at the start. But genetic engineers took precautions to prevent it from happening. In the mid 1990s, the company Pioneer Hi-Bred wanted to genetically engineer soybeans to contain more of one of the eight essential amino acids, methionine. So they looked for a gene that specifies a protein rich in methionine, but a protein which didn't promote any biological reactions, just a storage protein that the planted seed could use as food. They identified such a protein in a Brazil nut. Of course, they knew that some people are allergic to Brazil nuts, but they didn't know whether this particular protein in Brazil nuts would cause the well known allergy. So they hired an allergy expert to test it. The test is fairly easy. A group of people known to be allergic to Brazil nuts are exposed to a tiny amount of the protein and the allergy expert looks to see if it has provoked an allergy. And it did! So the project was stopped. But that was not all. They published the result in a scientific journal! And they suggested that no transgene ever be taken from an organism known to cause an allergy. The community of genetic engineers also developed a very extensive set of prescribed precautions to prevent allergic reactions from genes NOT known to be potential allergens. For example, the protein is subjected to digestive juices in a laboratory. If it is digested in just a minute or so, it is not going to have time to become an allergen. Otherwise, it is not used. It was after that article was published that the anti-GMO community began warning about the dangers of allergies from GMO food. It was presented as a close call, a lucky accident that a disaster was caught before it could happen. Look at where she says "People allergic to the nuts had serious reactions to the engineered product." That's utter nonsense. Nobody ever ate the genetically engineered product. I don't know if it ever even existed but the project never got anywhere near the stage where anyone was growing and selling the soybeans. She has taken a major success of the genetic engineers' cautious methods - no allergic reaction has ever been caused by a commercialized GMO food - and turned it into a fear. And then, long term testing? Allergic reactions happen quickly, in minutes, not in decades. There was an incident several years later that should be remembered. The company Aventis Crop Science had developed a GMO corn called Starlink and was asking FDA for approval. The digestion time test had been performed and the company thought it was a good indicator of safety. But FDA disagreed and refused to approve the corn. Aventis then repeated the digestive test using stomach acids from a few kinds of farm animals, and those tests showed much faster digestion. So they went back to FDA and asked for approval of Starlink corn as an animal food. FDA, unwisely, decided that was OK. Starlink corn was approved as a food for animals. But about a year later, it was found to have spread into the human food supply, by accident. It never caused any actual allergies (despite false claims by the anti-GMO groups) but the Aventis Crop Science lost billions of dollars getting it out of the food and farm system. I love to ask anti-GMO fearmongers how they can tell people, at the same time, that GMO foods are not tested and that a kind of GMO food was not approved by FDA because it failed a safety test.

I enjoyed watching the video. Thanks for the information.

Awesome lads keep swimming the wrong way cos the wrong way is the right way, just smell your soil i bet it smells as good as mine.

You guys have great products! Ate some this morning 😋

Im going to try this right now.

They racist

I only buy your products for my family. I do not trust Walmart, Pubix, Kroger's meat ... Thank you!

We're at 16:44. Rat's fed potatoes altered to have Bt caused organ deformations in rats, described in the respected British journal "The Lancet". Once again, she has picked up a story making the rounds, not understood it and is teaching it!!! The paper in the Lancet was written by the scientist Arpad Pusztai, who worked in Scotland. Pusztai was an expert on a class of chemical substances called lectins, some of which are very poisonous. Someone asked Pusztai to see if a gene for making a slightly toxic kind of lectin would serve to protect the potato from insects that eat potatoes. Puzstai experimented with three situations. One involved feeding rats with unmodified potatoes. A second was feeding rats with GMO potatoes with the gene for making lectins. The third was feeding rats with ordinary potatoes plus also feeding them lectins in the amount they would have gotten from the GMO potatoes. None of the potatoes had anything to do with Bt! As you might expect, the rats fed ordinary potatoes without lectins had healthy looking organs. The other two groups of rats had some organ deformities. Pusztai thought that the rats who ate the GMO potatoes had more deformed organs than the rats fed normal potatoes and separate lectins, which led him to conclude that something about the process of gene transfer made the difference. There were many other scientists who read Pusztai's disclosure and found fault with his data analysis. They might be right or they might be wrong. But these GMO potatoes with added genes for producing poison were never cultivated as food. Pusztai never claimed that his experiments showed anything about the safety of any other GMO crop. He thought, and I agree, that any GMO crop should be tested for safety. Yet again, she got her facts wrong in multiple important ways. I'm going to stop watching this now. Maybe I'll come back next year.

OK, we're up to the histones. She says that eating a GMO food, we get its histones and they affect how our own genes work. That's utter nonsense. Histones are proteins and are reduced to amino acids in the stomach and the gut, before they reach our cells where the DNA is. But all foods, GMO or not, have histones, and somehow we don't generally get to change our genes by eating foods with other genes and other histones. Just another example of a completely made up claim. Using scientific sounding words may fool some people into thinking they are hearing science. Be careful.

At 14:30 she had a picture of people handling genetically modified rice, wearing some sort of protective clothing. Perhaps she thinks none of her viewers can understand Spanish. The bags being emptied are labeled "Experimental Transgenic Rice". In other words, this is not a commercial product. For all we know, the photograph might show clothing to protect the rice from contamination from the workers. But then, having told us that the rice is dangerous, she tells us why. The GMO plant, she says, has a pesticide producing gene, which prevents the plant from growing without being sprayed with additional pesticide. Let's take that apart. First, there is no commercially grown rice plant with an added gene to make a pesticide! There are some GMO plants that aren't rice which have been given a gene that produces a protein which is toxic to certain insects, but not toxic to humans or animals or even other insects. That substance is called "cry" and it is found in nature in a species of bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis, so sometimes cry protein is called Bt. It has been used for over a hundred years as a harmless way to protect plants from moth larvae. Have any of you viewers read the book "Silent Spring" written by Rachel Carson? It's mostly a book condemning chemical pesticides, but in her last chapter she offers a set of alternatives to protect crops, and one of the most prominent alternatives is Bt. Second, "prevent the plant from growing unless it is sprayed with a additional pesticide". Does that even make sense? Try this similar sentence. A cup of tea has been modified by adding sugar, which prevents the tea from brewing without adding other sugar. Here's a true statement. NOBODY HAS GENETICALLY MODIFIED ANY PLANT TO REQUIRE ANY CHEMICAL TO GROW. Nobody, none.

OK, it's a year later and I decided to watch some more of the video. She got to explaining how GMOs are made. She may have tried to learn it, but failed. In explaining the agrobacterium method of gene transfer, she went right to the example of putting a fish gene into a tomato. Quote: They found a fish gene that keeps it from freezing. This stuff comes right out of Greenpeace street theater. But, the company that tried this gene transfer experiment successfully transferred that gene from a flounder into a tomato plant and they quickly found that it DIDN'T work and the project never went any further. All those posters showing tomatoes with fins and fish with leaves are pretty close to actual lies. But what does she say next, after saying that it worked? She says that it would help the tomato stay fresh. No ma'am, that was a different gene transferred into a tomato by a different company at a different time, and the gene they used didn't come from a fish, but from a tomato, except that the tomato gene was turned end to end so that it prevented the tomato from producing an enzyme that causes the tomato to rot. Boy, that's a lot to get wrong! When she talks about the gene gun, which isn't a gun, she's pretty nearly right. But wait, I spoke too soon. She now says that a gene gun with its gold particles is CRISPR/CAS9, a completely different technique called gene editing. But then she says "I don't want to get into all the science." I agree, it's better to not teach something until you have learned it.

What about Walmarts Marketside 92% lean grass fed (grass finished). Supposedly never eating grains? PS, I am no advocate of buying anything healthy from Walmart! : )

What about the producers who grow corn and soy beans but also grow cover crops. There are ways of doing things to still grow corn and beans using regenerative ways

Climate change 😂😂 you drank the cool aid didn't you. But the regenerative farming is cool 👍

NO LARD!

Vitamin A is in Spinach in 100 percent 🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕 Carrot Juice

I raised chickens backyard, Childhood, my sisters & i ate fresh eggs 🥚🥚🥚🥚 for many years, Elementary, Grade School Ages through Highschool, Did A Book Float Parade, Henrietta the Hen book featuring, A Good Chicken!

Avoid Sugar, Avoid Wheat, Avoid Soda, Antinflammatory Diet, Avoid Canola Oil, NO LARD, Avoid Fried Foods, Absolutely 🌐🛡️ im in, healing myself♀️🧬🌞🙏🥥🥥 Coconut Oil is good!I don't eat meat anymore

Natural Grocers is Awesome! Great produce, Organic Produce, Neutraceuticals, Quality Herbs, Vitamins, & Beverages, Highly Recommended!🛡️🌐♀️🧬🥇🏆

This truth should be a crime, and people should know the truth, and lobbyists should not be allowed to dictate lies to trick the consumer. Also, it's good to see Thousand Hills is doing it the honest, good old-fashioned way. I have bought them over the store brand organics all the time