HomeUltram

Ultram ultram 50/100mg

Package	Price	Per Pill	Order
50mg × 30 pills		US $ 0.00
50mg × 60 pills		US $ 0.00
50mg × 90 pills		US $ 0.00

Package	Price	Per Pill	Order
100mg × 30 pills		US $ 0.00
100mg × 60 pills		US $ 0.00
100mg × 90 pills		US $ 0.00

THE CASE AGAINST DAIRY PRODUCTS: THE PASTEURIZATION FRAUD
What if I were to tell you that there exists a special bomb that, if dropped during wartime on a city where fighting was going on, would kill only the enemy and leave our allies unscathed. Would you believe me or think I was lying? What if I were to tell you that I could take a food with some good ingredients and some bad ingredients and heat it to a temperature so hot that it would kill the bad (our enemies) and leave the good (our allies) unscathed? Would you believe that? Lies are odd things. If you tell one big enough, loud enough, long enough, and often enough, people will come to believe it as truth. Indeed they will. Indeed they have! Because a great big, whopping lie has been told very loudly, very often, and for a very long time and the public has come to accept it as truth. What's the lie? It's the second example given above —pasteurization.
Anyone who tells you pasteurized milk is safer than raw milk is either out and out lying or exhibiting the most classic example of how far in the sand someone is willing to bury his or her head for the sake of some funding or a paycheck. Pasteurization is plainly and simply one of the biggest hoaxes ever to have been foisted on an unsuspecting people. There is enough evidence proving this to be true to easily fill this book many times over. Pasteurization has been so convincingly sold that the very people it hurts jump to its defense. What is most galling is that the people responsible for pasteurization actually accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of. Remember those old westerns in which the villain would commit a dastardly deed then cause the hero to be blamed, actually leading the indignant townsfolk against the hero to have him brought to justice? The villain was the most outspoken accuser. When I was a kid watching those things on television, I'd become so frustrated that I'd yell to whoever would listen, "Hey, no fair, the bad guy did it and he's blaming the good guy!" The poeple behind pasteurization must have written those scripts.
The truth is that the problems associated with drinking milk are much more pronounced with pasteurized milk than with raw milk, and still the pasteurizers are pointing an accusing finger at others. Hey, no fair!
Let me be clear on one thing: I don't think milk, raw or pasteurized, should be consumed by anyone interested in a healthy life, but the idea that pasteurized is somehow superior in some way to raw is too absurd for words. Take any food or plant abounding with life and heat it to intense temperatures and what is the result? It dies! Enzymes, the life principle of every living cell, are killed at 130 degrees. Milk is pasteurized at over 170 degrees. Subject a slice of watermelon to 170 degrees and there will not be anything of value left in it. It will be killed. Subject a plant from your yard—a rose or a violet—to 170 degrees, and it will meet the same fate, death. Subject a handful of fresh sprouts teeming with life to 170 degrees and you will get the same results.
It's the journey's end, curtains, the portals of no return, the Grim Reaper, DEATH!
When milk flows from a cow's udder, it is alive with the raw materials of life for the calf. Pasteurize the milk at 170 degrees and the same thing happens to it that happens to the watermelon or the plant or the sprout. It is made dead! As we demonstrated in chapter 8, DEAD FOOD CANNOT SUPPORT LIFE. Pasteurization kills.
The entire purpose of pasteurizing milk was ostensibly to supply a clean product. In the late 1800s, as the demand grew for more and more milk, it was becoming dirtier and dirtier. People were becoming sick, even dying, so there was a big push to clean up milk. But the opposite of dirty is not pasteurized; the opposite of dirty is clean. Pasteurized milk is not automatically clean. It can be as dirty as any other kind of milk. The problem, at least with raw milk, is that if it goes bad, it immediately sours and you throw it away. When it is pasteurized, it can also go bad—but it doesn't sour. It rots! It turns putrid, and there isn't a dairy farmer on earth that doesn't know that. Unfortunately, when it's pasteurized, you can't tell when it's beginning to spoil! So the chances of drinking contaminated pasteurized milk are much greater than when drinking raw milk. Pasteurized milk is rancid long before it develops an obvious odor.
The need for pure milk was no small issue. People were clamoring to clean up the dairies. Understand? They wanted the dairies cleaned up so they could supply fresh, clean, raw milk. People had been drinking raw milk for hundreds of years, and they liked it. They opposed this newfangled idea of pasteurization. They didn't want anybody messing with their milk. They just wanted it cleaned up. But, if it were pasteurized, supposedly the issue of cleanliness would be resolved. People did not like the heated milk because it did not have the same flavor. It tasted awful.
The death knell for raw milk came when those with business and marketing talents realized the advantages of having milk that would not sour. Hey, hey! They could produce more milk, store it, even ship it, and it wouldn't go sour. This was major good news—for business. Not for people's health. Of course, it wouldn't make sense to ask people to go along with pasteurization because it was good for business. So the push for pasteurization came under the guise of killing off all the malevolent beasties in the milk, making it healthier. Never mind that when the bad was killed so was the good. The people still didn't want pasteurization. They didn't like the taste and didn't trust the idea of it. So it was big business versus the people. Guess who won? Take your time. Don't rush. I know what a tough question that is.
Pasteurization began in 1895. The worry of cleanliness was no longer an issue because, with the heating of milk, cleanliness was no longer considered necessary. Not that you couldn't get raw milk—you could. The Medical Milk Commission, a group of physicians that inspected and "certified" raw milk to make sure it met very rigid standards of safety, was established. By 1930, clean unpasteurized milk was readily available throughout the country.
Interestingly enough, the dairy industry itself also fought compulsory pasteurization. They fought it in court—and lost! (41) But they've gotten over it now and they're pretty happy about pasteurization after all. Why not? In less than a hundred years the milk industry has come from almost total obscurity to become the Goliath of the food industry. And they owe it all to pasteurization. Guess who else was against pasteurization. The dietitians! Honest! Realizing that commercial interests were only concerned about shelf life and not about unadulterated milk, they strongly opposed pasteurization. Where are they today? Well, they haven't left the side of the dairy industry. They were there fighting pasteurization with the industry when they knew it was wrong, but now that things have worked out—financially, that is—they're ferociously supporting the very process they used to assail. So you see, they once actually knew what they were talking about.
Before continuing, let me share a few statements made by the people who were trying the best they could to protect themselves against pasteurization during the 1930s.
These notes are taken from the Vaccination Enquirer, a periodical that was published in England from the early 1900s through the mid-1900s. The first is from April 1,1932. "Pasteurizing made milk dangerous and not safe. Pasteurizing might be necessary, it might even be good, but it could never make bad milk into good milk." In an editorial in that same issue: "Is it not appalling to reflect that bureaucracy and medical despotism have marched hand in hand to the point where a citizen, for the first time in the history of the world, may be unable to procure natural milk drawn directly from a healthy cow under all clean precautions and will have to consume only milk which has been treated and doctored in accordance with the changing medical dogmas and prescriptions of the hour. We can only hope our friends in Parliament, though reduced in number, may find the means to offer a determined, and may we hope, successful opposition to this monstrous and insufferable innovation." Wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms there, now was it?
*63\344\2*
General Health

What is the shelf life of the pills?

• The expiry date is mentioned on each blister. It is different for different batches. The shelf life is 2 years from the date of manufacture and would differ from batch to batch depending on when they were manufactured.