Audits carried out at more than 300 abattoirs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland find major hygiene failings in more than a quarter of meat plants
One in four slaughterhouses are failing to take basic hygiene precautions to stop contaminated meat reaching high street butchers and supermarkets.
An analysis of government audits carried out at more than 300 abattoirs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland identified major hygiene failings in more than a quarter of the meat plants. The failings could expose consumers to serious food poisoning illnesses such as E coli, salmonella or campylobacter.
The investigation by the Observer and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has also revealed that official Food Standards Agency records were falsified to conceal true levels of meat contamination at an English abattoir. A whistleblower said data relating to contamination of carcasses was misrecorded to mask poor hygiene practices at the plant, potentially allowing dirty meat to enter the food chain.
The most recent audit reports were analysed for 323 abattoirs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. One key test that slaughterhouses have to pass is that “all handling and processes from slaughtering to despatch are done in a way that avoids the contamination of meat and offal entering the food chain”.
In a free society, we consent with every conscious decision. Consent equals choice. Not enough of us realize that everything in life is one big consensual contract. We either consent to the offer or we do not. If it’s not clear, it’s not consent. With valid consent, both parties have ability to “opt-out”, and both also have the ability to terminate the agreement if obligations go unfulfilled.
Does government offer informed-consent? No. Whether it is war, laws, taxes, education, vaccines, pollution, or mandates, we often feel helpless to go along.
When food is genetically-modified and sold as “healthy” without the science to back it up, it is served up without informed-consent. When vaccines are sold as “safe and effective” without the science to back it up, they are offered without informed-consent. Ironically, both examples point to “science” as the reason to believe the authorities. What happened to true consent?
The Vaccine Agenda
Consent is engineered through a war of ideas, a war of science, a war over control, and a war on freedom. No where is this seen more clearly than through vaccine mandates. Since vaccine mandate, SB277, became law in California, 103 new bills in 30 States have been introduced to remove vaccine exemptions. Without an exemption there is no informed-consent. Unless you do your own research (which you should), no one is going to tell you about the adverse effects listed on the package insert. And no one is responsible if/when the product fails. Just roll up your sleeve and accept it.
Forced vaccination means we no longer live in a free society. It is a sign of the transfer of Rights and power from the people to a police state.
The film Vaxxed, produced by Del Bigtree, came out in time to counter California’s vaccine mandate. The film reveals corruption at the highest levels of CDC, showing the suppressed science that links autism to the MMR vaccine. The film has since been screened in hundreds of theaters, reached millions of people, is live-streamed and sold on DVD, and will now premiere in Europe despite censorship in some areas. The Vaxxed tour bus travels around the country, documenting stories of vaccine damage and death in its wake. The Vaxxed team also meets with politicians to plead for an end to mandates.
Yet, government mandates continue unabated. Is the Vaxxed phenomenon accomplishing its goals and objectives? First of all, what are its objectives? To raise awareness? To remove mercury from vaccines? To end mandates? Is demanding the removal of mercury enough when vaccines also contain carcinogens, antibiotics, human fetal tissue cells, aluminum, and nano particles? Didn’t the Academy of Pediatrics in 1999 recommend removing Thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines only to see it added to flu shots at higher levels? Will ending mercury in vaccines end mandates? Are we participating in an exercise of futility? It seems so.
How did we come to this?
Those who own the narrative, control the outcome. They work unseen, and speak through operatives at the highest levels of government, medicine, education, religion, and the media. They control of the information networks, employ the best behavioral scientists and public relations firms and have virtually unlimited money. They control the minds of the masses.
Controlling the minds of the masses is the science of social engineering. Social engineers understand behavior in order to mold attitudes and public opinion. The goal is to homogenize the population and bring about a state where the foundation of human rights no longer exists. People beg in groups for rights from the State without realizing that rights from the State are privileges that can be abolished, amended, modified or expanded at the whim of the State (See Obamacare). There are no Rights. There is no consent.
GPs are the bedrock of healthcare in Scotland. Ninety per cent of patients’ contact with the NHS is through a GP and, as a result, your GPs direct the spending of about half of NHS Scotland’s budget.
That is a huge responsibility, but a very welcome one, for no one else is in as good a position to match the needs of people with the strained abilities of the system.
Instead of one appointment, patients may have many
Over the past decade, however, largely as a result of increasing demand and more complex medical conditions, underfunding of GPs and a lack of workforce planning, it has become more and more difficult for family doctors to do that safely.
As a result, the situation is changing and patients in Scotland should be made very aware of it.
The approach from the Scottish Government has been to plan to broaden the team that plays its part in looking after people outside of hospital – what is known as primary care.
We need more involvement from physiotherapists, nurses, pharmacists and others. That expansion is a good thing.
It is absolutely not, however, the be all and end all and will make matters worse if it is the only approach.
Underpinning patients’ care must be the clinicians able to make the most difficult medical decisions – your GP.
Strain on the system
The wider team members are exceptionally good at what they do, and their work vitally compliments the work of GPs, but they do not do everything. GPs look after you comprehensively.
The expansion of these colleagues must be in parallel with the expansion in the numbers of GPs.
If patients are to see one team member for one condition, another for a second and another for a third, it not only puts more strain on the system but demands a great deal more from patients.
Instead of one appointment, patients may have many. Instead of the continuity of care of a trusted doctor, patients may not have a single, trusted face to whom they can turn.
Katie Grant Katie Grant 21:51 Thursday February 16th 2017 Investigators who exposed “institutional abuse” at a North Wales hospital want to talk to elderly people with mental health issues, and their families, about their experiences.
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was placed in special measures following the publication in 2013 of a report on the Tawel Fan ward at Denbighshire’s Glan Clwyd Hospital.
The independent report on the mental health ward included testimony from patients’ families, who said their loved ones were treated like “animals”. “It was like when you go in a zoo and see animals that have been… there for a long time,” said one family member. “And all they’ve got to do is walk around and around.”
Another witness who gave evidence reported that an elderly relative on the Tawel Fan ward was “very frightened”, fearing they were “in an asylum” and could be subjected to electric shock treatment.
One family spoke of “the complete lack of care shown towards patients by Tawel Fan staff”.
They noted “a build-up of frustration among the patients at the lack of activity and that frustrations increased as they all continually walked around and around the ward”.
An unprecedented rise in mortality in England and Wales, where 30,000 excess deaths occurred in 2015, is likely to be linked to cuts to the NHS and social care, according to research which has drawn an angry response from the government.
The highly charged claim is made by researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Oxford University and Blackburn with Darwen council, who say the increase in mortality took place against a backdrop of “severe cuts” to the NHS and social care, compromising their performance.
After examination of NHS performance data for the period, which shows the service missing almost all its targets, they concluded: “The evidence points to a major failure of the health system, possibly exacerbated by failings in social care.”
The rise in deaths from 2014 to 529,655 in 2015 was the biggest in percentage terms in almost 50 years and the mortality rate was the highest since 2008. The excess deaths were largely among older people who are most dependent on health and social care, the authors said.
The research further warned that the “spike” was showing signs of becoming an established pattern, with provisional official weekly mortality data from 2016 showing deaths from October onwards increasing by 7% compared with the five-year average.
While accepting their findings would generate controversy, the authors expressed surprise that the rise and the reasons for it had not previously been scrutinised.
Prof Danny Dorling from the University of Oxford said: “It may sound obvious that more elderly people will have died earlier as a result of government cutbacks, but to date the number of deaths has not been estimated and the government have not admitted responsibility.”
The researchers observed that the increase in mortality came as waiting times rose in A&E departments – despite unexceptional attendances – for admissions, diagnostic tests and also consultant-led care. Ambulance response times also increased as did operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons. Staff absence rates rose and more posts remained empty as staff had not been appointed.
The authors said health service austerity had been exacerbated by £16.7bn of cuts to the welfare budget and a 17% decrease in spending for older people since 2009, while the number of people aged 85 and over had risen almost 9%.
Barbara Keeley, the shadow social care minister, said: “The Tories have created a crisis in social care. They have cut billions of pounds from council budgets and care is suffering as a result.
“In the March budget, the government must provide extra funding urgently and deliver a sustainable settlement to deal with the crisis in health and social care.”
The Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, called it “a national scandal that in one of the richest countries in the world, vulnerable older people are missing out on the services they need and may even have died due to poor care”.
The report’s co-author, Dominic Harrison, the director of public health at Blackburn with Darwen council, said the research “raises a red flag that is telling us that the health and care system may have reached the limits of its capacity to safely and effectively care for the population that funds it. Our analysis suggests that the most likely cause of that failure, when all other possible explanations have been excluded, is insufficient resources and capacity”.
A DH spokesman described the study as “a triumph of personal bias over research”. He added: “Every year there is significant variation in reported excess deaths, and in the year following this study they fell by nearly 20,000, undermining any link between pressure on the NHS and the number of deaths. Moreover, to blame an increase in a single year on ‘cuts’ to the NHS budget is arithmetically impossible given that budget rose by almost £15bn between 2009-10 and 2014-15.”
The fall the DH refers to is the reduction in excess winter deaths, which compares those between December and March with those in the rest of the year. Excess deaths over the year are measured relative to the average in recent years.
Harrison said the point the authors were making was that in months such as January 2015, which saw a spike in deaths, there was an insufficient service response to a surge in demand. He termed this a “fail event” and warned there could be recurrences over the next five years without a rise in funding. He added that preliminary figures pointed to a possible significant increase in excess deaths last month.
“I have few doubts that our findings will be strongly contested,” he said. “This report has been published in good faith in a peer-reviewed academic journal by senior health professionals who are concerned to understand the causes of avoidable death in the population – precisely so that we can avoid it happening again.”
US institutions cautiously endorse future use of gene editing procedures to prevent people passing serious medical conditions to their children
Powerful gene editing procedures could one day be allowed to prevent people from passing on serious medical conditions to their children, according to a major report from senior US researchers.
The cautious endorsement from two of the most prestigious US science institutions means that human embryos, sperm and eggs could all be genetically manipulated to mend faulty genes which are known to cause serious disease or disability, once research has shown it is safe to do so.
The report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine says the procedure is “highly contentious” because any genetic changes that are made are then inherited by the next generation. “The technology would therefore cross a line many have viewed as ethically inviolable,” it states.
Most scientists agree that far more work is needed before clinical trials of so-called “germline” therapies can begin in humans. But the report argues that if the procedure is found to be safe and effective in the years ahead, it should not be ruled out in exceptional cases.
“We have identified a very strict set of criteria which, if satisfied, could make it permissible to start clinical trials,” said Alta Charo, co-chair of the report committee and professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. While gene editing is unlikely to affect the prevalence of diseases any time soon, it could provide some families with their best hope for having healthy children.
According to the report, human embryos, sperm and eggs should only be considered for gene editing to prevent serious conditions and when no other alternative is available. To go ahead, scientists would have to be confident they could stop a disorder by rewriting the DNA in a faulty gene to make it into a healthy version already found in the population.
The report stresses the need for a stringent oversight system for any such trials to make sure scientists, patients and the broader public understand the risks and benefits, and to come down hard on any clinics that offer treatment for less serious disorders or for human enhancement.
“There is an enormous amount of research that has to go into this, and then the question is what are the conditions where you’d even consider it, and those are very tightly defined,” said Rudolf Jaenisch, a member of the report committee and professor of biology at MIT. “It would be conditions where no other options exist to have a healthy baby.”
One example is when an adult carries two copies – rather than one – of the gene that causes Huntington’s disease, a devastating condition that steadily damages nerves in the brain. If that person has children they will inherit at least one copy and will develop the disease. With gene editing, harmful copies could potentially be fixed in the parent’s sperm or eggs, or in any embryos created through IVF.
The NHS is in crisis and fat kids are to blame, a leading doctor warned, adding that the “grotesque” modern diet is placing needless pressure on the nation’s health service.
One-time professor of surgery at Guy’s Hospital London, Lord McColl of Dulwich, told the House of Lords that young people and their bad eating habits had more to answer for than the elderly when it came to a strained NHS.
His speech followed the shocking revelation that, on average, Accident & Emergency patients in England waited up to four hours for treatment over the last month – the service’s worst figures in more than a decade – while patients had to wait more than two months to begin cancer treatment after receiving an urgent referral.
Health officials, who have dubbed the situation “unprecedented,” believe the services are suffering under the burden of a growing number of senior citizens, noting that there are over one million more people over age 65 living in Britain now than in 2010.
However, Lord McColl refused to accept that old people were to blame.
“It’s not so much the old people getting older – because old people have always been getting older,” he said in the Lords.
“The difference in the last 30 years is the grotesque increase in young people getting fatter and fatter,” he suggested, adding that the growing number of obese children was “killing millions, costing billions and the cure is free – just eat fewer calories.”
One in three British children aged 10 to 11 is currently classed as overweight or obese, while the NHS spends some £10 billion on type 2 diabetes treatments every year.