The CDC, NIH & Bill Gates Own the Patents On Existing Ebola & Related Vaccines: Mandatory Vaccinations Are Near

Dave Hodges blows the lid of yet another hoax that has been unleashed on the public. This time, the folks behind the Ebola hoax are exposed. -LW

Bill Gates: King of Vaccines

I have previously reported that Monsanto, or Monsatan as many call them, has partnered with the Department of Defense to use a proxy third party company to develop a vaccine against Ebola. The seed money began at $1.5 million. The value of the deal could grow to an estimated $86 million dollars. The company’s name is Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation (TKMR) (TKM.TO), a leading developer of RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics. “TKM-Ebola, an anti-Ebola virus RNAi therapeutic, is being developed under a $140 million contract with the U.S. Department of Defense’s Medical Countermeasure Systems BioDefense Therapeutics (MCS-BDTX) Joint Product Management Office”.  As breaking and shocking of a news story as this has the potential to be, the real story is that this is not the most important part of the Ebola threat which has invaded the United States. The truth of the matter is that these unholy and untrustworthy associations, when it comes to “fighting” the Ebola virus, represent the mere tip of the iceberg.

The more one digs into who is behind the creation and the development of vaccines for treating Ebola, the more the conspiracy networks widen. The most amazing fact is how incredibly easy it was to locate this information. I want to be clear on this point, Ebola was invented, a vaccine for Ebola has existed for 8-10 years, some government sponsored institutions as well as some of the global elite have positioned themselves to profit enormously from the spread of the virus and the development of and dissemination ofmandatory Ebola vaccines and the imposition of total martial law in the process. Here is the proof.

Human ebola virus species and compositions and methods thereof
CA 2741523 A1

Amazingly, the CDC owns “the” patent on Ebola and all future strains.

The “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION” section of the patent document also clearly claims that the U.S. government is claiming “ownership” over all Ebola viruses that share as little as 70% similarity with the Ebola it “invented”:

Why would a government organization claim to have “invented” this infectious disease and then claim a monopoly over its exploitation for commercial use? It is clear that the CDC plans to claim royalties on Ebola vaccines. This certainly increases the likelihood that thevaccines will become mandatory, thus increasing the profit potential for the patent holders.

Publication number CA2741523 A1
Publication type Application
Application number CA 2741523
PCT number PCT/US2009/062079
Publication date Apr 29, 2010
Filing date Oct 26, 2009
Priority date Oct 24, 2008
Also published as EP2350270A2, 4 More »
Inventors Jonathan S. TownerStuart T. NicholJames A. ComerThomas G. KsiazekPierre E. Rollin
Applicant Jonathan S. Towner, 5 More »
Export Citation BiBTeXEndNoteRefMan
Classifications (21), Legal Events (1)
External Links: CIPOEspacenet

Clearly, Ebola is manmade and this patent proves this contention. Why does the CDC need to own the patent on Ebola? Perhaps, we should ask Bill Gates why he is donating $50 million to the UN and the CDC in the name of fighting Ebola (see video below). The CDC has partners in the fight against Ebola, namely, Crucell, the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and, of course, Bill and Melinda Gates.

Since when would Gates not expect a return on his investment? Gates and Michael Bloomberg have already contributed large sums of money to numerous vaccination causes such as the Global Polio Eradication Initiative originally launched in 1988 by the World Health Organization (WHO), Rotary International, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The return on investment has been impressive.

Gates has announced that he plans to vaccinate every child in the third world with multiple vaccines, which could result in a dramatic population reduction of 10-15%. Do you realize the enormous profits that can be realized by vaccinating every child in the third world? If we apply Gates’ penchant for investing in causes which produce a hefty “return on investment” (ROI) then one could reasonably suspect that Gates is positioning himself to profit on the $50 million he has invested in the Ebola cause which conveniently includes the CDC, the holder of the patent for Ebola.

The NIH presently holds all patents on Ebola vaccines. Crucell is much like Tekimara is to Monsanto in that they are fronting the science for the Ebola vaccine treatment patents.

What You Are Not Being Told: Fast facts From Crucell’s Website

  • Crucell is developing an Ebola vaccine in collaboration with the Vaccine Research Center (VRC) of the NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). It has been shown to completely protect monkeys against the virus with a single dose of the vaccine.
  • Under the terms of the agreement with VRC, Crucell has an option for exclusive worldwide commercialization rights to the Ebola vaccine.
  • Crucell’s Ebola vaccine entered Phase I clinical trials in Q3 2006.  Two groups of 16 volunteers were enrolled and vaccinated. The study showed safety and immunogenicity at the doses evaluated.
  • In October 2008, Crucell secured a NIAID/NIH award to advance the development of Ebola and Marburg vaccines, with the ultimate aim of developing a multivalent filovirus vaccine.
  • The award provides funding of up to $30 million, with additional options, worth a further $40 million.

Do you understand how much we are being lied to by the media on this topic? The work on an Ebola virus, sanctioned by the holder of the patent for the vaccine, the NIH), has been ongoing since 2004 with clinical trials in 2006. This explains why the CDC and the NIH are bringing Ebola patients into the country to treat. The moment that an Ebola patient crosses the U.S. border, they become the intellectual property of the CDC, NIH and Bill and Melinda Gates! How can we not believe that this is the Hegelian Dialectic run amok in a case of problem creation, solution to the problem and reaction to the problem?
The involvement of the USAMRIID is noteworthy because the Army has long been rumored to have created Ebola and, for purposes of experimentation, implanted the artificial virus in Zaire in 1977.

When an unsuspecting public is finally told of the existence of an Ebola vaccine, the Global Fund will be in charge of the distribution of the vaccine. Interestingly, Bill Gates has donated a total of $560 million dollars to the Global Fund. The Global Fund has also positioned themselves to be in charge of the distribution of the “newly developed”, and not yet announced vaccines for TB and HIV.  Since the goal is the vaccination of every man, woman and child on the planet with multiple vaccines, Gates’ $560 contribution to the Global Fund is chump change compared to the expected ROI. However, on deck is the Ebola virus.

The Political Direction of This Crisis

I mentioned in Part One of this series that my best military insider source has told me that the Department of Homeland Security has taken over the plans for mandatory Ebola vaccinations and the imposition of martial law. I also mentioned in Part One how very few soldiers and police officers will actually realize that they are actually enforcing martial law since they are merely reacting to a “health crisis”, albeit contrived, which will involve severe travel restrictions and the quarantining of segments of the population of the country. If one really wants to appreciate the depth of this conspiracy and the players involved, I would recommend visiting the Crucell website which is linked above.

The operational details of the mandatory vaccination program will be forthcoming in a future article.

Dave Hodges is the Editor and Host of The Common Sense Show..


More Vaccine Fraud: Another Fake Research Project for AIDS

Yet another vaccine researcher caught faking research; vaccine industry riddled with scientific fraud

Dec. 27, 2013

(NaturalNews) Yet another vaccine researcher has been caught faking research on a bogus AIDS vaccine, adding to the pattern of scientific fraud and criminality that characterizes the modern-day vaccine industry. Dr. Dong-Pyou Han from Iowa State University has resigned this week after admitting he spiked rabbit blood samples with healthy human blood to falsely show the presence of antibodies that would “prove” his AIDS vaccine worked.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) was so convinced by the fraud that they gave Han $19 million in research funding. The NIH later found the fraud after attempting to replicate Han’s work and figuring out something was terribly wrong with the research.

Newly-released federal documents reveal the stunning breadth of the fraud. As the findings state:

[The investigation] found that the Respondent falsified results in research to develop a vaccine against human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) by intentionally spiking samples of rabbit sera with antibodies to provide the desired results. The falsification made it appear that rabbits immunized with the gp41-54 moiety of the HIV gp41 glycoprotein induced antibodies capable of neutralizing a broad range of HIV-1 strains.

A summary of the fraud was also posted on, a site that frequently posts details of Big Pharma research fraud.

Merck vaccine scientists blew the whistle on similar fraud inside Big Pharma

Han’s $19 million vaccine research fraud eerily resembles the vaccine industry fraud exposed by former Merck virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski. In a little-known False Claims Act filing, these two scientists accused Merck of spiking mumps vaccine blood tests with animal antibodies in order to make the vaccines appear to be effective.

This fraud is what allowed Merck to falsely claim its mumps vaccine is 95% effective, say the scientist whistleblowers. In reality, the fraudulent Merck mumps vaccine actually contributed to the spread of mumps across America, they explain.

The spread of mumps, of course, results in more people buying mumps vaccines. This is how scientific fraud can produce enormous profits for vaccine companies. In many cases, vaccines actually spread the disease they claim to prevent.

The fact that an AIDS vaccine research has now been caught faking his bogus AIDS vaccine in precisely the same way Merck scientists say Merck faked their vaccine tests is yet another significant red flag that screams the obvious: the vaccine industry is riddled with scientific fraud.

No punishment for scientific fraud

For being caught stealing $19 million in taxpayer grant money and faking AIDS vaccine research, Dr. Dong-Pyou Han is merely barred from receiving government contract money for the next three years.

No jail time. No criminal charges. Not even an effort to force him to repay the funds he essentially stole.

Vaccine manufacturers, too, are routinely caught engaging in widespread bribery and committing multiple felony crimes. GlaxoSmithKline, for example, admitted to committing multiple felonies in a recent settlement with the Department of Justice.

Pfizer has also admitted to committing felony crimes, yet all these companies — GSK, Pfizer, Merck and more — remain free to do business with the very same governments they routinely defraud.

In the vaccine industry, fraud is part of the corporate culture, and it’s found in the fraudulent science, drug price fixing, widespread bribery of doctors, the faking of “scientific” evidence and the industry’s payoffs to the mainstream media in the form of advertising money.

Nearly all vaccines are founded on fraud

Now you understand why most vaccines don’t work. Flu shots don’t prevent the flu. Mumps and measles vaccines actually cause mumps and measles. Polio vaccines cause widespread paralysis and polio-like symptoms.

It is an historical fact — a fact the CDC has desperately tried to cover up — that 98 million Americans were injected with polio vaccines laced with cancer-causing viruses. The CDC recently scrubbed this historical information from its website in part of a revisionist history scheme.

It is also a fact that former Merck scientists Dr. Maurine Hilleman openly admitted — on tape! — that vaccines contained huge numbers of cancer-causing “stealth” viruses. Click here for the shocking transcript of the recording by Dr. Hilleman.

Here’s just a small snippet of that transcript:

Dr Maurice Hilleman: Well, that was at Merck. Yeah, I came to Merck. And uh, I was going to develop vaccines. And we had wild viruses in those days. You remember the wild monkey kidney viruses and so forth? I told Bill Mann, I said “look, I got a problem and I don’t know what the hell to do.” Bill Mann is a real bright guy. I said that these lousy monkeys are picking it up while being stored in the airports in transit, loading, off loading. He said, very simply, you go ahead and get your monkeys out of West Africa and get the African Green, bring them into Madrid unload them there, there is no other traffic there for animals, fly them into Philadelphia and pick them up. So we brought African Greens in and I didn’t know we were importing the AIDS virus at the time.

Miscellaneous background voices:…(laughter)… it was you who introduced the AIDS virus into the country. Now we know! (laughter) This is the real story! (laughter) What Merck won’t do to develop a vaccine! (laughter)

Even vaccines that might actually work are intentionally laced with aluminum, MSG, mercury and formaldehyde

Just to make sure vaccines are as destructive as possible, the vaccine industry makes sure that nearly all vaccines are laced with neurotoxic chemicals.

As Natural News has repeatedly reported, even the CDC continues to admit that vaccines are intentionally formulated with MSG, formaldehyde, mercury and aluminum.

In a few more years, the CDC will no doubt scrub that from its website too. Then it will pretend vaccines never contained mercury and that anyone who says vaccines once contained mercury is obviously crazy and not to be trusted.

When it comes to vaccines, you see, it’s all based on fraud. Logic and science are thrown out the window. Efficacy is utterly abandoned. Vaccines never need to prove they actually work. They are accepted as a matter of faith by the followers of the reductionist medical cult known as “western medicine.”

No one is allowed to question vaccines using any scientific questioning. No one is allowed to compare vaccinated children to unvaccinated children and compare the outcomes. Anyone who dares to conduct research on the dangers of vaccines is immediately and permanently denied funding by the NIH, a taxpayer-funded group that actually pays the vast majority of Big Pharma’s R&D costs.

When it comes to vaccines, you see, the entire medical system has gone stark raving mad… quite possibly because they’ve vaccinated each other and are quite literally suffering from chronic mercury poisoning (which damages the brain). The actions of this fake AIDS vaccine researcher aren’t even unusual: they’re par for the course. This is how nearly all vaccines get made! It’s the only way to make deadly, contaminated genetic cocktails appear to be effective when they really aren’t.

Take away the fraudulent research and the vaccine industry collapses overnight. If subjected to the scrutiny of rational science, vaccines would almost immediately be declared quackery.

Scientist Accidentally Discovers a Possible Culprit in the Growing Incidence of Cancer

This research applies to both pets and humans. When I read how pet food is processed, I  realized why so many bodies are getting sick these days—four legged and two legged.

Our pet oncologist had us switch our dog Morgan’s food to a home-made, slow-cooked stew with lots of other healthy things like raw hemp oil added and he has responded really well. No more cancer, and his hair is soft and thick again. I noticed how brittle, hard and thin his fur was while on chemo and for a few months after the end of the treatment protocol.

Occasionally we add a raw, frozen lamb patty from the feed store’s freezer to his food. He also gets the odd bite of a banana and berries, but we keep the sugary foods to a minimum. With a new diet, he has more energy and seems to be in perfect health for an 11-year-old.

If we all applied the principal of minimal processing to the human diet, we’d be a lot healthier collectively. Processed food leads to disease.

If you went to see a Naturopath or holistic doctor, they’d put you on a completely different diet than most people eat, but our family doctors don’t tell us that how we cook things affects them on a cellular and molecular level.

For example, something as benign as a potato, when baked or fried, becomes toxic. (Yes, sorry—that means French Fries) I rarely eat potatoes any more and have an extra helping of veggies instead. On a rare occasion I will have French Fries and really enjoy them.

Most people don’t know that olive oil, while one of the most beneficial foods we can consume in its raw, “extra-virgin” minimally-processed form, becomes toxic when exposed to high heat. I cook and bake with coconut oil. (it’s not always a suitable substitute in baking so find another oil to bake with) Here’s an article about safe oils to use for cooking.

And here’s the science behind cooking or processing food that led to this discovery about the increasing cancer in pets.

By Dr. Becker (associate of Dr. Joseph Mercola)

Today I have a very special guest talking with me via Skype, Dr. Robert Turesky. Dr. Turesky is a research scientist working for the Division of Environmental Health Sciences at the New York State Department of Health. Dr. Turesky and I met through a mutual acquaintance, Ted Kerasote, author of a wonderful new book about why dogs become ill and die younger than we believe they should.

Dr. Turesky’s Research on Carcinogens in Cooked Meat

Dr. Turesky wrote a very interesting article for the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry titled “Biomonitoring the Cooked Meat Carcinogen 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazol[4,5-b]pyridine in Canine Fur.” I asked Dr. Turesky to explain that very long title in layman’s terms.

He explained that 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazol[4,5-b]pyridine is a very long name for a carcinogen. The scientific name is often shortened to PhIP.  Dr. Turesky went on to say that he and his research partners are very interested in a class of chemicals called heterocyclic aromatic amines that form in well-done cooked meats, poultry and other protein-based products and their potential role in human cancer.

One of the goals of Dr. Turesky’s research is to develop methods to monitor the exposure to these chemicals in humans, and one way he is doing that is by looking at the bioaccumulation of some of the chemicals in hair. When we eat these foods they are absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract, pass through the liver, and after what’s called first-pass metabolism, a small portion of the chemicals wind up in the bloodstream.

From there they go through what is called systemic circulation. A tiny portion of the chemical ultimately reaches the hair follicle and becomes entrapped. As the hair shaft grows out, the chemical grows out with it, and this activity can be monitored.

First Experiment Involved Dr. Turesky’s Own Dogs

Dr. Turesky says he can take out the hair shaft, cut it, break it open, and do chemical analysis on it using mass spectrometry methods. He first decided to try this on his own dogs to see if he could detect exposure to a potential carcinogen in their fur. He wasn’t really expecting to get a positive result because his dogs don’t eat grilled steaks or hamburgers. So he was very surprised – stunned, in fact – to find that his dogs did indeed have the carcinogen in their fur.

After the experiment with his dogs, Dr. Turesky set up a collaboration with the University of Minnesota’s veterinary college to conduct a small pilot study of about 15 canines. Thirteen of those 15 dogs tested positive for the carcinogen in their fur.

I asked Dr. Turesky if he has done this type of research on mice or other animals. He replied that there’s been a lot of work done in evaluating these chemicals, including experimental animal model studies using mice and rats. Non-human primate studies have also been conducted at the National Institutes of Health.

Some of the chemicals have proved to be carcinogenic in these animal models. Based on the biochemistry in the research done with animals, Dr. Turesky and other researchers have tried to extrapolate to humans. He notes that a structurally related class of chemicals called aromatic amines was first shown to be a bladder carcinogen based on an animal model study of a dog.

Almost No Research Exists on Potential Carcinogens in Processed Pet Food

I was able to find only one other journal article related to pet foods and potential carcinogens. The study is titled “Mutagenic Activity and Heterocyclic Amine Carcinogens in Commercial Pet Foods,” published in July 2003 in the journal Mutation Research. What this study showed was that out of 25 commercial pet foods analyzed for mutagenic activity (the ability to induce mutations in cells), all but one had a positive response. Fourteen of the 25 foods were analyzed for heterocyclic amine mutagens or carcinogens, and all but one contained a carcinogen.

From these findings, it’s hypothesized there is a connection between dietary heterocyclic amines and cancer in animals consuming these foods.

So there are currently only two published studies, including Dr. Turesky’s, demonstrating that when animals eat cooked meat products processed at high temperatures, carcinogens could be present. I find it shocking that Dr. Turesky’s is only the second published article to discuss this, and wonder if it’s because the veterinary community and pet food industry just aren’t interested.

Dr. Turesky responded that he doesn’t know whether or not the pet food industry is interested, but that there is actually a lot of research underway on how this class of chemicals affects humans. He says there’s tremendous interest in the molecular epidemiology community on the role of well-done cooked meats and the risks for certain types of cancers.

Dr. Turesky went on to say the topic hasn’t been extensively studied in animal models such as the canine, but certainly he and his colleagues would love to be able to explore the potential role of heat-processed foods and canine cancer.

Most Pets Eat Nothing But a Processed Diet All Their Lives

Dogs eat these types of foods consistently, whereas most humans have very diverse diets. So a dog’s level of intake and exposure may be much higher than a human’s and the risk much greater as a result. Dr. Turesky believes more research should be done on these chemicals and heat-processed pet foods.

I certainly agree. The fact is, very few pets are fed fresh or unprocessed foods. Most dogs and cats are fed extruded foods. “Extruded” means the batter or ingredient mix is forced through a dye and cooked at very high temperatures. This not only changes the molecular activity of the food, but according to Dr. Turesky’s research, it could also potentially contribute to a heavier carcinogenic load.

I asked Dr. Turesky if when he tested his own dogs he was able to discern the level of carcinogenic material in the fur. He explained there are different levels of accumulation of the carcinogen in fur or human hair. One major factor is pigmentation. In his article he notes that one of the dogs analyzed was Moses, his Bernese mountain dog. Moses has beautiful black hair over his back and hindquarters, and a white mane. When his coat was analyzed, it turn out that the black fur contained all the PhIP carcinogen, while the white fur contained none.

Dr. Turesky believes the reason behind this is that pigments in fur such as melanin or derivatives of melanin have a very high affinity for this carcinogen, so it accumulates in animals with dark fur more so than in animals with light colored coats.

Another factor is level of exposure, which is dependent on the diet of the individual. Other influences can include enzymes and metabolic factors involved in processing the carcinogens.

Dry Pet Food and Poultry-Based Proteins Are a Special Problem

I asked Dr. Turesky if in his small 15-dog study he fed dry food diets. I wanted to know if there were differences between dogs fed canned food or unprocessed food – for example freeze-dried raw — and dogs fed kibble. He explained that as far as he remembered all the dogs but one were fed dry food. And he believes the dog that was not fed kibble had one of the lowest levels – if not the lowest level – of carcinogen in his fur.

Next I wanted to know if Dr. Turesky made any changes to his own dogs’ diets after finding carcinogens in their fur. He replied that he has indeed changed their food. Their previous diet was built around poultry-based protein. As it turns out, under certain cooking conditions the highest levels of PhIP are produced in poultry. The levels can vary tremendously depending on how high the cooking temperature or duration is.

Dr. Turesky decided he didn’t want his pets on a cooked, poultry-based diet. So he switched them to fish – salmon and herring. He hasn’t yet re-analyzed his dogs’ fur because it takes some time before the fur is replaced. He plans to retest in a few months to see if there’s a decrease in levels of PhIP in their fur.

I asked him if he’s still feeding kibble and he is, because as we all know, it’s a challenge switching to fresh or raw foods, in part because of the convenience of kibble.

I’ll be interested to see if the switch in protein from chicken to fish has any impact on the levels of carcinogen in his dogs’ fur, because no matter the protein source in kibbled pet food, it’s all extruded at extremely high temperatures.

High Heat and Longer Cook Times Increase Levels of Potential Carcinogens

I asked Dr. Turesky to talk about differences between meats processed at 200°F versus 400°F – is there a certain temperature at which these carcinogenic materials are more prevalent? Dr. Turesky responded that he can’t answer with regard to dog food, but in the case of human foods, generally speaking, the higher the temperature and the longer the cooking duration, the higher the levels of PhIP and other heterocyclic amines present in cooked meat.

For example, if you roast meats rather than fry or broil them (roasting is done at lower temperatures), you will not produce appreciable amounts of these carcinogens. But when you raise the temperature above about 350°F, these chemicals will be produced at higher levels. They form at the surface of the meat that is in contact with the heating element, which is the location of the highest temperature. According to Dr. Turesky, generally these carcinogens are produced on the external surfaces of cooked meats like hamburgers or the skin or surface of poultry rather than in the center of the meat.

I explained to Dr. Turesky that most of the ingredients in kibbled pet foods have been processed twice. They’re processed first to produce meat meal, and then they go through a second cooking process. So another question I have is, if there are multiple processing procedures performed at high temperatures, does it create risk for even greater carcinogenic exposure?

Will There Be Future Studies on Carcinogens in Processed Pet Food?

I told Dr. Turesky I could provide him with potential research study ideas involving pets, because the fact is he’s the only person I’m aware of who’s conducting this type of research. And while his focus isn’t on the pet food industry, because he has conducted research on dogs, it seems to make sense that we take a minute to reflect on the potential ramifications of feeding highly processed foods to pets.

Next I asked Dr. Turesky what he thought about Ted Kerasote’s new book, Pukka’s Promise: The Quest for Longer-Lived Dogs. He explained he became aware of the book because his wife, who is studying to become a dog trainer, was reading it. She gave it to him to read, and he was particularly interested in the chapters about nutrition and canine health. Dr. Turesky contacted Ted immediately to make him aware of his recent study on PhIP and dog fur. They discussed the study and ultimately Ted introduced the two of us, and we were able to set up this interview.

Dr. Turesky re-emphasized that the levels of carcinogens in the canine diet – as in the human diet – are low, but unlike humans, many pets are consuming processed foods day in and day out for a lifetime. In fact, they’re exposed to it in utero. They’re exposed to these chemicals from before birth for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. So he is very interested in the role these chemicals play in disease risk in canines.

Dr. Turesky is hoping to be able to do further research on this very important topic in not only human health, but canine health as well. I asked him if he has any research projects planned involving dogs, and he replied that he’s had some discussions with pet food companies as well as organizations that sponsor pet health research. He says funding is very hard to get in the current economy, but he’s hopeful he’ll be able to continue to pursue research in this area.

That’s wonderful news, because Dr. Turesky’s research has been enlightening for me, and it will be for others as well.

Raw vs. Processed Pet Food Diets

I also want to make the point that dogs and cats are carnivores (dogs are scavenging carnivores and cats are obligate carnivores). Raw meat, which is the food nature intended canines and felines to consume, does not contain heterocyclic amines. It’s when meat is processed that the risk of carcinogens becomes a possibility.

So essentially, raw meat, in and of itself, is beautiful. It seems to me, although the research is not there, that freeze-dried or air-dried meats, because they’re not heated at high temperatures, would be safe.

Dr. Turesky responded that with respect to the class of chemicals he is researching, that is true. He makes the point that while he’s not a microbiologist, there are other health issues with respect to microbes in raw meat that should be considered. But with respect to heat-processed carcinogens — not only heterocyclic amines but also other potentially carcinogenic chemicals produced at high temperatures — clearly they are not present in uncooked meat.

I’d like to thank Dr. Robert Turesky for spending a few minutes chatting with me today about his important discovery of carcinogens in canine fur. I look forward to following his future research.