Humor :-)
I can think of easier ways to tenderise meat! I hope it was eaten rather than binned.
Like the Alfred Hitchcock Presents where the lady kills her husband with a frozen leg of lamb and then serves it to the police officers as they are discussing that the murder weapon must have been a blunt object such as a bat?
I loved that episode. That was such an awesome series.
Yea, I’m that old.
And they more than likely did it to destroy the Native American’s way of life: kill off their food supply.
Edit: Sorry, didn’t realized the post to which I was replying was so far back in the thread. Geesh, that’s my second time today.
This software is strange this way. Normally, you see a thread. Here it adds it to the end.
I think the killing of the buffalo was monetary mainly, they sold the pelts. The railroad allowed them to ship the pelts. A case of technology being bad, perhaps. The end result was that the Comanches, who lived primarily off the buffalo, could no longer survive. Without their food source, they surrendered.
It was a fascinating book.
It was mainly a case, as mentioned, to get the Native Americans under submission:
Manifest Destiny is a hell of a drug.
I can’t get over this accusation by the AHPRA against Gary Fettke. While it is outrageous, I find it disturbingly humorous.
It also informed Fettke that it was investigating him for “inappropriately reversing (a patient’s) type 2 diabetes” – after another DAA dietitian’s complaint.
He was exonerated in September 2018 and received a full apology.
Awesome! Thank you for letting me know. It’s been on my todo list to see what eventually become of Gary Fettke.
Fortunately, that’s old news. A few months ago, word came down that, not only were they lifting all the restrictions on him, they were formally apologizing. Good guys do win, sometimes!
It never should have happened, but at least there was a happy ending for Gary and Belinda.
Un [spoiler]fucking[/spoiler] believable
From the article:
"AHPRA has told Fettke: The fundamental fact is that you are not suitably trained or educated as a medical practitioner to be providing advice or recommendations on this topic."
So if he advised his patients to stop smoking would he be investigated? He is not trained on the risks of lung cancer so what is the difference?