Don’t believe the feds’ fearmongering about long COVID

 CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen is spreading misinformation telling Americans the new updated COVID vaccine prevents long COVID.

What she doesn’t say is Pfizer’s new COVID vaccine was Food and Drug Administration-approved two weeks ago based on data from 10 mice, and there is absolutely no evidence it reduces long-COVID risk.

In fact, the new vaccine lacks any clinical-outcomes data whatsoever. 

The nation’s chief drug regulator, FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf, has made similar claims about vaccines reducing long COVID risk despite zero scientific data to support the claim.

If Pfizer made such a statement, it would normally be fined by the FDA for making a marketing claim beyond its approved indication.

But not this FDA. (In the event of a government shutdown, FDA says it will retain 998 employees to work on the COVID response, but it’s unclear what these people are doing.)

It’s amazing public-health officials are still citing flawed studies to stir up fear, sternly warning all Americans that 20% of COVID infections can result in long COVID, as if it’s a lightning strike that indiscriminately disables one in five people.

It’s not. 

A new study published Monday in the medical journal BMJ found that long COVID is virtually indistinguishable from long-haul symptoms after other infections. In other words, the authors suggest long COVID may not be unique from any other respiratory-illness recovery.

What’s clear is public-health officials have massively exaggerated long COVID to scare low-risk Americans, including healthy children.

Long COVID was first noticed in 2020 as neurological complaints that lingered for months after infection and nearly always self-resolved. But since then, doctors have witnessed the incidence of long COVID decreasing with each new variant. Now studies have discovered long-haul symptoms after COVID are the same as long-haul symptoms after any infection.

One study found the only medical factor that predicted long COVID was pre-existing anxiety, which was associated with a 2.8-times increased risk of developing long COVID.

The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, ran an exhaustive battery of tests on 48 people with long COVID and 50 people without long COVID. It found no blood test or physiologic abnormalities in people with long COVID.

In another study of well-being after different infections published 10 months ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association, COVID patients actually did better than non-COVID patients.

While there are certainly unique hallmark sequela of COVID like loss of smell (most noted with the original Wuhan variant), new research is showing that any respiratory infection, like flu and respiratory-syncytial virus, can similarly knock you down for a while.

Mild fatigue or weakness weeks after being sick, inactive and not eating well can be normal.

Diagnosing many of these cases as long COVID represents the medicalization of ordinary life.

At the same time, our government is pouring more than a billion dollars into the long-COVID testing-industrial complex.

The Biden administration is absolutely fixated on it, spending more than $1.2 billion on the condition.

To date, the return on investment has been nothing for the patients with long COVID. Most of the money has gone to MRI centers, lab testing companies and hospitals that set up long-COVID clinics.

In talking to staff at some of these clinics, it’s unclear to me what they are actually offering to people beyond a myriad of cumbersome and expensive tests.

What’s remarkable about the National Institutes of Health’s intense dedication to studying long COVID is its simultaneous lack of interest in vaccine-induced myocarditis, recently shown to result in long-term scar tissue in some people.

An epidemiological analysis several national colleagues and I published last year found that routine booster vaccines for all college students results in a net public-health harm, due to myocarditis.

But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week continued to incorrectly present the risks of myocarditis and downplayed them, citing its own flawed studies.

NIH and CDC also haven’t had any interest in funding research on natural immunity, boosters in children or even vitamin D, which was discovered earlier this year to lower COVID mortality — a study that tragically came two years too late.

Probably because it doesn’t fit the White House narrative.

Choosing to selectively dedicate research dollars to magnify COVID complications while not formally studying vaccine complications represents the modern-day politicization and weaponization of scientific study itself.

A study Lancet Regional Health published this year looked for long COVID in 5,086 children aged 11 to 17 and found COVID-positive and -negative children did the same.

“Prevalence patterns of poor well-being, fatigue and Long COVID were broadly similar,” the authors noted. Take-home message — long COVID is not the mass disabling complication that has permanently damaged a generation of children (social isolation and generational learning loss are).

The CDC and NIH’s constant fearmongering around long COVID has also been used to support COVID restrictions. Last November, the Biden administration issued a report on long COVID stating that mask mandates and vaccination “protect people from infection or reinfection and possible Long COVID” despite zero scientific evidence to support the claim.

Given the broad reach of population immunity to COVID today and the less severe nature of the illness, long COVID is less common and less severe than it was in the past.

The CDC has removed the section disclosing real-time vaccination rates with the new vaccine on its website as it has always done in the past. It probably knows no one trusts it and hardly anyone is going to follow its opinion-based recommendations that lack any scientific support.

In my experience of treating thousands of patients over two decades, people can be very forgiving if you are honest with them.

If public-health officials want to regain the public trust, they should show more humility and less absolutism when it comes to the facts around long COVID.

Marty Makary, MD, MPH, is a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and author of “The Price We Pay.”

https://nypost.com/2023/09/27/dont-believe-the-feds-fearmongering-about-long-covid/

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will actually hurt women in the workplace

Having a baby? There’s a new law meant for you: the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

America needs this law, say activists, because “pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage and physically demanding jobs, have been forced to choose between their health and a paycheck.”

Vanessa Brown Calder, director of family policy at the Cato Institute, explains why this new law will make life worse for many women.

“These policies are motivated by good intentions,” Calder tells me. “But that doesn’t mean that the consequences of these policies will turn out well.”

Calder, who is pregnant, thinks the law will lead to fewer women being hired in the first place.

The Americans with Disabilities Act is a good example of that.

Both Democrats and Republicans applauded when President George H.W. Bush signed it. Everyone loves the ADA.

But the law hurt disabled people who want to work.

Before it passed, more disabled people got jobs, year after year. When it passed, almost 30% were in the workforce. But after the ADA passed, employment of disabled workers dropped by half!

It happened because of the job “protection.”

Employers fear disability lawsuits. They’re afraid that if a disabled person doesn’t work out, they’ll never be able to fire them.

Now the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will make hiring young women risky.

“You may be a lawsuit bomb,” I say to Calder, who nods and says: “It does make women more risky and more costly to hire. Employers don’t know exactly what accommodation the woman might ask for.”

It’s safer for the employer to say, “I’m just not going to hire you. There’s no way for the government to know why I didn’t hire.”

“Companies get good at working their way around these regulations,” Calder responds.

But government officials assume their laws will do what they’re supposed to do. They also are eager to please special-interest groups.

The chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission went before cameras to brag that this law has support from “businesses, faith, health, women’s and civil-rights organizations!”

So what?

“Activists think of the short-term effects of the law,” says Calder. “It’s pretty easy to get behind a superficial reading of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and think that it could be a good idea.”

“The momentum is always for more rules,” I say.

“Oftentimes there’s guidance issued many years after the fact,” says Calder. “This is probably just the beginning.”

The growing number of rules kills jobs in several ways.

Since the rule applies to companies with 15 or more employees, it’s an incentive for companies with 14 employees to stay small.

“You get penalized as you grow,” says Calder.

“Without a law like this, who would hire someone like you?” I ask. “You might have more medical problems. You’re going to leave, for weeks at least.”

“Pregnant workers bring a lot to the table,” she responds. “Many employers see that. But when you create a one-size-fits-all policy like this, it starts to raise many employers’ concerns.”

I ask: “The Cato Institute should have the right to fire you because you got pregnant?”

“I think they should,” responds Calder. “Because I want people like me to be able to be hired in the first place.”

Exactly.

I’m a stutterer. I didn’t have my stuttering under control when I applied for my first job.

Had the ADA existed then, I could have demanded special accommodation.

“Disability lawyers” would have been ready to protect my “rights.”

No TV station would have risked hiring me! I would have never gotten a chance.

Now the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will kill opportunities for women.

John Stossel is the author of “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.”

https://nypost.com/2023/09/27/pregnant-workers-fairness-act-will-actually-hurt-women-in-the-workplace/

Pro-Joe Biden bias is algorithm-deep: Google’s search-&-destroy agenda

 Forget stolen ballots or Krakens that never arrive. If anything changed the outcome of the 2020 election, it was Big Tech interference — and there’s nothing to say it won’t happen again in 2024.

Close to home, we saw the suppression of The Post’s October 2020 story on Hunter Biden’s laptop by Twitter and Facebook, who were manipulated by embedded FBI operatives, and kept Biden voters in the dark about the nature of the man they were supporting.

In the landmark free speech case, Missouri v. Biden, we saw how the federal government secretly coerced social media to censor speech that dissents from official thinking on everything from the origins of COVID-19, climate change and the efficacy of masks, to gender identity and the war in Ukraine. 

‘Mind control machine’

Then there is the $1 trillion multinational tech monopoly Google, which has been described as the ultimate “mind control machine.” 

Google is supposed to be a neutral platform and enjoys all the legal protections of a public utility, much like the pipes delivering water to our homes. 

Instead, its algorithms secretly manipulate search rankings to control opinions, whether it’s what you buy or what you know about a politician.

It’s hard to pin down Google’s bias because search results are ephemeral, but MRC Free Speech America gave it a shot this week, by recording Google search results for “Republican presidential campaign websites” on the eve of Wednesday night’s Republican primary debate.

Lo and behold, only two candidates popped up on the first, crucial, page of search results Monday, and only one was a Republican: Will Hurd, a little known never-Trumper from Texas, who doesn’t even have enough support to make it onto the debate stage. 

There was no sign of Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Mike Pence, Tim Scott or Chris Christie. 

But there was one other candidate who showed up on page one of the Republican search results: fringe Democrat Marianne Williamson, whose RealClearPolitics average doesn’t even reach 5%. Maybe that’s Google’s idea of “balance.” 

It was a different story when the MRC searched for “Democrat presidential campaign websites.” 

Here, the results were logical, with front-runner Joe Biden’s campaign website topping Google’s first search page.

Williamson scored another appearance, with her website slotting into number two behind Biden. But Biden’s most dangerous challenger, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was nowhere to be seen on the first page, despite the fact his RealClearPolitics average is 15%, and his support is as high as 25% among Democrats, according to the latest Rasmussen poll. 

“The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton” did appear on Google’s first page, in 10th place, with “Elizabeth Warren for Senate” in 14th. Ironically, just above Warren, was a link to a report on an Iranian website: ”Google Hiding Websites of Trump, Other Biden challengers.”

The MRC points out that fewer than 1% of users ever click past the first page of search results. If you are not on the first page, you basically don’t exist in Google’s world.

Their analysis is just a snapshot of a moment, although they also tried the experiment on Sept. 20 with similar results.

But for real science, research psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein, a California Democrat with a Harvard Ph.D., has preserved a  database of 42 million ephemeral search results gathered from 8,000 registered voters, who gave him permission to record their every Google interaction.

He also finds that Google elevates liberal views and stifles dissenters, in a way which will have an impact on undecided voters in the 2024 election. 

It’s not hard to see who Google favors for president in 2024: the same guy they rooted for in 2020, Biden. 

Despite the censorship outrages revealed in Missouri v. Biden, the “disinformation” industry is doubling down, and the constellation of NGOs and universities which act as censorship proxies to allow the federal government to skirt the First Amendment, are gearing up to interfere in another election. 

They get away with it because, as a RealClearPolitics poll found this week, nearly half of Democrats (47%) support censorship, and think speech should be legal “only under certain ­circumstances.” 

One-third of Democrats (34%) think Americans have “too much freedom,” and 75% think government has a responsibility to censor “hateful” social media posts. A majority of Democrats (52%) approves of the government censoring social media posts “under the rubric of protecting national security.”

If the poll is even half accurate, these are terrifying results, and give Biden censors the moral mandate to do it again in 2024. 

White House attack dog 

Proof comes in the form of Rob Flaherty, exposed in Missouri v. Biden as the Biden White House’s biggest bully. Federal Judge Terry Doughty singled out the White House director of digital strategy as a serial First Amendment transgressor. 

He was a “key player in the Biden White House’s censorship enterprise,” according to Sen. Eric Schmitt, who, as Missouri attorney general, launched the free-speech lawsuit which is now headed to the Supreme Court.

Schmitt compiled a list of Censor Boy’s greatest hits on a recent Twitter thread, which included Flaherty accusing Facebook of “political violence” for failing to censor speech to his liking. 

“Are you guys f–king serious?” he wrote in one email to Meta executives. “I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.”

 Flaherty even demanded that private conversations between WhatsApp users about the COVID vaccine be censored. 

The White House should have fired Flaherty and pretended he had gone rogue. 

Instead, Joe Biden hired him for his 2024 campaign and praised him as someone who “operated with unparalleled creativity, innovative spirit and a bias toward action.”

Shameless. But who’s going to stop them?

https://nypost.com/2023/09/27/pro-joe-bias-is-algorithm-deep-googles-search-amp-destroy-agenda/

Musk: COVID Shot "Almost Sent Me To Hospital", Says He'd Go To Prison Before Firing Workers For Refusing

 by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Elon Musk on Tuesday revealed that he took multiple COVID-19 vaccines so that he could travel during the period of intense pandemic restrictions and that after taking his third shot, he nearly ended up hospitalized.

Mr. Musk made the remarks in a post on X that was part of a thread he started as a response to a warning by European Union (EU) officials that X has fallen squarely into the bloc's censorship crosshairs for being found to be the top purveyor of so-called misinformation and disinformation.

"Have you heard dis information?" Mr. Musk captioned his original post, in a play on words that accompanied a video compilation of COVID-19 vaccine news headlines that began with bold initial claims early in the pandemic that the vaccines are "100 percent effective" before steadily dropping lower and lower.

"The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was only 47% effective after 5 months?" reads one of the later headlines, followed by even more negative headlines like "Sweden, Denmark Halt Moderna's Covid Shot for Younger People" and, finally, ones highlighting vaccine-maker profitability amid calls for seemingly endless boosters.

'Messed Up'

Mr. Musk's meme on waning vaccine efficacy drew a number of comments, including one by political journalist Ed Krassenstein, who raised objections.

"I think efficacy changes are a result of new strains and the vaccine immunity wearing off. It’s stupid anyone ever claimed it was 100% effective. No vaccine is 100% full-proof," he wrote.

Mr. Musk replied by saying that he's not against vaccines in principle, but that he opposes mandates forcing people to get the shot.

"My concern was more the outrageous demand that people *must* take the vaccine and multiple boosters to do anything at all. That was messed up," Mr. Musk wrote.

He added that, until the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated President Joe Biden's executive order imposing a vaccine-or-test mandate for large companies, his company SpaceX "and many other other companies would have been forced to fire anyone who refused to get vaccinated!"

"We would not have done so. I would rather go to prison than fire good people who didn’t want to be jabbed," Mr. Musk continued.

Mr. Musk also revealed that he got COVID-19 and experienced "mild cold symptoms" but took vaccines repeatedly for travel.

"The third shot almost sent me to hospital," Mr. Musk said.

"How many other people out there have symptoms that are actually from the vaccine or Covid treatment, rather than Covid itself?" he asked.

There's a growing body of data suggesting that COVID-19 vaccine side effects are more serious than previously claimed.

Mr. Musk qualified his remarks by saying he's not against vaccines as a matter of principle.

"It’s not like I don’t believe in vaccines—I do. However, the cure cannot be potentially worse than the disease," he said.

"Public debate over efficacy should not be shut down," Mr. Musk continued.

Mr. Musk added that he believes "there is also great potential for curing many diseases using synthetic mRNA, so let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water."

The X chief's post garnered a series of reactions, including a humorous one by the Joe Biden Press Release (Parody) account, which features a photo of a smiling President Joe Biden saying: "I promise you'll be safe after the 42nd booster."

"Just be sure to triple mask, Elon," the account added.

Meanwhile, in Brussels, EU officials took Mr. Musk and X into their censorship crosshairs.

'We Will Be Watching'

A senior European Union official on Sept. 26 accused X of being the top purveyor of disinformation and issued a veiled threat, prompting Mr. Musk to push back by posting the meme highlighting waning vaccine effectiveness and sparking online debate.

At a press conference on Tuesday, the EU’s top commissar on disinformation—European Commission (EC) Vice President Vera Jourova—singled out X as being “the platform with the largest ratio of mis- or disinformation posts.”

Unlike competitors like Facebook and Google, Mr. Musk’s X has refused to participate in the European Union’s (EU) voluntary anti-disinformation effort called the 2022 Code of Practice on Disinformation.

While the code is supposedly nonbinding, companies that take part can ease some of their compliance requirements under the EU’s Digital Services Act, which kicked in at the end of August and is mandatory for the biggest tech platforms with over 45 million users in the EU—including X.

After earlier reprimanding Mr. Musk and X for lacking the appetite to self-censor and not taking the EU’s fight against “disinformation” seriously, the EU ramped up its rhetoric on Sept. 26, the day that social media companies like Facebook and Google—but not X—published reports on compliance with the bloc’s new “disinformation” code.

"Mr. Musk knows that he is not off the hook by leaving the code of practice because now we have the Digital Services Act fully enforced," Ms. Jourova said. "So my message for Twitter is you have to comply with the hard law and we will be watching what you are doing."

While X quite the voluntary code in May, it counts as a "very large online platform" under the mandatory Digital Services Act (DSA) and so is subject to stricter content rules.

Ms. Jourova reminded Mr. Musk of the fact that the EU has enforcement tools to pressure the platform into compliance with its content laws.

She made the remarks while providing an update on the 27-nation EU's 2022 Code of Practice on Disinformation, which companies like Google, TikTok, and Facebook parent Meta signed up for—but which Mr. Musk's X has snubbed.

Some examples from the reports include Google indicating that it prevented around $33 million in advertising dollars from going to "disinformation actors" and Meta slapped over 40 million pieces of content with factchecking labels.

The new Digital Services Act rules apply to 19 "very large" digital platforms (such as social media networks, websites, and online retailers) with at least 45 million active users in the EU.

The 19 platforms that fall under the umbrella of the new rules are: Alibaba AliExpress, Amazon Store, Apple AppStore, Bing, Booking.com, Facebook, Instagram, Google Maps, Google Play, Google Search, Google Shopping, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Snapchat, TikTok, X, Wikipedia, YouTube, and Zalando.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/musk-says-covid-shot-almost-sent-me-hospital-says-hed-go-prison-firing-workers-refusing

FDA Displeased With Companies Purposely Adding Sesame to More Foods

 Encouraging food manufacturers to keep options for allergic consumers on the shelf, the FDA released updated draft guidance

opens in a new tab or window for reducing risks of cross-contamination and inaccurate labeling of sesame and other food allergens.

The new document comes in response to the increasingly limited supply of sesame-free options, an unintended effect of the Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research (FASTER) Act -- which declared sesame as the ninth major food allergen and aimed to make it easier for consumers to identify foods with or without the allergen.

But rather than taking measures to prevent cross-contamination risks, some manufacturers have taken the easy route to satisfy the law and opted to intentionally add sesame to products that previously did not contain sesame and label them as such.

"This keeps manufacturers in compliance with the law for disclosing the presence of a major food allergen. However, it also limits options for consumers who are allergic to sesame, a result the FDA does not support," the agency wrote in a statement.

FASTER, which took effect on January 1 of this year, dictates that if an allergen is found in a food item, it must be clearly indicated on the item's label. Food manufacturers also need to implement methods to either limit or prevent cross-contamination risks with the allergen in their facilities.

"We recognize there are challenges with ensuring products are free of allergens, and we are engaging with stakeholders on this issue," said FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, in a press release. "The agency is interested in finding solutions, within our authorities, that meet the needs of consumers with food allergies."

Sesame is currently the ninth most prevalent food allergyopens in a new tab or window in both adults and children throughout the U.S. Sesame is found in a wide arrayopens in a new tab or window of food products, including baked goods, seasonings, oils, snacks, processed meat, and cereals, among many others. It can also be found in medications, cosmetics and fragrances, supplements, and even pet food.

The FDA's updated recommendations add two new chapters to its guidance first issued in 2016, Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Foodopens in a new tab or window.

Chapter 11 addresses the establishment and implementation of food allergen programs for food manufacturers, providing examples on how to limit and prevent potential cross-contamination. It is meant as a companion chapter to the FDA's Draft Compliance Policy Guide on Major Food Allergen Labeling and Cross-Contactopens in a new tab or window. It also provides instruction on allergen monitoring and verification to ensure correct labelling practices, which the agency cites as its top source of food allergen recalls. The chapter also includes guidance for situations in which cross-contamination cannot be avoided.

Chapter 16, on acidified foods, addresses food manufacturers that specifically produce, process, or pack products with a pH of 4.6 or below, including some beans, processed sauces, cabbages, and cucumbers. The chapter provides examples of how existing practices to comply with acidified foods regulation can meet requirements under the preventive controls for human foods rule.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/allergyimmunology/allergy/106521

Crypto exchange Kraken to offer US-listed stocks' trading

 Crypto exchange Kraken is planning to offer trading in U.S.-listed stocks and exchange-traded funds, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday, citing a person familiar with the matter.

Kraken will initially offer trading in the United States and the United Kingdom through a service built by a new division called Kraken Securities, and is targeting to launch the service in 2024, the report said.

It already holds the required regulatory permits in the United Kingdom and has applied with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for a broker-dealer license in the United States, the report added.

"While we can't comment on rumors or speculation, we're looking to broaden and enhance our offering so clients continue to have secure and seamless access to Kraken's full product suite," a company spokesperson told Reuters.

Crypto firms are trying to expand their services after a devastating last year for the sector. Several of them are trying to get approval from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for a spot bitcoin exchange-traded fund.

https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Crypto-exchange-Kraken-to-offer-US-listed-stocks-trading-Bloomberg-News--44933526/

Meat From Animals Vaccinated With mRNA Vaccines May Soon Make Its Way Into The US Food Supply

 by Megan Redshaw via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Shrimp have become the latest addition to a growing list of food sources targeted by mRNA gene therapy technology. An Israeli company seeking to bring mRNA vaccines to shrimp farming has raised $8.25 million from a group of venture capitalists to promote and improve animal health in marine species through its orally administered RNA-particle platform.

ViAqua, a biotechnology company, created an RNA-based vaccine product that uses ribonucleic acid interference (RNAi) to manipulate gene expression in shrimp. RNAi is a biological process where RNA molecules are used to inhibit gene expression or translation by neutralizing targeted mRNA molecules.

The vaccine comes in the form of a coated feed supplement designed to enhance resistance to white spot syndrome virus (WSSV)—a viral infection that causes an annual loss of about $3 billion and a 15 percent reduction in global shrimp production. ViAqua suggests RNA molecules can inhibit the expression of genes that cause disease with every meal containing its coated product.

According to a 2022 proof-of-concept study, the nanovaccine was roughly 80 percent effective in a lethal WSSV challenge model and exhibited excellent in vivo safety profiles. Yet the risks of altering gene expression in shrimp and the effects of consuming vaccinated shrimp are unknown.

"Oral delivery is the holy grail of aquaculture health development due to both the impossibility of vaccinating individual shrimp and its ability to substantially bring down the operational costs of disease management while improving outcomes," said Shai Ufaz, CEO of ViAqua in a press release. "We are excited to bring this technology to market to address the need for affordable disease solutions in aquaculture."

ViAqua plans to begin production in India in 2024 and believes its technology has numerous applications in aquaculture and beyond, according to their press release.

mRNA Vaccines Are Already Used in Pigs

The aquaculture industry is not the only market being targeted with mRNA vaccines. Genvax Technologies, a startup creating mRNA vaccines for animals, in 2022 secured $6.5 million in funding to develop a self-amplifying mRNA (saRNA) platform that allows for rapid development of a herd or flock-specific vaccine matched 100 percent to the circulating variant at the root of a disease outbreak.

Genvax’s technology involves inserting a specific transgene or “gene of interest” matched to the variant strain into the platform. The saRNA then generates an antibody response without requiring the whole pathogen to be matched to the circulating strain.

In April 2022, Genvax was awarded a $145,000 grant by the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research to develop an saRNA vaccine for African swine flu (ASF) in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. ASF is a highly contagious virus with a 100 percent swine mortality rate but has never occurred in the United States.

According to a 2022 paper published in eClinicalMedicine, saRNA technology uses lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to encapsulate saRNA. When injected as a vaccine, the LNP encapsulation facilitates “endosomal uptake and release into the cytoplasm of target cells in vivo.” This novel technology has “significant and previously untested potential” to be used in drugs and vaccines.

Advertisement - Story continues below

Genvax isn’t the first company to harness mRNA technology in pigs. Merck, in 2018, introduced SEQUIVITY, a “revolutionary swine vaccine platform” that uses RNA particle technology to create “customized prescription vaccines against strains of influenza A virus in swine, porcine circovirus (PCV), rotavirus and beyond.”

SEQUIVITY uses electronic gene sequencing to generate RNA particles that, when injected into an animal, provide instructions to immune cells to translate the sequence into proteins that act as antigens, similar to how the COVID-19 vaccine causes the body to generate spike proteins. The idea is that the animal’s immune system, when challenged with the actual live pathogen, will recognize the antigen and elicit an immune response.

According to Merck, their RNA participle technology allows for the development of a “safe and flexible” custom swine flu vaccine in only eight to 12 weeks compared to traditional vaccines that take years to develop.

Although it is claimed vaccines utilizing RNA technology are safe and effective, studies appear to be scarce with little to no research to determine what effects consuming pork from vaccinated pigs may have on the human body.

mRNA Vaccines in Cattle Raise Concerns Among Producers

According to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, mRNA vaccines are currently not licensed for use in U.S. beef cattle. The vaccines are being developed to treat and prevent diseases in cattle, whose meat could make its way to the dinner table.

Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA), a national, non-profit organization with more than 5,000 members dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry, has raised concerns over using mRNA vaccines in cattle.

In April 2023, R-CALF USA met with medical doctors and a molecular biologist regarding the status of mRNA injections in the global protein supply chain. Veterinarian Max Thornsberry reported that some researchers have found that mRNA and its coded virus could pass to humans who have consumed dairy or meat products from an mRNA-injected animal.

Mr. Thornsberry raised concerns about the full impact and unknown long-term effects of consuming meat from animals injected with mRNA vaccines and called for more extensive research. Although the United States has not yet approved an mRNA vaccine for use in cattle, the country is increasing imports of beef from other countries that either vaccinate cattle with mRNA vaccines or plan to.

“This points to the urgent need for MCOOL (mandatory country of origin labeling),” Mr. Thonsberry said. “Consumers deserve the right to choose whether to consume beef from a country where mRNA injections are being given to cattle, and the only way they can have that choice is if Congress passes MCOOL for beef.”

R-CALF USA plans to develop a policy direction for the organization at an upcoming meeting, but “strongly reinforces the need for mandatory country of origin labeling” of beef immediately so that American consumers will know if the beef they are buying comes from a country that is using the controversial mRNA technology in their cattle.

In an op-ed posted on its website, R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard said the organization has been attacked for its position and accused by pharmaceutical-backed publications of "fearmongering and misinformation."

“Iowa State University researchers submitted a multi-year research project to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to test a cattle mRNA vaccine system for bovine respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection,” Mr. Bullard said.

“According to the submission, researchers planned to test the mRNA on cattle during the second year of the project with a completion date of 2026. It would be naïve not to assume that such a research project signals an effort to obtain approval for mRNA injections in U.S. cattle,” he added.

Mr. Bullard encouraged others not to “simply trust the pharmaceutical companies and the government” and says his organization “intends to learn the truth by continuing to disclose differing scientific findings, seeking more research into the long-term effects of mRNA injections for cattle, and demanding more transparency from pharmaceutical companies and the government."

Meanwhile, the organization has stated it believes people have a right to know whether the meat they consume has come from animals injected with mRNA technology.

Several states have already drafted or proposed legislation seeking to require the labeling of products derived from animals administered mRNA vaccines, including Tennessee, Idaho, Arizona, Texas, and Missouri.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/meat-animals-vaccinated-mrna-vaccines-may-soon-make-its-way-us-food-supply