www.natureofhealing.orgConflicts of Interest in the Animal Food Industry
By Rosanne Lindsay, Traditional Naturopath
Once upon a time, if you had a conflict of interest, it meant that you were
not invited to the table for your opinion because it was biased.
What Is a Conflict of Interest?
A conflict of interest occurs when an entity or individual becomes unreliable because of a clash between personal (or self-serving) interests and professional duties or responsibilities. Such a conflict occurs when a company or person has a vested interest—such as money, status, knowledge, relationships, or reputation—which puts into question whether their actions, judgment, or decision-making can be unbiased.
A conflict of interest represents a situation in which someone cannot make a fair decision because they will be affected by the result. These days, the pharmaceutical industry has targeted livestock and veterinary industries for its new mRNA technology called Sequivity™. Big Pharma is renowned for its multiple conflicts of interest.
Legality
A conflict of interest is illegal…unless it is disclosed beforehand, and the person is given the approval to continue, then the conflict of interest is not a problem – and consequently legal.
This means you must do some reading of small print, such as reading the label, or the last paragraph of a study or article, at the bottom of a page. For instance, this conflict of interest statement appears in at the end of a published study, posted to Pubmed, about the CurVac mRNA pig vaccine. CurVac also makes an mRNA injectable for human use. This statement satisfies the law, and therefore, everyone should go about their business as usual:
I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: MS, DV, BP, PB and TK are or were employees of CureVac. Authors MS, TK, BP and LS are named as inventors on a patent application for a rabies vaccine filed by CureVac.
Here is the study about a novel, patented mRNA technology that promises the prevention of infectious diseases for swine. According to this news brief, Merck & Co. is expanding its SEQUIVITY® veterinary prescription vaccine platform to include a vaccine for sapovirus, an emerging virus causing diarrhea in young pigs. Could the diarrhea be a side effect of other animal vaccines? Yes it could!
Where have we heard the word, novel, before? Listen to one of Merck’s directors of Merck Animal Health tell everyone in 4 minutes, “We’re excited about brining a better mousetrap to the game.” Merck Animal Health is present in more than 50 countries, while its products are available in some 150 markets.
Conflict of interest?
The Great Culling
In the Hegelian Dialectic of Problem-Reaction-Solution, where the invisible virus is the Problem. Culling is the Reaction before the vaccine Solution.
For history buffs, at the start of World War II, animal owners in England were told to cull their pets by the government, as a kindness, due to possible food shortages. Did the people buy it? Yes, to the tune of killing 750,000 of their furry friends, as reported. Today, world governments like to keep track of their animal killing binges, which can be found here.
Today, chickens and turkeys are recipients of the avian flu injection, against a flu that resulted in the forced 2015 culling of millions of birds and 15,000 jobs nationwide. In 2020, under the Defense Production Act, President Trump issued an Executive order to cull millions of birds that resulted in chicken and pork shortages. Trump ordered the mass killing under the guise of “keeping meat processing plants open during COVID.” In 2022, Irish farmers were forced to kill healthy, grass-fed cows under the guise of Climate Change.
In 2022, the Biden Administration continued the killing, forcing commercial growers to slaughter more than 50 million birds in 46 states. What is the motive for killing millions of innocent, diseased birds forced to live in the squalid conditions of a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)? Climate Change? Animal flu? Overpopulation? Or is this a conflict of interest in selecting only certain animals to be produced for food?
The official reason for culling is to stop a perceived, invisible flu virus from spreading, using a vaccine containing the same virus. Does this make any sense? Especially as no one has isolated the virus in question, let alone the feared Coronavirus?
To Stop A Virus?
The fact is that viruses are commonly known to mutate, regularly. Such is the life of a virus. No virus has been successfully isolated in the wild, being that the virus, by its very nature, lives inside a cell to use the cellular components in order to live. Outside a cell, a virus dies. It is not an organism because it does not reproduce outside of a cell. However, when using a patented viral vaccine process, where a virus is contained in a fatty envelope, a lab scientist is able to miraculously isolate, manipulate, patent, and profit from a viral vaccine.
However, it is impossible to make a vaccine to stop a virus, as viruses always mutate or “drift and shift’ to a novel/new coronavirus, and their variant forms. The virus-variant cycle continues on and on and on. Such is Nature, even if man-ipulated.
Once upon a time, processors maintained control over much of the process of raising chickens through contracts with growers. That is no longer true. Presidents through the Biden Administration have used Executive Orders (E.O), to add more restrictions under the guise of Promoting Competition in the American Economy. The same scenario happened with local butchers for personalized cuts of meats. The mom’s and pop’s butchers of the past are today extinct under a new centralized government control system that is sourced at the United Nations. [See Executive Orders by President]. In 2020, President Trump’s E.O. to access COVID vaccines, came just before the COVID mass vaccination campaign for humans.
All systems have become centralized, from medical and telecommunications to meat growers and financial institutions, all thanks to the Executive Orders used by presidents to bypass the law. And how do these commercial feeding operations go about killing their animals? They do so through suffocation, drowning, shooting, and burning.
Executive Orders: One Rule Law
An Executive Order by the president bypasses Congress, and the rule of law. Thus, there is One rule law. The president is king.
Cheryl K. Chumley, opinion editor for The Washington Times, writes in her May 5, 2020 article Executive Orders are not Laws:
These [recent] orders are based on President Donald Trump’s declaration of national emergency under four statutes — two under the Stafford Act, two under the National Emergencies Act — as well as on his invoking of national emergency powers through the Defense Production Act. Governors in the varying states subsequently issued their own declarations of emergencies, invoking their own special and specific executive powers in the process.
[They] are not duly passed laws by elected representatives of the people. They are not pieces of legislation that are openly debated and discussed and voted upon in ways that keep the elected accountable to the people.
They don’t give the voter the chance to express yay or nay; they don’t allow the people to hold the ultimate power….The whole executive order system relies on a complicit and cowed citizenry being too blowed over by government to question, challenge or fight.
New contracts under Executive Orders now require guaranteed annual flock placements and density. Poultry processor CEOs are required to sign off on the compliance process for disclosure accuracy. What is flock density? What is required for “compliance?” These are the multimillion dollar questions that result in less healthy birds, that must be injected with novel technologies.
If governments admit that killing animal species, including wild animals, are a population control measure, because Nature did not get the memo, then what is the answer to population overgrowth of the human herd?
There are a whole slew of injections that animals already take. All, now, are recombinant RNA or DNA injections. The technology has even expanded to include Chews for your dog to prevent worms. This mRNA “gene therapy” technology is not only reserved for swine, all animals, and humans. And if you do not choose to inject this technology, you may be eating it.
In April of 2023, lobbyists for the cattleman and pork associations in several states have CONFIRMED they will be using mRNA vaccines in pigs and cows beginning in April. Attorney Tom Renz says, “To be clear – at this point there are zero states requiring informed consent for “vaccine food..” While I would argue that it must be done under existing law . . .” We can finish his sentence. …. As long as it is disclosed as a conflict of interest, it is allowable under the law.
In the pork industry, to make the new rules tastier, Merck & Co. has offered future swine producers a chance at $50,000 in scholarships.
Conflict of interest?
Once injected or ingested, does the mRNA technology stay with you? Does it get transferred? Apparently so, as mRNA from vaccines has been detected in breast milk.
Truth About Shedding Disclosed
While you cannot catch a virus from inside a cell. There is the consequence of injecting any viral vaccine. And that is shedding the artificial virus for an unknown time period directly after an injection of mRNA technology.
Shedding has been around since the polio vaccine, as evidenced by one man who continuously shed the virus from the vaccine for 28 years. So it’s nothing new. And now, the meat industry is injecting animals with the technology so you won’t need to inject yourself. The manufacturer will disclose this fact in their package inserts:
Post-marketing experience suggests that transmission of vaccine virus may occur rarely between healthy vaccinees who develop a varicella-like rash and healthy susceptible contacts. Transmission of vaccine virus from a mother who did not develop a varicella-like rash to her newborn infant has been reported. Due to the concern for transmission of vaccine virus, vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid whenever possible close association with susceptible high-risk individuals for up to six weeks following vaccination with VARIVAX.
Even though vaccine scientists want to convince everyone that vaccine-virus shedding is a myth, vaccine viruses are documented in the medical literature to be shed in urine. According to the CDC, shedding can also occur through sexual contact, as seen with the smallpox vaccine. Even the FDA admits, “Transmission of vaccine virus may occur between vaccinees and susceptible contacts.”
The truth about shedding virus from vaccines has been disclosed in published studies and past articles for decades. Shedding exists because there are always new cases of disease in highly and fully vaccinated populations. Here are just a few examples:
Measles
Measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated population.
Measles outbreak in highly vaccinated population; San Diego, 2008
A measles epidemic threshold in a highly vaccinated population, 2005
Measles vaccine efficacy during an outbreak in a highly vaccinated population, Quebec City, 2009
An explosive point source measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated population, Illinois, 1989
Measles outbreak traced to fully vaccinated patient
Mumps
Recent resurgence of mumps in the United States, 2008
Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population, Arkansas, 2019
Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated school population, 1995
A mumps outbreak among fully vaccinated people, 2020
A majority of mumps cases are among the vaccinated, 2021
Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population, 1991
During the measles outbreaks, it was reported that measles virus can erases the immune systems memory. But digging further, is this amnesia brought on by the virus or by the vaccine? According to 2010 research published online in the British Medical Journal, infants of vaccinated mothers appear to have a gap in their protection against measles from around two to three months old until they are vaccinated at 12 months of age:
Vaccinated women had significantly fewer antibodies than did naturally immune women. Similarly, infants of vaccinated women had significantly lower antibody levels than infants of naturally immune women.
Just because conflict of interest disclosures are not reported in the media, or you were not personally notified by your grocer about the alterations of the food supply, does not mean the information was not disclosed, somewhere along the line.
It is, therefore, everyone’s responsibility to seek and find the information, because health is a personal responsibility. Find a local farmer who grass-feeds his animals and uses traditional and holistic practices. You are not only what you eat. You are what the animals eat.
No animals were harmed in the writing of this article.
Related articles:
About the Author: Rosanne Lindsay, Traditional Naturopath
Copyright © 2021 Nature of Healing | All Rights Reserved |
