David Vance SubstackRead More
The World Economic Forum agenda is still very much in place. And reducing meat consumption remains central to their deranged plans
Now it doesn’t call for a total ban, but strongly recommends that populations—especially in developed countries—shift to “more sustainable diet” They emphasise plant-based alternatives, legumes, nuts, and grains, and reducing calories from animal sources. The WEF has spotlighted “replacement meats” and alternative proteins as a solution, predicting these will become a significant part of diets over the next decades.
And there’s one more crucial angle to consider. It encourages government and industry interventions, such as nudges, taxes on high-emissions foods, and support for alternative protein industries, to accelerate this dietary transition.
Which brings me to this story.
A New Jersey man’s death is believed to be tied to a bite from a meat allergy-causing tick in a first-of-its-kind case, according to a case study from researchers at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and Hackensack Meridian Health in New Jersey.
The ticks’ bites have been tied to the development of alpha-gal syndrome, a condition which causes meat to trigger allergic reactions. The 47-year-old airline pilot was healthy prior to his death, researchers said. He was camping in the summer of 2024 with his family when he became unwell. Hours after enjoying a steak dinner, the man woke up with symptoms of abdominal discomfort and later of diarrhea and vomiting.
Within four hours of consuming the burger, the man fell unconscious on his bathroom floor and was transferred to the hospital by paramedics. He was later pronounced dead at the hospital.
So it seems that the bite of this little tick was able to trigger the alpha-gal syndrome which is inextricably linked to meat consumption … and death. If you don’t eat, you don’t have a risk. Gosh, that is convenient.
This brings us to arecent controversy that emerged after two US bioethics professors at Western Michigan University published a paper exploring the provocative question of whether intentionally spreading alpha-gal syndrome could be morally justified as a means to reduce meat consumption and benefit the planet.
Their article, “Beneficial Bloodsucking,” published in the journal Bioethics, considered if promoting AGS might be an ethical strategy given the environmental harms of meat production.
Now, I am not saying that what happened to the New Jersey man was part of a sinister conspiracy. But then again, if we have learned anything over the last five years, we should be vigilant about what we are told by “experts”.
