Discarding the Sacred Precautionary Principle
An eloquent professional letter from one colleague to another.
A colleague, Prof. Shayan Sharif, from the University of Guelph was recently interviewed by the federal government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is relevant in the context an article in which I raised legitimate concerns about rapidly forging ahead with developing mRNA shots for food animals. Among these was a science-backed concern about targeting things like avian influenza viruses with mRNA shots to try to protect people against the avian flu. This colleague has now disclosed that this is precisely what he is pursuing, despite admitting to no safety studies having been conducted and seemingly being in no hurry to do so himself. This is a quote that particularly concerned me…
“There haven't been studies on the side effects of humans eating animals that have been vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine, Sharif said, but there's no evidence to show that there would be any.”
Like too many of my colleagues, there goes the precautionary principle out the window! Instead, it is apparently incumbent upon anyone who voices concerns to drop what they are doing and conduct the comprehensive safety testing that used to be required from people pushing novel medical technologies.
I was also concerned about my colleague’s repeated accusations about the prolific spread of mis- and even dis-information. Who, exactly, does he think is doing this? On what scientific basis is he making these overly generic accusations. On what basis are the unidentified pieces of misinformation deemed to be incorrect? I agree with another colleague of mine who views this kind of public messaging as “ivory tower speak and disconnected from reality.”
Indeed, my colleague, Dr. Niel Karrow, who is a Professor of Immunotoxicology, wrote an elegant and very respectful letter to give Dr. Sharif an opportunity to address a number of serious concerns. Since Dr. Sharif’s contentious messaging was done publicly, Dr. Karrow and I felt it was equally important to have the countering concerns made public to properly support the tenet of allowing people to make fully informed decisions about complex science.
So, from this perspective, here is Dr. Karrow’s letter of concern that was written in response to Dr. Sharif’s public comments…
Hi Shayan,
It was great to see the CBC reach out to you regarding the future of vaccines for livestock production. As you know, vaccines have historically played an important role in mitigating risk of endemic and, in some cases prevention of, emerging diseases. We would like to ensure that this continues in Canadian livestock production, safely. I do have concerns about some of the statements cited by the CBC, and I wonder if you were quoted correctly. For example,
"I think this is a good time to talk about it just to make sure that the public understands that this is not an issue. It's a vaccine like any other vaccine."
Since the previous paragraph referred to the COVID-19 vaccines, I am inferring that this statement equates mRNA vaccines to conventional vaccines, which you and I know is not the case. The new mRNA technology tricks host cells into being bioreactors to synthesize a foreign antigenic protein; in the case of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, a toxic spike protein (SP) (https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/44/24/2234/7188747; https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061025; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36788995/; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37392949/). Conventional vaccines have always incorporated a known dose of antigen in the vaccine and, apart from DNA vaccines, the host has never been used as a protein factory. There are a few examples of livestock being used as protein bioreactors (i.e. lysozyme, cetuximab), but their products were never intended for human consumption.
Moving forward, it will be critical to determine an appropriate withdrawal period for any mRNA vaccinated animal given we know little about mRNA biodistribution, half-life and potential for shedding. The COVID-19 vaccines have taught us the mRNA coding SP can be widely distributed throughout the body, even to immune-privileged sites, and the coded SP can be detected in the heart post vaccination (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36597886/), and in other tissues in some people (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37236806/; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apm.13294; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36298516/ ), and SP can be found within exosomes (https://exosome-rna.com/exosomes-with-covid-spike-protein-are-induced-by-bnt162b2-pfizer-biontech-vaccination-prior-to-development-of-antibodies/), which can also carry the mRNA cargo in human breast milk ( https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2796427). Clearly, detection of the mRNA and target protein at the site of injection and within the liver is not a sufficient methodology in terms of safety testing. Over the past three years, we were told these concerns were “conspiracy thinking”. Given that this “disinformation” has now become widely known information, mRNA vaccines are clearly unlike any other vaccine!
The article goes on to say,
“Sharif worries that the fears and disinformation around the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines might be conflated with the mRNA technology.”
"I do actually think that this is a potential concern whether or not this concern would materialize in the form of some farmers, for example, declining to use mRNA vaccines for their animals, I think time will tell but there's certainly a potential for that," he said.
He believes that "it's really incumbent upon all of us, including us in academia, the government and so on, to really try to nip this in the bud and make sure that there is no myth around mRNA vaccines for livestock."
I am confused by these statements by the CBC. If approximately 85% of Canadians were vaccinated with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, largely with an mRNA platform, and they were effective with minimal adverse side effects, then why would people fear them? I believe roughly only 30% of Canadians are “up to date” in terms of COVID-19 vaccine status. Do you really believe “disinformation” accounts for the reluctance of the Canadian public to take a follow-up bivalent vaccine? How could this be possible, given the vast propaganda machine, which included the CBC, used by the Canadian government to “encourage” compliance? Perhaps, it has something to do with vaccine efficacy (https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292?login=false ), concerns over vaccine-induced tolerance (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/5/991?utm_campaign=releaseissue_vaccinesutm_medium=emailutm_source=releaseissueutm_term=titlelink60), or reports of accumulated “rare” adverse events (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36930126/)?
The article then goes on to say,
“There haven't been studies on the side effects of humans eating animals that have been vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine, Sharif said, but there's no evidence to show that there would be any.”
I’m shocked by this statement, Shayan! This is an unknown unknown. Milk and egg products will need to be tested for the presence of the targeted foreign protein before they can be sold to consumers. If shedding occurs, then consumers could potentially be exposed to bioactive proteins, or become sensitized to a foreign protein that could result in food allergy. If shedding occurs in the form of breath exudate, then farmers could also become exposed, which could theoretically be assessed by measuring their antibody response to the targeted foreign protein.
Lastly, the article states,
"[The public] need to be educated because there's the fear factor that could be introduced in the process because of disinformation or misinformation and as a result of that public would be disinformed and misinformed," he said.
This is the kind of statement that now instills distrust, Shayan. It is ivory tower speak and disconnected from reality. Canadians are not stupid. They are fully aware of the public health communication failures experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. It wasn’t that limited amounts of information were shared with the public, but rather the deceptive messaging. They were fed false promises, lies, and were manipulated and observed/experienced vast levels of gaslighting. The reality is that public health screwed up, and this needs to be acknowledged by them, and you, before public trust can be restored.
There is much to do before the mRNA vaccines should be, or can be, considered for livestock production. I hope that, since you seem to be following this wave of funding, you will do a better job assessing their utility, efficacy and safety for animals and consumers alike. I will be following progress with great interest.
Best regards,
Niel A. Karrow
To be fair and objective, should Dr. Sharif provide a response to Dr. Karrow, I would be happy to post it here as well.
Those who actively raise their own food and hunt may end up being among the only physically, and perhaps mentally, robust people remaining given the societal recklessness we are witnessing. Respect to those who proved wise enough to reject COVID injections. Of course, tragically, injections were forced on many who understood how foolhardy it was to get the shot.
"there goes the precautionary principle out the window" - Along with "Informed Consent". Those follow from these people having no morals, ethics or spine. They are just whores for the pharma cartel.