Now They Want To Vaccinate Insects?!
From insect weapon to insect customer service, the crazy never ends
Barely a few days ago The Daily Beagle wrote how the vaccine obsessed wanted to weaponise mosquitoes in order to force vaccinate people with Zika, detailing other prior crazy plans such as yet more chimeric virus research and releasing viruses intentionally in order to vaccinate people.
The crazy train never ends because now the vaccine cultists aren’t just going after humans and animals, now they want to vaccinate insects! This isn’t a hypothetical; the US government has already approved it for bees.
No! Not The Bees! Argh!
This was ‘conditionally’ approved by the US Department of Agriculture (what conditions? Since when have they ever put conditions on vaccines?), with the approval given to Dalan Animal Health.
You know, the same USDA implicated in causing numerous outbreaks, including bird flu. That USDA. Apparently any government department and their dog can approve vaccines now with absolutely no vote. FDA, CDC and now the USDA.
Dalan Animal Health reassures us, in a totally suspicious manner, that it is ‘non-GMO’ and ‘suitable for organic farming’. No proof of claim, of course, which has the same reassurance as Pfizer telling us their shot is ‘safe and effective’, just ignore the over 700 studies showing neither.
What Do The Studies Say?
Dalan of course comes bearing proof for how safe their product is. One whole study and a ton of fluff. In-fact, they don’t even have much fluff to offer, judging how many LARGE FONT TITLES and shiny, shiny pictures they keep using to bloat space.
They’re hoping if they mix in the words “honey quality” with “the science”™ you’ll forget they only have one safety study. Ah yes, when I’m worried about a devastating impact on our world’s pollinators and food supply due to reckless abandon in vaccine research, what I’m really asking about is how good that sweet, sweet honey is measured in arbitrary graphs of electrical conductivity.
Oh And It Imprints On Bees For Life Too
Meanwhile the studies they don’t show, buried on another page, blurt words about “trans-generational immune priming”. Don’t worry if you haven’t brought your bulls—t translator. It basically means bees will spread this potentially dangerous and flawed vaccine to their offspring. For life. Mmm, isn’t that fun?
‘Hey look over there is that non-GMO labelling?’ runs off.
The safety study has the usual rigging you’d anticipate with vaccine safety ‘studies’. In this case, an uneven number of vaccinated versus placebo.
Assessing The Study
You can read it here, for now: “The oral vaccination with Paenibacillus larvae bacterin can decrease susceptibility to American Foulbrood infection in honey bees—A safety and efficacy study”. For simplicity The Daily Beagle will be picking it apart based on experience.
Lopsided Number Comparison
[…] From these, 20 vaccinated queens and 10 placebo queens were selected […]
Ah yes, how best to squash a safety signal, ensure there’s exactly half the number of placebos as vaccinated so there’s a lopsided comparison.
Conflated Studies
Another alarming aspect is they also conducted a second study inside this study. Yes, you read that right, there are two studies in this ‘one’ study.
Two separate trials were carried out in two different locations
Alarming, as the title of the paper leads you to believe only one study is being conducted, and there’s a risk of the classic ‘mix n match’ swapping and conflation of datasets. You know, remove the unpleasant data, mix in the data they want to see. And surprise, they…
Excluded Unpleasant Data
The biggest red flag is they also admit to just excluding mortality data that looks bad from the environmental controls because they blame ‘handling’ or something, with no proof to back up such claims:
In the case, where higher than 80% mortality in environmental controls was recorded, the data were excluded from further analysis due to mortality via handling.
It looks more like a classic case of cherry picking datasets and excluding undesirable ones using invented excuses, which is another classic vaccine study trick to hide bad outcomes.
Tested Only One Small Non-Factor For ‘Safety’
Their definition of “safety” is also extremely skewered (surprise, who could have seen that one coming?). Rather than assessing longterm lifespans or documenting adverse effects, they use a “control challenge”.
A control challenge showed that the oral AFB-bacterin vaccination has no negative effect on the survival of larvae
Basically they exposed the larvae to a control and when the larvae didn’t die from it, said ‘oh I guess our vaccine must be safe’. This isn’t how you assess safety. There are a great many hazards and markers for mortality. Not dying from sunlight doesn’t mean you can’t get run over by a car.
This would be like if I gave you slow acting rat poison (the vaccine), flashed a torchlight in your eyes (a ‘control challenge’) and when you didn’t die from the light flash I said ‘oh well the slow acting rat poison must be safe, it doesn’t cause mortality when exposed to the control challenge’. Que?
Their statement needs a major qualifier: “vaccination has no negative effect on the survival of larvae exposed to the control challenge”. It does not validate survival for anything else. To extrapolate otherwise is dishonest.
Used Dataset Areas They Excluded
Despite admitting they excluded any datasets showing +80% mortality due to environmental controls, they cite environmental control data (the ones they skewered) as proof it is safe:
The AFB-bacterin vaccination shows no negative effect on the general survival of the larvae (environmental controls)
You can’t both cite mortality rates in the environmental controls and also exclude data of mortality from said environmental controls.
In the case, where higher than 80% mortality in environmental controls was recorded, the data were excluded from further analysis due to mortality via handling.
The study is flawed in so many different ways, but the fundamental claim it doesn’t cause mortality and is safe is not evidenced by the research they undertook. And a handful of hives is not justification enough for experimenting on thousands with a for-life impact.
The Company Reeks Of Globalism
In true globalist fashion Dalan Animal Health also bragged how super-virtual their office spaces are, noting it was sponsored by CAES (College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, based at the University of Georgia), then muttered something about needing physical labs.
Then they bragged how super-global all their work is and how many economic development folks they met. No scientists, veterinarians or doctors though. Who needs qualifications when you’re messing with the world’s pollinators?
Also they admit there’s ‘no guidelines’ and ‘no handbook’, which means any sensibility or precaution gets tossed out of the window. Who needs rules brah? Just do whatever. It’s not like bees are vitally important to crop pollination cycles or anything, toss out an untested whatever because who cares, right? Radical my folk dudes!
Cultists gunna cult.
Every time you avoid becoming a paying subscriber for The Daily Beagle, a pharmaceutical fatcat wobbles his fat jowls with laughter at you for how easy it is to suppress dissent.
Learned something new?
Leave a comment below:
Replace the word ‘vaccinate’ with the word ‘poison’ and their demented Death Agenda becomes undeniably clear.
Thanks a lot for reporting on this. I'm not only worried about the potential impacts on the bees themselves but also on the honey they produce, and since its transgenerational, also spreading in the wild.