Big Pharma’s sneaky play: mRNA vaccines in your chicken dinner?

By willowt // 2025-03-04

Mastodon

Parler

Gab

Copy

The USDA announced a $1 billion initiative to combat bird flu, aiming to reduce egg prices and protect poultry flocks. The plan includes $100 million for vaccine research, biosecurity measures and financial aid for farmers, but critics argue it prioritizes pharmaceutical profits over sustainable solutions.
The USDA’s reliance on mass culling — killing entire flocks to prevent disease spread—has proven ineffective, with 166 million hens culled since 2022. This practice has driven egg prices to a 45-year high and failed to stop bird flu outbreaks, with 20% of government payouts going to repeatedly infected farms.
Experts like epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher and farmer John Klar advocate for allowing birds to develop natural flock immunity, which they argue would be more effective and sustainable than culling or vaccination. Studies, including a March 2024 European Food Safety Authority report, support this approach.
The USDA’s plan includes mRNA vaccines for poultry, raising fears about introducing experimental pharmaceutical technology into the food supply. Critics, including Klar and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, warn of potential long-term health effects and the normalization of mRNA vaccines in agriculture.
Some experts suggest the current bird flu strain may stem from gain-of-function research, with Dr. McCullough citing USDA studies in mallard ducks. Critics call for a global moratorium on such research and investigations into lab leaks, arguing the USDA’s plan ignores its potential role in the crisis.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently unveiled a $1 billion plan to combat bird flu, promising to lower egg prices and protect poultry flocks. But beneath the surface of this seemingly noble initiative lies a troubling agenda: the potential introduction of mRNA vaccines into our food supply. Critics, including farmers and scientists, warn that this plan could perpetuate harmful practices like mass culling and pave the way for risky pharmaceutical interventions in agriculture.

The USDA’s plan: A wolf in sheep’s clothing?

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced a five-pronged strategy that includes $100 million for vaccine research, biosecurity measures and financial relief for farmers. While the plan claims to address the economic fallout of bird flu, critics argue it prioritizes Big Pharma profits over sustainable, natural solutions. Rollins, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, blamed the 237% increase in egg prices over the past four years on bird flu outbreaks. However, epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher of the McCullough Foundation countered, “The single most effective action to reduce egg prices in the long-term is to stop the practice of mass depopulation, which has led to a costly and ineffective cycle that not only wastes taxpayer dollars but also worsens the spread of H5N1.” Mass culling, where entire flocks are killed to prevent the spread of disease, has been a cornerstone of the USDA’s approach. Yet, this method has proven disastrous. Since 2022, 166 million laying hens have been culled, driving egg prices to a 45-year high. Worse, culling has failed to stop the spread of bird flu, with 20% of government payouts going to farms infected multiple times.

Natural immunity: The forgotten solution

Instead of culling or vaccinating, some experts advocate for allowing birds to develop natural “flock immunity.” Vermont farmer and attorney John Klar said, “Better policy would be to let the birds develop flock immunity, which would be better for humans as well.” Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough echoed this sentiment, stating, “A healthy bird flock allowed to acquire natural immunity to the mild current H5N1 strain will essentially end the current outbreak.” Studies support this approach. A March 2024 report by the European Food Safety Authority noted a significant drop in bird flu detections, attributing it to “some level of flock immunity in previously affected wild bird species.” Yet, the USDA’s plan doubles down on pharmaceutical interventions, including mRNA vaccines. The agency recently granted a conditional license to Zoetis for a bird flu vaccine, and Moderna is developing its own. Critics fear this is a backdoor for mRNA technology to enter the food supply, raising concerns about long-term health effects.

mRNA vaccines in food: A slippery slope

The push to vaccinate poultry is not just about protecting birds—it’s about normalizing mRNA technology in our food chain. Klar expressed strong opposition, stating, “I strongly object to the use of mRNA vaccines in birds or other wildlife. I am far more concerned about adverse health effects from experimental pharmaceuticals than I am about natural microbes.” The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) has endorsed vaccination as a necessary measure, but even they admit vaccines don’t stop infection—they only reduce severe disease. And since this illness is not severe, this approach raises questions about the efficacy and safety of such interventions. Moreover, many countries refuse to accept vaccinated poultry, potentially crippling U.S. exports.

A history of gain-of-function and lab leaks

Adding to the controversy, some experts suggest the current bird flu strain may be a product of gain-of-function research. Dr. McCullough cited a study indicating the H5N1 clade circulating globally originated from USDA research in mallard ducks. Gain-of-function experiments, which enhance the transmissibility or virulence of pathogens, have long been criticized for their potential to spark pandemics. The McCullough Foundation’s research calls for a global moratorium on gain-of-function studies and investigations into lab leaks. “The USDA’s plan ignores the possibility that their own research may have contributed to this crisis,” McCullough said.

What’s at stake: Health freedom and food safety

The USDA’s $1 billion plan is more than a response to bird flu—it’s a test case for pharmaceutical interventions in agriculture. By prioritizing vaccines and culling over natural immunity, the agency risks entrenching harmful practices and exposing consumers to untested technologies. As Klar warned, “I am far more concerned about adverse health effects from experimental pharmaceuticals than I am about natural microbes.” For health freedom advocates, the stakes couldn’t be higher. If mRNA vaccines enter the food supply, it could set a dangerous precedent for the pharmaceutical industry’s influence over what people eat. Sources include: ChildrensHealthDefense.org USDA.gov CNN.com