Involuntary Consent: mRNA Technology Moves Into Pet Care

Updated

By Tracy Beanz & Michelle Edwards

We currently live in a world where, more often than not, technological ambition outpaces knowledge, and greed and profit routinely bulldoze over the sanctity of this beautiful life. Many of us watched in horror as the untested, experimental, technology-driven mRNA jabs were forcefully injected into the arms of trusting humans under the guise of safety and science. “Get the shot so you are safe to go see Grandma,” they screamed. Indeed, we were told it was a miracle. Yet, what followed was instead devastating and debilitating injuries and even death. We learned that there were no trustworthy long-term trials to support the claims behind their beloved shots, and, obviously, no real informed consent. Yet, the tyrannical disaster was marked by mandates, censorship, and mass coercion. And now, disturbingly, the same pattern is unfolding again, and this time it is targeting the most innocent among us—our beloved pets.

Science has confirmed what every dog lover already knows in their heart, which is that dogs feel love. Functional MRI studies have shown that when a dog smells or sees its human, the caudate nucleus (the same part of the brain that lights up in humans when we experience affection, joy, or anticipation of something we love) glows with activity. In other words, our dog’s love isn’t imagined or projected. Instead, it’s biological, real, and measurable, and is flooded with the same kind of warmth and love that we feel for them. No wonder the bond with our pets is so sacred. They trust us completely, not because they must, but because their very biology is built to. And that’s precisely why it is our moral duty to protect them from harm, especially from technologies and interventions they can neither question nor consent to, which brings us to the treacherous technology attempting to commandeer their souls.

In 2024, touted as a breakthrough, Merck Animal Health announced the release of NOBIVAC NXT Canine Flu H3N2, an RNA-particle-based vaccine for dogs. The USDA swiftly approved the vaccine, and the veterinary associations dutifully echoed the same lines we’ve heard before, proclaiming the “next-generation technology” as “safe,” and “effective.” Currently, Merck has launched NOBIVAC NXT vaccines for canine influenza and feline leukemia.

Yet, behind the marketing propaganda and the underhanded ruse to control of our pets, a cold and troubling reality exists that reflects the suspicious trials before the COVID-19 jabs were force-distributed to humans. The clinical trial data used to support the approval of NOBIVAC NXT were sponsored by Merck and consisted of a single, small-scale challenge trial of just 20 vaccinated dogs compared to 20 placebos. The dogs were given two doses and then intentionally infected with influenza. Ten days after that, the innocent dogs were euthanized—killed—in order to examine their lungs. The study authors declared, “vaccination demonstrated a significant reduction in the duration of clinical signs, duration and amount of virus shed, lung consolidation, and the incidence of suppurative pneumonia.”

Make no mistake—this is not real-world data with long-term safety profiles. No indeed. Significantly, there is no public data on the duration of immunity, nor is there information about how the vaccine performs in different breeds, older dogs, or animals with pre-existing conditions. And, most alarmingly, there exists no transparency. According to the USDA’s own Summary of Studies document, lung consideration was the key measurement for success. The document mentions nothing about behavioral changes, immune dysregulation, neurological effects, or long-term autoimmune outcomes.

Meanwhile, the most commonly reported side effect was lethargy, accompanied by other mild reactions, including diarrhea and local swelling. But, again, these observations spanned just a matter of days before these innocent dogs were killed. It seems essential to know what happens after weeks, months, or even years. Yet, we don’t know, and apparently, Merck is not looking into it. Instead, it is onward to injection. Beyond Big Pharma’s negligence, despite VAERS having its own flaws, including underreported data, there is no registry for adverse events in our four-legged family members that is akin to VAERS. Thus, now that these vaccines are in the field, reactions will likely be dismissed as anecdotal, rare, or unrelated. And just like we saw with the deadly mRNA COVID-19 jabs, the burden of proof will be placed on our injured pets, not the profit-driven manufacturer.

This is not care; it is the commodification of our four-legged family members. Our dogs and cats are not tools of pharmaceutical experimentation. They are our companions and are sentient beings who trust us explicitly to protect them. That trust is sacred. However, with Big Pharma’s shenanigans, coupled with the fact that some kennels and doggie day care facilities require the canine influenza vaccine, it is crucial to pay close attention to this potentially dangerous technology as it attempts to plague our beloved pets.

Heed this reminder. Despite the euphemisms, such as “RNA particle,” “self-amplifying platform,” and “next-gen delivery,” this terrifying technology—whether it is used on humans or pets—remains experimental by nature. And we humans, along with our pets, are the test subjects. No matter the wording, the fundamental principle is the same. Artificial genetic instructions are being delivered into the body (in dangerous ways) to modify immune response. And once that modification begins, it cannot be easily stopped. In humans, we have seen this with lipid nanoparticle distribution across organs in human autopsy studies. Likewise, we saw it with prolonged spike protein production. These are not benign side effects. They are systemic disruptions with consequences that are still being uncovered, such as a massive surge in turbo-cancers, long-covid, and a myriad of devastating outcomes.

Here we are, repeating the same story, only this time with animals who cannot say “no.” If Big Pharma was so confident in this technology, why didn’t it conduct long-term studies and track real-world outcomes in thousands of diverse pets across an extended period of time? On top of that, why not release the full safety and immunogenicity data for public scrutiny? Oh, wait, the answer is simple. Profit thrives in the absence of accountability. Nonetheless, our pets are not disposable. They are not biotech platforms. And they are certainly not a new market segment for risky human technology disguised as advanced veterinary care.

 

Generic avatar

Tracy Beanz & Michelle Edwards

Tracy Beanz is an investigative journalist, Editor-in-Chief of UncoverDC, and host of the daily With Beanz podcast. She gained recognition for her in-depth coverage of the COVID-19 crisis, breaking major stories on the virus’s origin, timeline, and the bureaucratic corruption surrounding early treatment and the mRNA vaccine rollout. Tracy is also widely known for reporting on Murthy v. Missouri (Formerly Missouri v. Biden,) a landmark free speech case challenging government-imposed censorship of doctors and others who presented alternative viewpoints during the pandemic.