"Note that I do not dismiss Lyme disease, as I think it is very real. However, I agree that ticks (or “weaponized” ticks, whatever that means) are likely not the primary cause of it. Ticks may be involved as an additional vector between anaphylactized humans or humans and animals (passive anaphylaxis). “Weaponized” ticks, mosquitoes and viruses are typical misdirections, gaslighting narratives designed to make you fear the invisible unknown threats and clamor for more government protection. This is how the the trillion-dollar “biodefense” racket get justified by the same people who poison you with 100 “very safe” vaccines. Don’t fall for this." -Sasha Latypova
The bite of the lone star tick spreads alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a condition whose only effect is the creation of a severe but nonfatal red meat allergy. Public health departments warn against lone star ticks and AGS, and scientists are working to develop an inoculation to AGS. Herein, we argue that if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tickborne AGS are also morally impermissible. After explaining the symptoms of AGS and how they are transmitted via ticks, we argue that tickborne AGS is a moral bioenhancer if and when it motivates people to stop eating meat. We then defend what we call the Convergence Argument: If x-ing prevents the world from becoming a significantly worse place, doesn't violate anyone's rights, and promotes virtuous action or character, then x-ing is strongly pro tanto obligatory; promoting tickborne AGS satisfies each of these conditions. Therefore, promoting tickborne AGS is strongly pro tanto obligatory. It is presently feasible to genetically edit the disease-carrying capacity of ticks. If this practice can be applied to ticks carrying AGS, then promoting the proliferation of tickborne AGS is morally obligatory.
Keywords: eating meat; meat allergy; moral bioenhancement; tickborne syndrome; veganism.
Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.
Keywords: autonomy; harm; moral enhancement; public health ethics; public policy.
Do we have to consider the unthinkable. Corporateering(?).
Incredible positive life saving changes are occuring everyday now and more to come at a break neck pace, if we can hold our momentum. Doctors and scientists that standup are disrupting multi billion dollar industries, with knock on profits in the trillions.
As profits are in the trillions so losses will be in equivalent sums.
This seemingly impossible idea, not so impossible.
Consider vaccine, patent drug, profitized but unnecessary surgery, all profit all the time of course. The phsycological warfare of the trans idelology of age compression of speech weaponization, all profit all the time of course but also to fragment cultures and individual morals/ethics and strength of character, the human equivalent of a coral.
Inundation of our tweens with sexualized music, education and movies, promotion of one favoured idea over another.
Denis Rancourt says 17 million excess ????, if true we now have a base line of just what they(who do not exist) consider as fodder to the larger plan.
Do we have to consider the unthinkable
Would corporation purposfully infect populations with a virus if vaccination rates start to drop.
Would corporation using the WHO(one health) cull feed herds over insignificant desease.(France)
Would corporation using the WHO(one health) cull birds, cows and others(worldwide)
Do we have to consider the unthinkable, seems so.
All sacrificed to the larger plan.
IVERMECTIN/Hydroxy work Who knew, When did they know,Who suppressed it
Of course the extension of article has to be treatment. Focus on helping immune system properly react. Ie. Reducing immunologic inappropriate response by identifying and reducing stressors...
Recombinant mouse antibody to gp160(42-61). This epitope has a high degree of similarity with the platelet membrane glycoprotein IIIA precursor (GLIIIA) (integrin beta- 3) (CD61): PLYKEATSTF.
Antibody to the most to SARS-CoV-2 Spike similar HIV protein, gp-160???
One needs to ask Fauci...
And there is also this:"Yilmaz et al. have argued that protection against malaria may have caused the exclusion of the gene responsible for α1,3GT activity during human evolution*" where α-1,3-galactosyltransferase (α1,3GT). So with that we are at ivermectin, again...
human evolution via malaria outbreak???
Thank You Dr. Diaz for the interesting, but terrifying news=> no meat digestion!
Just wonder would application of high dose of protein digestive enzymes help?
And there is this very interesting position by Sasha Latypova:
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/anaphylaxis-alpha-gal-pasteur-richet?utm_source=publication-search
"Note that I do not dismiss Lyme disease, as I think it is very real. However, I agree that ticks (or “weaponized” ticks, whatever that means) are likely not the primary cause of it. Ticks may be involved as an additional vector between anaphylactized humans or humans and animals (passive anaphylaxis). “Weaponized” ticks, mosquitoes and viruses are typical misdirections, gaslighting narratives designed to make you fear the invisible unknown threats and clamor for more government protection. This is how the the trillion-dollar “biodefense” racket get justified by the same people who poison you with 100 “very safe” vaccines. Don’t fall for this." -Sasha Latypova
Bioethics. 2025 Oct;39(8):772-781.
doi: 10.1111/bioe.70015. Epub 2025 Jul 22.
Beneficial Bloodsucking
Parker Crutchfield, Blake Hereth PMID: 40693342 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.70015
Abstract
The bite of the lone star tick spreads alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a condition whose only effect is the creation of a severe but nonfatal red meat allergy. Public health departments warn against lone star ticks and AGS, and scientists are working to develop an inoculation to AGS. Herein, we argue that if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tickborne AGS are also morally impermissible. After explaining the symptoms of AGS and how they are transmitted via ticks, we argue that tickborne AGS is a moral bioenhancer if and when it motivates people to stop eating meat. We then defend what we call the Convergence Argument: If x-ing prevents the world from becoming a significantly worse place, doesn't violate anyone's rights, and promotes virtuous action or character, then x-ing is strongly pro tanto obligatory; promoting tickborne AGS satisfies each of these conditions. Therefore, promoting tickborne AGS is strongly pro tanto obligatory. It is presently feasible to genetically edit the disease-carrying capacity of ticks. If this practice can be applied to ticks carrying AGS, then promoting the proliferation of tickborne AGS is morally obligatory.
Keywords: eating meat; meat allergy; moral bioenhancement; tickborne syndrome; veganism.
--------
Bioethics. 2019 Jan;33(1):112-121.
doi: 10.1111/bioe.12496. Epub 2018 Aug 29.
Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert
Parker Crutchfield PMID: 30157295 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12496
Abstract
Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.
Keywords: autonomy; harm; moral enhancement; public health ethics; public policy.
Do we have to consider the unthinkable. Corporateering(?).
Incredible positive life saving changes are occuring everyday now and more to come at a break neck pace, if we can hold our momentum. Doctors and scientists that standup are disrupting multi billion dollar industries, with knock on profits in the trillions.
As profits are in the trillions so losses will be in equivalent sums.
This seemingly impossible idea, not so impossible.
Consider vaccine, patent drug, profitized but unnecessary surgery, all profit all the time of course. The phsycological warfare of the trans idelology of age compression of speech weaponization, all profit all the time of course but also to fragment cultures and individual morals/ethics and strength of character, the human equivalent of a coral.
Inundation of our tweens with sexualized music, education and movies, promotion of one favoured idea over another.
Denis Rancourt says 17 million excess ????, if true we now have a base line of just what they(who do not exist) consider as fodder to the larger plan.
Do we have to consider the unthinkable
Would corporation purposfully infect populations with a virus if vaccination rates start to drop.
Would corporation using the WHO(one health) cull feed herds over insignificant desease.(France)
Would corporation using the WHO(one health) cull birds, cows and others(worldwide)
Do we have to consider the unthinkable, seems so.
All sacrificed to the larger plan.
IVERMECTIN/Hydroxy work Who knew, When did they know,Who suppressed it
Accountability Now,Now,Now
Shawn663
Self-Replicating Vaccine Rubber Stamped for the UK
21 deaths in the Study - 0 deemed to be from Vaccine by Researchers
Follow the rubber stamps....
https://badprotein.substack.com/p/self-replicating-covid-19-vaccine
also check out badprotein.substack.com for my Parsimony post...
Thumbs up Doc!
Of course the extension of article has to be treatment. Focus on helping immune system properly react. Ie. Reducing immunologic inappropriate response by identifying and reducing stressors...
There is no ambiguity about Bitten. Willy B’s wife gave Kris Newby all her husbands equipment and photographs.
Maybe that will be of interest, how Galactose-α-1,3-Galactose (α-Gal) binds to M86, at:
https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.202500050
oh, and what is M86? Clone of it can be purchased at:
https://www.creativebiolabs.net/anti-hiv-1-gp160-recombinant-antibody-clone-m86-82643.htm
Mouse Anti-HIV-1 gp160 Recombinant Antibody (clone M86)
Recombinant mouse antibody to gp160(42-61). This epitope has a high degree of similarity with the platelet membrane glycoprotein IIIA precursor (GLIIIA) (integrin beta- 3) (CD61): PLYKEATSTF.
Antibody to the most to SARS-CoV-2 Spike similar HIV protein, gp-160???
One needs to ask Fauci...
And there is also this:"Yilmaz et al. have argued that protection against malaria may have caused the exclusion of the gene responsible for α1,3GT activity during human evolution*" where α-1,3-galactosyltransferase (α1,3GT). So with that we are at ivermectin, again...
human evolution via malaria outbreak???
Thank You Dr. Diaz for the interesting, but terrifying news=> no meat digestion!
Just wonder would application of high dose of protein digestive enzymes help?