Two medical researchers say tick-borne meat allergy should be allowed to spread because eating meat is “morally impermissible”

Last month, a paper by two American researchers from the Western Michigan University School of Medicine was published in the journal Bioethics.  In their paper, they used the warped argument that “eating meat is morally impermissible” and so “efforts to prevent the spread of tick-borne AGS are also morally impermissible.”

AGS, or alpha-gal syndrome, is an allergy to mammalian meat which can be life-threatening.  It is caused by a tick bite.  In the US, lone star tick bites are thought to be the primary source.

Essentially, because the two medical researchers feel that eating meat is morally wrong, they feel that justice is done if people – vegans, vegetarians and omnivores alike – develop this potentially life-threatening condition.

Biohazards for Everyone! Academia’s Gross New Plan to Take Away Your Steak

By Sarah Anderson, as published by PJ Media on 29 July 2025

The lone star tick, or Amblyomma americanum, is found throughout the United States, specifically on the East Coast, throughout the South, and in parts of the Midwest. It’s also found in Mexico. As ticks do, they carry nasty diseases that can be serious if not treated immediately, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

These include bourbon virus disease (which sounds like an awful flu), ehrlichiosis (which more often than not leads to hospitalization and can be fatal), Heartland virus disease (which also often leads to hospitalization), Southern tick-associated rash illness or STARI (which is similar to Lyme disease), and tularemia (which can affect your skin, eyes, throat, lungs and intestines).

It also causes alpha-gal Syndrome (AGS), a serious food allergy involving red meat that can make your life a living hell. While some people only develop skin reactions, like hives, itching, flushing, and swelling of the eyelids, throat, tongue, or face, others may also end up with gastrointestinal issues, like diarrhoea, cramping, nausea, vomiting and indigestion. Even worse, some people develop lung issues, ranging from cough and wheezing to anaphylaxis and shortness of breath. It can also cause arthritis, low blood pressure, heart palpitations, and immune system disorders.

Alpha-gal is found in:

• Meat, including pork, beef, rabbit, lamb, goat, buffalo, or venison.
• Medical products and medications, including the cancer drug cetuximab.
• Products made from mammals, such as gelatine and cow’s milk, as well as personal care and household items.
• People with AGS may also react to products with carrageenan. This additive is often used to thicken and preserve food and drinks such as nut milks, meat products and yoghurt.

As of last year, 450,000 people in the United States have developed AGS, and the numbers seem to be on the rise. Researchers at the University of Michigan have been working to find ways to dull the impact of the tick’s bite so that people can enjoy their steaks and burgers without living in fear of animal products.

What’s the point of all of this? I just wanted you to be informed before I tell you that Western Michigan University School of Medicine medical ethics faculty members, Parker Crutchfield, PhD, and Blake Hereth, PhD, want this tick to bite you in an effort to prevent climate change.

As we all know, the man-made climate change alarmists have some sort of fetish that involves forcing people to stop eating meat. Apparently, these two geniuses fall into this category. Earlier this month, they published a paper in the medical ethics journal Bioethics called ‘Beneficial Bloodsucking’. Essentially, it argues that if eating meat is “morally impermissible,” then so are efforts to prevent the spread of AGS.  Here’s how they frame it exactly:

The bite of the lone star tick spreads alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a condition whose only effect is the creation of a severe but non-fatal 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 tick-borne AGS are also morally impermissible. After explaining the symptoms of AGS and how they are transmitted via ticks, we argue that tick-borne 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 tick-borne 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 tick-borne AGS is morally obligatory.

Beneficial Bloodsucking, Bioethics, 29 May 2025

Promoting a tick-borne illness is morally obligatory? Hell no. Moral bioenhancer my… rear end. Sorry, dudes, but your wacko ideology and my morals are not aligned. Your ideology and basic human decency aren’t even living in the same zip code.

You can pry my red meat from my cold, dead hands because I refuse to stop eating it. As a matter of fact, without going into too many details, eating meat has actually improved my health over the years. And if you don’t eat meat, that’s cool. That’s your prerogative, but I’m sick of people like this trying to force this kind of junk on us.

“This is a paper I am really quite proud of because it is such a great representation of how I like to work in bioethics, which is to take a creative approach to an idea, to see things from a totally different angle than most people, and then to construct a really strong, logical argument in establishing a very unconventional claim,” Dr. Crutchfield said. “That is exactly what happens in this paper. It’s not something that people would normally think of when they think of AGS. Normally, people think, ‘This is a terrible thing’, as evidenced by the many scientists trying to eliminate it.”

I could see if they were simply saying, “Let’s not mess with the tick population and let nature take its course,” but these men are saying they want to promote this disease and the potential for other health hazards. And a medical journal published it! Sure, it’s a philosophical argument for now, but give some rogue Democrat congressman a few months, and it will probably become policy.

I consider myself an environmentalist, and I have strong feelings about the way we treat the natural world, but even a freaking tick could recognise that this climate change alarmism is all about control. Then again, most of the left’s ideology seems to be about control.

Oh, and by the way, Western Michigan is a public university. This is what your tax dollars are paying for.

From expose-news.com