Modified mRNA Vaccines for Livestock and Cattle

An update with Drs. Brooke Miller, MD and Robert Malone, MD

Dr. Brooke Miller (00:04):

Good evening. My name is Brooke Miller and I'm the former immediate past President of the United States Cattlemen's Association. I'm here with Robert Malone, Dr. Robert Malone, who has been so gracious to have a discussion tonight on mRNA in livestock. Robert was originally going to be on our panel at the United States Cattlemen's Association annual meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, but he got called out of town and has to be in London. So he's so gracious to be here tonight with me and we're going to have a discussion. Just a little background on Robert, I've known Robert and his wife, Jill, for over two years now. We've become great friends and close allies. He has been a freedom fighter and a fighter for medical freedom since day one. He is a very accomplished individual. He has done a lot of research on mRNA technology and is credited by most as being the original inventor of mRNA technology.

So I thought he would be a great person to add his insight to mRNA technology and livestock. And Robert also has an agricultural background. He and his wife, Jill, have a horse farm here in Madison County, Virginia, and I'm proud to announce that he is a brand new member of the United States Cattlemen's Association. So with that, I'll introduce Robert Malone, my good friend. And we're just going to have a discussion on mRNA technology and livestock and just some of the science behind it and some of the concerns that we have about using this technology in food animals.

Dr. Robert Malone (01:51):

So we first broke this story well over a year ago on our Substack, and it was my wife, Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone, that did the deep dive of the research into where the mRNA technology was at, in terms of its use in livestock. And after that publication came out on Substack, then we had a number of people start to pick up that thread, which we're very grateful for. We always love it when people... We break the ice and then other people follow. And that's a great thing. And there's been a lot of follow-on concern. Some of it's valid, some of it's a little bit overblown.

(02:34):

And then we had various legislative initiatives come out, and unfortunately, at least one of those was overplayed and it easily got knocked down by the folks that have vested interest in moving this technology forward. And I think that was unfortunate because if the legislation had been written a little more conservatively, a little more cautiously, a little more focused on what the real issues are in terms of animal husbandry and livestock management, then it could have and should have gone through, in my opinion. But this is what happens often at the front edge of things. So let's jump into it, Brooke. You and I have talked about this before in another recording when we were setting up the beef initiative venue at your farm.

Dr. Brooke Miller (03:30):

Robert and I wrote a Substack on this issue, I guess it was probably back in August or September that we wrote the Substack, probably in August. And it's available on The Rancher Doctor Newsletter Substack.

Dr. Robert Malone (03:43):

So the gist of it is that right now we don't have any of these products that are authorized for cattle, whether it's beef or milk.

I had a long chat with a politician from Wisconsin. Obviously, they have considerable interests more in the dairy side than in the beef side. I talked to him about strategies suggesting that because these mRNA-based technologies are excreted in human breast milk, that there was a valid concern about them being transmitted in bovine products and that that ought to be one of the key focuses of the cattle industry for milk production in Wisconsin milk and cheese.

But for folks like the Cattlemen's Association here, I think the big issue is whether or not they're going to be deploying it into your beef cattle and what that means. Now, what we do know is that a version of this technology developed by Merck and custom engineered for swine herds, basically for these large factory pig farms has been deployed. And there absolutely is interest in deploying this kind of technology into chicken houses. But as all of you know in the chicken industry, the margins are just squeaky, squeaky tight. And so any technology, vaccine technology, that's going to be deployed into chicken houses has got to come in at pennies per dose. And even if you just have, let's say gently, a technician going around and vaccinating your chicken flock, you're going to be well over a buck a dose real quick no matter what the cost is of the raw material. So I don't know how viable this tech is going to be for the chicken industry unless they find a way to aerosolize it. And that's a holy grail they're also seeking for humans is aerosolized vaccines that you can just inhale. And that's something that's been in the works for well over a decade now.

(06:08):

Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone and I had the first patent for mucosal vaccines, but it still hasn't led to any products yet. So what is a viable product is they will go through one of these large swine herds and sample the pathogen load, particularly viruses that are circulating in that particular farm. And then they'll take that back to the laboratory and design a custom mRNA-based vaccine for that swine herd that's operating in the close confines of a factory farm. And then go through and jet inject basically all the pigs in that farm to try to make it harder for whatever the viruses are that are circulating there to compromise the viability of the pigs in any of the piglets. So that is absolutely being deployed, and it was rushed through by USDA under something akin to the emergency use authorization process that has happened with humans, which is to say with almost no testing at all. But there is nothing yet in cattle industry, although I'm sure they would like to have it.

Dr. Brooke Miller (07:33):

Okay. Robert's getting pretty technical. He understands a lot of this technical stuff, and I do a little bit, but I think in the cattle industry we have to ask a couple questions: What is the benefit and what is the risk? What is the need? Is there a need for this in the livestock industry? I personally do not see a need for this, but I see the risk being pretty massive.

(07:55):

Number one is it going to be safe for the livestock? Number two, is it going to be safe to eat the livestock? And number three, what is going to be the public perception of this if it is adopted in the livestock industry? And I've had probably more calls and more concerns about this issue than anything else from the general public, the non-agricultural public, who is basically our consumer and our patron, and they're very concerned about this. And I think it'll be a very negatively viewed technology in livestock if this is adopted by our industry. I think people are going to reject it, and that's going to harm our markets, that's going to harm our exports and it'll harm our beef consumption in the United States.

Dr. Robert Malone (08:44):

I agree with you.

Dr. Brooke Miller (08:46):

Can you speak onto the fact on what are the concerns or what are the potential risk from a medical standpoint, both for the livestock and for people consuming this and what you've seen both in the human side as well as this, as far as the transparency goes.

Dr. Robert Malone (09:08):

Okay, so at the start, let's focus on the animal itself. I raise horses, we're thinking about getting into wagyu, and I have been concerned with cattle and worked on a dairy farm as a kid.

So we are from a culture where you take care of your animals, and I think that's one of the things that really distinguishes the cattle industry from the chicken industry, for example. And so, what is the safety profile for your animals? We don't really know. We can extrapolate from humans, but there's been a new development that really I think does raise some serious concerns both for the bulls and the cows, but particularly for the cows. And that is that all of these products are contaminated with small fragments of DNA, and they are being delivered using a highly effective system, the most effective non-viral polynucleotide or gene delivery technology ever developed. And that means that the DNA contamination is going to get into the cells of your animals the same as the RNA is.

(10:23):

Now, as the RNA goes into your animal's cells, it produces a protein. And by definition for a vaccine that protein is a foreign protein. And so your animal's immune system is going to attack all those cells. And this stuff goes all over the body, including to ovaries in particular, which is of concern in terms of reproductive health. And we have had numerous examples in the human case that are now firmly established that this product, this technology, can negatively impact on fertility. And in particular, menstruation is well established, so that would be cycling in your cows, but it may also impact in the ova, the eggs that are being produced from the ovaries, so that potentially could have impacts on your calves. And the fact that this is also delivering DNA is particularly concerning because those small DNA fragments are more likely to insert into the genome than the RNA is. The RNA would have to be turned into DNA and then put into the genome.

(11:38):

But in the case of these small DNA fragments, they can directly impact on the integrity, let's say, chromosomal integrity, or the technical term is genotoxicity. And that's a reasonable concern both in terms of your livestock and things like bone marrow stem cells and splenic cells, these cell types that reproduce a whole lot and have stem cells and are prone to various cancers. And then you have potential reproductive toxicity, you have neurotoxicity, so they're associated in some frequency with damage to the spinal cord and damage to peripheral nerves. And you all know that cows that are compromised neurologically, they have to be culled. You can't tolerate having a cow that is partially lame because of nervous system problems or potentially paralyzed.

(12:44):

So there are significant risks to your livestock associated with this tech and you can't deny it. We see it in the humans. We're now down to the point of just arguing about how frequent is it and how do you define rare, but there's no debate anymore about the damages that this tech is causing in humans in terms of heart damages, brain damages, damages to immune system. I mentioned reproductive system, also the pituitary gland, so some central issues having to do with endocrine system, which you know is crucial to your animal's health and weight gain and everything else. So I think in terms of a cattleman's point of view, for people that care about their animals and need to have healthy animals to get them weighed and get them to market on time, that should be a concern. Is there a concern about transfer to humans?

Dr. Brooke Miller (13:53):

Hold on. I want to make one more point. Because of the technology, it's encased in a lipid nanoparticle, and the lipid nanoparticle can transport the mRNA across every cell membrane in the body, so it goes everywhere. That's correct?

Dr. Robert Malone (14:08):

Including placenta.

Dr. Brooke Miller (14:09):

Yeah. And so what the mRNA does is goes to every organ in the body potentially, and then the mRNA is modified, and it's modified in order to last longer and avoid breakdown. Would you agree with that?

Dr. Robert Malone (14:26):

And to be immunosuppressive.

Dr. Brooke Miller (14:28):

Yeah, so it is modified, so it's going to persist. And so potentially it could go to just about every cell in the body, and then it programs that cell to produce the antigen or the foreign protein, which is in effect something that is immunogenic.

Dr. Robert Malone (14:50):

And will be targeted by the immune system.

Dr. Brooke Miller (14:53):

So it could basically cause the body to attack itself by producing these foreign proteins.

Dr. Robert Malone (14:58):

It absolutely will. That is the purpose. That is the logic for this is to replicate as if your animal was infected by the pathogen. But the big difference is that this produces a heck of a lot of protein. It's a remarkably efficient system, and often it produces much more protein and throughout the body, which is very different from the infection that your animal might acquire that it's trying to protect against, where for instance a lot of these respiratory viruses are more localized to the upper respiratory tract and the innate immune system of the host, whether it's human or bovine, will start to attack that right away. And then gradually the antibodies come up and the cellular immune response comes up. And the cellular immune response in particular is what is going to kill all those cells that are producing the protein, the antigen, that the RNA codes for. So it is going to cause some damage, and how much damage is going to vary from animal to animal.

Dr. Brooke Miller (16:08):

One thing I've heard from the promoters of this technology is it would allow them or us to produce these vaccines at a more rapid rate. And while some may look at that as a positive, I look at that as a negative because if it's so rapidly produced and deployed, we don't have the time to decide whether it's safe.

Dr. Robert Malone (16:30):

Safety test. I agree. And so this is one of these holy grail situations that's all based on factory farming. The logic that when you put humans in tight quarters in cities or you put animals in tight quarters like on a big pig farm or a chicken house, then you have a lot more risk for emerging infectious disease, viruses that circulate rapidly in that and evolve to potentially become more infectious or more pathogenic or both. And this is a problem of factory farming, which is not generally something that, certainly when you got animals out feeding on grass on the range, you don't have them densely packed and you don't have those kinds of dynamics.

(17:22):

Now, in the feedlot, that's a whole different story, and that may really be what's driving this initiative to want to have something is, again, the big feedlot operations, the factory farm operations, and their fear that they're losing weight and product because of infectious disease or having to cull herds. Those are the threats. And so their belief is that they have this one manufacturing process and they can just tweak it. They can go to the computer and type in whatever sequence they want from the pathogen, and the manufacturing process just changes the sequence of the RNA, but everything else is the same. And so it changes the sequence of the RNA, but everything else is the same. It makes it really quick to jam these things out if you don't do the testing. The truth is that the real time crunch comes in doing the tests and doing it right to make sure that things are safe and that they're actually effective.

Dr. Brooke Miller (18:20):

So the old adage, "Haste makes waste," is so true?

Dr. Robert Malone (18:23):

Absolutely. That's a perfect capture for what's going on here.

(18:28):

And then, in terms of the human health, not to even mention the consumer response, I mean, a lot of, as you're mentioning, Brooke, that's why when we first put this article out, why it's gotten so much traction and amplification on social media and in the press, et cetera, is because people are aware that these mRNA vaccines have caused problems. We're arguing now about how bad the problems are, but we're now to the point where everybody agrees that they're causing problems.

Dr. Brooke Miller (19:01):

I think the general public, their lack of uptake of the most recent booster is pretty good evidence that there is huge concerns.

Dr. Robert Malone (19:10):

They're done.

Dr. Brooke Miller (19:11):

It's less than 7% of the human public is even considering the booster.

Dr. Robert Malone (19:15):

And Poland sent the shots back to Pfizer. Pfizer is now suing Poland to force them to pay for shots they don't want. There's multiple nations all across the world that are just completely done and they don't want anything to do with this, and that's a sign.

(19:34):

So, is there a risk to your human consumer?

Dr. Brooke Miller (19:40):

That's what I wanted to go over next. What do you see as potential, not definite, but potential risks to the human consumer, and questions that must be answered fully and transparently before even considering adopting this technology and lifestyle?

Dr. Robert Malone (19:59):

I'm going to start with ones that I think are really solid in terms of risk. And as I mentioned, dairy is unequivocal, is absolute. That this material gets secreted in milk. And that is, if you are deploying this technology into cattle for milking, I think you're going to find real pushback from the consumer who's already sensitized to hormone use, et cetera, and paying a premium for milk that is not manipulated hormonally. And if it comes out that the industry is using this technology, it's going to have a major impact. Now, maybe the likes of Bill Gates are going to like that because they want us to all eat crickets and mealworms, so maybe that's a win for them.

Dr. Brooke Miller (21:02):

And lab grown meat-

Dr. Robert Malone (21:02):

Yeah, exactly.

Dr. Brooke Miller (21:03):

... bathed in hormones and antibiotics.

Dr. Robert Malone (21:05):

Yeah. But in the real world, I just don't see how this is going to benefit the large dairy farm.

Dr. Brooke Miller (21:13):

And so, potentially, if the mRNA potentially has been shown in human milk to be secreted in human milk, and so, if consumers consume that mRNA, then they could potentially turn their body into manufacturers of that protein.

Dr. Robert Malone (21:33):

The papers that have come out that have documented this assertion that they can't demonstrate that these particles that are passed through the milk are still biologically active, but that doesn't mean much because they're using really insensitive assays. It's very preliminary, hasn't been rigorously tested like a whole lot of this stuff. And frankly, I don't believe it. So, I think that there is a reasonable risk, reasonable enough, that until it is definitively demonstrated to be safe, that assumption has to be that it's not safe, because we're talking about exposure to naive consumers that wouldn't be intending to take these medical products, and yet they would be receiving them potentially in milk. So as far as I'm concerned, deploying this tech into dairy herds is just suicidal for the dairy farmer. I can't see how the industry buys into that.

(22:32):

In terms of deploying it, let's say some guidance comes down, because you know all your animals are tagged and tracked and now they want to electronically tag them, so, are they going to insist that your animals be jabbed before they go to the feedlot, that's a scenario I could see happening, and is that potentially a risk for the consumer? Because the material, the modified mRNA is not a natural product, it's a synthetic product and it has very unusual characteristics, which includes immune suppression, and it includes this difficulty in being degraded, this long half-life, we would call it, we don't know how long it's going to persist in the meat, and it goes all over the body. So, we can't predict at this point and until there are lengthy studies demonstrating safety. Once again, I think the burden of proof is on the USDA and on the manufacturer to demonstrate the safety to the consumer. And until that's demonstrated, I suggest that the position of the Cattlemen's Association be a hard no.

(23:54):

Do we actually need these products? Are we having problems with the spread of infectious disease, taking out animals in the feedlot, or reducing weight gain? You're in a better position, you all, than I am to answer that, but I'm not aware that there's a pressing medical need to vaccinate with novel products that have unknown characteristics that you can't already cover with existing vaccines.

(24:29):

Now, there's another one, Brooke, that I think has not had any airplay yet. So, we talked about the small DNA fragments. That's a new risk. And that's more of a risk to your animals, to your herd. But there's another risk that's really starting to percolate up, and the technical term is spongiform encephalopathy.

(24:53):

And that is a risk associated with these products, which when deployed in humans, in a small fraction of humans, are causing neuroinflammation. So, this is inflammation in the brain. And when those cells get activated, those glial cells that respond to inflammation in your brain, this can lead to what we call neurofibrillary tangles.

(25:26):

Now, in the case of the mRNA vaccines with this spike protein, that may be contributing to it, but the bottom line is that there is a reasonable concern about a prion-like property that's triggered by these products.

Dr. Brooke Miller (25:48):

That's a very good point, Robert, because that is a dirty word in the cattle business. You want to wreck a market immediately overnight, you have a case of this prion disease and the markets will absolutely tank overnight.

Dr. Robert Malone (26:03):

Yeah. And you would have to have a widespread herd culling. So, I think that's on the horizon. And if I was in the beef industry, I would be particularly concerned about those data suggesting that at some frequency we're seeing spongiform encephalopathy problems in the humans, and that would be reasonable to transfer over into cattle. Imagine, that even having this background of spongiform encephalopathy in humans, and you have a situation in your herd, the cow starts staggering a little bit. And it could be just that it's peripheral nerve damage or it could be that it's a minor transverse myelitis, it's a spinal cord problem, not necessarily a spongiform encephalopathy, a prion disease, but you see the symptoms and you call out the veterinarian and suddenly you've got a potential problem.

(27:14):

And I just don't see the risk benefit here. I don't see that there's a need for these products, particularly in cattle. I think that it's misguided in the swine herds and not feasible in chickens.

(27:31):

But in the cattle to deploy this, given all these risks and all these unknowns, it just seems to me that this is something that the Cattlemen's Association would be well-served to basically give a hard no to your legislators and to the USDA and try to knock some sense into these people that they're messing around with markets and consumer issues and a whole lot of unknowns that darn well better be looked at before you start deploying this into your cattle herds for whatever great reason they think, maybe it's going to stop them farting less and impact on global warming.

(28:16):

But whatever their logic is, my advice as somebody who understands the tech pretty good, just say no.

Dr. Brooke Miller (28:25):

We're going to wind this up real quick, but a couple of issues that I want to just sort of relate to what I've seen in the human side is we've seen these allied or these groups that are aligned with the agricultural livestock and they become out as pushing this technology, and they're propaganda. They send out a lot of propaganda. It's not research.

Dr. Robert Malone (28:53):

Yeah.

Dr. Brooke Miller (28:53):

It's not research-oriented. It's, "Hey, trust the FDA. Trust the USDA. They make sure this stuff is safe and effective. mRNA is a naturally occurring protein and it doesn't last long, and they stick it into your arm and it stays there and it doesn't go anywhere." And how much of that was true?

Dr. Robert Malone (29:17):

It's all lies.

Dr. Brooke Miller (29:18):

Yeah.

Dr. Robert Malone (29:18):

Everything you just recited is a verifiable lie. And this is not natural RNA, which typically lasts for minutes to at most an hour or two in your body when it's produced. This is absolutely not natural RNA, it's designed to be immunosuppressive. It's designed to be resistant to degradation.

(29:43):

We don't even know how long it lasts in the body, even in humans, because they never did the studies properly, but almost daily we learn more and more, as people are applying more sensitive techniques we're finding out that it's lasting in the body for certainly weeks to months.

(30:01):

So and, "It stays localized." Well, that was a lie. It goes all over the body. It goes to the spleen, it goes to the bone marrow, it goes to the reproductive organs, it goes to the brain, it goes to your nervous system. It triggers autoimmune diseases. I mean, you could just go on and on and on.

Dr. Brooke Miller (30:20):

Something that I'm seeing as a clinical physician all the time is everything Robert is talking about. And it was supposed to be safe and effective when it came out and there were supposed to be regulatory agencies that were making sure it was safe and effective, but unfortunately they're captured and they're captured in the livestock industry. And it has to be verified. Any technology has to be verified by independent sources without any monetary or other...

Dr. Robert Malone (30:51):

Conflicts of interest.

Dr. Brooke Miller (30:52):

Conflicts of interest. Yeah, it was more conflicts with that.

Dr. Robert Malone (30:54):

Conflicts of interest. Yeah.

Dr. Brooke Miller (30:54):

Conflicts of interest. And so it has to be completely transparent, something that it has not been in the human side of medicine. It's not been so far in the cattle side of medicine. None of the vaccine companies are even talking about this, but you're hearing these other organizations talk about it and try to promote it with a bunch of propaganda. And we just got to push back on that.

Dr. Robert Malone (31:15):

Yeah, the propaganda is thick and hard. And I'll just add a little salt to the wound. How much do y'all trust the USDA to be independent and not compromised by Big Ag interests? The history is clear. Can you really rely on these people to make decisions that are in the interests of the independent beef producer?

(31:47):

And I don't see any evidence that they really can be relied upon, but I see a whole lot of evidence that there is a massive propaganda campaign going on to try to sell these products, sell it to legislatures, sell it to the big farm operations, probably sell it to the feedlots, I suspect.

(32:15):

And Wall Street, who is controlling Big Ag these days, likes this logic. They like the tech. They don't have to deal with the daily reality of it, whether it's with treating patients like Brooke does or managing cattle like Brooke does.

Dr. Brooke Miller (32:34):

And if it was so safe and great, what problem would they have with labeling? And they have fought that every step of the way in the state legislatures to prevent labeling, a labeling law requiring labeling of anything that uses this technology.

Dr. Robert Malone (32:51):

Yep. And also fighting testing of the actual vials to see what's in them and are they reproducible?

(32:59):

So bottom line is this has all kind of been jammed through the system without adequate testing by a bunch of bureaucrats that believe that this is the second coming for vaccines and it's going to solve all the world's problems in terms of infectious disease and engineered pathogens.

(33:17):

And it all needs to be deployed in the context of One Health, right? This is the new mantra that ties together the livestock industry and companion animals and humans, and they really want to reach out into the animal reservoirs. This is crazy talk. Remember, a lot of these pathogens exist in animal reservoirs, and you're never going to clean that out.

(33:44):

So I just, again, in closure, my general recommendation is just say no and make it clear to your local legislators that this is not something that the beef industry needs at this point in time. They have adequate coverage with vaccines for the major pathogens that they're concerned about. And consumers are likely to become much more hesitant about your product if you are forced to use this. And that's how this will come down.

(34:22):

It's not going to be your veterinarian trolling along saying, "Oh, I got this new jab and you ought to use that and it's only going to cost you 10 bucks a cow or whatever." No, they're going to come at you with mandates just like they did with the humans saying you got to vaccinate all your critters as part of their animal tracking, and you know how all that's been going. So I think I've said my piece.

Dr. Brooke Miller (34:50):

Great. Thank you very much. So there you've heard it. Probably one of the world's foremost authorities on this mRNA technology, the original inventor of mRNA technology. I'm proud to call him my friend. I'm proud to call him a new member of the United States Cattlemen's Association. And I will see you all live in Fort Worth. Thank you very much, Robert.

Dr. Robert Malone (35:11):

Thanks a lot, Brooke.