They Want You Allergic to Meat, And They’re Dead Serious
Just when you think the environmental movement can’t get any more extreme, it finds a new line to cross.
This time it’s not a gas-stove ban or a hidden regulation. It’s a peer-reviewed academic paper arguing that a painful tick-borne meat allergy might be good for society.
Yes, really.
Published in Bioethics, “Beneficial Bloodsucking: On the Moral Permissibility of Tick-Induced Meat Allergy” claims that Alpha-Gal Syndrome (AGS), a condition caused by the lone star tick that makes people violently allergic to beef, pork, and lamb, could be morally desirable because it forces people to eat less meat.
Their words: “They eat less red meat, which is an improvement in their capacity for moral behavior.”
This is what happens when the climate movement drops the mask: controlling your behavior by any means necessary, even disease.
AGS isn’t a diet fad. It can cause hives, vomiting, and even anaphylaxis hours after eating beef or pork. The CDC estimates as many as 450,000 Americans may already be affected.
But instead of calling for prevention, these academics argue AGS could be a form of “moral enhancement,” even suggesting that letting it spread might be “morally obligatory.”
Not satire. Peer-reviewed.
The fact that academics are openly defending a disease because it aligns with climate ideology shows how far this movement has drifted from science and reason.
This is the same movement that:
- Tried to ban gas stoves
- Wants cattle eliminated in the name of “climate risk”
- Pushes 15-minute cities and travel restrictions
- Demonizes natural meat while promoting ultra-processed lab alternatives
- Labels dissent as “misinformation”
Now they’re flirting with the idea that a tick-induced allergy could be an “ethical” tool for changing your diet.
That’s not environmentalism.
That’s authoritarianism wearing a green disguise.
This isn’t about emissions. It’s about the belief that elites know best, and regular people need to be nudged, coerced, or biologically cornered into compliance.
If they can’t ban beef politically, they’ll cheer the ticks for doing it biologically.
The lengths they’re willing to go should worry anyone who values freedom, choice, or basic sanity.
A movement that welcomes illness to advance its agenda isn’t fighting for the planet.
It’s fighting for control.
At Power The Future, we’ll keep calling out this extremism, whether it’s higher energy bills, forced lifestyle changes, or, apparently, celebrating allergies that send people to the ER.
Because this paper makes one thing clear: they’ll stop at nothing to force the rest of us into their vision of the world.
November 17, 2025