Key Points:
- Governments are using cruel methods like ventilation shutdown (VSD) and foam suffocation to kill millions of birds under bird flu programs.
- These methods, banned for other livestock, are not protected under humane slaughter laws for poultry.
- The USDA and other agencies continue to justify these actions despite evidence that bird flu cannot be eradicated through mass culling.
- No human cases of bird flu have been linked to consuming poultry, eggs, or milk, yet the food supply is disrupted.
- The Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA) condemns these practices, calling for more humane alternatives.
The normalization of animal genocide
The bird flu program, spearheaded by government agencies like the USDA, has become a chilling example of how animal genocide is being normalized under the guise of public health. Since February 2022, over 50 million birds have been slaughtered in the U.S. alone, often using methods that are not only inhumane but also scientifically questionable. Methods like ventilation shutdown (VSD), which involves sealing off airflow and raising temperatures until animals die of heatstroke, have been widely employed. In 2022, VSD+Heat was used to depopulate laying hens affected by avian influenza, despite widespread condemnation from animal welfare organizations.
The HSVMA has been vocal in its opposition to these practices, stating, “VSD+Heat causes prolonged suffering and distress, and its use should be reclassified as ‘not recommended.’” Yet, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) continues to permit these methods under “constrained circumstances,” leaving animals to endure unimaginable suffering.
The hypocrisy of humane slaughter laws
While laws like the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) exist to protect livestock, poultry are conspicuously excluded. The Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) claims to ensure humane slaughter, but it only applies to birds destined for human consumption. Birds culled under bird flu programs are not protected, allowing agencies to use methods like cervical dislocation (breaking necks) and foam suffocation without consequence. This legal loophole raises troubling questions about the ethical standards governing animal welfare.
The bird flu program is not only cruel but also scientifically flawed. Avian influenza is widespread in wild bird populations, which rarely show symptoms but can transmit the virus to domestic flocks. Mass culling does little to stop the spread, as the virus continues to circulate in the environment. Moreover, no human cases of bird flu have been linked to consuming poultry, eggs, or milk, despite these products entering the food chain.
This raises the question: Why are governments prioritizing mass culling over strategies that promote natural immunity and long-term flock health? Proper nutrition, ventilation, and biosecurity measures could strengthen flocks, allowing them to develop resistance to circulating pathogens. Instead, the current approach ensures that flocks remain vulnerable to increasingly virulent strains of the virus.
The bird flu program is a stark reminder of how easily ethical boundaries can be eroded in the name of public health. As governments continue to expand their authority over animal populations, the line between biosecurity and biological warfare becomes increasingly blurred.
Can we trust these agencies to act in the best interest of both animals and humans? Or are we witnessing the rise of a “biosecurity mafia” that prioritizes control over compassion? Is the intentional depopulation of animals an open door for globalists to conduct mass genetic experiments on animal flocks and herds? Is the intentional genocide of animals a ploy to manufacture a crisis so genetic experiments can be conducted en masse for "saving the animal's lives" and "saving the food supply?"
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.