The climate change cult has officially jumped the shark.
Two professors are now openly advocating for deliberately spreading disease among the American people.
And these Western Michigan University scientists want to use disease-carrying ticks as bioweapons against Americans for one shocking reason.
University professors call for spreading deadly tick disease to enforce veganism
Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth, medical ethics professors at Western Michigan University, published their disturbing proposal in the peer-reviewed journal Bioethics.
Their plan? Release lone star ticks across America to spread Alpha-Gal Syndrome – a potentially fatal condition that makes people violently allergic to red meat.
"If we are right, then today we have the obligation to research and develop the capacity to proliferate tickborne AGS and, tomorrow, carry out that proliferation," the professors wrote.¹
These aren’t fringe conspiracy theorists posting on obscure websites.
These are tenured university professors publishing in academic journals and calling it "morally obligatory" to infect Americans with tick-borne diseases.
The lone star tick bite introduces a sugar molecule called alpha-gal into victims, causing Alpha-Gal Syndrome.
People with AGS can’t eat beef, pork, lamb, dairy products, or even use certain medications without risking severe allergic reactions.
The academic paper describes AGS as causing "severe but nonfatal" allergies, though the CDC warns the syndrome can cause "potentially life-threatening" reactions including anaphylaxis.
The Centers for Disease Control reports that more than 110,000 suspected cases of AGS were identified between 2010 and 2022, though the actual number could be as high as 450,000 Americans due to under-diagnosis.²
But Crutchfield and Hereth want to spread this disease deliberately across the entire population.
Climate extremists embrace biological warfare against American families
The professors frame their bioweapon proposal as environmental activism.
They claim cattle farming causes "global warming" and Americans must be forced to stop eating meat to meet climate goals.
Rather than directly calling for government action, they frame their argument as a philosophical challenge to conventional medical ethics.
The professors argue that "if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tickborne AGS are also morally impermissible."⁴
Their paper calls AGS a "moral bioenhancer" and argues that spreading the syndrome would be "strongly pro tanto obligatory" – meaning morally required unless outweighed by stronger opposing reasons.⁵
Think about what they’re actually proposing.
Two university professors want the government to deliberately spread disease-carrying ticks to make Americans allergic to meat.
They’re talking about using biological warfare against families who want to grill burgers in their backyard.
The paper even suggests using genetic engineering to make the ticks more effective disease spreaders.
Once infected, victims wouldn’t just lose access to meat and dairy.
They’d also develop reactions to processed foods and various medicines containing mammalian products.
This isn’t about saving polar bears – it’s about controlling what Americans can eat through biological terrorism.
The climate cult reveals its true authoritarian nature
Here’s what makes this especially disturbing.
Crutchfield and Hereth aren’t couching this as some far-off academic thought experiment.
They published their proposal in a major bioethics journal and laid out a detailed argument for why spreading tick-borne disease should be considered a moral duty.
Their paper doesn’t dance around the implications – it directly argues that making Americans allergic to meat through tick bites would be ethically justified.
The lone star tick has been expanding its territory from the Southeast into states like New York and Pennsylvania.
Instead of working to protect Americans from this disease, academic "experts" want to weaponize it.
The CDC currently recommends using repellents and protective clothing to avoid tick bites.
But Crutchfield and Hereth want to encourage tick proliferation as an "ethical duty."
This reveals how far the climate change movement has drifted from environmental protection into outright authoritarianism.
When academics start promoting biological weapons to enforce dietary compliance, they’ve crossed every ethical line imaginable.
These people don’t want to persuade Americans to change their habits.
They want to terrorize them into submission through the threat of deadly allergic reactions.
What American families need to understand
When a respected medical journal publishes papers advocating disease proliferation, we’re seeing how far academic institutions have drifted from basic medical ethics.
These aren’t fringe researchers posting on obscure blogs.
These are tenured professors at a major medical school whose ideas are getting serious academic consideration.
The students learning from these professors will become tomorrow’s doctors, researchers, and policy advisors.
They’re being taught that making people sick can be "morally obligatory" if it serves the right political goals.
Here’s what should worry every parent in America.
The same academic-government complex that brought us lockdowns and mandates is now openly discussing biological methods to control behavior.
They’ve moved from "two weeks to flatten the curve" to "let’s spread disease to change what people eat."
The precedent for using health authorities to override personal choice is already established.
Now they’re just expanding the toolkit to include actual disease vectors.
For families who want to continue eating meat, this represents a direct threat from institutions that view individual choice as an obstacle to their environmental agenda.
The climate cult has revealed its true face – and it’s the face of biological terrorism.
¹ Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth, "Beneficial Bloodsucking," Bioethics, July 22, 2025.
² Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Alpha-gal Syndrome Statistics," CDC.gov, 2023.
³ Crutchfield and Hereth, "Beneficial Bloodsucking," Bioethics.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid.
