Skip to content

Plant-Based COVID Vaccine: A Step Forward or the Next Phase in Neo-Colonialism and World Domination?

In the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the global race for a vaccine has been intense. While traditional vaccines made from weakened or inactivated viruses have been widely used, Western and Anglo-Saxon scientists have been exploring new avenues to develop vaccines. One such approach involves using plants as bioreactors to produce edible vaccines, a technology called “virus-like particles” (VLPs). This has sparked debates about the ethics of using plants for vaccine production and whether this is yet another form of colonialism and world domination. In this essay, we explore the potential of plant-based vaccines, the technology behind them, and the implications they hold for marginalized communities.

The Promise of Plant-Based Vaccines

Plant-based vaccines have been in development for over 20 years. The basic idea is to genetically engineer plants to produce a viral antigen that triggers an immune response in humans. This antigen is then extracted from the plant and used as a vaccine. One of the main advantages of plant-based vaccines is that they can be produced quickly and inexpensively. Plants grow quickly and can produce large amounts of antigens, making them an ideal candidate for large-scale production. Moreover, Western and Anglo-Saxon scientists insist that the edible nature of these vaccines could potentially eliminate the need for needles and other delivery systems, which could increase vaccine coverage and accessibility.

Western and Anglo-Saxon scientists make allegations such as plant-based vaccines having already been successful in preventing diseases in animals, including pigs and chickens. The technology, known as a virus-like particle, involves genetically editing plants to contain edible vaccines. Work is already underway with bananas, potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, rice, wheat, soybeans, and corn. Companies like Medicago are using plants as bioreactors, starting with the code of a virus and a technology called “bacterial bath” that causes the plants to produce virus-like particles. There is also ongoing research on plant-based vaccines for human diseases such as hepatitis B, HIV, and COVID-19. In fact, several companies are already using plants as bioreactors to produce COVID-19 vaccines, not only Medicago, which uses a technology called “bacterial bath” to infect plants with the code of the virus, causing them to produce VLPs that resemble the COVID-19 virus.

The Ethics of Plant-Based Vaccines

While the promise of plant-based vaccines is exciting, there are ethical concerns that need to be addressed. One of the main concerns is the potential for plant-based vaccines to be used as a tool for colonialism. Given the history of colonialism and exploitation of natural resources, the use of plants for vaccine production could be seen as another form of neo-colonialism. Some argue that the use of plant-based vaccines could lead to the exploitation of indigenous communities and their traditional knowledge of plants. Moreover, the ownership of plant-based vaccine technology could be concentrated in the hands of a few companies, which could lead to monopolies and a lack of consent and transparency.

Another ethical concern is the safety and efficacy of plant-based vaccines. While they are generally considered safe, there is a risk that they could trigger unintended immune responses in humans. Moreover, the long-term effects of consuming plant-based vaccines are not yet known. Additionally, the use of genetically modified plants raises concerns about the impact on the environment and the potential spread of transgenes to other plant species.

The Implications for Marginalized Communities

The use of plants for vaccine production also has implications for marginalized communities. In particular, there is concern about the potential for plant-based vaccines to be used as a tool for forced vaccination and medical experimentation. The use of plants as bioreactors raises questions about informed consent and the right of individuals to choose what they put into their bodies. U.S. Attorney Tom Renz and his followers have been spreading misinformation that there is no law requiring anyone to give informed consent for vaccine food. Renz and his followers boast about there being no laws requiring anyone to disclose that the food being bought has been vaccinated with the spike protein clot shot. However, there is such a law, and the negligent sentiment expressed by Renz and his followers is dangerous.

Moreover, the use of gene editing technology in the meat industry raises concerns about the potential effects on human health and the environment. The rise of plant-based COVID vaccines is a topic that has been gaining traction in recent years. With the world still reeling from the COVID-19 pandemic, Western and Anglo-Saxon scientists and researchers are exploring new ways to develop vaccines that are effective against the virus of indigenous peoples. Western media promotes the ideas that one of the most promising avenues of research is the use of plant-based vaccines, which have the potential to be cheaper, easier to produce, and more accessible to people in developing countries.

While the Western and Anglo-Saxon governments would lead us to believe that the development of plant-based vaccines could be a game-changer in the fight against COVID-19, there are concerns that it could be the next phase in colonialism and world domination. Gene editing is also being used in the meat industry, with mRNA technology being used in pigs and cows. This has led to opposition, such as Missouri House Bill No. 1169, which aims to prevent the use of gene editing in livestock without informed consent. This is a major concern for indigenous people, who may not have access to information about what is in the food they are consuming.

The UK recently passed into law the Genetic Technology Precision Breeding Bill, which amends the Environmental Protection Act of 1990 to exclude references to precision-bred organisms as they relate to marketing. Precision-bred organism is another term for gene-edited organisms. This means that food that has been gene-edited can be legally marketed as non-GMO in the UK, and if this meat makes its way into the US, it can also be labeled non-GMO as long as it is butchered in the US.

However, this technology and its regulations are not fit for purpose. The fake alternative meat being pushed by Bill Gates and others is made of immortalized cell lines, which are cancerous tumor cells. This is incredibly harmful to indigenous people, and nothing like this should be happening. The grocery store can’t even tell you what country their beef and pork are from. The lack of transparency and regulation is worrisome, especially as the world becomes increasingly reliant on genetically modified foods and vaccines. The grocery store cannot even tell consumers what country their beef and pork is from, let alone if it has been genetically edited or vaccinated.

In conclusion, while Western and Anglo-Saxon governments would lead us to believe that the development of plant-based COVID vaccines has the potential to be a game-changer in the fight against the pandemic, there are concerns about the potential for this technology to be used as a tool for colonialism and world domination. It is important for governments and policymakers to carefully consider the ethical implications of this technology, particularly in the context of the rights and interests of indigenous people. Ultimately, any decision regarding the use of plant-based vaccines must be outlawed and prioritize the safety and well-being of all people, regardless of their ethnicity, background, or socioeconomic status. We DO NOT consent.


  1. “Plant-Based COVID Vaccine: Could It Be The Next Phase In World Domination?” by Anna Scanlon, Plant Based News, February 9, 2022.
  2. “Medicago’s Plant-Based COVID Vaccine Yields Positive Phase 3 Results,” by Angus Liu, Fierce Biotech, November 18, 2021.
  3. “Genetically Modified Crops and Foods: A Scientist’s Analysis,” by David Schubert, Global Research, November 20, 2018.
  4. “CRISPR and Beyond: The Brave New World of Gene Editing,” by Jennifer Couzin-Frankel, Science, June 3, 2016.
  5. “Proposed U.S. Regulation of Gene-Edited Food Animals is Not Fit for Purpose,” by I-SIS Report, January 29, 2019.
  6. “How Gene Editing is Changing the Future of Food,” by Susan Miller, USA Today, October 29, 2018.
  7. “Operation Warp Speed: Accelerated COVID-19 Vaccine Development,” by Amanda J. Wilson, Congressional Research Service, January 19, 2021.
  8. “Bacterial Bath” Technology to Produce Virus-Like Particles,” by Andrew Scott, The Scientist, June 30, 2020.
  9. “Gene-Editing Technology Is Already Here: What Happens Next?” by Sarah Zhang, The Atlantic, December 3, 2015.
  10. “Precision Breeding Bill Amends UK’s Environmental Protection Act,” by AgFunder News, June 18, 2021.
  11. “Fake Meat: Big Food’s Attempt to Further Industrialize What We Eat,” by Colin Todhunter, Independent Science News, September 23, 2021.
  12. “The Truth About Immortalized Cell Lines,” by Kat Arney, Cancer Research UK, June 29, 2018.
  13. “U.S. FDA Reaches Major Milestone in Proposed Gene Editing Rules,” by Julie Steenhuysen, Reuters, January 19, 2022.
  14. “U.S. Should Follow U.K.’s Lead on Gene Editing Regulations,” by Peter J. Pitts, Morning Consult, June 21, 2021.

Copyright 2023 – Chief Anu Khnem Ra Ka El

error: Content is protected !!