Xenotransplantation: Pig kidney - Eat, no! Transplantation, yes!
The pig is the focus of the medical-pharmaceutical technostructure. This debate has not yet reached the general public. Yet it would be important. Because unlike meat consumption, this is about fundamental ethical questions for humanity.
There is no shortage of ideas. The question is whether they are intelligent: would a drastic reduction in meat consumption be the solution to the desired reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? [1]
The explanation most often put forward is that conventional mass livestock farming releases large quantities of climate-damaging greenhouse gases. Regularly, research reports are published to support this position. About a year ago, a team of researchers set out to demonstrate, using computer simulations and modelling, how much carbon dioxide emissions could be saved if the majority of the world's population switched to a plant-based diet:
"We show that even in the absence of further emission reductions, a continued decline in atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide concentrations and a slower build-up of carbon dioxide after the abandonment of livestock farming by the end of the century would have the same cumulative effect on atmospheric warming potential as a reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 25 gigatonnes per year, which would represent half of the net emission reductions needed to limit warming to 2°C." [2]
"We show that even in the absence of further emission reductions, a continued decline in atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide concentrations and a slower build-up of carbon dioxide after the abandonment of livestock farming by the end of the century would have the same cumulative effect on atmospheric warming potential as a reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 25 gigatonnes per year, which would represent half of the net emission reductions needed to limit warming to 2°C." [2]
And again: Given the scale and speed of these potential impacts, reducing or eliminating livestock farming should be placed at the forefront of strategies to avoid catastrophic climate change. In April 2022, the journal Nature Food found that replacing animal-based foods in the current diet with new foods could reduce all environmental impacts by more than 80%. [3]
Fasting for the climate
In the German-speaking world, we see this influence being strengthened via public institutions. More and more schools and kindergartens are offering only vegetarian meals - although this is probably due more to costs than to a world view. [4] In a recent long-term forecast, the European Commission estimates that meat production in the Member States will fall by 5.8% by 2032 to 41.7 million tonnes. Since June 2021 Brussels has authorised four insects in different forms of presentation as foodstuffs for the European market. In Germany, meat production has fallen by 8% in 2022, according to figures from the Federal Statistical Office. The country also banned the sale of Brazilian beef at the beginning of 2022 in order to protect the rainforest. But Brazil does not need the German market to sell its meat.
So there is talk of climate change and the harmful contribution of factory farming, and talk shows and soap operas are full of articles. But there is another animal-related topic that, surprisingly, does not get nearly as much attention. This topic should be of urgent interest to us because it involves - unlike meat consumption - fundamental ethical issues: xenotransplantation.
Xenotransplantation is generally understood to mean the transplantation of tissues and organs between different species, specifically between animals and humans. What motivates science and research here goes almost unnoticed by the general public. Because the interests of the medical-pharmaceutical technostructure are at stake, this secrecy is deliberate.
Pig heart for humans
So it was only a brief hype in the summer of 2019: Japanese scientists were allowed to grow human organs in animals. In an interview in autumn 2019, stem cell researcher Hiromitsu Nakauchi was still worried about public acceptance: "The difficulty lies in the definition of humanity. It is a philosophical question without a definitive answer. If brain death is recognised as the sign of death of a human being, then humanity is defined by the brain. Thus, as long as a chimera's brain is devoid of human cells, it is not human. But I insist: the aim is not to create human-ape chimeras, but to cultivate organs." [5]
For two years, the subject then largely disappeared from the scene. Until in January 2022 - with great media involvement - a genetically modified pig heart was transplanted into a man suffering from a serious heart disease. Two months later, this live medical experiment ended, the man died. Scientists nevertheless described the experiment as sensational, and since then xenotransplantation research has also been progressing in Europe. Only last March the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany announced that it was now possible, through gene editing, to remove retrovirus genes from the genome of pigs bred for future xenotransplants.[6,7]
The main concern with xenotransplants is that animal pathogens can be transmitted to humans. Porcine cytomegalovirus viruses were found in the heart of the pig of the deceased experimental patient.
The pig is thus at the centre of the medical-pharmaceutical technostructure. A German-language scientific magazine writes in its latest issue: "It turned out that pigs are the best donor organisms. They resemble humans in terms of size and anatomy, are bred en masse and are therefore available in large numbers." [8] The negative effects of intensive livestock farming on the climate are therefore clearly of secondary importance. After all, in Germany alone there are 8,500 people urgently waiting for an organ donation, in France about 11,000 and in the USA about 100,000. But not everyone wants to have their organs removed. In France, the rate of opposition has been relatively constant for decades, around 30%. [9]
The big deal
Mass organ harvesting is therefore proving to be good business, especially if it can be done at low cost. Thanks to the discovery of CRISPR-Cas, it is possible to modify genetic material. In the case of hearts or kidneys grown in pigs, DNA is added to the pig cells or parts of their genome are replaced by other DNA material. In relevant research circles, including in Germany, it is hoped that the EMA could approve a human clinical study within the next three years. There is also talk of transplanting organs from brain-dead people.
Currently, there is no European legal framework for animal-to-human organ transplants. Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products dates from 2007. [10] In 2009, the EMA guideline on xenogeneic cell-based medical devices was published. [11] However, preparations are ongoing. The think tank European Parliament published a policy paper [12] on this topic a year ago: "There have been no major legislative developments in the EU in recent years specifically concerning xenotransplantation." While the above-mentioned regulation would have been an important step towards a coherent European ethical and legal framework for xenotransplantation, "a more competent regulatory authority is needed for this promising practice to reach its full potential."
So here too we see a familiar pattern: on the surface, politics and the media are engaged in hysterical discussions, for example about climate change. This serves primarily to make people docile to further infringements of their fundamental rights. But it also serves to divert attention. The political leaders of the EU and its Member States are laying the groundwork for the technostructure so that it can satisfy its commercial interests.
The promise of salvation will also have a familiar pattern: the technostructure will save hundreds of thousands of human lives. With cheap organs, available at the touch of a button. No one will have to die for lack of a compatible organ.
In this area, there is no need for great public debate - and certainly no political headwinds. Yet it is precisely in the field of xenotransplantation that a broad debate is needed from an ethical and medical point of view. Suffice it to note that patients receiving such donor organs could possibly be infected with pathogens that have so far only affected animals. Different viral strains could recombine in the human body and give rise to new pathogens. In this context, it is cynical that the FDA recommends "using pig organs only in people who have no other choice." [13]
A final thought is that if organs are mass cultured for clinical trials, what happens to the rest of the animal? Will it be disposed of properly or will it end up as cheap meat on supermarket shelves?
---
[2] https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00489-9
[7] https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.00062-23
[10] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:324:0121:0137:fr:PDF
[12]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2022/697212/EPRS_ATA(2022)697212_EN.pdf
[13]https://www.spektrum.de/inhaltsverzeichnis/kosmische-atomschmiede-spektrum-der-wissenschaft-5-2023/2070498