>These are livestock animals destined for slaughter so there's a nearly 100% mortality rate there. While they are destined for slaughter, it would be pointless to give a slaughter animal a vaccine close to its time of demise. It would be most likely that the swine would be injected shortly after birth and would be raised to a specific age/size before slaughter. That amount of time raising them is likely comparable to the amount of time the mRNA animal testing would have run as well. >I'm not an expert but I believe the vaccine being tested was intended for human use not these designed for swine. The claims that all mRNA vaccine testing preformed on animals resulted in total death was never clear what the intended target organism was. It was simply said that in past (((pre-covid))) testing of mRNA vaccines that the test animals all perished after being vaxxed. No source of this claim ever indicated what was being tested precisely, what the intended target organism was, who did the testing, how long the testing ran or what the actual data of the results were. These missing but critical data points and for this articles claims are the reason I am questioning the two being at odds. Someone is lying, but it cannot be determined which side it is. All I can say for sure is that both outcomes cannot be true at the same time. There are incentives on both sides to lie so how can this be sorted out?