Devil's Advocate here, while I share the concern he has, he is extrapolating a bit here. from the bit of context of the paper he gives, it sounds like this is more of an inhalable vaccination administered nasally rather than some sort of vaccine bomb dropped on a city.
There's no doubt in my mind that governments would do such a thing if they thought they could get away with it, but we're a little ways off from that scenario with this paper is my point.
The amount of antigens and other vaccine components needed to accomplish what people are claiming is practically impossible to make in quantities that would be needed.
What this article is talking about is a nasal spray vaccine. Which has to be give directly into the nostril for it to work. It's simply impossible to get enough antigens in the open air in order to inoculate people that way.
I think people are getting a bit carried away with this one. There are plenty of real issues going on that are legitimate cause for concern. We don't need to go out of our way to find things to get upset about.
What concerns me about this is that we're going to see more and more of these nasal spray vaccines for childhood immunizations.That eliminates the number one reason why most normies are against vaccines. They simply don't trust shots and will think the nasal vaccines are safe(r).
They don't need to go through all these elaborate scenarios where they're secretly trying to vaccinate everyone by spraying vaccines in the air when all they need to do is make the general public believe vaccines are safe. And they're doing that by taking away the top reason people are against them.
I think the main point U/BakasEverywhere is trying to make about feasibility still stands, though. The amount of mRNA you'd have to produce to be effective would be astronomical. my understanding is even simply spraying a chemical agent isn't as deadly as it's often made out to be (sounds terrifying of course), because whatever agent is used often has trouble achieving a lethal level in the air quick enough and long enough to kill more than a handful of people.
If they can achieve the same result by simply making vaccines/mRNA injections less scary, why bother?
Different groups are going for the big money contracts and have different ideas on how to do it. 'Vaccine hesitancy' goes beyond needles now. A significant account of those that submitted are becoming infertile and/or dying of horrific cancers, etc. The next targets won't be nearly as compliant; they already resisted a huge coordinated campaign of fear and force. That's why we're seeing different research groups claiming they can put it in food, in air, etc- competition. Any one of these may work or not, any might be 'most effective,' depending on the payload and intent. If the intent is to contaminate everyone possible in a region, perhaps with certain genetic exceptions, then maybe staying public spaces are enough. The haze-making sky sprays maybe can't be as targeted.
No, I didn't realize that all vaccines are now mRNA. I haven't been able to find anything that shows that. Other than comments on blogs and other social media sites, which I don't consider to be credible evidence.
Could you share where you got this information from, please? I don't have any problem admitting that my research skills aren't the best, so it's entirely possible that I've just missed it. So please don't take my request for your source negatively. I am honestly interested in whatever information you have that explains how all vaccines are mRNA now. Thanks. ✌️
That's a lot of effort into sarcasm to say one thing simply, sorry you feel so emotional on the topic. Here's something I am emotional about: murder.
For my part, as a biochemist I realize that the technology they're discussing is directly related to the housing of recombinant pieces of RNA AND DNA to stably enter the cells. As having awakened in the last decade and researched many late nights into Big Vaccines, I've come to the conclusion that none of the vaccines were ever functional nor safe, based on the lack of honest studies showing 'safe and effective' and the preponderance of studies that show disproportionate harm. Also, the documented fraud, lies, convictions and penalties paid by Big Vaccine shows they have no regard for life, and we cannot believe literally anything they say. In fact, I'd propose that we start with the opposite of what they say. Based on their own documentation.
So, we don't know anything about what's really in the vials. We don't know if ANY quality control has EVER been done. We believe they're manufactured by the lowest bidders, in places that don't like us. I don't care how many aerosolized 'vaccines' are released, there are many reasons to believe they will be harmful in many ways. MRNA is the latest tend, and execs like the latest trend (see failed spending on AI).
Devil's Advocate here, while I share the concern he has, he is extrapolating a bit here. from the bit of context of the paper he gives, it sounds like this is more of an inhalable vaccination administered nasally rather than some sort of vaccine bomb dropped on a city.
There's no doubt in my mind that governments would do such a thing if they thought they could get away with it, but we're a little ways off from that scenario with this paper is my point.
The amount of antigens and other vaccine components needed to accomplish what people are claiming is practically impossible to make in quantities that would be needed.
What this article is talking about is a nasal spray vaccine. Which has to be give directly into the nostril for it to work. It's simply impossible to get enough antigens in the open air in order to inoculate people that way.
I think people are getting a bit carried away with this one. There are plenty of real issues going on that are legitimate cause for concern. We don't need to go out of our way to find things to get upset about.
What concerns me about this is that we're going to see more and more of these nasal spray vaccines for childhood immunizations.That eliminates the number one reason why most normies are against vaccines. They simply don't trust shots and will think the nasal vaccines are safe(r).
They don't need to go through all these elaborate scenarios where they're secretly trying to vaccinate everyone by spraying vaccines in the air when all they need to do is make the general public believe vaccines are safe. And they're doing that by taking away the top reason people are against them.
Antigens aren't in their "vaccines" anymore, do you not realize that? They coded mRNA for making spike proteins, which also wasn't an antigen.
I think the main point U/BakasEverywhere is trying to make about feasibility still stands, though. The amount of mRNA you'd have to produce to be effective would be astronomical. my understanding is even simply spraying a chemical agent isn't as deadly as it's often made out to be (sounds terrifying of course), because whatever agent is used often has trouble achieving a lethal level in the air quick enough and long enough to kill more than a handful of people.
If they can achieve the same result by simply making vaccines/mRNA injections less scary, why bother?
Thank you, that was exactly what my main point is. 🙂
Different groups are going for the big money contracts and have different ideas on how to do it. 'Vaccine hesitancy' goes beyond needles now. A significant account of those that submitted are becoming infertile and/or dying of horrific cancers, etc. The next targets won't be nearly as compliant; they already resisted a huge coordinated campaign of fear and force. That's why we're seeing different research groups claiming they can put it in food, in air, etc- competition. Any one of these may work or not, any might be 'most effective,' depending on the payload and intent. If the intent is to contaminate everyone possible in a region, perhaps with certain genetic exceptions, then maybe staying public spaces are enough. The haze-making sky sprays maybe can't be as targeted.
No, I didn't realize that all vaccines are now mRNA. I haven't been able to find anything that shows that. Other than comments on blogs and other social media sites, which I don't consider to be credible evidence.
Could you share where you got this information from, please? I don't have any problem admitting that my research skills aren't the best, so it's entirely possible that I've just missed it. So please don't take my request for your source negatively. I am honestly interested in whatever information you have that explains how all vaccines are mRNA now. Thanks. ✌️
That's a lot of effort into sarcasm to say one thing simply, sorry you feel so emotional on the topic. Here's something I am emotional about: murder.
For my part, as a biochemist I realize that the technology they're discussing is directly related to the housing of recombinant pieces of RNA AND DNA to stably enter the cells. As having awakened in the last decade and researched many late nights into Big Vaccines, I've come to the conclusion that none of the vaccines were ever functional nor safe, based on the lack of honest studies showing 'safe and effective' and the preponderance of studies that show disproportionate harm. Also, the documented fraud, lies, convictions and penalties paid by Big Vaccine shows they have no regard for life, and we cannot believe literally anything they say. In fact, I'd propose that we start with the opposite of what they say. Based on their own documentation.
So, we don't know anything about what's really in the vials. We don't know if ANY quality control has EVER been done. We believe they're manufactured by the lowest bidders, in places that don't like us. I don't care how many aerosolized 'vaccines' are released, there are many reasons to believe they will be harmful in many ways. MRNA is the latest tend, and execs like the latest trend (see failed spending on AI).