by Dr.Harald Wiesendanger– Klartext
What the mainstream media is hiding
“Air Vax”: US researchers are developing methods that allow sprayed vaccines to be inhaled from the air. This will enable rapid vaccination of the entire population, even without their knowledge or consent. As soon as the WHO declares a “public health emergency” in response to the next pandemic, it could call on its member states to do so. Professional ethicists are already giving their moral blessing.
The “prick” will soon be over – at least if William Mark Saltzman has his way. The American cell and molecular physiologist from Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and twelve colleagues recently presented in the journal Science Translational Medicine what they have jointly developed and tested: a novel vaccination procedure that allows the inhalation of mRNA. At least in laboratory mice, it works brilliantly – they subsequently appeared to be immunized against COVID-19. The door is expected to open for human testing in the near future.
To deliver the mRNA into the cells, Saltzman’s team uses “a nanoparticle made of poly(amine-co-ester) polyplexes, or PACE, a biocompatible and highly adaptable polymer,” according to a Yale University press release. (1) “These polyplexes,” the researchers write, “achieved high transfection (2) of mRNA throughout the lung, particularly in epithelial and antigen-presenting cells. We applied this technology to develop a mucosal vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and found that intranasal vaccination with spike protein-encoding mRNA polyplexes elicited strong cellular and humoral adaptive immunity and protected susceptible mice from a lethal viral challenge. These results demonstrate the potential of PACE polyplexes for therapeutic delivery of mRNA in the lung.”
In an earlier study, Saltzman tested a “prime-and-spike” system to deliver mRNA against COVID-19: He injected it into a muscle and then sprayed spike proteins into the nose. The injection proved unnecessary because intranasal administration was just as effective. Now Saltzman has high hopes for this method, far beyond vakzines:
“In the new study, there was no intramuscular injection. We simply administered two doses intranasally, a primer and a booster, and we obtained a highly protective immune response. But we also showed that you can generally deliver different types of mRNA. So, it’s suitable not only for a vaccine but potentially also for gene replacement therapy for diseases like cystic fibrosis and gene editing. We’ve shown that it works with a vaccine but opens the door to all these other types of interventions.”
Air Vax Could “Radically Change” Vaccination
Saltzman expects that this “new delivery method could radically change the way vaccinations are delivered” – for example, for people who are afraid of needles, but also for residents of remote areas. Most importantly, airborne vaccines can be distributed much more easily and quickly throughout the population. There is no need to vaccinate each person individually – which is not only time-consuming but also challenging if someone is resistant to vaccination.
Excellently Economical – Like with Shrimp
A similar strategy has recently been used in shrimp farming. The crustaceans are too small and too numerous to be given individual mRNA injections. To prevent a specific virus from spreading among them, a “nanovaccine” has been developed instead, which the animals ingest orally. Shai Ufaz, CEO of ViAqua, which developed the technology, explained:
“Oral delivery is the holy grail of health development in aquaculture because it is impossible to vaccinate individual shrimp and because it can significantly reduce the operational costs of disease management while improving outcomes.”
With their mRNA product, even if it is introduced into the organism via the nose, the Yale scientists are pursuing a similar goal: to vaccinate as many as possible with the least possible effort.
The principle of “informed consent” is threatened.
Just as the water in which a shrimp swims is for the shrimp, the air we breathe is an environment from which we cannot escape – we are forced to expose ourselves to it for our survival. If it contains a vaccine, we cannot avoid ingesting it. If necessary, we could even be exposed to it without our knowledge or consent. This threatens a fundamental tenet of medical ethics: “informed consent” as an essential prerequisite for any intervention.
This principle could fall victim to perceived protective needs during the next pandemic, at the very latest. As soon as the WHO declares a “health emergency,” it will pressure its member states to implement a variety of measures with which we have already become familiar during the COVID-19 years: from mandatory testing and surveillance regimes to comprehensive censorship and new lockdowns to rapid vaccinations of the entire population that have been inadequately tested due to time constraints.
To prevent strenuous conflicts with recalcitrants and to prevent public criticism from arising in the first place, the WHO could even go so far as to conduct mass vaccinations covertly – aerial vaccines are ideal for being secretly unleashed on the population.
Constraint to violate the Constitution?
Would Western democracies, at least, absolutely not play along? Even there, the threshold for trampling on fundamental rights is frighteningly low among incompetent, lobby-driven governments, as has been amply demonstrated during three traumatic years of the coronavirus pandemic.
Such a violation of the Constitution would be a shameful tradition. It has since come to light that the US government has conducted secret bioweapon simulations on its unsuspecting citizens in the past. Starting on September 26, 1950, the crew of a US Navy minesweeper sprayed Serratia marcescens bacteria into the air for six days about two miles off the Northern California coast. This so-called “Operation Sea Spray” was intended to determine how vulnerable a major city like San Francisco was to a biological weapons attack by terrorists. Because Serratia marcescens produces bright red pigments, its location is easy to determine.
In the following days, the military took samples from 43 locations to track the spread of the bacteria. It was found that it had quickly infected not only the city but also the surrounding suburbs. During the test, residents of these areas inhaled millions of bacterial spores. The experiment proved that San Francisco and cities of similar size and topography could be at risk from bacterial warfare.
But there was a catch. Initially, the US military assumed that Serratia marcescens was harmless to humans. The pathogen was primarily known for the red spots it caused on contaminated food; it had not been associated with clinical illness. That changed one week after the test when eleven local residents visited a Stanford University hospital complaining of urinary tract infections—they had been infected with Serratia. A 75-year-old patient named Edward Nevin, who was recovering from prostate surgery, subsequently died, “and some suspect that the release forever altered the region’s microbial ecology,” as Smithsonian Magazine reports. The public only learned of the scandalous experiment in 1976.
An isolated incident? Not at all. Over the next two decades, the US government conducted similar trials in other cities—apparently untroubled by any qualms.
Vaccinate covertly if “effective and safe”?
Would secret mass vaccinations be justifiable if it were established from the outset that they were “effective and safe”? The nasal mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 “triggered strong immunity” in the mice and reliably “protected them from a lethal viral challenge,” the Yale scientists assert. Courtney Malo, editor at Science Translational Medicine, agrees: The aerial vaccination “triggered a robust immune response that ensured protection against subsequent viral infection” with “only minimal signs of toxicity.” The nanoparticles, constructed as mRNA vehicles, are “biodegradable,” “milder, and better tolerated” than the infamous lipid microparticles used for the same purpose in the COVID pseudo-vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna.
Hasn’t the coronavirus pandemic just demonstrated the extent to which such advertising slogans can be relied upon? Blind faith in experts who allowed themselves to be harnessed to marketing mRNA injections has just burdened the world with by far the most dangerous and deadly vaccination campaign of all time. (See KLARTEXT: ” Jabbed to Death.“)
Is significant collateral damage acceptable if a monstrous threat is averted? A Nobel Prize has just been awarded to mRNA vaccination on the preposterous grounds that it has “saved millions of lives.” The fact that this statistical lie was concocted using hypothetical “scenarios” and completely unrealistic forecasting models – by the WHO and, in particular, by a shady number-cruncher named Neil Ferguson from the Gates-sponsored Imperial College in London (see KLARTEXT: “‘Professor Lockdown’ struck”) – unfortunately won’t resurrect the millions of people who have been shot to death.
“Bioenhancement” – Does the end justify the means?
The first voices in the academic world are already making themselves heard, approving even covert compulsory vaccinations as ethically acceptable. A certain Parker Crutchfield, a professor in the Department of Medical Ethics at Western Michigan University, discusses “moral bioenhancement” in the journal Bioethics, i.e., the use of biomedical means and interventions to achieve “moral improvements.” Crutchfield cites drug treatments, including vaccines and genetic engineering, as examples. He further explains:
“It is necessary to morally improve the population to prevent ultimate harm. Moral bioenhancement is the possible influence of a person’s moral behavior through a biological intervention in their moral attitudes, motivations, or dispositions.” The professional “ethicist” finds nothing objectionable in the possible “infusion of drugs into the water supply that enhances empathy or altruism, or other interventions in a person’s emotions or motivations to influence their moral behavior.”
For the common good, “moral bio-enhancements” should not only be mandatory—it is “morally preferable” that they take place “covertly rather than openly.”
Crutchfield even goes so far as to claim that “a covert, coercive program promotes values such as freedom, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an open program.”
Doesn’t the astonished contemporary witness to such Orwellian newspeak involuntarily feel reminded of pronouncements by the so-called “Ethics Council” at the height of the German coronavirus pandemic? In November 2021, the panel recommended that hesitant decision-makers “review” mandatory vaccination against Covid-19.
“And if you’re not willing…”
Once the next “killer germ” panic has fully ignited, politics and society will not wait for high-minded professorial opinions to once again, as in 2021/22, unbridled incitement and massive coercion against a minority of vaccine refusers because they refuse to fulfill a supposed “moral duty” to show solidarity. Instigators, dividers, and agitators will continue to shape the social climate in future pandemics, both real and alleged. Once again, “ethicists” will be found in professorships who find “sanction mechanisms for deliberate discrimination against the unvaccinated to be ethically justified.” Why not simply spray “antisocial freeloaders,” “dangerous social pests,” and “nutcases” with mRNA-containing aerosols in access gates before they’re allowed to enter shops, government offices, train stations, restaurants, stadiums, and other public places? To paraphrase Goethe’s “Erlkönig”: “And if you’re not willing, I’ll use force.”
But how do you reach stubborn inhalation refusers? They could get vaccines on their plates – a vision that the truly prophetic science fiction series Utopia portrayed with British gallows humor back in 2013/14. Funded by the National Science Foundation with $500,000, scientists at the University of California, Riverside, are actually working on cultivating lettuce that produces mRNA vaccines. As early as 2013, a scientific article described transgenic edible vaccines, which are “produced by introducing selected desired genes into plants and causing these genetically modified plants to produce the encoded proteins.” In principle, plants are “capable of producing enough mRNA to compete with a conventional jab.” According to the publication, such vaccines offer “several potential advantages” over conventional vaccine production methods, including lower production costs and storability at room temperature.
Similar experiments toward this goal were conducted with alfalfa plants at Fort Valley State University in Georgia for five years beginning in 2016. Sponsored by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the project culminated in a promising research report in the journal Plants. (3)
Well then, enjoy. How about “moral bioenhancement” of vaccine research?
(Harald Wiesendanger)
Notes
1 A “polyplex” is a complex of a positively charged polymer—such as polyamine co-ester—and negatively charged nucleic acids such as DNA or RNA. Genetic engineers use them to introduce genetic material into cells.
2 Biologists refer to the introduction of foreign genetic material—DNA or RNA—into cells as “transfection.”
3 More information here