by Dr.Harald Wiesendanger– Klartext
What the mainstream media is hiding
“Air Vax”: U.S. researchers have developed a process for inhaling mRNA vaccines from the air deep into the lungs. And this makes it possible to quickly vaccinate the entire population, even without their knowledge or consent. As soon as the WHO declares a “public health emergency” due to the next pandemic, it could order such measures to be binding under international law if its member states authorize it to do so in the near future. The first professional ethicists give their moral blessing in advance.
“Jabbing” will soon be over – at least according to William Mark Saltzman. The American cell and molecular physiologist from Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and twelve colleagues have just presented in the journal Science Translational Medicine what they have developed and tested together: a novel vaccination process that allows mRNA to be inhaled. At least it works excellent in laboratory mice – they then seemed to be immunized against Covid-19. In the near future, the door is expected to open for human testing.
To get the mRNA into cells, Saltzman’s team used “a nanoparticle made of poly(amine-co-ester) polyplexes, or PACE, a biocompatible and highly customizable polymer,” according to a Yale University press release ) “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 produce a mucosal vaccine against coronavirus 2 of the severe acute respiratory syndrome. We found that intranasal vaccination with spike protein-encoding mRNA polyplexes induced strong cellular and humoral adaptive immunity and protected susceptible mice from a lethal viral challenge. These results demonstrate the potential of PACE- Polyplexes for the therapeutic delivery of mRNA in the lungs.”
In a previous study, Saltzman tried 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 no less effective. Now Saltzman has high hopes for this method, far beyond vaccines:
“In the new study, there was no intramuscular injection. We simply administered two doses intranasally, a primary and a booster, and we got a highly protective immune response. But we also showed that you can generally administer different types of mRNA. So, it’s not only suitable for a vaccine but potentially for gene replacement therapy for diseases like cystic fibrosis and gene editing. We’ve shown that it works with the example of a vaccine, but it opens the door for all these other types of interventions.”
Comparison of biodistribution and protein production on mice 24 hours after administration of 5ug FLuc mRNA in Pace-E14 polyplexes (10% PACE-PEG), administered either intratracheally – into the trachea – or intranasally.
Air Vax could “radically change” vaccination.
Saltzman expects that this “new delivery method could radically change the way vaccinations are administered” – for example, for people who are afraid of needles, but also for residents of remote areas. Above all, vaccines that are released into the air can be spread much more easily and quickly among the population. Each person does not have to be vaccinated individually – which is not only time-consuming but also difficult if someone is reluctant to be vaccinated.
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 mRNA injections individually. In order to prevent a specific virus from spreading among them, a “nano vaccine” was developed instead that the animals ingest orally. Shai Ufaz, CEO of ViAqua, which developed the technology, explained:
“Oral administration is the holy grail of health development in aquaculture because it is impossible to vaccinate individual shrimp and because it can significantly reduce operational costs for disease management while improving outcomes.”
With their mRNA product, even if it is introduced into the organism through the nose, the Yale scientists are pursuing a similar goal: to vaccinate as many people as possible with as little effort as possible.
The principle of “informed consent” is under threat.
Just like the water in which the shrimp swims, the air we breathe is an environment we cannot escape- we must expose ourselves to it as a vital necessity. If it contains a vaccine, we cannot avoid taking it ourselves. We could even be exposed to them without our knowledge or consent if necessary. This threatens a principle of medical ethics: “Informed consent” as an essential prerequisite for an intervention to take place.
With the next pandemic at the latest, this principle could fall victim to supposed protection requirements. The international community is in the process of giving the WHO almost dictatorial powers as soon as it declares an international “health emergency.” Then, after they have approved the “pandemic treaty” that is ready to be signed by 2024, it could prescribe measures that are binding under international law to all member states, from mandatory testing and surveillance regimes to comprehensive censorship and new lockdowns to rapid vaccinations of the entire population that have not been adequately tested due to time pressure.
In order to prevent strenuous conflicts with unruly people and to prevent public criticism from arising in the first place, the WHO could even go so far as to have mass vaccinations carried out covertly – aerial vaccines are ideal for being secretly released on the population.
Would at least Western democracies not play a role in this? Even there, the inhibition threshold for trampling on fundamental rights is alarmingly low for incompetent, lobby-controlled governments, as has been proven enough in three traumatic Corona years.
Such breaches of the constitution have a shameful tradition. It has since emerged that the U.S. government has conducted secret bioweapon simulations on its unsuspecting citizens in the past. For six days beginning on September 26, 1950, the crew of a U.S. Navy minesweeper sprayed Serratia marcescens bacteria into the air about two miles off the Northern California coast. This so-called “Operation Sea Spray” was intended to find out how vulnerable a large city like San Francisco was to a biological weapon attack by terrorists. Because Serratia marcescens produces bright red pigments, it is easy to determine where it is.
In the following days, the military took samples from 43 locations to track the spread of the bacteria. It became apparent that it had quickly affected 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 U.S. military assumed that Serratia marcescens was harmless to humans. The pathogen was best known for the red spots it caused on infected foods; it had not been associated with clinical illnesses. That changed when, a week after the test, eleven residents went to a Stanford University hospital and complained 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 the release changed the region’s microbial ecology forever,” Smithsonian Magazine reports. It was not until 1976 that the public found out about the scandalous experiment.
An isolated case? Not at all. Over the next two decades, the U.S. government conducted similar experiments in other cities – seemingly unencumbered by scruples.
Vaccinate covertly if “effective and safe”?
Would secret mass vaccinations be justifiable if it was clear from the outset that they were “effective and safe”? The nasal mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 “triggered strong immunity” in the mice and reliably “protected them from a deadly viral challenge,” the Yale scientists assure. Courtney Malo, editor at Science Translational Medicine, agrees with this verdict: The air vaccination triggered “a robust immune response that ensured protection against a subsequent viral infection” with “only minor signs of toxicity.” The nanoparticles constructed as mRNA vehicles are “biodegradable,” “milder and better tolerated” than the notorious tiny lipids that are used for the same purpose in the Covid pseudo vaccines from Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna.
Hasn’t the corona pandemic just shown the extent to which such advertising slogans can be relied upon? Blind trust in experts who allowed themselves to be roped into marketing mRNA syringes have just brought to the world what is by far the most dangerous and deadliest vaccination campaign of all time. (See KlarTEXT: ” Jabbed to Death.”)
Is significant collateral damage acceptable if a monstrous threat is defeated? A Nobel Prize has just been dedicated to mRNA vaccination with the outrageous justification that it has “saved millions of lives.” The fact that this statistical lie was concocted using hypothetical “scenarios” and completely unrealistic forecast 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“) – is clear Unfortunately, those who have been jabbed to death millions of times cannot be resurrected.
“Bioenhancement” – Does the end justify every means?
The first voices are already being heard in the academic world that approve even covert compulsory vaccinations as ethically justifiable. A certain Parker Crutchfield, a professor in the Department of Medical Ethics at Western Michigan University, deals with “moral bioenhancement,” i.e., the use of biomedical means and measures to achieve “moral improvement,” in the journal Bioethics. Crutchfield cites drug treatments, including vaccines and genetic engineering interventions, as examples of this. He continues:
“It is necessary to morally improve the population to prevent ultimate harm. Moral bioenhancement is the possible influence on a person’s moral behavior through a biological intervention on his or her moral attitudes, motivations, or dispositions.”
The professional “ethicist” finds nothing objectionable about a possible “infusion of drugs into the water supply that increases empathy or altruism, or other interference with a person’s emotions or motivations to influence his or her moral behavior.”
“Concealed forced vaccination promotes values such as freedom, equality and autonomy.”- Parker Crutchfield
For the greater good, “moral bioenhancements” should not only be mandatory – it is “morally preferable” that they occur “covertly rather than overtly.”
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 overt program.”
Doesn’t the astonished contemporary witness of such secretions feel, in Orwellian Newspeak, involuntarily reminded of announcements by the so-called “Ethics Council” at the height of the Federal German Corona crisis? In November 2021, the panel recommended that hesitant decision-makers “consider” compulsory vaccination against Covid-19.
“And aren’t you willing…”
Once the next “killer germ” panic has fully ignited, politics and society will not wait for aesthetic professors’ opinions in order to once again unleash uninhibited agitation against a minority of vaccination refusers, as was the case in 2021/22, and exert massive coercion on them because they do not intend to fulfill a supposed “moral duty” of solidarity. Agitators, divisive people, and agitators will continue to shape the social climate in future pandemics, both real and alleged. Once again, “ethicists” will be found in chairs who find “sanction mechanisms based on deliberate discrimination against unvaccinated people justified from an ethical perspective.” Why not spray “anti-social free riders,” “dangerous social pests,” and “crazy people” with mRNA-containing aerosols in access gates before they are allowed to enter shops, offices, train stations, restaurants, stadiums, and other public places? To paraphrase Goethe’s Erlkönig: “And if you’re not willing, I need force.”
But how do you reach stubborn people who refuse to inhale? They could put a vaccine on their plate – a vision that the truly prophetic science fiction series Utopia staged with British gallows humor in 2013/14. Funded by $500,000 from the National Science Foundation, scientists at the University of California, Riverside, are actually working to breed lettuce that produces mRNA vaccines. Back in 2013, a specialist article described transgenic edible vaccines that are “produced by introducing selected desired genes into plants and causing these genetically modified plants to produce the encoded proteins.” Basically, plants are “capable of producing enough mRNA to do so. Such vaccines offer “several potential advantages” over conventional vaccine production methods, including lower production costs and room temperature storage, according to the publication.
Similar experiments toward this goal took place with alfalfa plants at Fort Valley State University in Georgia for five years starting in 2016. Sponsored by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the project ended with a confident research report in the journal Plants. (3)
Well, then, I guess you get it. How about “moral bioenhancement” of such a scientific enterprise?
Remarks
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 cell-foreign genetic material – DNA or RNA – into cells as “transfection.”
3 More details here
Air Vax, Forced vaccination, Compulsory vaccination, mRNA vaccines, Covid-19, Corona, SARS-CoV-2, Harald Wiesendanger, Utopiamoral, bioenhancement, Mass vaccination, WHO, Health emergency, Pandemic.