COVID Vaccine: What Else Could They Put In The Shot?

 

  

There has never been a greater opportunity to deploy
one vaccine against so many people. So it’s certainly not out of line to consider
a “dual use.”

Are Researchers Interested In Marrying
Nanotechnology And Vaccines?

Here is a quote from Frontiers in Immunology,
January 24, 2019, “Nanoparticle-Based Vaccines Against Respiratory
Viruses”:

“A new generation of vaccines based on
nanoparticles has shown great potential to address most of the limitations of
conventional and subunit vaccines.”

“This is due to recent advances in chemical
and biological engineering, which allow the design of nanoparticles with a precise
control over the size, shape, functionality and surface properties, leading to enhanced
antigen presentation and strong immunogenicity.”

“This short review provides an overview of
the advantages associated with the use of nanoparticles as vaccine delivery platforms to
immunize against respiratory viruses…” [such as the purported COVID-19
virus?]

Here is another quote, also from Frontiers in
Immunology, October 4, 2018, “Nanoparticle Vaccines Against Infectious
Diseases”:

“In the last several years, the use of
nanoparticle-based vaccines has received a great attention to improve vaccine efficacy,
immunization strategies, and targeted delivery to achieve desired immune responses at
the cellular level…”

“Nanocarriers composed of lipids, proteins,
metals or polymers have already been used… This review article focuses on the
applications of nanocarrier-based vaccine formulations and the strategies used for the
functionalization of nanoparticles to accomplish efficient delivery of vaccines in order
to induce desired host immunity against infectious diseases.”

There can be no doubt that nanotechnology is, indeed,
very much involved in cutting-edge vaccine research.

Now let’s shift into another use of
nanotech.

Here are astonishing quotes from the journal Nano
Today, from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-
resolution brain-machine interfaces.” Its authors are Chinese and
American:
“…advances can enable investigations
of dynamics in the brain [through nano-sensor-implants] and drive the development of new
brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”
“…output electrical signals of brain
activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external
machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human
enhancement…”

Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the
reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests
“modulation” of the brain remotely connected to machines, for the purpose of
control.

Modulation… such as control of basic thought-
impulses, sensations, emotions?

ONE: Nano-sensors, implanted in the
body and brain, would issue real time data-reports on body/brain functioning to ops
centers.

TWO: And from those ops centers, data
— including instructions — would be sent back to the nano-sensors, which
would impose those instructions on the brain and body.

If this seems impossible, consider nanotech research
aimed at improving the use of prosthetics. In that field, imposing instructions on the
body/brain appears to be the whole point. The question is: how far along the road of
development is this technology? We are seeing the public published face of
nanotech.

What lies behind it, in secret research, is a matter
for estimation and speculation.
One speculation: the “promotion” of the
social agenda of collectivist thought, through nanotech.

Utilizing the Internet of Things, an attempt would be
made to hook up and “harmonize” many, many brains with one another. Same
basic feelings, same impulses — shared.

Who would be interested in such a program? Think
Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other
international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave
New World.

SUPPOSE, THROUGH A COVID VACCINE, NANOTECH COULD BE
INSERTED INTO BODIES AND BRAINS OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION? As a grand control
“experiment.” Is that too far-out an idea?

Here is an interesting quote from a 3/11/20
S&P Global article, “Early-stage nanotechnology poised for
‘inflection point’”:

“One of the most pressing global healthcare
challenges in 2020 is the coronavirus outbreak and Moderna Inc… is on the front
line of vaccine development for this new biological threat.”

“Moderna’s nanoparticle-driven science
uses genetic engineering to trigger cells to create proteins that prevent certain
infections. Its vaccines for Zika virus and influenza have already progressed to early
clinical stages…”

If Moderna’s COVID vaccine is indeed using
nanoparticles, it’s not to be seen this mentioned in current press reports.

The S&P Global article states,
“One of the leaders in the field of
biological nanotech engineering is Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor
Robert Langer, who has helped found about 40 companies based on technology created and
developed in his Langer Lab… Moderna Inc., one of the companies Langer helped
found…”

Does Moderna’s COVID vaccine use nanoparticles?
If so, what can these particles actually do? These are pressing questions that need to
be answered.

There are two backgrounders. They involve the flood of
highly significant scientific research across borders.

BACKGROUNDER ONE: Behind The Explosive Charles
Lieber Nanotech Scandal

Once upon a time, they called it espionage. Then they
called it “illegal technology transfer.” Then they casually and admiringly
called it Globalism.
Imagine this. A cutting-edge technology, which has
applications for weaponry, transportation, medicine, artificial intelligence,
surveillance, mind control… is being openly shared between the US and China. And
by implication, who knows how many other nations?

As just one example, tiny sensors would, up the road,
be placed inside the human body. These sensors would automatically monitor and report
thousands of changes, in real time, in the body—as a way of diagnosing diseases.
The sensors will transmit all this information, through the emerging Internet of Things
— using the 5G pipeline — to medical centers — where AI corporate and
government analysts will make the disease diagnoses and prescribe treatments.
Eventually, a few billion people (patients) would, through these sensors in their
bodies, be hooked up to the 5G Internet of Things.

HOWEVER the standard definitions of diseases and
disorders are often incorrect, or even invented. But because the future system is
automated, the patient is enclosed in a fake and dangerous bubble. Among other problems,
the disease treatments, the drugs and vaccines, are toxic. 

What is the technology that is on the way to producing
these body sensors?
Nanoscience. Nano-engineering.

From lexico.com: nanotechnology:
“The branch of technology that deals with
dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of
individual atoms and molecules.”

One of the leading nanoscience researchers in the
world was recently arrested on a charge of concealing his connections to China. Major US
science star busted by the feds. Charles Lieber, now suspended by Harvard, is the
University’s chairman of the chemistry department. There were two articles that
said that Lieber stole and smuggled the “new coronavirus” from the US to
China. In both cases, the text of the articles mentioned nothing about such a theft. But
because Lieber does apparently have big-time connections to China. Sharing research on
his specialty, nanoscience, with China would be one more case of “technology
transfer.”

Bloomberg News, February 12, 2020:
“Lieber’s arrest on Jan. 28 came in connection with his dealings in
China.

He hasn’t been charged with any type of
economic espionage, intellectual-property theft, or export violations. Instead,
he’s accused of lying to U.S. Department of Defense investigators about his work
with the People’s Republic…”

“…by targeting Lieber, the chairman of
Harvard’s chemistry department and a veritable ivory tower blue blood, prosecutors
struck at the crimson heart of the academic elite, raising fears that globalism, when it
comes to doing science with China, is being criminalized.”

“According to a government affidavit, signed
by a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent named Robert Plumb, Lieber signed at least
three agreements with Wuhan Technology University, or WUT, in central
China.”

“These included a contract with the state-
sponsored Thousand Talents Plan — an effort by Beijing to attract mostly
expatriate [Chinese] researchers and their know-how back home — worth a total of
about $653,000 a year in pay [to Lieber] and living expenses for three years, plus $1.74
million [to Lieber] to support a new ‘Harvard-WUT Nano Key Lab’ in
Wuhan.”

“The government offered no evidence that
Lieber actually received those sums… Lieber also deceived Harvard about his China
contracts, the [federal] affidavit said.”

“Whatever extracurricular arrangements
Lieber may have had in China, his Harvard lab was a paragon of U.S.-China
collaboration.”

“He relied on a pipeline of China’s
brightest Ph.D. students and postdocs, often more than a dozen at a time, to produce
prize-winning research on the revolutionary potential of so-called nanowires in
biomedical implants.”

“Dozens of Lieber’s 100 or so former
lab members from China have chosen to stay in the U.S. Many now lead their own
nanoscience labs at top universities, including Duke, Georgia Tech, MIT, Stanford,
University of California at Berkeley, and UCLA.”

That’s a pretty big technology-transfer WOW
right there.
“In the 1990s and 2000s, as Lieber’s
achievements and stature were taking off, U.S. research institutions and grant makers
pumped money and moral support into expanding the burgeoning collaborations between
scientists in the U.S. and other countries, particularly China.”

“The new paradigm was globalization, China
was an emerging economic power, and Lieber’s lab became an exemplar of pan-Pacific
collaboration.”

Another WOW. Not a leak of information. A flood.
“A more controversial Lieber
protégé is Liqiang Mai, the international dean and chair of materials science
at WUT, the little-known school in Wuhan that prosecutors allege recruited Lieber to be
a ‘strategic scientist’ in 2011, for $50,000 a month. Mai, who hasn’t
been named in any U.S. filings against Lieber, earned a doctorate at WUT in 2004 and
worked as a postdoc in Lieber’s lab from 2008 to 2011, according to Mai’s
WUT online bio….”

How Big A Star Is Lieber?

Wikpedia: “Charles M. Lieber (born 1959) is
an American chemist and pioneer in the field of nanoscience and
nanotechnology.”
“In 2011, Lieber was recognized by Thomson
Reuters as the leading chemist in the world for the decade 2000-2010 based on the impact
of his scientific publications.”
“Lieber has published over 400 papers in
peer-reviewed scientific journals and has edited and contributed to many books on
nanoscience. He is the principal inventor on over fifty issued US patents and
applications, and founded the nanotechnology company Nanosys in 2001 and Vista
Therapeutics in 2007.”
“He is known for his contributions to the
synthesis, assembly and characterization of nanoscale materials and nanodevices, the
application of nanoelectronic devices in biology, and as a mentor to numerous leaders in
nanoscience. In 2012, Lieber was awarded Israel’s Wolf Prize in
Chemistry.”

Chemistry and Engineering News, January 28,
2020:
“In addition, Lieber allegedly signed a
contract that obligated Harvard to become part of a cooperative research program that
allowed WUT [Chinese] scientists to visit the university up to two months each
year.”
“The [federal] complaint says he did not
inform university officials of the agreement, which was for ‘advanced research and
development of nano wire-based lithium-ion batteries with high performance for electric
vehicles’.”

Another “technology transfer” of great
value.
“…the NIH [US National Institutes of
Health, a federal agency] asked Harvard about whether the university or Lieber failed to
disclose his financial relationship with China. Lieber has been a principal investigator
on at least three NIH grants totaling $10 million since 2008.”

“After interviewing Lieber, Harvard
[incorrectly, supposedly based on Lieber’s statements] responded to the NIH that
he [Lieber] had ‘no formal association with WUT [Wuhan Institute of Technology]
’ and ‘is not and has never been a participant in’ the [Chinese]
Thousand Talents program.”

NIH has strict regulations about its researchers
disclosing their conflict-of-interest connections. The feds obviously believe Lieber has
failed to report his China connections to NIH. This would become a factor in his
prosecution.

Lieber was operating a robust center at Harvard:
Lieber Research Group. Its focus is nanoscience and nanotechnology.

So it’s natural to ask, what kind of research
findings would be shared with China?
On the Group’s website, there is this, right off
the bat: “We are pioneering the interface between nanoelectronics and the life
sciences… sensors for real-time disease detection…”

Hence, the picture of the future of this
backgrounder.

Of course, the ominous technological innovations apply
to both China and the US, and the rest of the world… The Chinese government has
the clout, will, force, and intent to impose, without hesitation, every sort of possible
control on its 1.4 billion citizens. It is in the process of building many new
“smart cities.” These centers will be models of wall-to-wall surveillance.
AI, Internet of Things, 5G, the works. If nanoscience can achieve much more intimate
access to people, through implanted sensors, why wouldn’t the Chinese government
jump at the chance to deploy it?
The rationale and the cover story are obvious:
WE MUST HAVE EARLY KNOWLEDGE OF NEW VIRUS EPIDEMICS.
WE WILL DETECT THEM DIRECTLY FROM THE BODIES OF OUR PEOPLE IN REAL TIME.

All hail, Globalism and technocracy.

BACKGROUNDER TWO: Nano-Technology: One World,
One Brain

The arrest of Harvard pioneer in the field of
nanotechnology, Charles Lieber — on charges of lying to federal authorities about
his business connections to China — has exposed wide-ranging relationships among
American and Chinese researchers.

These relationships include, above all, the open
sharing of sensitive technologies that, once upon a time, would have been considered
closely guarded state secrets.

Here are quotes from the journal Nano Today,
from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-
machine interfaces”. Its authors are Chinese and American:
“…advances can enable investigations
of dynamics in the brain [through tiny sensor-implants] and drive the development of new
brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”
“…output electrical signals of brain
activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external
machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human
enhancement…”

Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the
reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests
“modulation” of the brain, hooked to machines, for the purpose of control.
Control of basic thoughts, sensations, emotions. And along with the Internet of Things,
why couldn’t that control eventually be extended, in order to
“harmonize” many, many brains with one another?

Who would be interested in such a thing? Think Chinese
government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international
actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New
World.

Over the past few decades, the flow of all sorts of
ultra-sensitive scientific information, between the US and China, hasn’t consisted
of rare leaks. It’s a flood, out in the open, in labs and universities. All part
of the new share-and-care Globalist agenda.
Nanotechnology, to choose one branch of such
research-exchange, has applications in weaponry, transportation, surveillance, medicine,
etc. And of course, mind control.

“– Look, I’m certainly willing
to share my latest research on nano-brain implants. But I need your, ahem, assurance
that your government won’t use this for dark purposes.”
“– I understand completely. My
government would no more do that than your government would.”
“– All right. Then we’re
good.”
“– Yes. Good.”

How did US-China relations get to this point? At one
time, it appeared the two governments were involved in a cold war.
Oh, that’s right, President Nixon opened up
China to trade, in 1972, after 25 years of no diplomatic relations. Nixon was the agent
of David Rockefeller, who, years earlier, had rescued him from a broken career as a
politician. David Rockefeller, arch Globalist.

Here’s what Rockefeller blithely wrote in 1973,
a year after Nixon had worked his China miracle:
“Whatever the price of the Chinese
Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and
dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of
purpose.”
“The social experiment in China under
Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human
history.” (“From a China Traveler”. NY Times.
August 10, 1973.)

Millions of people dead, freedom crushed, a whole
population under the boot of the Communist regime, but somehow that’s not what
David Rockefeller saw, or pretended to see. He, like other of his elite Globalist
colleagues, admired the Chinese government for the capacity to control its own people,
to such a high degree.

Flash forward 47 years. Scientists from both countries
are blowing each other kisses, as they collaborate on developing a technology that has
the potential to gain intimate influence inside the human brain itself. 

Of course, remember, when political push comes to
shove, and it always does, China is the friend of China.
In the case of American corporate and government big
shots, hometown loyalty tends to be conditional, depending on which sources and
countries are putting money on the table.

yogaesoteric

July 21, 2020

Spune ce crezi

Adresa de email nu va fi publicata

Acest sit folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More