That didn’t happen, thankfully, but there were plenty of “Free Palestine” signs in the crowd. But one sign stood out because it made sense. It read, “Exchange each hostage for 100 Pro-Hamas Harvard students & faculty. Good for Israel, good for USA, good for Hamas, educational for students.”

Perfect sign. Make it happen. pic.twitter.com/B5UsrrKs20

— Savannah (@BasedSavannah) November 18, 2023

Sounds reasonable. Any volunteers?

(Mercola)—Yale University researchers have developed a new airborne method for delivering mRNA right to your lungs. The team has also used the method to vaccinate mice intranasally,¹ opening the door for human testing in the near future.

While scientists are hailing the creation as an easy way to vaccinate the masses, critics wonder if the development of an airborne vaccine could be used for nefarious purposes, including covert bioenhancements,² which have already been recommended in academic literature.³

Yale Team Develops Airborne mRNA, Delivers It to Lungs

In a study on mice, Yale scientists created polymer nanoparticles to encapsulate mRNA, making it inhalable so it can reach the lungs. Courtney Malo, editor with Science Translational Medicine, which published the study, explained:⁴

“The ability to efficiently deliver mRNA to the lung would have applications for vaccine development, gene therapy, and more. Here, Suberi et al. showed that such mRNA delivery can be accomplished by encapsulating mRNAs of interest within optimized poly(amine-co-ester) polyplexes [nanoparticles].

Polyplex-delivered mRNAs were efficiently translated into protein in the lungs of mice with limited evidence of toxicity. This platform was successfully applied as an intranasal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, eliciting robust immune responses that conferred protection against subsequent viral challenge. These results highlight the potential of this delivery system for vaccine applications and beyond.”

The team, led by cellular and molecular physiologist Mark Saltzman, explained that the inhalable mRNA vaccine successfully protected against SARS-CoV-2, which “opens the door to delivering other messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics for gene replacement therapy and other treatments in the lungs.”⁵

For the study, mice received two intranasal doses of nanoparticles carrying mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which proved to be effective in the animals. In the past, lung-targeted mRNA therapies had trouble making it into the cells necessary to express the encoded protein, known as poor transfection efficiency.⁶

“The Saltzman group got around this hurdle in part by using a nanoparticle made from poly(amine-co-ester) polyplexes, or PACE, a biocompatible and highly customizable polymer,” a Yale University news release explained.⁷ In a previous study, Saltzman had tried a “prime and spike” system to deliver COVID-19 shots, which involved injecting mRNA shots into a muscle, then spraying spike proteins into the nose.⁸

It turned out the injection portion may be unnecessary, and Saltzman has high hopes for the airborne delivery method, beyond vaccines:⁹

“In the new report, there is no intramuscular injection. We just gave two doses, a prime and a boost, intranasally, and we got a highly protective immune response. But we also showed that, generally, you can deliver different kinds of mRNA. So it’s not just good for a vaccine, but potentially also good for gene replacement therapy in diseases like cystic fibrosis and gene editing.

We used a vaccine example to show that it works, but it opens the door to doing all these other kinds of interventions.”

Air Vax Could ‘Radically Change’ How People Are Vaccinated

Saltzman says this “new method of delivery could ‘radically change the way people are vaccinated,’” making it easier to vaccinate people in remote areas or those who are afraid of needles.¹⁰ But that’s not all. An airborne vaccine makes it possible to rapidly disseminate it across a population.

By releasing the vaccine in the air, there’s no need to inject each person individually — which is not only time-consuming but difficult if an individual objects to the shot. This isn’t the case with an airborne vaccine, which can be released into the air without consent or even the public’s knowledge.

A similar strategy is being used with mRNA in shrimp, which are too small and numerous to be injected individually. Instead, an oral “nanovaccine” was created to stop the spread of a virus. Shai Ufaz, chief executive officer of ViAqua, which developed the technology, stated:¹¹

“Oral delivery is the holy grail of aquaculture health development due to both the impossibility of vaccinating individual shrimp and its ability to substantially bring down the operational costs of disease management while improving outcomes …”

While the Yale scientists are targeting an intranasal mRNA product, the outcome is the same — get as many exposed as possible with the least amount of cost and effort. According to the Yale study:¹²

“An inhalable platform for messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics would enable minimally invasive and lung-targeted delivery for a host of pulmonary diseases. Development of lung-targeted mRNA therapeutics has been limited by poor transfection efficiency and risk of vehicle-induced pathology.

Here, we report an inhalable polymer-based vehicle for delivery of therapeutic mRNAs to the lung. We optimized biodegradable poly(amine-co-ester) (PACE) polyplexes [nanoparticles] for mRNA delivery using end-group modifications and polyethylene glycol. These polyplexes achieved high transfection of mRNA throughout the lung, particularly in epithelial and antigen-presenting cells.

We applied this technology to develop a mucosal vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and found that intranasal vaccination with spike protein–encoding mRNA polyplexes induced potent cellular and humoral adaptive immunity and protected susceptible mice from lethal viral challenge. Together, these results demonstrate the translational potential of PACE polyplexes for therapeutic delivery of mRNA to the lungs.”

US Government Has History of Bioweapons Release

When you put the pieces of the puzzle together, a disturbing picture emerges. As reported by The Epoch Times, we have a history of the U.S. government taking extreme measures to mandate and promote COVID-19 shots to the public. Now, researchers have developed an airborne mRNA vaccine, offering a vehicle by which to rapidly vaccinate the masses without their knowledge or consent.¹³

Is there proof that the government or another entity has plans to covertly release an air vax on the population? No. But there is a history of it carrying out secret bioweapon simulations on Americans. In 1950, the U.S. Navy sprayed Serratia marcescens bacteria into the air near San Francisco over a period of six days.

Dubbed “Operation Sea Spray,” the project was intended to determine how susceptible the city was to a bioweapon attack. Serratia marcescens turns whatever it touches bright red, making it easy to track. It spread throughout the city, as residents inhaled the microbes from the air. While the U.S. military initially thought Serratia marcescens wouldn’t harm humans, an outbreak occurred, with some developing urinary tract infections as a result.

At least one person died “and some have suggested that the release forever changed the area’s microbial ecology,” Smithsonian Magazine reported.¹⁴ This wasn’t an isolated incident, as the U.S. government carried out many other experiments across the U.S. over the next 20 years.¹⁵ So, while it’s disturbing to think of an air vax experiment being conducted on an unsuspecting public, it’s not unprecedented.

Bioethics Study Promotes Covert, Compulsory Bioenhancement

Adding to the story is academic endorsement of the use of compulsory, covert bioenhancements. Writing in the journal Bioethics,¹⁶ Parker Crutchfield with Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, discusses moral bioenhancements, which refers to the use of biomedical means to trigger moral improvements.

Drug treatments, including vaccines, and genetic engineering are potential examples of bioenhancements.¹⁷ Further, according to Crutchfield:¹⁸

“It is necessary to morally bioenhance the population in order to prevent ultimate harm. Moral bioenhancement is the potential practice of influencing a person’s moral behavior by way of biological intervention upon their moral attitudes, motivations, or dispositions.

The technology that may permit moral bioenhancement is on the scale between nonexistent and nascent, but common examples of potential interventions include infusing water supplies with pharmaceuticals that enhance empathy or altruism or otherwise intervening on a person’s emotions or motivations, in an attempt to influence the person’s moral behavior.”

Some argue that moral bioenhancements should be compulsory for the greater good. Crutchfield believes this doesn’t go far enough. He also wants them to be covert:¹⁹

“I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement.”

He even goes so far as to suggest “a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality and autonomy better than an overt program does.”²⁰ So here we have evidence of academic support for covertly releasing drugs and other bioenhancements onto the public. This, combined with the creation of an airborne mRNA vaccine and the government’s history of experimenting on the public, paints an unsettling picture of the future.

Problems With mRNA COVID Shots Persist

Aside from the concerns of airborne delivery, mRNA COVID-19 shots are associated with significant risks — no matter how you’re exposed. People ages 65 and older who received Pfizer’s updated (bivalent) COVID-19 booster shot may be at increased risk of stroke, according to an announcement made by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration.²¹

Further, a large study from Israel²² revealed that Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis,²³ leading to the condition at a rate of 1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons.²⁴ Other elevated risks were also identified following the COVID jab, including lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes), appendicitis and herpes zoster infection.²⁵

At least 16,183 people also say they’ve developed tinnitus after receiving a COVID-19 shot.²⁶ The reports were filed with the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. But considering only between 1%²⁷ and 10%²⁸ of adverse reactions are ever reported to VAERS, the actual number is likely much higher.

It’s because of risks like these that informed consent is essential for any medical procedure, including vaccinations. The development of airborne mRNA jabs, however, makes the possibility of informed consent being taken away all the more real.

• ^1, 4 Science Translational Medicine August 16, 2023, Vol 15, Issue 709
• ^2, 13 The Epoch Times September 5, 2023
• ³ Bioethics. 2019 Jan;33(1):112-121. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12496. Epub 2018 Aug 29
• ^{5, 6, 7, 8, 9} Yale School of Engineering & Applied Science, News & Events August 16, 2023
• ¹⁰ Bitchute, Truther’s Lair September 5, 2023, 5:09
• ¹¹ Fish Farmer September 5, 2023
• ¹² Science Translational Medicine August 16, 2023, Vol 15, Issue 709, Abstract
• ^14, 15 Smithsonian Magazine July 6, 2015
• ^16, 18 Bioethics. 2019 Jan;33(1):112-121. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12496. Epub 2018 Aug 29., Intro
• ¹⁷ Topoi volume 38, pages 1–5 (2019)
• ^19, 20 Bioethics. 2019 Jan;33(1):112-121. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12496. Epub 2018 Aug 29., Abstract
• ²¹ U.S. FDA January 13, 2023
• ^22, 24, 25 The New England Journal of Medicine August 25, 2021
• ²³ MedPage Today August 25, 2021
• ²⁶ NBC News April 23, 2023
• ²⁷ Harvard Pilgrim Health Care report submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011, Page 6
• ²⁸ BMJ 2005;330:433

Even before Covid-vaccines were developed, researchers of the US elite university Yale investigated which mass psychological means could best be used to get people to push each other to vaccinate. The messages that were identified as particularly effective in a large, elaborate experimental study were precisely those that were later used internationally to promote social ostracism and discrimination of people hesitant to be vaccinated.

As early as 3 July 2020, started an experimental study by Yale researchers from seven departments, which would much later be published under the title “Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions“.

Considering the elaborate study design with over 4000 participants that had to be recruited and the many university institutes involved (Global Health, Infectious Diseases, Social and Policy Studies, American Politics, Political Science, Epidemiology, Nursing), it is obvious that the planning must have started well before July, when it was still completely in the dark when vaccines would be available and what their characteristics would be.

When the study was finally published in the journal Vaccine in October 2021, the authors admitted as much in the remarks on “limitations” of the study:

“We measured intentions to vaccinate at a time when a vaccine was not currently available and the effectiveness and side effects of potential vaccines were not known.”

However, this lack of knowledge did not stop the scientists from simply claiming, in the various messages which were being tested, that the vaccinations were highly effective and safe and that a high vaccination rate could end the pandemic through herd immunity. These were precisely the claims that would be used all over the world in the subsequent vaccination campaigns. They have since been proven to be highly exaggerated or plain false.

Yet even in autumn 2021, when the study results were published, and when it had long been clear that there are serious side effects in considerable numbers and that herd immunity is not achievable with the very limited effectiveness of the vaccines, the authors unabashedly claimed:

“It remains important to convince the mass public of the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines to ensure that the threshold for herd immunity is reached. Our experiments provide robust evidence that appealing to protecting others has effects on intentions to get vaccinated and to apply social pressure to others to do so as well.”

Perfidious messages

The authors unusually do not reveal how many subjects participated in the experiment, but only that 4361 stayed until the end. A control group of just under 600 subjects did not receive any messages relevant to vaccination decisions. Just under 300 received the basic message with the claims about the effectiveness and safety of vaccination and that it would be important for as many as possible to be vaccinated in order to end the pandemic. In 12 equally sized groups of also just under 300 test persons, this basic message was supplemented with different additional messages that were supposed to generate moral judgments and feelings.

At the beginning and at the end of the experiment all participants were asked, it they intended to be vaccinated and if they would pressure others to get vaccinated. The following statements proved to be the most effective:

Community Interest and Embarrassment: Imagine how embarrassed and ashamed you will be if you choose not to get vaccinated and spread COVID-19 to someone you care about.
Not Bravery: (…) Peoople who refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19 when there is a vaccine available because they don’t think they will get sick or aren’t worried about it aren’t brave, they are reckless. By not getting vaccinated, you risk the health of your family, friends, and community. There is nothing attractive and independent-minded about ignoring public health guidance. Not getting the vaccine when it becomes available means you risk the health of others. To show strength get the vaccine so you don’t get sick and take resources from other people who need them more, or risk spreading the disease to those who are at risk, some of whom can’t get a vaccine.
Trust in Science: Getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the most effective means of protecting your community. The only way we can beat COVID-19 is by following scientific approaches, such as vaccination. Prominent scientists believe that once available, vaccines will be the most effective tool to stop the spread of COVID-19. The people who reject getting vaccinated are typically ignorant or confused about the science.
Personal Freedom: COVID-19 is limiting many people’s ability to live their lives as they see fit. People have had to cancel weddings, not attend funerals, and halt other activities that are important in their daily lives. On top of this, government policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 limit our freedom of association and movement. Remember, each person who gets vaccinated reduces the chance that we lose our freedoms or government lockdowns return. While you can’t do it alone, we can all keep our freedom by getting vaccinated.”

Most effective, unsurprisingly, was the “no bravery” message, which contains the largest bouquet of moral indictments against people who choose not to be vaccinated. All in all, the four most successful messages already contain pretty much everything that has been constantly drummed into us through all channels in the course of the campaign of moral outrage and exclusion against sceptics:

• People who do not get vaccinated may have to live with having infected and killed loved ones afterwards.
• They are reckless, inconsiderate and ignorant.
• If they become ill by their own fault, they take away resources from others who need them more urgently.
• They jeopardize at-risk groups and people who cannot get vaccinated.
• They are stupid or malicious science deniers, because prominent scientists are (always) right.
• They are to blame for the necessary restrictions of freedom by the government.

These messages have caused so much hatred of the unvaccinated, so much division in society, because they were designed and tested to do just that. As the authors of the study put it in posh, scientific terms.

“Not only does emphasizing that vaccination is a prosocial action increase uptake, but it also increases people’s willingness to pressure others to do so, both by direct persuasion and negative judgment of non-vaccinators.”

What happens next?

The Yale experts on population manipulation through propaganda continue to eagerly advise. When the erstwhile conspiracy theory of the annual vaccination was declared official US government policy on 6 September 2022, Saad Omer, one of the study’s authors, was on hand with implementation advice.

The White House Corona Coordinator, Ashish Jha, had announced that in future a covid vaccination would probably be needed “only” once a year. This, he said, would best be administered together with the annual flu vaccination. He also said:

“I really believe this is why God gave us two arms — one for the flu shot and the other one for the covid shot.”

To this end, Saad Omer, an epidemiology professor, said the most effective strategy would be to create an opt-out system using the “nudge theory”. Every time someone comes into contact with health workers, that person should be offered vaccination by default.

Omer’s Yale colleagues expressed scepticism in the same article about whether we are really ready to vaccinate only once a year. So much for the great effectiveness of vaccination that Yale was still praising in autumn 2021 and its promise of an end to the pandemic when most people have been vaccinated.

About the Author

Dr. Norbert Häring (international spelling: Haering) born 1963, lives and works as a business journalist in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. He grew up on a farm in southern Germany. He studied economics in Heidelberg and Saarbrücken. In Saarbrücken he obtained a Ph.D. in economics with a thesis on the political economy of regional subsidies. His thesis advisor was Olaf Sievert, former head of the Germen governments Council of Economic Advisors (Sachverständigenrat).

He worked for three years at Commerzbank, first in the economics department, then as a speech writer and Managing Editor of the annual and quarterly reports. In 1997 he moved to  journalism. He worked for Börsen-Zeitung and Financial Times Deutschland, before joining Handelsblatt in 2002 as a correspondent for monetary affairs. In 2002 he convened the Shadow ECB Council, a Group of 15 eminent economists from financial institutions, universities and research institutes, for which he served as (non-voting) chairman until 2015. Since 2012 he is in charge of economics and business cycle reporting.

In 2011 he co-founded, with Edward Fullbrook and others, the World Economics Association (WEA). He was an editor of the World Economic Review published by WEA from 2012 to 2015.

Norbert Häring is author (with Olaf Storbeck) of the best-selling book „Ökonomie 2.0“, which won the title economics book of the year 2007 by getAbstract and was translated into English (“Economics 2.0”) and four other languages, as well as the author of several other popular books on economics, which have been translated in several languages. In 2014 he was awarded the Keynes-Prize for Economic Writing  by Keynes-Gesellschaft (Keynes-Society).

He is plaintiff in a lawsuit for the right to pay public fees in cash, which has drawn a verdict of the European Court of Justice and is currently awaiting the final ruling of the German highest administrative court, which is expect in early 2022.

His main passtimes are playing backgammon and volley ball, slacklining and juggling.

Publications and presentations in English

(For a full list of publications, video and audio-files, see Lebenslauf)

• All the good things a digital euro could do – and all the bad things it will. Real-world Economics Review. Issue No. 94. 2020.
• Who is behind the campaign to rid the world of cash? Real-world Economics Review, Issue No. 86, 2018 (= translation of the Introduction and part of Chapter 1 of the book, Schönes neues Geld (Brave New Money), which was published in German by Campus in August 2018.
• Corrupted economic research, academic gatekeepers and the media: The case of tuition fees (with Edward Fullbrook). WEA Commentaries 8(1), February 2018.
• Economics as Superstructure. Presentation at a Seminar at the House of Lords, London, 23. March 2015.
• Economists and the Powerful – Convenient Truths, Distorted Facts, Ample Rewards. 2012. with Niall Douglas. Anthem.
• The veil of deception over money. 2013. Real World Economic Review. Issue no. 63. 2 – 19.
• The sources and consequences of bankers’ power. 2010.  International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Vol. 1, 242 – 259.Interjurisdictional redistribution and public goods with increasing returns to scale. 1998. Public Choice, Vol. 95, 321-329.
• Presentation and discussion with Lord Robert Skidelsky und Steve Keen at the annual meeting of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, in Hong Kong, April 6, 2013 in the plenary session „Economics and the Powerful“(from minute 32:20).
• Economics 2.0. What the best minds in economics can teach you about business and life. St Martin’s Press. 2008