FRIGHTENING TRUTH: Airborne mRNA Vaccines are being created that can be delivered straight into the Lungs without the need for Injection The ExposéDecember 22, 2023 Researchers have developed an airborne mRNA vaccine offering a vehicle by which to rapidly vaccinate the masses without their knowledge or consent. A team from Yale University has developed a new airborne method for delivering mRNA right to your lungs. The method has also been used to vaccinate mice intranasally, “opening the door for human testing in the near future.” While scientists may celebrate this invention as a convenient method to vaccinate large populations, skeptics raise obvious concerns about the potential misuse of an airborne vaccine, including the possibility of covert bioenhancements a concept that has previously been suggested in academic literature. (source). Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Roman Balmakov of Facts Matter discusses the study in the video below The Study: Polymer nanoparticles deliver mRNA to the lung for mucosal vaccination In a research conducted on mice, scientists from Yale University developed polymer nanoparticles to encapsulate mRNA, transforming it into an inhalable form for delivery to the lungs. Courtney Malo, who serves as an editor at Science Translational Medicine, the publication that featured the study, explained, “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, which was led by cellular and molecular physiologist Mark Saltzman, claims that the inhalable mRNA vaccine “successfully protected against “SARS-CoV-2“, and that it “opens the door to delivering other messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics for gene replacement therapy and other treatments in the lungs.”(source) 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 (source). “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. 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. It turned out the injection portion may be unnecessary, and Saltzman has high hopes for the airborne delivery method, beyond vaccines: (source). “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. No Jab Needed 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: “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: “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 the 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.” The following excerpts are from Dr Joseph Mercola, who explains his concerns regarding the airborne mRNA 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 (source). 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. 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. (source). 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, 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. Further, according to Crutchfield: “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: (source). “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.” (source). 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. (source). Further, a large study from Israel revealed that Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis, leading to the condition at a rate of 1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons (source). Other elevated risks were also identified following the COVID jab, including lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes), appendicitis, and herpes zoster infection (source). At least 16,183 people also say they’ve developed tinnitus after receiving a COVID-19 shot (source). The reports were filed with the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. But considering only between 1% and 10% 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. From Mercola FRIGHTENING TRUTH: Airborne mRNA Vaccines are being created that can be delivered straight into the Lungs without the need for Injection https://expose-news.com/2023/12/22/airborne-mrna-vaccines-are-being-created T.me/AgentsOfTruth T.me/AgentsOfTruthChat

The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol Peter Whoriskey Time to put eggs back on the menu? (Deb Lindsey for The Washington Post) The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption. The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern. The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease. Story continues below advertisement The greater danger in this regard, these experts believe, lies not in products such as eggs, shrimp or lobster, which are high in cholesterol, but in too many servings of foods heavy with saturated fats, such as fatty meats, whole milk, and butter. [Scientists have figured out what makes Indian food so delicious] The new view on cholesterol in food does not reverse warnings about high levels of “bad” cholesterol in the blood, which have been linked to heart disease. Moreover, some experts warned that people with particular health problems, such as diabetes, should continue to avoid cholesterol-rich diets. While Americans may be accustomed to conflicting dietary advice, the change on cholesterol comes from the influential Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the group that provides the scientific basis for the “Dietary Guidelines.” That federal publication has broad effects on the American diet, helping to determine the content of school lunches, affecting how food manufacturers advertise their wares, and serving as the foundation for reams of diet advice. Story continues below advertisement The panel laid out the cholesterol decision in December, at its last meeting before it writes a report that will serve as the basis for the next version of the guidelines. A video of the meeting was later posted online and a person with direct knowledge of the proceedings said the cholesterol finding would make it to the group’s final report, which is due within weeks. After Marian Neuhouser, chair of the relevant subcommittee, announced the decision to the panel at the December meeting, one panelist appeared to bridle. “So we’re not making a [cholesterol] recommendation?” panel member Miriam Nelson, a Tufts University professor, said at the meeting as if trying to absorb the thought. “Okay ... Bummer.” Story continues below advertisement Members of the panel, called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, said they would not comment until the publication of their report, which will be filed with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. [Here’s what the government’s dietary guidelines should really say] While those agencies could ignore the committee’s recommendations, major deviations are not common, experts said. Five years ago, “I don’t think the Dietary Guidelines diverged from the committee’s report,” said Naomi K. Fukagawa, a University of Vermont professor who served as the committee’s vice chair in 2010. Fukagawa said she supports the change on cholesterol. Story continues below advertisement Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, also called the turnaround on cholesterol a “reasonable move.” “There’s been a shift of thinking,” he said. But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows how the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research can contribute to confusion for Americans who, while seeking guidance on what to eat, often find themselves afloat in conflicting advice. Cholesterol has been a fixture in dietary warnings in the United States at least since 1961, when it appeared in guidelines developed by the American Heart Association. Later adopted by the federal government, such warnings helped shift eating habits -- per capita egg consumption dropped about 30 percent -- and harmed egg farmers. Story continues below advertisement Yet even today, after more than a century of scientific inquiry, scientists are divided. Some nutritionists said lifting the cholesterol warning is long overdue, noting that the United States is out-of-step with other countries, where diet guidelines do not single out cholesterol. Others support maintaining a warning. The forthcoming version of the Dietary Guidelines -- the document is revised every five years -- is expected to navigate myriad similar controversies. Among them: salt, red meat, sugar, saturated fats and the latest darling of food-makers, Omega-3s. As with cholesterol, the dietary panel’s advice on these issues will be used by the federal bureaucrats to draft the new guidelines, which offer Americans clear instructions -- and sometimes very specific, down-to-the-milligram prescriptions. But such precision can mask sometimes tumultuous debates about nutrition. Story continues below advertisement “Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?” Now comes the shift on cholesterol. Even as contrary evidence has emerged over the years, the campaign against dietary cholesterol has continued. In 1994, food-makers were required to report cholesterol values on the nutrition label. In 2010, with the publication of the most recent “Dietary Guidelines,” the experts again focused on the problem of "excess dietary cholesterol." Story continues below advertisement Yet many have viewed the evidence against cholesterol as weak, at best. As late as 2013, a task force arranged by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association looked at the dietary cholesterol studies. The group found that there was “insufficient evidence” to make a recommendation. Many of the studies that had been done, the task force said, were too broad to single out cholesterol. “Looking back at the literature, we just couldn’t see the kind of science that would support dietary restrictions,” said Robert Eckel, the co-chair of the task force and a medical professor at the University of Colorado. The current U.S. guidelines call for restricting cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams daily. American adult men on average ingest about 340 milligrams of cholesterol a day, according to federal figures. That recommended figure of 300 milligrams, Eckel said, is " just one of those things that gets carried forward and carried forward even though the evidence is minimal.” Story continues below advertisement "We just don't know," he said. Other major studies have indicated that eating an egg a day does not raise a healthy person’s risk of heart disease, though diabetic patients may be at more risk. “The U.S. is the last country in the world to set a specific limit on dietary cholesterol,” said David Klurfeld, a nutrition scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Some of it is scientific inertia.” The persistence of the cholesterol fear may arise, in part, from the plausibility of its danger. As far back as the 19th century, scientists recognized that the plaque that clogged arteries consisted, in part, of cholesterol, according to historians. It would have seemed logical, then, that a diet that is high in cholesterol would wind up clogging arteries. In 1913, Niokolai Anitschkov and his colleagues at the Czar’s Military Medicine Institute in St. Petersburg, decided to try it out in rabbits. The group fed cholesterol to rabbits for about four to eight weeks and saw that the cholesterol diet harmed them. They figured they were on to something big. “It often happens in the history of science that researchers ... obtain results which require us to view scientific questions in a new light,” he and a colleague wrote in their 1913 paper. But it wasn’t until the 1940s, when heart disease was rising in the United States, that the dangers of a cholesterol diet for humans would come more sharply into focus. Experiments in biology, as well as other studies that followed the diets of large populations, seemed to link high cholesterol diets to heart disease. Public warnings soon followed. In 1961, the American Heart Association recommended that people reduce cholesterol consumption and eventually set a limit of 300 milligrams a day. (For comparison, the yolk of a single egg has about 200 milligrams.) Eventually, the idea that cholesterol is harmful so permeated the country's consciousness that marketers advertised their foods on the basis of "no cholesterol." What Anitschkov and the other early scientists may not have foreseen is how complicated the science of cholesterol and heart disease could turn out: that the body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than their diet provides, that the body regulates how much is in the blood and that there is both “good” and “bad” cholesterol. Adding to the complexity, the way people process cholesterol differs. Scientists say some people -- about 25 percent -- appear to be more vulnerable to cholesterol-rich diets. “It’s turned out to be more complicated than anyone could have known,” said Lawrence Rudel, a professor at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine. As a graduate student at the University of Arkansas in the late 1960s, Rudel came across Anitschkov’s paper and decided to focus on understanding one of its curiosities. In passing, the paper noted that while the cholesterol diet harmed rabbits, it had no effect on white rats. In fact, if Anitschkov had focused on any other animal besides the rabbit, the effects wouldn't have been so clear -- rabbits are unusually vulnerable to the high-cholesterol diet. “The reason for the difference -- why does one animal fall apart on the cholesterol diet -- seemed like something that could be figured out,” Rudel said. “That was 40 or so years ago. We still don’t know what explains the difference.” In truth, scientists have made some progress. Rudel and his colleagues have been able to breed squirrel monkeys that are more vulnerable to the cholesterol diet. That and other evidence leads to their belief that for some people -- as for the squirrel monkeys -- genetics are to blame. Rudel said that Americans should still be warned about cholesterol. “Eggs are a nearly perfect food, but cholesterol is a potential bad guy,” he said. “Eating too much a day won’t harm everyone, but it will harm some people.” Scientists have estimated that, even without counting the toll from obesity, disease related to poor eating habits kills more than half a million people every year. That toll is often used as an argument for more research in nutrition. Currently, the National Institutes of Health spends about $1.5 billion annually on nutrition research, an amount that represents about 5 percent of its total budget. The turnaround on cholesterol, some critics say, is just more evidence that nutrition science needs more investment. Others, however, say the reversal might be seen as a sign of progress. “These reversals in the field do make us wonder and scratch our heads,” said David Allison, a public health professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “But in science, change is normal and expected.” When our view of the cosmos shifted from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Newton and Einstein, Allison said, “the reaction was not to say, ‘Oh my gosh, something is wrong with physics!’ We say, ‘Oh my gosh, isn’t this cool?’ ” Allison said the problem in nutrition stems from the arrogance that sometimes accompanies dietary advice. A little humility could go a long way. “Where nutrition has some trouble,” he said, “is all the confidence and vitriol and moralism that goes along with our recommendations.” Did the government’s dietary guidelines help make us fat? A local's guide to Mumbai, India 5 simple Indian recipes to make at home Scientists have figured out what makes Indian food so delicious Ghee has been an Indian staple for millennia. Now the rest of the world is catching on. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/?utm_term=.1982832f86fa

Steam Tao Fu and egg with shrimp on the top❤️

Bob Yirka - Scientists find molecule responsible for the bright white coloring of Pacific cleaner shrimp: https://phys.org/news/2023-04-scientists-molecule-responsible-bright-white.html #LysmataAmboinensis #PacificCleanerShrimp #Shrimp #Nanospheres #Isoxanthopterin #Anisotropy #LightScattering #Photonics #Biology

Fabio loves his shrimp! ???? He’s very much a sushi kinda guy!???????? #thereptilezoo #someeofficial #AweSME #SME #soMee

Some Simple Shrimp Sushi! SoOno SoMee! ???? #homemadesushi #sushitime #HawaiiLife #SoMee #AweSME

My giant water monitor loves eating jumbo shrimp! ???????? monitors are scavengers! when they see food they will eat excessively because in their instinctual minds, they don’t know when they will find food again. Good thing we feed them all the time! ???????? #someeofficial #SME #AweSME #soMee #thereptilezoo

Pasta Frutti di mare This is one of the Mediterranean dishes that you have to try. Hive Blog:@karolo87 Legacy Hive Account: @karolczyk1987 Instagram: @87karolczyk #food #blog #foodie #hive #instagram #life #shrimp #photography

This is the mantis shrimp . Very unusual to see out of its hole. This is the quickest animal on earth and it boxes quicker than a 9mm bullet, making the water boil around its joints. It also have the best eye-sight of all animals also. This animal could easily be a tatoo on my body! #dumaguete #dauin #underwaterphotography

A piece of the action. Check out that crystal shrimp in the soft corals . Also a #morayeel is there also. (Press View Original and zoom in to the shrimps claws and eyes how he looks at me) #nudiebranch #coral #underwaterphotography #selfie

Cleaner Shrimps and Moray Eels have a mutualistic relationship. These shrimp clean parasites, dead skin and algae around the moray eel’s eyes, gills, and teeth, they get a free meal, and the eel is cleared of its parasitic load.

Foods i cooked on our special day ???? Shrimp sushi rolls Braised pork belly Lumpiang shanghai ????????

#MyButteredShrimp #Version #GoodFood #ToEat #SoMeePh #SoMeeOriginals #SoMeeOfficials

Rice with chicken and shrimp