reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses the use of mRNA in food and mentions a presentation about genetically engineering mosquitoes to deliver vaccines through mosquito bites. They mention that the Gates Foundation is funding this research, although they don't have proof of its viability. The speaker clarifies that they are not suggesting that the mosquitoes are currently injecting anyone with anything, but they have evidence that efforts are being made to enable mosquito injections.

There is a concerning loophole in the law regarding the food supply. If a cow or pig receives an mRNA gene therapy, they can still be labeled as organic. This means that organic food can potentially contain these therapies. The issue arises if the therapy alters their DNA, can be transmitted to humans, or remains in their system. These factors make it possible for consumers to unknowingly consume these substances in their organic food.

Every childhood vaccine will be mRNA, becoming gene therapies that alter genetics without re-approval. COVID vaccines were profitable data and experimentation tools, but the real danger is the continued genetic tinkering via mRNA integration into all vaccines. The speaker is now anti-vaxx and will not get any more vaccines for themselves or their family because all vaccines are being redesigned to include gene therapies, driven by profit.

I support my amendment to prevent funding for transgenic edible vaccines. This concept is not far-fetched; research is underway to turn plants like lettuce and spinach into mRNA vaccine producers. The goal is for individuals to grow these plants in their gardens, which raises safety concerns. Past incidents, such as vaccine contamination in corn meant for livestock, highlight the risks of cross-contamination. We need to prioritize food safety and ensure the public knows what’s in their food. Contaminating our food supply with foreign DNA poses unknown dangers. Given recent experiences, we should be cautious about funding this research. I urge support for my amendment.

mRNA technology, used in COVID vaccines, raises ethical concerns about potential control. Multiple genes and regulatory elements can be inserted, allowing for different vaccinations and antigens to be regulated. This could lead to unknown protein expression when consuming certain foods. S. Matthew Liao, a philosopher, suggests using human engineering to address global issues like meat consumption. By making people intolerant to certain proteins, it could reduce meat consumption and benefit the planet. Doctor Christina Parkes expresses ethical concerns about the regulation of genetic information through hormones, airborne substances, and the food supply. These discussions highlight the potential dangers and ethical implications of mRNA technology and human engineering.

The symposium covers the potential safety and threat of “replicating” vaccines, especially LepriCon (leprecon) vaccines, in the context of Covid-19 vaccines and genome‑editing concepts. The speakers present a chain of claims and concerns, some drawing on reports and others presenting theories about how these next‑generation vaccines could behave in humans and populations. Key points and claims presented - Emerging mechanisms and risks: The panel notes that blood vessel inflammation and thrombosis mechanisms are increasingly observed, including in vaccine contexts, with examples from individuals who needed limb amputation and others who developed severe vascular events after vaccination. One case involved a 70‑year‑old man who, after a third dose, developed embolic events necessitating shoulder joint surgery, and another where a 60‑year‑old man developed acute limb ischemia and died; both are presented as suggesting a serious vascular mechanism linked to vaccination, though causal connections are not established. - Replicating/vector vaccines and their concerns:荒川博士 and others discuss LepiCon vaccines as vaccines that replicate inside the body. The concept involves “replicating viral vectors” where the genome can mutate and evolve during replication. The green‑highlighted segment in a slide (the antigen gene) plus a blue/orange segment (replicating gene cassette) is used to describe how LepriCon vaccines are designed to carry viral genes and replicate, with the assertion that replication, mutation, and recombination can occur, potentially generating new variants inside the host. - Differences from conventional vaccines: The discussion contrasts LepriCon vaccines with standard mRNA vaccines. In conventional mRNA vaccines, messenger RNA is delivered and translated into antigen proteins, then degraded; in LepriCon vaccines, replicating RNA/DNA can persist and continue producing antigen, with mutation and recombination possible. The panel emphasizes that LepriCon vaccines use replicating/copying mechanisms and that the genetic material can be copied in ways that differ from natural human biology, potentially creating unpredictable variants. - Central dogma and exceptions: The speakers reference the central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein) but note exceptions in viruses, including RNA viruses that can reverse‑transcribe to DNA (retroviruses) and RNA viruses that replicate RNA directly. They discuss how LepriCon vaccines would rely on replicative processes that do not follow the usual linear flow and why this could complicate predictions about safety and behavior in humans. - Potential for unintended spread and environmental impact: A major concern raised is that self‑replicating vectors could spread beyond the vaccinated individual, via exosomes or other intercellular transport, creating secondary infections or non‑target spread. Exosomes could ferry replicating genetic material, raising fears of new infection chains or “outbreaks” stemming from the vaccine itself, and even suggesting the possibility of vaccination‑induced spread akin to an attenuated or modified pathogen. - Safety signals and immunology concerns: The discussion touches on immune system risks, including immune dysregulation, autoimmune phenomena, and unexpected inflammatory responses. IGG4‑related disease is highlighted as a potential adverse outcome post‑vaccination, with descriptions of glandular and systemic involvement and the idea that high IGG4 levels could have immunosuppressive effects that alter responses to infection or vaccination. The panel notes observed increases in certain immunoglobulin subclasses after multiple LepriCon doses and discusses the possibility of immune tolerance or enhanced immune responses that could be harmful. - Historical and theoretical context: References are made to past epidemics and speculative pandemics caused by misused or dangerous vaccine platforms, drawing on central molecular biology concepts and historical anecdotes about how vaccines can be designed and misused. The discussion frames LepriCon vaccines as a high‑risk platform that could, in theory, generate recombinants, escape mutations, or cause unintended immune and inflammatory consequences. - Clinical and regulatory implications: The speakers call for caution, arguing that more evidence is needed before approving or widespread use of LepriCon vaccines. They emphasize the need for long‑term observation and transparent communication about risks, and criticize the potential for insufficient understanding among healthcare workers and the public. They also urge that any future vaccine development should consider the possibility of genome editing, recombination, and exosome‑mediated spread, and stress the importance of not underestimating possible adverse effects. - Real‑world observations and skepticism about hype: Several speakers underscore that the danger is not merely hypothetical; there are reports of adverse events, including stroke‑like conditions, inflammatory diseases, and immune dysregulation in vaccinated individuals. They stress that the evolution and mutation of replicating vaccines could outpace current surveillance methods, and that “information manipulation” or lack of transparent reporting could mislead the public about risks. - Final reflections and call to action: The concluding messages advocate recognizing the potential failures of messenger RNA vaccines and acknowledging that both conventional and replicating platforms may carry risks. The speakers urge ongoing critical analysis, cautious progression, and robust verification of claims through transparent, independent investigation. They close with thanks to the organizers and a hope that the discussion may contribute to broader public awareness and informed decision‑making. Notable emphasis and unique considerations - The core concern centers on LepriCon vaccines’ replication, mutation, and potential to spread beyond the vaccinated person; exosome transport and genomic/cellular integration are highlighted as mechanisms that could generate new risks not present with non‑replicating vaccines. - The discussion stresses that IGG4 responses could become alarmingly high after certain doses, potentially leading to immunosuppressive effects or autoimmune phenomena, and presents IGG4‑related disease as a potential complication to monitor. - The speakers insist that safety and transparency are paramount, and that misinformation or optimistic narratives about rapid vaccine development could lead to harm if new platforms are adopted without comprehensive evaluation. Overall, the symposium foregrounds cautious scrutiny of replicating vaccine platforms, frames potential biological and regulatory risks, and calls for careful, evidence‑based assessment before broader deployment.

Technology is being rapidly advanced and implemented in humans, particularly messenger RNA vaccines. These advancements are being fast-tracked, and it's important to acknowledge that our food species will also be affected by these vaccines.

UC Riverside and UC Berkeley have developed vaccines in lettuce and tomatoes, while tobacco companies have done so in tobacco products. The concern is about proper dosing and labeling of these products to ensure consumer safety. The bill aims for transparency in grocery stores selling vaccine-containing produce. The technology is still in development, but the goal is to prevent issues like improper dosing seen in the cattle industry. The discussion highlights the need for consumer awareness and regulation in this emerging field.

The speaker states that mRNA in food is a critical issue, but also highlights the potential for transgenic mosquitoes to deliver vaccines via saliva. They reference a presentation about producing a transgenic mosquito as a "flying syringe" to deliver protective vaccines. The speaker claims the Gates Foundation is funding genetic engineering of mosquitoes with the intention of using mosquito bites for vaccination. While they don't have definitive proof of its viability, they assert that this research is underway. The speaker clarifies they are not claiming current mosquitoes are injecting people with anything. However, they state they have indisputable evidence that efforts are being made to enable mosquitoes to inject people with substances in the future.

Human vaccines can be integrated into foods like lettuce and tomatoes, as demonstrated by research from the University of California Riverside and UC Berkeley. There are concerns about the legality and consumer awareness regarding these products. If a food contains a vaccine, it should be labeled as a pharmaceutical to ensure proper dosage information for consumers. The discussion highlights the importance of transparency in food labeling, especially regarding potential vaccine content. The aim is to prevent issues similar to those seen in the cattle industry, where improper dosing led to resistance. Ultimately, consumers should be informed about what they are purchasing in grocery stores.

The mRNA in vaccines can replicate, including the replication engine, leading to potential spread from person to person. Concerns exist about the inability to stop this replication, with unknown consequences for humanity. The spike protein in these vaccines can be toxic, affecting various tissues. Deployment of this technology in vaccines for humans is already happening, with over 4,000 people injected in Japan.

The current vaccines contain harmful monkey virus sequences and toxic lipid nanoparticles, which are not meant for human use. Many people have already experienced injuries and deaths from these products, but the full effects may take years to manifest. Research shows that these gene therapies can create abnormal proteins, potentially leading to autoimmune diseases. The idea of using this technology for cancer treatment raises concerns, as it disrupts natural immune functions. Health and wellness cannot be achieved through injections or pills; they come from a healthy lifestyle. Questions arise about why some countries, like China, do not administer these genetic injections to their military. Informed consent is crucial, but many patients are unaware of the risks and that these products are not fully approved. The technology remains as unsafe as it was in the past.

A bill in Tennessee proposes labeling food with vaccines, while Idaho has a similar bill. Edible vaccines are being studied at UC Riverside, where scientists are exploring the use of plants like lettuce to produce mRNA vaccines. Traditionally, vaccines are grown in eggs or animal cells, but plant-based vaccines are being developed. Genetic editing is being used to create edible vaccines in plants like bananas, potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, rice, wheat, soybeans, and corn. Medicago is using gene editing to turn plants into mini bioreactors for vaccine production. There are concerns about mRNA vaccines being used on livestock, with the potential for transference to humans through meat consumption. Transparency laws are being debated to inform consumers about genetically modified products in livestock.

The speaker attempted to defund research on transgenic edible plant vaccines in the ag approves bill, arguing that taxpayer dollars are funding research into vaccines grown in lettuce and spinach. The concern is that people will be vaccinated when they eat these plants. The speaker believes there should be tighter regulations due to the risk of pollen escaping and contaminating neighboring farms that do not intend to grow vaccines in their food. Although the speaker was able to initially stop taxpayer spending on this research in the ag approves bill, the bill was discarded in favor of an omnibus bill, resulting in another year of funding for transgenic edible plant vaccine research.

A Kentucky representative introduces an amendment to prevent funding for grants related to transgenic edible vaccines. He argues that taxpayer dollars are being used to fund research at the University of California, Riverside, where scientists are studying the possibility of using plants like lettuce and spinach to produce mRNA vaccines. The representative expresses concerns about the potential risks and contamination of food sources, citing past incidents where crops were contaminated with vaccines meant for animals. He emphasizes the need for a safe food supply and urges adoption of his amendment. The amendment is ultimately agreed to.

Genetically modified mosquitoes approved for release in the US mate with females, causing their offspring to die. The program aims to vaccinate people without consent by using mosquitoes as "flying syringes." Concerns arise from the use of partially true narratives to introduce GMO insects, with potential implications for involuntary vaccinations.

Speaker 0 explains that in the agriculture appropriations bill, they tried to defund research for transgenic edible plant vaccines. They describe the concept as scary and state that taxpayer dollars are funding research on vaccines produced in lettuce and spinach, such that when people eat those leafy greens, they would be vaccinated with whatever vaccine the plant is producing. The speaker asserts that there is a belief this approach amounts to “playing God with our spinach,” and argues that if someone wants to pursue this, tighter rules are probably necessary because pollen can escape and pollute plants in neighboring farms that did not intend to grow vaccines in their food. The speaker notes that they attempted to put rules on this issue in the agriculture appropriations bill and were able to stop taxpayer spending in that bill. However, the speaker states that the bill was thrown in the trash and an omnibus was passed instead. As a result, the speaker warns that there will be “another year of transgenic edible plant vaccine research,” and indicates that this topic will be a post of its own. In summary, the speaker highlights the following points: the existence of research funded with taxpayer dollars into transgenic edible plant vaccines produced in vegetables like lettuce and spinach; the concern about potential vaccination through consumption of these plants; the risk posed by pollen dispersion to neighboring farms; an effort to restrict funding via the agriculture appropriations bill that was ultimately unsuccessful due to the bill being discarded in favor of an omnibus; and the expectation that such research will continue for another year. The overall message emphasizes opposition to funding this line of research and points to procedural outcomes that hindered the attempted defunding, while noting that the broader effort and its controversy would be revisited in a future post.

Scientists from the University of California, Riverside are studying the possibility of creating transgenic edible vaccines using plants like lettuce and spinach. These vaccines could be used for both livestock and humans. However, an amendment passed by the House of Representatives may temporarily prevent the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture from using their budgets to fund edible vaccines. While this amendment does not completely forbid the practice, it restricts government funds from directly supporting these studies. The amendment raises concerns about the potential for vaccinating people through food. Representative Massey celebrated the victory of the amendment, highlighting the existing use of tax dollars to fund research on transgenic edible plant vaccines. The future of vaccines could involve consuming them through food, such as salads, rather than receiving injections.

A congressman from Kentucky introduces an amendment to prevent funds from being used for grants related to transgenic, edible vaccines. He argues that taxpayer money is being used to fund research at the University of California, Riverside, where scientists are studying the possibility of turning plants like lettuce and spinach into RNA vaccine factories. He expresses concerns about the potential risks and contamination of food supply, citing past incidents where corn vaccines for pigs contaminated soybeans and caused recalls. He emphasizes the need for a safe food supply and urges adoption of his amendment. The amendment is ultimately agreed to.

Every childhood vaccine will be mRNA, becoming gene therapies that alter genetics without re-approval. COVID vaccines were profitable data and experimentation tools, but the danger lies in continued genetic tinkering. mRNA is being integrated into every vaccine. Therefore, no vaccines should be taken. All vaccines are being redesigned to include gene therapies because there is so much money in it.

We are unaware of what we are consuming in our food supply. Merck has been injecting mRNA into pigs since 2018, creating transmissible mRNA that can be passed on to those who consume it. Without informed consent laws, those who have refused mRNA vaccines may unknowingly receive them through their food. This technology could be used in plants and animals, leading to unintended vaccination through food consumption.

In this video, the speakers discuss the concept of self-spreading vaccines, which are genetically engineered to move through populations like communicable diseases. They highlight the potential risks and ethical concerns associated with this technology. The speakers also mention the government's involvement in funding and promoting these vaccines. They emphasize the importance of informed consent and express concerns about the potential consequences of releasing self-spreading vaccines on a global scale. The discussion raises questions about the safety and long-term effects of this technology. The speakers argue that the widespread use of self-spreading vaccines could infringe upon individual rights and lead to the suppression of dissenting voices.

The speaker claims mRNA is in the food supply. Merck has been injecting mRNA into pigs since 2018 with a product called Sequebiti. They claim to be able to make transmissible mRNA, meaning they can put it in an animal so that it transmits to whoever is ingesting it, effectively vaccinating them. The speaker suggests this could be engineered into plants and animals. Without informed consent laws, people who refused mRNA vaccines may get them through their food.

The discussion centers on pets being used as self-amplifying mRNA vectors. The USDA quietly approved Merck's self-amplifying RNA shots called Novavac NXT for cats and dogs with no real safety testing. It says it gives a small dose of RNA particles delivered in the Novavac NXT vaccine. RNA copies exponentially in the cells, and the copies are transcripted into large amounts of the desired antigen. The antigen stimulates a more robust humular and cellular immune response. All sounds good in theory. However, these injections may shed messenger RNA and synthetic antigens to human owners through breath, saliva, or fluids may cause long term genetic damage similar to that seen in humans may recombine with wild viruses creating dangerous new pathogens. This rollout puts both pets and their owners into an uncontrolled genetic experiment without consent. “So says Nicholas Holcher, Miles per hour. So masters in public health. We don't know. Nobody tested it. Nobody did any studies. We don't have long term studies. We don't have short term studies. We just don't know. I'm a little scared. I really don't want to be a part of this.” And by the way, they're actually talking about spraying messenger RNA on our crops. How are we affecting our I feel like this is the everybody remember the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. I think I had to read it in high school. Was one of those required readings. Or what was the other book? 1984? Like, I feel like we're living in this dystopian universe where we just experiment with all these genetic things and we just throw it into the environment and throw it into our pets and throw it into people, and we don't know what the outcome is until we see. Are we all gonna go the way the dinosaurs? I don't know. Now I really sound like a conspiracy theorist. Are we all gonna like, is somebody gonna come along in a few thousand years and find fossil remains and try to figure out why we all died? I don't know. It's fine. It's fine. It's just a little nervous.” One speaker says they homestead: they raise their own chickens. They’re not treated with chemicals. Their dogs and cats don't get vaccinated with things that might shed into the environment, and they’re growing all their own organic fruits and vegetables. “Yep, I'm I'm I'm going that way. Y'all y'all do what you need to do. It's a little scary. I don't recommend that particular vaccine for your dogs. I I guess that's the bottom line. I don't know. Be careful what you eat.”

A congressman from Kentucky opposes funding for transgenic, edible vaccines. He argues that taxpayer money is being used to study the possibility of turning plants like lettuce and spinach into mRNA vaccine factories. He believes this is a bad idea and that the American people should not be funding it. He mentions a previous incident where corn contaminated soybeans, leading to a recall and destruction of crops. He expresses concerns about the safety of genetically modified food and the potential for unintended consequences. The congressman urges adoption of his amendment to stop funding this research. The amendment is ultimately agreed to.