I read your linked news release. This is the optimal way to develop a vaccine. And the reasonable way to induce immunity in the respiratory system. Bravo for this Australian research team.
In truth, it's exactly what I had (mistakenly) expected the U.S. intended to do until I learned the horrifying news the plan was instead to tamper with…
I read your linked news release. This is the optimal way to develop a vaccine. And the reasonable way to induce immunity in the respiratory system. Bravo for this Australian research team.
In truth, it's exactly what I had (mistakenly) expected the U.S. intended to do until I learned the horrifying news the plan was instead to tamper with the building blocks of life rather than produce an actual vaccine.
After 4 years in development, this Griffith University intranasal vaccine will be an exciting project to follow in its later phases. If truly "safe and effective," I could foresee its application for the typically most at risk segments of the population.
But after the (ongoing) government/media/medical abuses of current vaccines, I'm not sure I'd be willing to risk taking even what appears to be an ethically- and scientifically-sound vaccine such as this one. (I'd also worry about the integrity of production facilities in strict adherence to the formula...) Maybe after another 5-10 years. For now, I'll continue to trust my inate immune system.
The best news of all for me is that there are still scientists who recognize that mRNA transfections are not the answer to disease prevention.
I read your linked news release. This is the optimal way to develop a vaccine. And the reasonable way to induce immunity in the respiratory system. Bravo for this Australian research team.
In truth, it's exactly what I had (mistakenly) expected the U.S. intended to do until I learned the horrifying news the plan was instead to tamper with the building blocks of life rather than produce an actual vaccine.
After 4 years in development, this Griffith University intranasal vaccine will be an exciting project to follow in its later phases. If truly "safe and effective," I could foresee its application for the typically most at risk segments of the population.
But after the (ongoing) government/media/medical abuses of current vaccines, I'm not sure I'd be willing to risk taking even what appears to be an ethically- and scientifically-sound vaccine such as this one. (I'd also worry about the integrity of production facilities in strict adherence to the formula...) Maybe after another 5-10 years. For now, I'll continue to trust my inate immune system.
The best news of all for me is that there are still scientists who recognize that mRNA transfections are not the answer to disease prevention.
I fully agree.