Aerosolized Vaccines - The Ultimate Solution to Vaccine Hesitancy During the Next Pandemic?

One thing that the powers that ought not to be discovered during the COVID-19 pandemic was that a certain and rather significant portion of the population was hesitant to mindlessly following government mandates to be vaccinated with what they viewed as an experimental gene-based product.  As you will see in this posting, it is quite possible that technological advances could be used to ensure widespread vaccination during the next pandemic, even among those who are vaccine hesitant.

  

Back in 2018, EcoHealth Alliance submitted a proposal to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA, a research and development agency of the United States Department of Defense codenamed DEFUSE which outlined plans to defuse the threat of bat-borne coronaviruses as shown here:

 

 

As part of the solution to coronavirus infection and resultant spreading, the researchers associated with this project would deploy vaccines using one of four methods on bats located in three caves in China's Yunan province being studied by EcoHealth Alliance scientists in partnership with the infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology.  In this particular case, to control the spread of the coronavirus, the vaccines (aka immune boosting molecules) would be deployed using different delivery methods including:

 

1.) transdermally applied nanoparticles

 

2.) sticky edible gels that bats mutually groom and consume

 

3.) aerosolization via prototype sprayers

 

4.) automated sprays triggered by timers and movement detectors

 

It is the aerosolization via prototype sprayers that I want to focus on in this posting.  Here are twon excerpts from page 20, 21 and 22 of the proposal:

The proposal refers to Filament Extension Atomization or FEA technology developed at Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), a subsidiary of Xerox Corporation.  Here is a screen capture from the Stanford Research Institute's website which provides details on the Filament Extension Atomizer technology:

 

 

Note that the FEA technology can be used for drug delivery as part of its "wider range of applications".

  

Here is a video on Filament Extension Atomizer technology:

 

 

Now, let's put this technology together with the projected explosion in the use of drones by the military.  Do you trust your government enough to believe that they wouldn't use vaccine aerosolization technology as a means to vaccinate all of its citizens, even those who are vaccine hesitant for valid scientific reasons, during the next pandemic?  This sheds a whole new light on the "mandatory vaccination" mantra, doesn't it?

Davos 2024 and Disease X - Raising the Spectre of the Next Pandemic

At this year's edition of the ruling class's love fest (aka the Davos circle jerk), there is one fascinating session that is taking place on January 17th under the WEF's "A Long-term Strategy for Climate, Nature and Energy" group of sessions.  It is particularly interesting given what the world has been through after the Event 201 pandemic exercise took place on October 18, 2019 in which the WEF took part as shown here:

 

Here is the program background for the session about Disease X from the WEF website:

So, our overlords are already planning for "Disease X", a disease that "could result in 20 times more fatalities" than the COVID-19 plandemic.  You'll note that the head of the World Health Organization and chief global promoter of the COVID-19 pandemic narrative, Tedros Ghebreyesus and the Chair of the Board of AstraZeneca Michel Demare are taking part in the session because, after all, they have nothing to gain by pandemic fear mongering, do they?

 

Back in November 2022, the World Health Organization was already raising the spectre of the next pandemic in which it invoked the term "Disease X" as an unknown pathogen that could cause a serious international epidemic as shown here:

 

 

Let's look even further down the Disease X rabbit hole as shown here:

 

Here is the text of House Resolution 3832 which was introduced on June 5, 2023:

 

 

For those of you who aren't aware, BARDA stands for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority which falls under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

 

One of its focuses is its Pandemic Influenza Program as follows:

 

This fixation by the ruling class on pandemics could be considered rather pathological given that there have only been three pandemics since 1900 (excluding the COVID-19 "pandemic"); the Spanish Flu in 1918, the Asian Flu in 1957, the Hong Kong Flu in 1968 which killed very few individuals.  There were other pandemic threats which included the Swine Flu in 1976, the Russian Flu in 1977 and the Avian Flu in 1997 but none of these three spread beyond restricted regions of the globe.  That said, if there is one thing that the rulers have learned it's that gaslighting the global population by invoking the spectre of a deadly disease is a surefire means to be able to control most of us.

Terrorizing us into perpetual serfdom yet again.

The World Health Organization's International Health Regulations and the Power of its Director-General

Do you trust this man to have your best interests at heart?

 

 

If not, you should be greatly concerned about the powers that are being granted to him under the World Health Organization's International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR).  While the drafting of an WHO instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response also known as the pandemic accord/pandemic treaty gets the headline news, the redrafting of the IHR should cause us to ponder what lies ahead for all of us as this unelected body of "experts" seeks to solidify its power over the world. 

 

As background, the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) "....

 

"...provide an overarching legal framework that defines countries’ rights and obligations in handling  public health events and emergencies that have the potential to cross borders.

 

The IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR  grew out of the response to  deadly epidemics that once overran Europe. They create rights and obligations for countries, including the requirement to report public health events. The Regulations also  outline the criteria to determine whether or not a particular event constitutes a  “public health emergency of international concern”. 

 

At the same time, the IHR require countries to designate a National IHR Focal Point for communications with WHO, to establish and maintain core capacities for surveillance and response, including at designated points of entry. Additional provisions address the areas of  international travel and transport such as the health documents required for international traffic.

 

Finally, the IHR introduce important safeguards to protect the rights of travellers and other persons in relation to the treatment of personal data, informed consent and non-discrimination in the application of health measures under the Regulations."

  

Governments held a second meeting of the Working Group on Amendments to the IHR from February 20 to 24, 2023 during which the 307 proposed amendments to the "instrument" were discussed by the 194 Member States of WHO who are also State Partners to the IHR for the first time.  This is being done for the following reason as suggested by Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, the former Director-General of Health in New Zealand:

 

"The ongoing pandemic has underscored the importance of countries working together collaboratively, and supporting WHO in its vital work, to make the world safer. The tone of the discussions and progress made during this week’s meeting clearly show that countries understand the responsibility they have to ensure this process is successful.” 

  

Bloomfield also claims that:

"The efforts to update the International Health Regulations and draft a pandemic accord share a number of common themes, including the importance of equity in access to health, collaboration and capacity building.  It is important that there is consistency and alignment across the two processes.”.  This is being done under the guise of making the world safer from communicable diseases and ensuring equitable responses to public health threats."

 

Let's look at some key excerpts from the proposed changes to the IHR which are now under consideration in which I have highlighted the term "Director-General", Tedros Adhanom Ghebreysus'

position, thanks in no small part to the influence of Bill Gates and his billions of dollars on the WHO, noting the following:

 

The proposed amendments are presented as follows:

 

Strikethrough = proposal to delete existing text

 

Underlined and bold = proposal to add text

 

(...): existing text in the IHR (2005) in relation to which no proposals for amendments were submitted and which is therefore omitted from the compilation

  

Here are screen captures of pages 9 and 10 which outline what happens if a public health emergency of regional concern or intermediate health alert is determined to be taking place by the Director-General:

 

Basically, under the new draft of the IHR, all power to determine whether a public health emergency or an intermediate public health alert (i.e. not an emergency but an event that required heightened international awareness and potential international public health response) is occurring and the response to an emergency is ultimately dictated by one individual, the World Health Organization's Director-General.  Elected governments who are State Parties to the IHR must then follow the orders that are dictated to them by the World Health Organization.  And there went what little remains of national sovereignty.

 

So, in light of these changes to the World Health Organization's International Health Regulations, we had better learn to trust these two because they hold all of the "pandemic cards":

 

Let's close with this video from a recent tweet by Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus:

Yes indeed, meaningful and lasting changes that will give him all of the power over all of us.  It's all part of an unprecedented power grab by an organization that is increasingly proving itself to be corrupted by private money.

Tracking COVID-19's First Appearance in the United States

On April 21, 2020, Santa Clara County Public Health released this interesting information:

The fact that an individual who died at home on February 6, 2020 tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a rather fascinating turn of events given that, until this point, it was believed that the first American death from coronavirus was announced by Public Health - Seattle and King County on February 29, 2020 as shown here:

As well, while testing was not widely available in the United States at the time, according to the CDC, there were only 11 cases of COVID-19 reported in all of the United States on February 6, 2020.  The first American positive COVID-19 infection was reported to the CDC on January 22, 2020 as shown here:

According to the Santa Clara County Public Health press release, there were two individuals in California who died prior to the "first COVID-19-related death" in the State of Washington, the aforementioned death on February 6th and another death on February 17th.  Both individuals in California had no travel history to China or anywhere else that would have exposed them to the virus.  This means that there was likely community spread happening in California during mid-January 2020 since the time required between contact with the virus and infection is between two and three weeks, suggesting that the virus was more widely prevalent in the United States long before experts had originally concluded.  In case you've forgotten, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a "Public Health Emergency" on January 30, 2020 and a "pandemic" on March 19, 2020.  The first case of "pneumonia of an unknown cause" was declared by China on December 31, 2019.  

The probable appearance of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the United States just two to three weeks later is a rather interesting development and suggests that the virus was present in America not substantially later than it made its appearance in China.  Further research is required to determine whether other deaths in the United States prior to the beginning of February 2020 are also test positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.