Ban in/on all vaccines in foods both agriculturally grown from seed to table. Any Vaccines in foods is a violations of humans right to know about what is in their foods, and choice to choose vaccine. Anyone violating this ban should be held in crimes against humanity.
128 Likes
Thank you. When I read this I thought âvaccinating a plantâ was crazy, until I researched it and found out it IS a real thing. With my limited knowledge I do not see a big difference between vaccinating a plant with siRNA (small interfering RNA) and genetically modifying it. Both can have detrimental effects on humans.
23 Likes
Heads up to RFK Jr. and MAHA team on this dangerous new path. Yes, this should absolutely be banned (and not even allowed by doctorâs prescription) â it is turning otherwise normal grocery foods into a Franken-medicine weapons of mass administration, which could (and will) be secretly administered without the express consent of the public.
As with everything our currently corrupt corporate+government-stakeholder-driven fascist state does these days, this particular type of medically-laced food will certainly be weaponized after it becomes standard practice, showing up disproportionally in govt-sponsored commodities programs and with generous store coupons for the elderly and disabled (who the govt thinks needs to be permanently 'disconnectedâ from future govt assistance). 
What is more, this proposed vaccine/medicine-laced food products practice is not only a violation of choice in âreligious exemptionsâ but also a violation of voluntary consent and notification under Nuremberg Code.
BACKGROUND ON THIS MONSTROSITY BELOW
[âStart Internet Extract}
Many people in rural communities or developing countries cannot access vaccines due to various issues such as cost and needed skills to administer. This problem led to research of vaccines in plants, allowing vaccines to be stored without refrigeration and transported easier. In 2021, researchers from the University of California, Riverside (UC Riverside) received a grant to experiment with messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, an ingredient mainly known for its use in vaccines to treat COVID-19. They are researching methods to receive the vaccine through consuming lettuce rather than a prescription or an injection. The group has three main goals:
-
- Discover DNA with the mRNA vaccine present in plant cells for replication.
- Illustrate the plant can produce the amount of mRNA similar to a traditional shot.
- Find the right dosage for the public.
Although UC Riversideâs project is still in the early research stage, this idea has sparked questions about the creation and approval processes of plants with vaccines in addition to concerns about the impact this method could have on the stateâs food supply.
With every experiment and decision comes challenges and limitations in consistency and methodology. Researchers are still working on plants having equal dosage, the appropriate amount of dosage, and serving sizes based on varying needs of children and adults. Cross-contamination from farm-to-farm is an additional concern because strict greenhouse production could be expensive. Receiving vaccines orally also has the potential to damage protein components in stomachs for digestion. All hosting plants need to be eaten raw to fully receive the genes grown in the food, but spoilage of bananas, for example, happens quickly.
[âEnd Internet Extract]
ORAL/EDIBLE VACCINES ARTIFICALLY EMBEDDED WITHIN GROCERY FOODS SHOULD BE OUTLAWED AND ASSIGNED WITH STIFF PENALTIES FOR AGGRIVATED ASSAULT WITH A POTENTIALLY LETHAL SUBSTANCE. WHEN VACCINES AND MEDICINES ARE INSERTED INTO FOODS, THE END RESULT IS NEITHER A FOOD, NOR A MEDICINE â IT IS MERELY AN ORAL VEHICLE FOR STEALTH POISONING WHICH CANNOT BE CONTROLLED BY PRINTED DIRECTIONS (e.g.): âSUGGESTED SERVING SIZE OF ONLY 3 POTATO CRISPS PER SERVING OUT OF A 3lb. BAGâ. 
___Side Note: Who the hell eats only 3 chips and puts the bag away for another day?
This is no different than when we had those psychos sneaking around the grocery stores in the 1990s, dropping poison-laced caplets into pain reliever medications before they had tamper-proof tops as standard practice. Remember that? The crime is exactly the same. The American People will not sign off to âCorn Flakesâ cereal with a side panel notice on the box printed in ultra-small letters, warning of MYOCARDITIS and POTENTIAL DEATH as mere âside effectsâ from eating a few bowls of cereal. It would equate to being vaccinated by eating your first bowl of âNew & Improved Frosted Franken-Flakes 
â, and getting a follow-up booster shot for every additional bowl you eat after the first one. 
Yea, we see how those âboostersâ worked out on the American People, didnât we? The more boosters you had, the quicker you were to pushing up daisies.
Heads will roll over intentional contamination of the national food supply. Any idiot board of directors should know quite well what they would be getting themselves into by pulling this stunt. 
Problem is â there are a lot of white collar pencil-neck idiots out there who think they need a better fishing boat than their neighbor (even at the very expense of their neighbor). 
17 Likes
I agree we should not have âvaccinesâ grown in other organisms for human consumption, especially genetic material âvaccinesâ.
- âvaccinesâ would be genetic manipulation and not a good idea on that thought alone.
- How could the we guarantee the host organism would not change the "vaccine once inside the host.
- If we can figure out 2, how can we dose it.? we saw with Covid that there is individuality in how the recipients responded to the virus and vaccine.
- How could we make sure a person is not allergic to the host or become allergic to the host post ingestion of the âvaccineâ host.
- Digestion could be an issue with making sure the âvaccineâ was viable to our intestinal based immune system.
- How closely related is the immune response via digestion compare to intramuscular? part of the reason the covid âvaccinesâ did not work well is we were priming the systematic blood immune system rather than the local mucosal immune system. each makes different immune molecules. 7. The idea bypasses the concept of informed consent.
- Then there are labeling issues to make sure people arenât ingesting too much of the vaccine.
- We already have food waste issues, this would increase it even more. 10. farmer compensation for growing the specialty product.
Way too many issues that need to be addressed for this to be a viable option, when people are becoming vaccine aware and not wanting to take as many as recommended.
12 Likes
ShawnâŚif I might add to your listâŚ
- How do food manufactures keep from overdosing when combining multiple ingredients where 2 or more items have already been infused with medicines (e.g. Bagged salads where both the lettuce and the carrot slices both contain vaccine infusions),
- How are adverse reactions avoided when mixing different infused medicines?
- Who foots the bill for all of the extra costly steps required to monitor, mix, and distribute the medically-infused multi-ingredient products? Is the unwilling buyer supposed to eat that cost?
- Who sets up and maintains the medical liabilities funds associated with these vaccine-infused products? The government or the food company? If the govt, then is this not a conflict of interest in the food industry? What happens to food companies that donât comply with the mandated contaminations of their flagship âcash cowâ brand named products that they have nurtured for many decades? Are they shut down?
- Will the government subsidize one food manufacturer over another simply because one complies with using vaccine-laced ingredients and the other does not?
- How will mandated booster shots affect the consumer if the consumer is already a regular eater of Franken-Flakes?
- How are sewage treatment facilities inspected, maintained and funded with the additional contamination of millions of tons of medically-laced food wastes flooding its treatment ponds annually? Is the tax-payer on the hook for environmental cleanup of this newly created mess as well?
- For international food companies who sell their products in multiple countries; who is supposed to pick up the tab for the additional costs associated with storing and preparing different ingredients of differing concentrations of medically-infused base products, where such products are mandated in one country but banned in another (see: European GMO bans).
- How will Congress or associated food regulatory agencies acquire informed consent from the general populous before passing legislation or legal code that condones the infusion of vaccines into the general food supply? How will these political and administrative bodies square their actions (after taking a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution) by then violating Constitutional protections of LIFE, LIBERTY and the PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS?
- How are cross-contaminations and adverse affects of consuming multiple differing medically-infused products handled when the patients hit the emergency room? How is the doctor supposed to know what happened, much less how to cure the patient once time-sensitive reactions occur outside of the digestive tract and deep within unreachable bodily systems?
9 Likes
Susan,
Thank you adding to the list. Definitely, too many concerns that should be looked at the US Congress should ban the practice. Hopefully, RFK, Jr will work on the issue in the next 4 years.
As for the water treatment issue is the water treatment plants will ignore the issue, same as they do for all the pharmaceutical byproducts in the water from the US adult being on so many prescribed medications.
8 Likes
@ShawnCVT , @HillaryF , @SueK Couldnât agree more!.. After all the adverse reports to VAERS for the COVID vaccines, and the horrible coercion that took place in relation to them, the people responsible should be tried and punished for crimes against humanity. So should those who try to pull off this attempt at removing the choice factor from vaccination.
5 Likes
This is very well thought out! Thank you for sharing this with us.
3 Likes
Letâs ban both practices
3 Likes
Sometimes science does things that are obviously crimes against humanity. even a scientist developing a way to put things in a drink that make you thirstier is just ridiculous. where is common sense? its one thing to quench thirst. itâs something else entirely to make someone thirstier when they are trying to quench their thirst. itâs called fraud. Adding anything unnatural to and/or modifying something that is grown naturally is fraud. definite crime against humanity!
6 Likes
Send all who involved to the gallows - No more repeat offenders!
4 Likes
I understand that some vaccines have issues, but that aside I do want to make note of important benefits when it comes to vaccinating our food.
Blackleg is a horrible disease that is very contagious and can wipe out entire herds of cattle.
Diseases like coccidiosis and bird flu can decimate entire flocks of chickens. You can actively see right now how it plays out when a food resource is decimated by disease in the price of eggs that so many people are talking about.
Some plant diseases can live in the soil for years and can kill entire fields of corn, wheat, fruit trees, vegetables. That is all of the cereal, and flour, so bread, and everything from fresh produce to junk food.
These are just a few examples of problems that I am personally aware of that have the potential to affect me⌠but if you take no measures to protect the food sources that quickly becomes everyoneâs problem and with the number of people in the world that are already hungry I donât think it would be good idea for governments to start outright banning vaccines. I am 100% on board with a lable, I do think everyone should know what they are putting into their bodies, but I donât see how you can efficiently feed 8 billion people if we end up in a place where we canât keep our food alive.
1 Like
Angie,
I understand your point about showing the positive aspects of vaccines in food products, And we can probably find positive aspects to anything and everything on the planet and write both Pro and Con arguments against them, right?
What I would argue both for and against in your post, is that you supplied what I think is only HALF of the issue regarding food safety and security. As you know, we cannot make proper policy based on half of an issue. I donât mean to sound critical, however, for the sake of debate, I must also include the following in a public forum regarding your points.
My question is this. Since we know that vaccines in food products can be beneficial, and assuming that one agrees with all of your points, where are your points on safety, regarding the use of food vaccines? Is this simply being assumed? You mention the potential pitfalls of famine and disease by not using food vaccines, yet you donât mention how these food vaccines can be administered and controlled in such a manner that the hazards to humans and livestock approaches zero. Nothing is there. Isnât a large part of using vaccines in foods aimed at promoting health and food security? If so, where are the points to ensure this goal, especially when vaccines products are rushed to market in a highly competitive pharmaceutical industry, corporations are more focused on pushing the highest meat-to-market ratios per business quarter, stores pushing for the highest turnover monthly, and overworked farmers are more concerned about meeting Ag quotas instead of worrying about the health and safety of their fellow man. Is all of this assumed to be addressed in your post?
I donât think people are doubting your points about the potential benefits of this technologyâŚI think they are more worried about those points that I just mentioned, and do not trust that it will work in an ideological and perfect way, like what might be assumed at this point. The call for a ban is because there is no faith in our current system (especially during recent COVID mass genocide spike protein poisoning attempts that are pushed on the population even as we speak ) that it will work to promote health, food abundance, and prosperity, as it is currently being sold. With our current corrupt system in place (all governments included), there is no better alternative to public health and safety than a complete ban on it â until corruption and carelessness is removed from the national food supply and reliable transparent safeguards are in place. We can always âunbanâ it later; but we will never be able to raise dead people and livestock back from the grave, later.
As analogy, it is a bit like giving a child a baseball bat and he decides to hit his sibling over the head with it. You donât hand him back the bat again until he has matured to the point where he will not do it again. Same applies here â the bat should be taken away at this time (in the form of a ban ), until it is safe to be given back. Bans are not eternal, yet they are sometimes temporarily necessary when public safety could be at serious risk. And no matter how great food vaccines might prove themselves to be in the future (as you have shown), todayâs lingering mass-vaccination health risks still remain unaddressed. My two cents on it. Thanks.
PS - To underscore the present issues that we currently face via the introduction of vaccine materials within our national food supply, I am including an example of broad-based highly toxic spike protein molecule contamination that is still ongoing, and continuing to harm the human population. This should serve as a stark warning that our society is not yet socially responsible for reaping the many potentional benefits of integrating vaccines into our fragile public food systems.
You are absolutely right about my point of view only covering half of the issue; I intentionally decided to speak on the half of the problem that isnât being spoken about.
Of course the people in charge of regulating our food and health should be transparent. I think farmers should be empowered to make safe choices and I donât think that pharmaceuticals should be part of market capitalism.
I do not have a very good understanding of the part of this topic that seems to aim direct vaccination of population through diet and I would never be okay with that sort of overreach. I very much believe in body autonomy and the need to know what is in our consumables and how ingredients affect the body so that we can make informed decisions.
That being said, what I understand about the vaccinations that we give our plants and animals have solved some very detrimental problems, example being the vaccination against blackleg in cattle. I know how devastating blackleg is and while I want to know what my cheeseburger was vaccinated with I donât want to pay ten times a reasonable price for it or see literal tons of meat go to waste while we already have too much of a hunger problem in society.
A complete ban means proven techniques for managing disease safely get wrapped up in legislation, it means that researchers canât innovate new ways to protect food safely and in the worst cases it means people go hungry because what little access they had to food will be gone. One could make the argument that it is better to have no food than to have food that might be dangerous but that really kind of falls apart when one is starving and the human lifespan is at an all time high.
It is the publicâs job to watch our governments⌠when you let them run wild they will get out of control, no matter the location, culture or structure. I absolutely think that transparency and information should be at the forefront of innovation especially when it comes to food and health, but I think it is worth navigating the situation with more precision than a complete ban.
Nothing about a society works in an ideological and perfect way and it would be naive to assume that is possible. I donât have those answers, I donât have the experience or the knowledge needed to navigate a solution⌠Maybe naively, I assume thereâs someone in school somewhere working on those skills right now to help society in that direction, but society does not improve on outright banning whole subjects.
We have food problems that are causing health problems. The only way around that as a population as far as I can see is to demand transparency from the people that handle our food and health and actively reject the things we donât want by not buying it.
I canât get on board with a legal ban on all the things because I do have the knowledge and experience to see what happens to a supply chain if it is laid to wasted in a big way and disease will always be our number 1 enemy.
1 Like
AngieâŚI think you are missing a crucial point. Those in here are not calling for a ban on vaccines being injected into YOUR food. They are calling for a ban on vaccines being snuck into THEIR food. I am sure there is a way that this can be worked out, where both you and they are happy. I donât think they mind if you want to experiment with your food. Surely you are not insisting that it should only be the way you wish it, at the expense of the wishes of everyone else. Any ideas on a compromise that bans one food source but does not ban another, so that everyone might be pleased? I would love to be able to walk into a store with you and pick up a âvaccine-bannedâ (unvaccinated) whole chicken with a red label on it, and you pick up a âvaccine-acceptedâ (vaccinated) chicken with a blue label on it. Seems fair and simple enough right? Everyone has their own healthy version of a nice chicken dinner, and all is well.
Can you offer any suggestions on making it workable for everyone (especially since the larger majority of Americans probably do NOT want vaccines in their food). In this case, I think the minority has the duty and obligation to figure out a workable and equitable game plan, since they are the exception to the will of the majority; and by converse and supporting analogy, that a chicken (by Grand Default and Divine Design) does not come into this world with a possibly faulty vaccine that needs to be removed from it, donât you agree?
Lastly, I would like to hit the point home, using even your own argument for supporting at least a temporary ban (which can later be revisted when society shows some real empathy and maternalistic responsibility to its inhabitants)âŚ
Reply to quote: The ban being called for is not to âimprove societyâ; it is to âprotect societyâ, until such continued improvements are no longer a risk to society. The ban is not to stop research on the matter in order to work toward improvements; the ban is to keep society safe until we agree that the research is far enough advanced so as not to cause catastrophic damage to the Human Species, which cannot be undone. This is not simply a white paper argumentâŚthis is about the survival of the Human Race, which has already been gravely affected by the negligent and outwardly criminal pharmaceutical industry. It is not the people in this forum who instigate the call for the banâŚit is the harmful pharmaceutical industry itself, who created the millions of victims that call for the ban in order to protect themselves. I hope that helps clarify the dangers and the temporary need for a ban in the food space, while continuing to improve the biotechnological research going forward. There is no call for banning research here â only a call for banning the mass contamination of the natoinal food supply, without the prior voluntary and express consent of The People, which is a completely reasonable request â and quite American in tradition.
1 Like
Why is this not a topic in any conservative political circles? How is this ok???
I agree that some vaccines are necessary to protect the herd/flock/crop from harm. I think traditional vaccines that have been used for decades should be allowed. These vaccines stimulate the immune systems and are cleared from the animal quickly. I do not think we should be using any mRNA type products until the bugs have been worked out. These products, if made like COVID vaccines, have the manufactured protein stay in the system for long periods of time, I think we are up to a year at this point where the spike protein is still being produced and in the blood stream in humans.
On a side note, the bird flu vaccine used for poultry is highly flawed and should not be given. For this disease, we should allow the flock to be exposed, cull any poultry in extreme distress from the disease, and allow the rest to live instead of culling the whole flock. That way those that survive will have some immunity from the next bout.
Coccidiosis can be treated with antibiotics so no vaccine is needed.