Vaccination, in the traditional sense, involving chemical and biological agents, has been a pretty heated subject of debate for a variety of (good) reasons.
The issue of whether government can make choices for our bodies, the issue of personal liberty, the issue of parenting and the government interfering in the parent-child relationship, the issue of being forced to do something that you don't even know whether it's safe or not due to problematic safety testing, and other similar issues are among the major themes of this debate.
As always, heated debates have some part of "right" and some part of "wrong" in both camps (not always in equal proportions) - which serve to attract people to the pro and against camp. But there is something in the horizon that will make this debate seem dull in comparison...
Vaccines in the age of Nanotechnology
A new dimension will be added into this moral debate, as vaccines evolve to include not only chemical and biological agents, but also nanotechnology-related ...robots (nanobots). Yes. Robots.... Miniaturized robots flowing in the human bloodstream. These will be programmed electro-mechanical devices intended to perform certain pre-programmed tasks.
The moment these are deployed, and a nano-technology infused vaccine is deemed mandatory, at that exact point the government has also decided that Transhumanism -the merging of man and technology- is also mandatory.
In effect, it's like being forced to get chipped - but this is on a whole different level of invasion - which also involves and fundamentally alters the way the human body operates: Its natural defenses are considered inadequate and new, artificial means, are used to "enhance it".
Over time, reliance in artificial means will produce de-evolutionary responses in human biology, weakening what has been the cultivation of a multi-million-year biological evolution. If threats are dealt in an electro-mechanical way (at the nanoscale), then natural cellular defenses don't even have to exist, thus getting into a state of atrophy.
The Game-changing Nanobots
A whole sort of questions can arise regarding the existence of programmed nanobots in our bloodstream - and none of the answers are satisfying. If we can't even trust chemicals and viruses inside a vaccine (there are scientific papers and scientists who have their doubts), which can be analyzed and tested after all, how can we trust black-box ("patented") nanobots that we can't even tell what they are programmed to do?
Even worse, how can a patient know that one out of X nanobots is not intended to have a different functionality that could be triggered by, say, a remote signal / a time-trigger / a genetic-trigger, to perform something totally different than what it claims to be. What if the government can then press a button to induce people into having a whole sort of symptoms, from itching, to death, on demand? Who can say that this level of power can't be abused?
Government "rooting" technology
Even if the pharmaceutical establishment is well intended in their efforts (which they don't need to - their responsibility as companies is to make profits after all), everything technological tends to be "rooted" by the Government.
Whether we are talking about device firmware, processor microcode, BIOS and UEFI backdoors etc, most of the time the Government will ask a company to ..."cooperate, or else" for "national security reasons", in order to introduce new control "features".
With such a track record, who can guarantee that nanobots won't have a covert programming to perform tasks that weren't even intended by well-meant scientists? Or that 1 out of a population of X nanobots is programmed differently to do something else?
Who can guarantee that the government won't be using such technology to violate our right to privacy (nanobots as embedded "bugs" that monitor and record our activities), or health (nanobots embedded to act disruptively or even kill people), especially after knowing their track record?
Defenses and counter-defensive measures
There are so many exploitable routes with this technology that it's disturbing to even contemplate them, let alone find that it is a good idea to force people into accepting nanobots into their bodies. And if someone starts to calculate ahead of this, the strategies employed might even become more problematic...
It's not out of the question that private groups might develop other nanobots to eliminate government-mandated nanobots, and then have both of them extracted in some way. Or create circumstances, like EMP blasts, or blood transfusions and specialized blood filtering, to eliminate the larger part of the nanobot population. Which can then trigger an "evolution" into creating nanobots which attach themselves to the organism in a way which prevents that, and which will necessitate even greater levels of invasive "defense" methods. Something like that could also justify the official introduction of RF-communicating nanobots under the pretext of ensuring compliance, while also allowing the RF-emissions to be used for remote monitoring and control.
As I wrote a bit earlier, all these are disturbing to even contemplate in all their implications. Yet it might be the new type of moral debate that we will have to face in a decade or two...
Let's just pre-empt the debate; let's eliminate government now.
Agree. There's nothing stopping "I want everyone vaccinated" people and "I don't want to be vaccinated" people from going separate ways and not trying to live on top of each other.
I wish more people would think about the grey areas of life without assuming that you have to force one thing or the other onto everyone.
As long as you try to force people to do things that they're not necessarily sure of, there will always be resistance. The only way to actually get what you want (i.e. everyone to be vaccinated) is to set the example that this is better/healthier, and it would naturally be what people tend to choose, especially smarter people, and it would avalanche to nobody wanting to live in the communities that didn't do it that way.
But in government land there's no way to ever have this experiment and find out for sure.
Separatism seems to be the most tangible form of liberty...
i second the motion.
and again
You say 'government'
I say 'why'.
What business is it of the governments?
I guess the same as it always has: The government will say it wants to ensure the well-being of the citizens because the citizens elect it to do so... right now it's all about ordinary vaccines, next thing you know, it's ...nano-vaccines...
is there a vaccine for government?! if not someone make one.
Interesting to come across this post at this time as I have been battling some sort of flu for the past 7 weeks... I still don't believe we should follow the madness of the vaccination trends that have been rising immensely in the past 40-50 years. Yet, a little vaccine with simple compound does alright on the short run but, to borrow the words of the former head of immunology working for the world health organization, this trend is complete madness and we should pay attention to this. thanks for sharing on tis subject and informing us on such matter becoming more and more urgent for us to be aware of. Namaste :)
i get sick from a flu about every 3 months. i feel like some walking flu virus magnet the last few years. to be honest i haven't been vaccinated for ages, but now if there was some easy way for it i think i would get it.
Moving away form and unhealthy environment, both physically and socially, as well as focussing on organically grown foods, and, finally keeping healthy thoughts usually does a body good as the saying says. ;) For me, I work in elementary schools, so I literally swim in germs, viruses, microbes and the likes. As long as I stay within the same environment long enough, my body gets used to the main strains that are going around and it adapts itself quickly as I follow the logic of the first words shared with you at the very beginning of this note. Mind you, every time I move away from one location to another, the body needs to pretty much readapt itself to the new germs, viruses and microbes.
I usually increase my intake of mushrooms, silica, and any foods containing loads of Vit. A, C and D (That one is quite specific to the location of the world I live in where there isn't much sun in the wintery months.).
Have a wonderful and healthy Solstice time, keep your smile and namaste :)
Has there ever been an article published about this type of research being under done or planned on? Or is this mostly speculation?
In my experience, drug companies want to make vaccines as cheaply as possible -- they are using old, outdated technology to make vaccines, and that is largely why so many vaccine-injuries are happening but they try to cover it up and make people think its all a coincidence so that they can keep selling more vaccines that cost very little to make. When a vaccine kills or maims too many people in North America, they will improve it (if forced) but still send the cheaper, more deadly ones to the developing world.
My point being, that nano-tech seems very expensive and probably a smaller profit margin, and the vaccine industry is not known for being high-tech or quality.
However, what I could see happening possibly is someone powerful (in government or otherwise) getting a pharmaceutical company to sneak in a couple of nano-bots quietly and without fanfare into a single vaccine, and then pushing that vaccine like crazy --like they did with the Swine Flu Vaccine -- and they use those bots to keep track of the people that took the shot.
It's hard to believe that the people would not rebel if they were told that those bots were in the vaccine. I seem to remember that at the time of the Swine Flu Vaccine some people were indeed speculating that there could be something nefarious about that vaccine that we weren't being told -- afterall it does seem strange that they pushed a vaccine so hard for a disease that never spread like we were assured it would. The swine flu was a scam. They could use the scare of Ebola to get almost everybody lining up for an Ebola vaccine.
In tech terms, miniaturization costs are ever decreasing, and the complexity and capabilities of tinier devices are increasing. It will not be expensive when deployed in 1-2 decades. Just to put things into perspective, the capabilities of a modern smartphone exceed those of a multi-room supercomputer 20 years ago or a desktop computer 7-10 years ago.
So, to answer your first question, it's mostly "speculation" based on trend extrapolation.
In terms of references there is an entire field called nanomedicine*... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanomedicine
...which is researching nanotech based applications in medicine.
"Nanomedicine sales reached $16 billion in 2015, with a minimum of $3.8 billion in nanotechnology R&D being invested every year."
...
"Another vision is based on small electromechanical systems; nanoelectromechanical systems are being investigated for the active release of drugs."
Thanks canadian-coconut.. This is a fun comment section but I'm going with you on this one, this really needs to sight some references or clarify that it is just for fun.
I think Michael Crichton did a novel on the subject before he died.
Hmmm, haven't read it, but I'm pretty sure that if it's sci-fi, it will lag behind what we'll actually experience. It's a rare field in which actual science advances can sometimes even be ahead of fiction.
I never read it either. The potential consequences are quite scary and I suspect it was a monster story where the monster was nanotechnology.