In Way of Fostering Public Debate on Highly Controversial Scientific Topics
I just read the pdf version of: Response to Critics of Lee & Broudy (2024) on the Toxicity and Self-Assembling Technology in Incubated Samples of Injectable mRNA Materials.
It was very well-done and addressed many important issues that have been raised by critics of Lee and Broudy’s original paper. Some readers may recall that I published a piece about their first paper on my ss platform, at which time I called for a "very carefully reviewed and publicly critiqued" assessment. It was entitled: Advanced Nanotechnology in CV19 Injectables!
Unfortunately, some of the criticisms which ensued, suffered from major deficiencies, such as logical fallacies, including, adhominem attacks, the genetic fallacy, the strawman fallacy, among others. Very few people engaged in a serious analysis of the experimental design parameters or the underlying assumptions on which they were based. Moreover, I now suspect that some detractors were engaged in an attempt to keep hidden the fact that microtechnology (MT) and nanotechnology (NT) is demonstrably present in many substances, including, injections of various types, oral medications, supplements, food and water to name only a few. See: Contamination of Human Blood with Self-Assembling Micro/Nanotechnology in the post-CV19 “Vaccine” era, and Microtechnology & Nanotechnology Infestation of the Body is the “Holy Grail” for additional discussion, important links and notes.
One of the most important statements Lee and Broudy made in their most recent "response" paper is: "As with all other scientific interpretations, ours too did not emerge in a social and political vacuum."
They have responded to the obvious social/political attempts being made to depopulate humanity and to gain total control of survivors (enslavement). It cannot be overemphasized (adequately stressed) that globalists have publicly signaled (for years) their intent to use advanced technology to control human beings. It would be ludicrous not to look for evidence that they are doing so. When that evidence is found, the proper response is to acknowledge the fact that the perpetrators have made good on their promises.
Here is a short snippet from their paper entitled:
Response to Critics of Lee & Broudy (2024) on the Toxicity and Self-Assembling Technology in Incubated Samples of Injectable mRNA Materials
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research3(2) 17 September 2024| Page 1244.21.
Young Mi Lee, MD1 Daniel Broudy, PhD2
1 Practicing physician with a specialty in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hanna Women’s Clinic, Doryeong-ro 7, KumSung Building, 2ndFloor, Jeju, Jejudo, 63098, Republic of Korea, Tel: +82-64-711-7717, email: youngmil95@gmail.com (ORCID: 0000-0002-1210-4726).
2 Professor of Applied Linguistics, Okinawa Christian University, Nishihara-cho, Okinawa 903-0207, Japan, Email: dbroudy@ocjc.ac.jp (ORCID: 0000-0003-2725-6914).
Abstract:
Our article “Real-Time Self-Assembly…” (Lee & Broudy, 2024) published in this journal has attracted attention from scholars, commentators, and professional fact-checkers from around the world, most of it featuring generous praise and some of it impassioned pleas for its authors to stick to their own areas of expertise. Our reply to the critics of this study is an attempt to address and accommodate scholarly critique and answer other concerns about our perceived lack of know-how to engage in such research. In this response, we suggest that a reflexive and singular focus on the declared components of the COVID injectables represents a bias of its own, and a lack of due diligence on our critics’ part. The “Nano–Bio–Info–Cogno (NBIC)” era of the 21st century (see Jamali et al., 2018) is an already very well-documented development (Cevallos et al., 2022; The White House, 2022), and our aim is to urge scholars to enlarge the critical lens they use to assess these phenomena. This broadening of perspective has direct bearing on science and scholarship, direct implications for the status of legacy biosciences, and requires inclusion in any explanatory framework, which we discuss briefly in this reply.
Introduction:
Professor Ian Akyildiz, pioneer of the Internet of Bio-Nano Things (Io BNT), pointed out in an advanced technology symposium in 2023:
…the Bio-nanoscale machines [behind the Io BNT] are for injecting into the body…and that is going really well with these Covid vaccines. It’s going that direction. These mRNAs are nothing [other] than small scale, nano-scale machines. They are programmed, and they are injected [Terahertz Band Communication: An Old Problem Revisited & Research Directions for the Next Decade/2023; also see Akyildiz et al., The internet of Bio-Nano things/2015] …
I congratulate the authors on their latest publication. Despite the derogatory nature of many comments/criticisms received with respect to their initial paper, they took the moral high ground, provided a well-reasoned defense of their work while answering legitimate questions/concerns. Hopefully, any subsequent responses will be equally civil/morally principled.
Psychopaths have NO capacity to define 'Morality/Ethics'; thus this document has no credibility beyond proof of their Agenda and progress of Advanced Crimes Against All Organic Life on Earth.
This, "they took the moral high ground, provided a well-reasoned defense of their work while answering legitimate questions/concerns."
is certainly a better attitude and response compared to the majority of the "medical freedom fighters" (RFK, Malone, etc.) when asked if a Sars virus was actually found who tend to say, "It's not my focus" or "I don't have a strong opinion", yadayada...