Vaccines in Food to be Banned in Tennessee

[Martin]

Kimmel discusses this at 9:17. It's hilarious, the lady's question is my question.

[Josh]

How is requiring a vaccine to be labelled as a vaccine a bad thing?

[JohnHurt]

Wow, what is in the water in Tennessee? First chemtrails and now this?

For what it's worth, I actually followed the link to the 2021 article about the UC Riverside professor who got the $500k grant to study whether this idea is even feasible. Since the initial announcement of the research grant they haven't announced or published any results. All the stories are from 2021. So it doesn't look like the idea panned out, even if was intriguing. That is often the case in science.

I can find no evidence that any research team at UC or anywhere else has made any progress with this idea. Do you have any?

Ken,

Of course they are not going to tell you if it worked. They also did not tell you it did not work. But half a million dollars can buy a lot of lettuce. Where did the money go? How was it used? We don't know that either.

Here is how you can find out if they are putting vaccines in food:

Legislation / laws passed at the State level - with sufficient penalties - will make anyone that distributes vaccines in food in Tennessee - disclose that there is mRNA in the food.

The large food distributors are nation-wide, and they cannot decide not to sell certain products in Tennessee without admitting there is a problem.

A lot of food sold in Tennessee in the winter comes from California, and if a TN citizen's group finds this "grown in CA" food is being sold in TN and it has vaccines in it, they will sue for damages and their attorney will make a bundle. So with this legislation, mRNA in food cannot be hidden, like it was with whatever happened to the $500k grant money.

Winter produce also comes into TN from as far away as Chile. So this TN legislation will force world wide disclosure as no vaccinated food from overseas can be sold in TN.

If no one is putting vaccines in food, and there is no vaccinated food sold in Tennessee, then the legislation will have worked as intended.

What a crazy idea to put mRNA in food! Why would anyone give someone a half a million dollar grant if project was impossible or impractical? If mRNA is destroyed by the stomach acid, then that should be obvious and the grant would be denied. Or did they have a way to defeat stomach acid, and that is why they got the grant?

Or does the University of California routinely hand out $500,000 grants to research topics like researching the lint inside your navel, and other stupid projects? It is either one or the other. Either the people issuing the grants are morons, or they really can do this stuff.

Moderna was funded by Bill Gates, and had all of the money needed to research and produce the first mRNA shots. They don't need a paltry half million dollars - Moderna has all the research money they need.

My guess is that the University of California study is the "cover" for what is happening, or already happened, at these big biotech corporations. When there is a problem, like blood clotting, the University will take the blame, and not the biotech corporations.

Have you seen pictures of the blood clots that morticians are finding in people that took the mRNA shots? Really horrible.

[JohnHurt]

Kimmel discusses this at 9:17. It's hilarious, the lady's question is my question.

There is also a clip where someone makes fun of Jimmy Kimmel by saying that COVID originated when a Pangolin fell into a pot of stew and had sexual relations with a bat in a wet market in China, which created COVID. He made fun of the absolutely ridiculous statement by Kimmel and others that COVID came from a wet market in Wuhan. This was back in 2020 when Kimmel was making fun of anyone that said COVID came from the Wuhan Lab, which everyone now knows that is where originated, with funding from Fauci's NIH. Rand Paul has nailed this fact repeatedly.

So Kimmel has made fun of COVID coming from a lab, the same way Kimmel is now making fun of mRNA in lettuce, for which I provided the link to the grant given to the University of California. Yet Kimmel acts like it is impossible, and the Establishment tells us we are supposed to believe Jimmy Kimmel, otherwise people will laugh at us.

What it really tells us is that the Establishment is taking the time to ridicule - at the national level - something that is happening in Tennessee. If it wasn't important, they would ignore it. But they are trying to discredit it immediately, by using Jimmy Kimmel, so no one else will believe it to be true.

And to answer the lady's question, no, vaccines in food is not here in Tennessee at this time. But they don't issue $500k grants for something that is impossible, either.

[Ken]

Wow, what is in the water in Tennessee? First chemtrails and now this?

For what it's worth, I actually followed the link to the 2021 article about the UC Riverside professor who got the $500k grant to study whether this idea is even feasible. Since the initial announcement of the research grant they haven't announced or published any results. All the stories are from 2021. So it doesn't look like the idea panned out, even if was intriguing. That is often the case in science.

I can find no evidence that any research team at UC or anywhere else has made any progress with this idea. Do you have any?

Ken,

Of course they are not going to tell you if it worked. They also did not tell you it did not work. But half a million dollars can buy a lot of lettuce. Where did the money go? How was it used? We don't know that either.

You have a very odd notion of how scientific research works. Have you never heard of the phrase "publish or perish"? Unless you are doing some sort of secret Pentagon research, that's the main point of doing the research in the first place.

I also suspect you don't know how academic grants work. Detailed budgets are always part of a grant proposal. First, the university takes about 1/3 of the money off the top for overhead (use of university labs, etc.) Another big bunch of funding goes to pay for grad student and post-doc salaries and tuition stipends for any grad students and post-docs that get hired to work on the research project. The lead professors take their cut, usually to support their research over the summers. And then they have equipment, supplies, etc. to pay for. And if they are presenting their research at any conference, or traveling for any part of the research, the costs of travel and attending conferences get added in. All that would be spelled out in the grant proposal. So we would know in fact exactly how the money is being used. A $500k multi-year research grant doesn't actually end up going very far.

And research grants are routinely audited. Bookkeeping needs to be meticulous. They aren't some secret mysterious slush fund.

[Josh]

And research grants are routinely audited. Bookkeeping needs to be meticulous. They aren't some secret mysterious slush fund.

[JohnHurt]

A $500k multi-year research grant doesn't actually end up going very far.

I'm in the wrong business.

[RZehr]

Or does the University of California routinely hand out $500,000 grants to research topics like researching the lint inside your navel, and other stupid projects?

Probably. And they probably focus on stupid projects.

[ohio jones]

Either the people issuing the grants are morons, or they really can do this stuff.

Those are not the only choices; nepotism, quid pro quo, and internal university politics are other reasons that come to mind for questionable grant awards.

I'm in the wrong business.

I guess that depends on your values and conscience. Prov. 16:8, 19.

[Ken]

Or does the University of California routinely hand out $500,000 grants to research topics like researching the lint inside your navel, and other stupid projects?

Probably. And they probably focus on stupid projects.

Universities generally don't hand out grants.

Most science grants come from science agencies like the NIH or NSF, or smaller more specific state and local research programs in specific areas like agriculture, forestry, medicine, etc. Some are also from industry and charitable foundations like the Gates Foundation which funds lots of research into things like malaria. Or the Carter Foundation which funds research into Guinea Worm eradication.

Most grants are competitive in that your grant proposal is competing with many others for a limited amount of funding. And the financial tracking of grant dollars can be meticulous.

In my previous life I got roped into doing grant review for the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant program which funds research into fisheries and seafood: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/grant/sa ... ompetition And we probably only funded 1 out of every 10 grant requests. I expect that is somewhat typical.