This bill has now passed and the Senate, 23 to six. In the House it passed 73 to 22, pretty much along partisan lines. Interestingly enough, the Democrats would like to have mRNA vaccines in your lettuce and other things. You know, from the very beginning, I called this mRNA jab, the genetic code injection. I even called the GCI. I used the term so many times, I just shortened it to the GCI.

Well, the bill comes in response to the University of California Riverside research project looking into whether mRNA which targets pathogens could be implanted into edible plants which would then be consumed. So republican state representative, who is pushing this through, Scott Supicki, I guess, is how you pronounce his last name. During House committee meeting where they interrogate people about their bill. You know, they present the bill, people can ask them questions and committee meetings.

He said, you’d have to get a prescription for that to make sure that we know how much of the lettuce you have to eat based off of your body type. So if we just dump in, and this is very analogous to the fluoride thing, right? If we just dump in fluoride, and it’s a particular type of fluoride, this is a fluoride that is an industrial byproduct of both the aluminum of and the nuclear industry.

And they would normally use that, as they do in China, as a pesticide, as a rat poison. And they would have to very carefully dispose of that. Except that they went, they offered it as not a bug, but a feature, and they sell it to municipal water systems and they put it in the water and it’s supposed to help your teeth. I guess at that point in time they realized they could sell us anything, including mRNA injections, if we got the right person in charge.

If you swallow that stuff, you’ll swallow anything, right? But mainly it’s a conspiracy of silence. And so the, but the question is the same, right? If they’re going to put mRNA stuff in lettuce, then how much lettuce do you get to have the right dosage? And if they’re going to put fluoride in the water, how much water should you drink in order to get the right dosage? Is it going to be uniformly distributed? Maybe not.

If you just dump it into the water supply. Why would you ever medicate the population by dumping something into the water supply, regardless of whether fluoride is good or bad? Uh, even if it were good, dumping it into the water supply would be unbelievable. Um, in terms of negligence. I mean, it’s just, uh, you’re going to. And what dosage is a child going to get versus, you know, tiny baby versus a grown man? You can’t control any of that stuff.

So he uses that same argument. He doesn’t talk about fluoride. Uh, but he says, how much of the lettuce would you have to eat based off of your body type and weight, so that we don’t under vaccinate you, which leads to the possibility of the efficacy of the drug being compromised, or if we overdose you based on how much lettuce is eaten or how much water you drink with a fluoride in it.

He said the bill, which local media described as a move targeting vaccine lettuce, quote unquote, would classify foods modified to act as vaccines. It would classify them as pharmaceuticals. Maybe we should classify our water as a pharmaceutical, our municipal water, if it’s got fluoride in it, isn’t that amazing that they, first of all, don’t talk about it? If you happen to notice the absurdity of medicating people through food and through the water supply, you’re the crazy person.

You’re the crazy, you’re the conspiracy. No, you’re actually putting that stuff in. And you want me to believe that you got the dosage correct for everybody? There’s absolutely no way that that passes any kind of logic. But I’m the crazy person, not you, right? In 2021. Press release. University of California, Riverside associate professor of botany and plant sciences Juan Pablo said, we are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce, and we have long term goals of people growing it in their own gardens.

Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it, because there’s nothing better for your body than mRNA, whatever it is. I mean, we just. We just need more of it. I just like to put folic acid in food or something like that. We just need more mRNA everywhere. It’s so wonderful to have it, he says. So we need to know about this. We need to treat it as a pharmaceutical.

So if you want to consume this, you’d have to go to the doctor and get a prescription for your lettuce. But according to Pablo at the University of California, where they’re trying to create this, or have created it, who knows? He said, ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person. Ideally, you don’t know or you don’t care. And really, they don’t care about dosage.

They don’t care about dosage with fluoride in the water, and they don’t care about dosage with their mRNA stuff either because we found that it varied from three to 100. It varied by a factor of 33 times. That’s why you got certain lots where it was 100. And I think it’s micrograms of active ingredient where that’s where all the fatalities and injuries were. See, we were all lab rats for them, and that’s why they wanted to track the lot number, because they knew which ones were three micrograms and which ones were 100 micrograms.

Another researcher, Nicole Steinmetz, said in the same release that they plan to use nanoparticles or plant viruses for gene delivery. So one of the Democrats opposed this. Fortunately, there’s not that many of them here in Tennessee. When they had the floor debate in the Senate, Heidi Campbell asked, does the sponsor know of any instances of there being food offered in the state of Tennessee that contains vaccines in some kind of a retail or a public forum? And, you know, that begs the issue.

We know about technology that’s coming, we know the threats of the technology. Shouldn’t we be proactive in it? I mean, isn’t that what people are talking about with AI saying, you know, we can see where this thing is headed. We need to try to at least put in some prohibitions against this. Why? Why wouldn’t you do that? So representative, so picky hit back, he said, well, in February we had a Kentucky company that had already been infecting growing tobacco plants with a genetically modified corona virus to see if it can produce antibodies for a potential vaccine, adding that the company, quote, can already do this right now, you know, they have used, for whatever reason, I don’t know why the tobacco plant is the go to plant for genetic modification, gmo stuff.

They always go to tobacco first. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. I don’t, but, and so here they are, you know, with their gmo vaccines. In 2023, Thomas Massey from Kentucky raised concerns over the use of federal money to create transgenic edible vaccines. He said, to transform edible plants such as spinach and lettuce into mRNA vaccine delivery vehicles, he says, I think it is dangerous to play God with our food, he said back in September last year, there is a push to create edible vaccines, food products like tomatoes, lettuce or milk that are genetically modified to have the effect of a vaccination when someone consumes them.

Now why are we doing that? And why the Democrats so supportive of that? In September 2023, during a debate over an appropriations bill, Massey highlighted an incident in which an edible vaccine was introduced into a corn crop used to feed pig and pigs in order to mitigate diarrhea. That could be a big problem with pigs. I mean, it’s. This is something we got to do something about, but maybe not this.

The corn crop, however, became commingled with a soybean crop, contaminating 500,000 bushels that had to be recalled. And so he said, do we really want to have humans eating vaccines that were grown in corn meant to stop pigs from getting diarrhea? I don’t think we want that to happen yet. That almost happened, and it could happen. And there’s another case where pollen cross contaminated another crop of corn, and 155 acres of corn had to be burned.

What are the cases where we’re not discovering this? He said, I think it’s dangerous to play God with our food and with our medicine and with other things. Here’s a place where they’re playing God, and this is in Portugal. They’re doing some genetic modification, how an accidental six legged mouse could one day help fight cancer. Now, it’s interesting. They call this, um, they call this, um, little mouse fetus.

They call it a mouse. They never say that it’s anything other than a mouse, really, in this, but it is far from, uh, being developed enough to survive on the outside, and yet they treat it as if it were a mouse. Scientist accidentally created a mouse embryo with six legs and no genitals. I guess that’s what they’d like to do with us. They could keep us from reproducing and get us to grow two extra legs instead.

We. We could be their cattle for sure, I guess. As they deep got their goal of depopulation and treating us as literal cattle with four legs, revealing how changes to DNA can have major impacts on development. Oh, yeah, we don’t need to worry about that, right? We’re just going to genetically modify the food, the tobacco, corn, all these other things. We have to worry about it actually having any blowback effects.

They were very surprised by this, actually. The team in portugal were investigating how particular protein works during the middle stages of embryo growth. Well, they do refer to it as an embryo. They began as a bundle of identical cells. As they develop, cells specialized, began to form different body parts. Did you show the picture of the, of the mouse that’s on the article there? They have a normal mouse at that stage of development, and this Frankenstein thing generally starting at the head and moving backward toward the tail.

And this article says, yes, even humans have tails in the early days, but they disappear around eight weeks. Now, this is a hearken back to Ernst Haeckel, going back to the 18 hundreds he tried. He was Darwin’s bulldog. He was a Darwin fanboy, just like Carl Sagan. And Ernst Haeckel faked a bunch of drawings about developmental stages between humans. He said, look at this. You know, at this stage, it’s a single cell thing, and then it becomes like, you know, a fish, and then it becomes like a land animal and begins all these different land animals.

So it’s going through all this stuff. And he would say, it says recapitulation theory, that ontogeny would recapitulate phylogeny. In other words, they’re going through evolution right there in their development. No, they’re not. No, they’re not. And that was pushed by everybody until they actually got pictures of it and people started doing the real stuff. At first, everybody took that as being real, but he was exposed as a fraud in the early 20th century.

And yet, by the mid 20th century, you still have people like Carl Sagan going on Johnny Carson talking about billions and billions of years. And he loved to say, well, you know, Johnny, evolution, we can see it. You know, he’s got ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny. And Johnny Carson go, wow, wow, this guy’s so smart. Listen, all those syllables that he’s got there, and the whole thing was a fraud.

And if Carl Sagan was educated or honest, he would know that it was a fraud. But they still put it in a lot of kids school books. It’s all the stuff about a tale and all the rest of the stuff. This is just a bunch of Darwin fanboys that still push beating this dead theory of molecules to man evolution. Anyway, what they did was they stepped into this process and they started modifying proteins.

Researchers inactivated a protein they called TGFBR one, and a mouse embryos roughly halfway through their development to see how it affected development of the spinal cord. And they said what they found was that it caused the mouse to develop extra limbs instead of genitals. And then it had a number of organs growing on the outside of its body. Oh, that’s great. That’s, you know what this. You start messing around with something you don’t understand, which is the DNA code.

They don’t understand it. They go through it. When they went through, they said, oh, we sequenced the human genome and we sequenced the mouse genome. And, you know, it’s interesting. About half of that stuff is junk. It doesn’t have any purpose at all. Well, maybe it does, and maybe you don’t understand what the purpose is Francis Collins. That’s what he did before they put him at head of the NIH.

Anyway, it wasn’t what the team was expecting, they said. But they now hope further research will enable them to determine whether they can use this to affect other systems, such as metastatic cancer. Now, why would you make that leap? You go in and you mess and you block a protein, you do some genetic modification, and all of a sudden, the animal has two extra legs, no genitals, and it’s growing organs on the outside of the body.

Ah. This could be a breakthrough to treat cancer. Absolute, total nonsense. I don’t have any reason to say that the David Knight show is a critical thinking super spreader. If you’ve been exposed to logic by listening to the David Knight show, please do your part and try not to spread it. Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread. Father, people have to trust me.

I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask, take your vaccine. Don’t ask questions. Using free speech to free minds. It’s the David Knight show. .

See more of The David Knight Show on their Public Channel and the MPN The David Knight Show channel.