Proponents argue self-disseminating vaccines could mean they no longer have to run complex mass vaccination programs. Critics say the vaccines pose many health risks and would also spell the end of informed consent. In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security co-sponsored the “pandemic exercise,” Event 201. A little more than a year later, when the Event 201 scenario morphed from “hypothetical” to concrete, it became clear that sponsors of the event intended to see the majority of the world vaccinated against COVID-19. Accomplishing this goal is a “monumental challenge,” however. In the U.S., more than one-third (38% to 45%) of adults continue to decline the unlicensed, Emergency Use Authorization injections, despite a marketing blitz that has included both carrots (ranging from the chance to win cash payments to a free order of fries) and sticks (such as nasty calls to “get personal” and “shun” the unvaccinated). U.S. gov funded vaccine research to the tune of $9 billion+, spent $22 billion to support vaccine distribution, shelled out another $10 billion to expand access + $3 billion to spend on ad campaign to combat vaccine hesitancy. While social and behavioral science researchers apply “soft science” techniques in an attempt to maneuver vaccine confidence into more acquiescent territory, bench scientists have a different option potentially waiting in the wings – genetically engineered vaccines that “move through populations in the same way as communicable diseases,” spreading on their own “from host to host.” https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/self-spreading-vaccines-risks-to-society-informed-consent
