I think the difference is the mRNA is a "countermeasure". Since the "countermeasure" has been killing people all along, then isn't it fair to assume it's doing exactly what the countermeasure was intended to do? If that is true, doesn't it meet the legal definition of a bioweapon under the 1972 BWC (Bioweapon convention treaty).
I think the difference is the mRNA is a "countermeasure". Since the "countermeasure" has been killing people all along, then isn't it fair to assume it's doing exactly what the countermeasure was intended to do? If that is true, doesn't it meet the legal definition of a bioweapon under the 1972 BWC (Bioweapon convention treaty).
I think the difference is the mRNA is a "countermeasure". Since the "countermeasure" has been killing people all along, then isn't it fair to assume it's doing exactly what the countermeasure was intended to do? If that is true, doesn't it meet the legal definition of a bioweapon under the 1972 BWC (Bioweapon convention treaty).