"the scientists don’t intend to release swarms of genetically modified mosquitos, either"

Well, that headline is truly odd, ". . . the scientists don't intend to release swarms of genetically modified mosquitos, either."  Odd indeed, given the fact that Bill Gates has already done this, in two states within in the United States, no less, California and Florida.  What could go wrong?

You would think that some retired folks would chase this down, learn the threat of it, find out who runs it, discover the legality of it, so as to bring lawsuits to get this stopped.   

Scientists used mosquitoes to delivering vaccines to humans?? https://t.co/FEaunuJjYM

— Dr. Urso (@richardursomd) October 2, 2022

The number one problem with these mosquitos is their size: they're very tiny and almost transparent, and so light you can't really feel them landing on your skin.  And the breeding grounds pf the current crop of mosquitos is no longer pools of stagnant water.  They can breed, and do breed, in dark settings like stacked or piled high clothing, the underside of your dash in your car.  

These attempts to vaccinate via alternative methods, or any vaccine through standard methods, has always posed the risk of poor effectiveness.  All vaccines, bar none.  Even Dr. Judy Mikovits, a scientist who worked quality control on several vaccines, said that all vaccines are contaminated.  Oh, what joy.  Because effectiveness has always, always been a problem, manufacturers have always, always had to run "safe and effective" campaigns ad infinitum to bury vaccine hesitancy, hesitant because the vaccines are ineffective, non-effective, lack effectiveness, don't work, are bad for you, poisonous, they'll down right kill you. 

The biggest problem with using mosquitos to deliver vaccines for malaria, though, is the effectiveness. 

There is nothing reassuring in this article.  It goes in to say that

It’s also important to realize that the scientists don’t intend to release swarms of genetically modified mosquitos, either. 

When you think of scientists, think of Anthony Fauci, who with each interview revised his previous statement while calling the revisions "science."  Science is not a the changing of mind without evidence, meaning showing and citing the evidence so that it can be checked, rechecked, and verified by a group or community of OTHER scientists.  Fauci himself is not SCIENCE.  I'd be hard pressed to even call the man a scientist.  No, he is a government bureaucrat serving the longtail interests of different branches of the pharmaceutical industry.  So when the article states that "scientists don't intend to release swarms of . . . mosquitos," know that that is simple a legal statement up front to protect the lab and company conducting the experiment.  And it doesn't mean that other folks working on the project won't "accidentally release swarms."  Given the ubiquitous presence of bioweapons labs across the world, we are all in peril.  So for this writer to diminish the threat of a swarm being released means that he's running cover for the bioweapons and vaccine manufacturers.  Nor do I think that it is just England where they're running these experiments.  

I wonder: do more people die from malaria or from mosquito bites each year?

It wasn't until the very end of his article that Hawkins finally raises the tiny little issue of consent, but he presents it as an inconvenient barrier to mass vaccination as though vaccination, mass or otherwise, is such a good for society that he prefers vaccination to human beings having rights or, for that matter, much of anything else. 

Instead, they want to use the mosquitos to deliver vaccines in a more controlled fashion.  The researchers told NPR that releasing a massive number of these mosquitos is an intriguing proposition.  But, doing so would raise very deep questions about medical consent and bioethics as they couldn't control who was inoculated and exposed. 

To Hawkins, consent is the not the biggest problem, no.  To Hawkins, effectiveness is the biggest problem.