Global threat = Scam

A look at the feasibility of aerosolised nucleic acids as a weapon.

I noted a discussion in the Telegram chat about whether nucleic acid sequences (DNA/RNA) might be weaponised & put into the air. As I wrote a contribution, I realised that probably nobody else anywhere has this collection of information other than me, and I should share it.

Bottom line is that I believe the fear of it would be much more dangerous than the actual technical probability that it could actually be done.

Best wishes

Mike

The case

I’m not personally convinced that nucleic acids can be weaponised in this way.

Obviously if true, very frightening.

But is it true?

I’ve some experience of this and I was unable to transfect airway lining cells in animals by aerosol exposure using a variety of nucleic acid formats.

It’s limited experimental research, granted. But it’s 1000x more than most people have.

I worked in creating respirable aerosols for decades, for therapeutic purposes.

Some severe problems to weaponising aerosols with the intention of harming people.

First, I want to cover off the difference between this concept and blanket chemical warfare with chlorine gas, mustard gas and organophosphate nerve gases.

It’s definitely possible to injure and kill using such hammer blows. Only the last one, you might not see coming. The others are so dense at lethal doses that you can see them rolling towards you.

But with the nucleic acid weaponised idea, we’re talking about absolutely minute doses, in micrograms or less. They’re inordinately expensive to make. While cost may not be a barrier, practical limitations are. If someone asked me to make several kilograms of a nucleic acid sequence, I’d need to do the maths, but that might be more than has ever been made in history, taking all of them together.

1. Our bodies are very good at excluding foreign DNA/RNA. I don’t believe an intact body surface is susceptible at all. Not skin, oral tract, respiratory tract, eyes. Something to breach these barriers is necessary, perhaps lipid nanoparticles?

2. The nucleic acid sequences I’ve encountered vary in the extent of their instability, especially once exposed to the general environment. All RNA species are very easily chopped up. DNA is tougher, but isolated and in solution? I don’t think it classifies as stable.

3. Even as lipid nanoparticles, nucleic acids in an aerosol form are very difficult to even create. I’m here referring to what’s called respirable aerosols. If particles are too large, over 10 microns, they simply don’t deposit in the lungs, being trapped in the upper airways. If they’re too small, they’re inhaled deeply, but breathed out again without depositing on the airway wall. It’s incredibly difficult to create consistently performing medical therapeutic aerosols, which is why even generic asthma inhalers aren’t cheap.

4. Even if I had an aerosol generator and the purported weaponised nucleic acids in lipid nanoparticles, in my possession, and you were willing to sit and inhale from some hose attached to the aerosol generator, I would still not be confident that I could devise a reliable way to get enough of it into you in such a way that your airway lining cells would take it up and harm you.

As just one further example, 35 years ago, Wellcome had just launched a synthetic lung *surfactant for use in premature newborns. It was a complex mixture of lipids and proteins in a saline suspension. This novel product had to be instilled directly into the baby’s lungs, via their trachea. My supervisor & I did some experiments to see if we could aerosolise it, which could make it easier to administer. To test this, we went to a medical imaging facility and found ways to label, with different, short half life radioactive particles, the lipid portion & the aqueous (water) phases.

When we instilled it, and then imaged the chest over time, we could see even, deep lung penetration and slow disappearance of both radiolabels. All good, matching what was in the regulatory submission for FDA approval (back when the regulatory agencies weren’t systematically corrupted).

However, when we created an aerosol, using a genuine medical nebuliser used by some patients at home, we found that the lipid phase had separated from the water phase. The radiolabels had a starkly different lung distribution pattern.

In conclusion, we’d broken the product, merely with the energy put into it, unavoidably so, to disperse it into an aerosol.

I think there is a significant risk that, in order to create a respirable aerosol of a nucleic acid formulated in LNPs, the product would break down and be inactive.

Aside from this, potentially killer flaw, there is another one. The dose noted on an asthma inhaler is the nominal dose emitted by the device on every actuation. It is not the dose actually deposited in the patient’s airways. I can’t remember the exact difference but if memory serves, perhaps 10% of the emitted dose ends up in the patient.

Remember, this kind of material is hideously expensive to manufacture, especially if scale is anticipated, and it would have to be, if you’re contemplating trying to dose a population through the air conditioning system or just out of the sky.

I would reckon the chance that you could affect anyone in this way, by making a nucleic acid sequence, formulating it, then making some kind of aerosol & dumping it on people, is way under 1%. I don’t want to say impossible, but if I was a neutral, technical advisor, I’d guide them away from any such scheme.

Best wishes

Mike

Ps: *The product is, as far as I know, still used by instillation in premature babies.