I'd actually argue that all you really need is a Biology 12 or 1st year University level Biology to understand and explain it. However Biology is so complex that unless you've been refreshing along the way, most people have forgotten what they do know (even if what they know is wrong). I guess it's similar in Physics and Chemistry (lots of details that one forgets). This is why on the internet, you see pictures of photosynthesis (cycle diagram) and people excitedly scream "Krebs Cycle!" (It's the Calvin Cycle.) Because they kinda remembered it from HS when they had to memorize how much ATP gets created in the cycle (including in the electron transport chain), but forgot it's cellular respiration. So for anyone trying to explain why transfections (asking your cells to express a foreign protein through an inserted mRNA strand) is bad, they must remember the mechanics of protein synthesis as well as the idea/fact that proteins get presented on the surface for inspection. Then they have to tie this into "common knowledge". For example, why are immunosuppressants used for organ transplant patients? Basically walk from the top and explain it until it's at the level they no longer comprehend. The difficulty actually lies with people in a field where they should understand this. ~~The~~ _They_ show the greatest amount of cognitive dissonance in my experience. Yet even then, you can get them thinking if it's in an area they haven't had training against (e.g. IgG's trying to cross the blood lung barrier, why it's not transudation and why the mucosal layer orientation is the most important). Once you have a crack, you can approach them again later. Also, the closer they are to you, the less likely they are to listen to you. It's an extremely weird human trait.

"RNA cannot pandemic" is a plain factual statement which also should get the gears spinning about the mostly unquestioned mythology surrounding these ideas. Here is how I understand the phrase, so please blame me for this explanation. I don't serve in any official capacity at gigaohm--I am just a biology student. @jjcouey@gigaohm.bio can no doubt do it better, and I hope he will correct any clumsy thinking on my part. Would you say there is a cold pandemic every year? No. Nobody would describe the cold or flu like this. Despite the story told by flu vax manufacturers, does it make sense that cold viruses travel around the world to strike in certain seasons (winter colds & summer colds)? Not really, and even then the vax companies don't refer to flus or colds as pandemics. A pandemic is story about a NEW disease, and as the story goes the new disease becomes Endemic eventually. But is this just a story? Do pandemics exist? Does endemicity exist? You are aware that single strand RNA has low replication fidelity. By what mechanism would a molecule with low replication fidelity travel the world? This is something that just hasn't been demonstrated scientifically through repeatable experimentation. I don't need to prove that the story isn't true--I can't demonstrate a negative even if I want to. "But what about 1918?". Even Fauci, an expert in the 1918 "pandemic" was forced to admit that most likely the event was bacteriological (pneumonia) and not viral. Were people sickened by the dirty cloth masks that were mandated? Furthermore, analysis of all cause mortality numbers by Denis Raincourt show a lack of evidence in the numbers that there was an excess mortality event. Was the "pandemic" a media event? Was the pandemic even "real"? I mentioned to you in the other post that respiratory infections are not understood. Here is the study I mentioned regarding pneumonia. No pathogen was detected in %62 of cases. Mix of pathogens present (assumed as causal) for the other %38 with the largest being rhinovirus at just 9%. These are for people actually hospitalized with pneumonia, so they are sick. But what is the cause of the sickness? https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1500245