This gives me great pause:

>Instead, it thoroughly damages microbial genomes at random, destroying bacteria and viruses alike, whether they are drug-resistant, vaccine-evasive, or indeed newly emerged.

A view which treats microbes and viruses into generalized buckets of 'good' or 'bad' is far too simplistic. It's interesting that there is no concern with a "random, destroying" action that avoids even a whiff of mention on impact to the vast benign or helpful biomes that would also be randomly destroyed.

Admittedly, I know very little in this space. However, I've formed an opinion that the complex interplay of these biomes has non-deterministic outcomes. Pathogenic microbe impacts could be as much a symptom/reflection of an imbalanced healthy ecosystem within the local environment versus a sudden "invasive" presence that needs destruction. It seems very reckless to indiscriminately torch a local environments microbe population without acknowledging that your well-intentioned efforts may be taking an imbalanced environment and making it even more imbalanced.