I know we got into a spat way back when, but I'll be honest, I do value your opinion.

This is a problem. People often think that just because I disagree with them that I do not value their thoughts or opinions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because I don't sugar coat things doesn't mean I think badly of someone. I think you are a valuable researcher and I always read what you present.

But I am a scientist. I think of things scientifically (not exclusively, but when talking about science things I do). When I present arguments I call it like I see it, which is as a data analyst/scientist/researcher.

in spite of a slight unwillingness t consider that the world at large may, very shortly, be required to unlearn things which would completely reconfigure organic, viral, and even periodic chemistry as we know it

I don't know why you would think that about me. I agree with this 100%. I think there is going to be a Science Great Awakening as well. I think what you might be confusing is that such an awakening would be based on substantive evidence and not speculation. I speculate all the time, but I only use those speculations to drive my search for evidence. I do not give those speculations any more weight than they deserve. That is what I consider to be a major difference between me and many people who post here.

I don't see why they would need graphene to accomplish such a goal.

They wouldn't, though there may be meaningful uses for it. I just haven't seen any evidence that substantially supports the idea that it is in these vaccines. That doesn't mean that they aren't in them, Its just the the evidence provided so far does not support it by my analysis.

Nevertheless, there are reasons that they may want to inject graphene for nefarious technologies. But I also agree that there are other ways. They wouldn't "need" graphene.

The Japanese reports of stuff in the "vaccines" do give this idea credence though.

I haven't read them yet. From the reports of the reports I only saw that it was "something" magnetic, nothing specific. That could be literally anything. There are so many things that could be magnetic, without further study assuming it is graphene would be purely speculative at this point.

would Phosphorene be more or less likely than Graphene

I certainly can't say phosphorene is impossible. I don't know of any method to produce it in sufficient quantities, but production of phosphorene would hardly be the least of the potential hidden technologies. As for what they could do with it... I am not sure. Self assembling technologies using sheets is not something I have studied in much depth, though I certainly could look into it. I know a fair bit more about biological methods of self-assembly (DNA, RNA, peptide chains, lipid nanoparticles, etc.)

I would imagine that phosphorene self assembly would use similar techniques to graphene self assembly, which would be based on the additions to the sheets. Like, if you add certain moieties onto the edge of sheets you can get them to join in a certain way. Such moieties (like adding a hydroxyl group e.g.) to the edge of a sheet could help such sheets group around a metal ion (chelate the ion) for example. I'm just spitballing here, but yes, if you could create phosphorene in large quantities you could theoretically create self assembling tech and inject it.

I'm not sure why they would do that and not use graphene, but its not impossible if they have the tech to mass produce it. Then again, me not being sure why, doesn't mean there aren't good reasons. They do have different properties and it will likely become future tech with both similar and different applications to graphene.

This line smells like 5G conspiracies

Well, 20Ghz is right in line with 5G, so...

Regardless, I don't think the 5G conspiracies have any credence with regard to this vaccine.

That's the problem with all these theories.

I think many of the ideas have merit with regard to their intent, and possible tech. But there is no evidence to support them. I appreciate the speculation and the research, but there is so much evidence, and so little supports the wild speculations. I don't dismiss the speculations, but giving them more credence than they deserve is not sound reasoning. There are real concerns with actual evidence. I think it is more important to look there and do research there.

Maybe that's just me. I certainly don't want to discourage anyone doing any research. I just don't want "speculation" to turn into "standing theory" without evidence. That leads to bad decisions.