What this paper is what the C_A calls a limited hangout. They are admitting graphene oxide was used as a lab tool during development so that the people will stop looking at how the graphene was used in the vaccine in the creation of self assembling micro electronics.
What this paper is what the C_A calls a limited hangout.
Maybe, but maybe not. Such manipulations certainly exist and are not uncommon. However, what is being presented here is a legitimate use of graphene as an experimental tool, having nothing to do with the "vaccine" itself (the actual stuff that went into people's bodies).
So while it is certainly possible that this is a smokescreen to hide other information of its inclusion in the vaccine, this is not evidence of that. If you want to show that, you need to find actual evidence of that. I still have yet to see a single shred of evidence of "graphene in the vaccine" that isn't better explained by it being something else. I don't mean I want it to be something else. I personally don't care, I have no horse in this race. I mean that so far, all evidence presented that it has been "in the vaccine" is better explained using other explanations, given enough knowledge to know those explanations exist.
For example, the first "good evidence" of "graphene theory" was posted quite a while ago, with electron microscope images of "graphene." Except what it looked like to me was images of what are called liposomes, which are little spheres of lipids. It turns out, liposomes are exactly what is stated as being in the vaccine (the mRNA is transported and protected from an aqueous environment in liposomes). It looked like that to me, because I have worked with creating liposomes in a lab. I have seen them before myself. It is even trivially easy to distinguish liposomes in the images because it looked like a bunch of overlapping circles (spheres look like circles when they are flattened on a slide and a two dimensional image is taken of them). All the "edges" were rounded in every image. You don't get rounded edges in graphene, on the contrary graphene very much wants to create straight edges (or "jagged", aka stepped straight edges). Liposomes on the other hand will look rounded, exactly as seen in the images that were shown.
In other words, the evidence as presented might have been graphene, but it was better explained as something else. The "graphene theory" didn't fit all of the evidence that was presented, but the "liposome theory" did.
To me, that "graphene" evidence looked like bullshit because I have taken images of liposomes before. It looked to me like a different C_A op, designed to create an "opposition" (controlled opposition, of the variety where they don't know they are being controlled). There are many such cases of bad info given out to make those who would look, look crazy. I think the graphene thing is one of them. If someone comes up with evidence that isn't better explained as something else, then I will consider it might actually being in there, but not until then.
If you read a lot of scientific papers then you'll see for yourself that every experiment calls for a graphene oxide-coated nanomesh. It's just a very common protocol. Seriously. But to your point, yes, you're not wrong, if they were poisoning us with graphene oxide they would make sure every experiment used a protocol employing it.
If your talking about engineering or physics papers, I can understand it. Medical? I read the abstracts and conclusions and browse the research. I am just not medically literate enough to fully understand the terminology and processes. I do get the gist of the papers though and I do read them when presented.
This is the reason I havent argued further in this thread. The people pointing out where I am wrong seem to have a better base than I, so I will take these responses and incorporate them into my imperfect understanding.
I would say this is a description of how they isolated and imaged the spike protein to create some type of analytical model rather than the actual products in the vaccine. I am science adjacent so don’t fully understand the technical jargon and devices but I would look deeper before blasting this out.
Yea, main reason to be worried of 5g imo. Most people don't even have basic understanding of how radio waves work over fm/am. Let alone GO particles and microwaves, 5g signals etc.
It's frightening.
I really try to watch what I consume.
Also I'm not trying to say I know what those clots are and this is that. Just something to think about.
Yeah, I think this might be a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
If the only reason why you believe that this paper is Pfizer admitting that graphene oxide is in the Covid-19 vax is because you see the words "graphene oxide" on this paper, please do not go rushing out sending this to every normie you know, because it probably will cause greater harm than good.
But if you believe this paper is Pfizer admitting graphene oxide is in the vax because you understand the science behind it, please explain it so that others may understand it as well.
Since a lot of you are asking whether this paper actually shows graphene oxide, and it is Pfizer, and maybe they don't really put that in and just making stuff up. Well, why don't we look outside the liar and see what other scientists have already found. Here are just some of the links.
I did a little bit of research when this was first coming out a couple years ago and found out that graphene oxide is being trialed in many ways as a delivery system for medicine. According to ChatGPT, it is only in trial phase and not allowed to be used in practice yet. When I told it that a paper from pfizer shows that it was used in the covid vaccine, it said it "wasnt' aware of that."
are you seriously using chatGPT as your trusted source of truth? it is heavily influenced by liberal ideology and has a leftist bias in any political information. you can't be this dumb.
Have you looked at my post history? I'm not sure why you would talk to anyone like that and why I would be on this site and trust Chat GPT, unless you're a troll.
I think all of us here know that ChatGPT is not reliable, so when I share something from there, it is to be taken as a revelation of the subscribed point of view that is controlled. It's like saying, "according to the New York Times." You get my drift. Like it or not, it is still a source.
I didn't say anything about it being credible. Even if someone named Bob is always saying something that's full of shit, Bob is still the source. I don't think you understand what a source is.
If it's not credible, then it shouldn't be acknowledged.
Bob may be the source for bad information, but you're the one asking Bob these questions and then coming back to talk about what he said as if it's worth anything. Why go through the effort if Bob sucks?
A lot of people are going to AI to get answers just like they stupidly go to wikipedia. By showing what these sources are saying, you reveal the narrative. It's a learning activity.
Thanks. Some of the people also said they don't believe the graphene is actually in the vax. This is just a testing phase. Well, I have seen scientists from around the world confirmed graphene oxide.
I'm not a scientist or doctor (thank God), but I thought the discussion of the graphene was bc of it's conductivity of radio waves, and was linked to the new 5g. And was to be a antenna of sorts, At least that's what I thought I read here.
I said this before that graphene was a unusual substance in the vax, also pointed out the larger needle size, that I believe is to allow nano bots into the body.
Not sure if I understand your question. But to expand further they are doing (one way) of particle sizing on the purified protein only, not the jab formulation. With electron microscopy, you cannot image particles in a solution, they have to be separated from the medium. This excerpt is describing the procedure where they take a gold grid, coat it with graphene oxide in order for the proteins to stick to the grid better, then flash freeze it with liquid ethane. For these samples they collected 1.1 million particles in about 2 micrograms of protein
The freezing is required to "lock-in" the particle shape (aka morphology) as it appears in solution because if it dries it would collapse. Once that's prepared its in a form you can actually image with the EM then use image analysis software to pick out all the particles from (usually) thousands of images. They have size and shape filters applied to only get the particles they want (and exclude particles they dont). Each pixel in the image for this analysis was 0.087nm, particles were ~0.35nm, so your looking at only 3-4 pixels wide per particle.
If you want to see what the images look like search "Cryo em protein micrograph"
This instrumentation is crazy expensive, your talking $5-10 million for the instrument alone, 500K for the service contract, consumables, analysts, and another couple million to build the facility to house it. Not a run every sample type of thing but good for exploratory work.
The way I interpret this is that they were using graphene oxide to help them align and anchor the spike proteins so that they could study them.
I don't see where it says that graphene oxide was included or expected to be included in the vax.
It is interesting that the graphene oxide interacts with the spike proteins and changes their behaviour.
That’s what I got out of it too. Graphene was a lab tool only
What this paper is what the C_A calls a limited hangout. They are admitting graphene oxide was used as a lab tool during development so that the people will stop looking at how the graphene was used in the vaccine in the creation of self assembling micro electronics.
Maybe, but maybe not. Such manipulations certainly exist and are not uncommon. However, what is being presented here is a legitimate use of graphene as an experimental tool, having nothing to do with the "vaccine" itself (the actual stuff that went into people's bodies).
So while it is certainly possible that this is a smokescreen to hide other information of its inclusion in the vaccine, this is not evidence of that. If you want to show that, you need to find actual evidence of that. I still have yet to see a single shred of evidence of "graphene in the vaccine" that isn't better explained by it being something else. I don't mean I want it to be something else. I personally don't care, I have no horse in this race. I mean that so far, all evidence presented that it has been "in the vaccine" is better explained using other explanations, given enough knowledge to know those explanations exist.
For example, the first "good evidence" of "graphene theory" was posted quite a while ago, with electron microscope images of "graphene." Except what it looked like to me was images of what are called liposomes, which are little spheres of lipids. It turns out, liposomes are exactly what is stated as being in the vaccine (the mRNA is transported and protected from an aqueous environment in liposomes). It looked like that to me, because I have worked with creating liposomes in a lab. I have seen them before myself. It is even trivially easy to distinguish liposomes in the images because it looked like a bunch of overlapping circles (spheres look like circles when they are flattened on a slide and a two dimensional image is taken of them). All the "edges" were rounded in every image. You don't get rounded edges in graphene, on the contrary graphene very much wants to create straight edges (or "jagged", aka stepped straight edges). Liposomes on the other hand will look rounded, exactly as seen in the images that were shown.
In other words, the evidence as presented might have been graphene, but it was better explained as something else. The "graphene theory" didn't fit all of the evidence that was presented, but the "liposome theory" did.
To me, that "graphene" evidence looked like bullshit because I have taken images of liposomes before. It looked to me like a different C_A op, designed to create an "opposition" (controlled opposition, of the variety where they don't know they are being controlled). There are many such cases of bad info given out to make those who would look, look crazy. I think the graphene thing is one of them. If someone comes up with evidence that isn't better explained as something else, then I will consider it might actually being in there, but not until then.
If someone sees a demon in a Rorschach blot, the demon will always be looking back at them.
If you read a lot of scientific papers then you'll see for yourself that every experiment calls for a graphene oxide-coated nanomesh. It's just a very common protocol. Seriously. But to your point, yes, you're not wrong, if they were poisoning us with graphene oxide they would make sure every experiment used a protocol employing it.
https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=graphene%20oxide%20mesh
If your talking about engineering or physics papers, I can understand it. Medical? I read the abstracts and conclusions and browse the research. I am just not medically literate enough to fully understand the terminology and processes. I do get the gist of the papers though and I do read them when presented.
This is the reason I havent argued further in this thread. The people pointing out where I am wrong seem to have a better base than I, so I will take these responses and incorporate them into my imperfect understanding.
It certainly was a lab-tool, time will show if it was a lab-tool only.
Half truths are their MO.
Another thing that they've been super [withholding] honest about.
I didn't say they weren't doing it, just that this item isn't evidence of it.
No worries fren, wasn't challenging you just adding to!
That's what we do fren!
There's gotta be evidence of it first before it can be confirmed they were lying about this
I saw here , that it was listed as a ingredient in the vax
So is what you’re saying they used graphene oxide in the vax for studies to do as you said? And then took it out?
My point is, did they have them in the vaccine at one point, proof that they COULD?
Because if you’re saying they put the graphene in test vaccines to study it, then took it OUT for the real vaxxx….
Then I know everytning I need to know…
From what I understand, they're saying the graphene oxide is used in lab tools that they're using to study samples. Not in the samples themselves.
How about graphene hydroxide?
Have they released the ingredients of the vax? Can we have informed consent without the list of ingredients?
No and no!
Difficult to comprehend, unless you are a chemist.
You know, there's a whole bunch of frogs here who can read this. I am not one of them though.
I may be close - I can identify a woman so I must at least be a biologist.
Hahaha. Good one.
Translated for you to plain English. With slides and bullet points. Made by this group of awaken Doctors at https://odysee.com/@Reachthedivine:d/Katherine-Watt-presentation:f
In summary, the DOD CONTROLLED the Covid-19 vaccine ☠️☣BIOWEAPON☣☠️ as a military KILL BOX. Said Katherine and Sasha. Watch their videos with extra sauce (source) at https://greatawakening.win/p/16amU6NwMJ/dod-controlled-the-covid19-vacci/
I would say this is a description of how they isolated and imaged the spike protein to create some type of analytical model rather than the actual products in the vaccine. I am science adjacent so don’t fully understand the technical jargon and devices but I would look deeper before blasting this out.
Just a reminder , remember the clots the guy at the morgue was pulling out of bodies?
https://twitter.com/Fisherlady111/status/1604892465022271488?s=20
Mercury, aluminum, Graph ox
That is incredible! Thanks for the video
I know but don't want to see. It's hard.
Yea, main reason to be worried of 5g imo. Most people don't even have basic understanding of how radio waves work over fm/am. Let alone GO particles and microwaves, 5g signals etc.
It's frightening.
I really try to watch what I consume.
Also I'm not trying to say I know what those clots are and this is that. Just something to think about.
Yeah, I think this might be a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
If the only reason why you believe that this paper is Pfizer admitting that graphene oxide is in the Covid-19 vax is because you see the words "graphene oxide" on this paper, please do not go rushing out sending this to every normie you know, because it probably will cause greater harm than good.
But if you believe this paper is Pfizer admitting graphene oxide is in the vax because you understand the science behind it, please explain it so that others may understand it as well.
Thanks.
Here is another one for you to look at.
https://thetruthaboutvaccines.com/breaking-discovery-covid-injections-blood-doctor-releases-horrific-findings/
Since a lot of you are asking whether this paper actually shows graphene oxide, and it is Pfizer, and maybe they don't really put that in and just making stuff up. Well, why don't we look outside the liar and see what other scientists have already found. Here are just some of the links.
https://expose-news.com/2022/02/13/uk-lab-confirms-graphene-in-covid-vaccines/
https://www.orwell.city/2021/06/vaccination-vial-analysis-explained.html
https://citizens.news/673414.html
I did a little bit of research when this was first coming out a couple years ago and found out that graphene oxide is being trialed in many ways as a delivery system for medicine. According to ChatGPT, it is only in trial phase and not allowed to be used in practice yet. When I told it that a paper from pfizer shows that it was used in the covid vaccine, it said it "wasnt' aware of that."
Chatgpt is unaware of most things past 2021 right now, due to that being when the mass uploading of info into it stopped.
Some important things here or there, sure. But a minor paper that was just published? Highly doubtful.
are you seriously using chatGPT as your trusted source of truth? it is heavily influenced by liberal ideology and has a leftist bias in any political information. you can't be this dumb.
Have you looked at my post history? I'm not sure why you would talk to anyone like that and why I would be on this site and trust Chat GPT, unless you're a troll.
Lol what? How is this a source?
I think all of us here know that ChatGPT is not reliable, so when I share something from there, it is to be taken as a revelation of the subscribed point of view that is controlled. It's like saying, "according to the New York Times." You get my drift. Like it or not, it is still a source.
Uh, no lol. I don't get your drift. Chat GPT is an AI program. It's not a source at all. That's insane that it should be seen as credible.
I didn't say anything about it being credible. Even if someone named Bob is always saying something that's full of shit, Bob is still the source. I don't think you understand what a source is.
If it's not credible, then it shouldn't be acknowledged.
Bob may be the source for bad information, but you're the one asking Bob these questions and then coming back to talk about what he said as if it's worth anything. Why go through the effort if Bob sucks?
A lot of people are going to AI to get answers just like they stupidly go to wikipedia. By showing what these sources are saying, you reveal the narrative. It's a learning activity.
Yeah, and you're one of them
Stop sourcing shitty sources and share something meaningful
Thanks. Some of the people also said they don't believe the graphene is actually in the vax. This is just a testing phase. Well, I have seen scientists from around the world confirmed graphene oxide.
https://citizens.news/673414.html
https://expose-news.com/2022/02/13/uk-lab-confirms-graphene-in-covid-vaccines/
https://www.orwell.city/2021/06/vaccination-vial-analysis-explained.html
Drip by drip is a good thing. Just like the IV fluid, otherwise it would be too much.
I'm not a scientist or doctor (thank God), but I thought the discussion of the graphene was bc of it's conductivity of radio waves, and was linked to the new 5g. And was to be a antenna of sorts, At least that's what I thought I read here.
I said this before that graphene was a unusual substance in the vax, also pointed out the larger needle size, that I believe is to allow nano bots into the body.
That's what I have heard.
This is NOT graphene oxide in the jab. This is a prep procedure for electron microscopy done to the grid prior to introduction of the sample.
Why prep if it is not going to be done? Make me wonder, but you could be right.
Not sure if I understand your question. But to expand further they are doing (one way) of particle sizing on the purified protein only, not the jab formulation. With electron microscopy, you cannot image particles in a solution, they have to be separated from the medium. This excerpt is describing the procedure where they take a gold grid, coat it with graphene oxide in order for the proteins to stick to the grid better, then flash freeze it with liquid ethane. For these samples they collected 1.1 million particles in about 2 micrograms of protein
The freezing is required to "lock-in" the particle shape (aka morphology) as it appears in solution because if it dries it would collapse. Once that's prepared its in a form you can actually image with the EM then use image analysis software to pick out all the particles from (usually) thousands of images. They have size and shape filters applied to only get the particles they want (and exclude particles they dont). Each pixel in the image for this analysis was 0.087nm, particles were ~0.35nm, so your looking at only 3-4 pixels wide per particle.
If you want to see what the images look like search "Cryo em protein micrograph"
This instrumentation is crazy expensive, your talking $5-10 million for the instrument alone, 500K for the service contract, consumables, analysts, and another couple million to build the facility to house it. Not a run every sample type of thing but good for exploratory work.
I understand what you are saying now. It was just the prep work. Thanks.