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.
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.