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.

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, and likely 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.

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 staggered 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, and likely 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.

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. 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, and likely 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.

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 micelles, which are little spheres of lipids. It turns out, micelles are exactly what is stated as being in the vaccine (the mRNA is transported and protected from an aqueous environment in lipid micelles). It looked like that to me, because I have worked with creating micelles in a lab. I have seen them before myself. It is even trivially easy to distinguish micelles 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. Micelles 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 "micelle theory" did.

To me, that "graphene" evidence looked like bullshit, and likely 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.

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).

Is it possible it is what you say; a smokescreen to hide other information of its inclusion in the vaccine? Yes, it is possible, but 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 micelles, which are little spheres of lipids. It turns out, micelles are exactly what is stated as being in the vaccine (the mRNA is transported and protected from an aqueous environment in lipid micelles). It looked like that to me, because I have worked with creating micelles in a lab. I have seen them before myself. It is even trivially easy to distinguish micelles 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. Micelles 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 "micelle theory" did.

To me, that "graphene" evidence looked like bullshit, and likely 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.

What this paper is what the C_A calls a limited hangout.

Maybe, but maybe not. Such manipulations certainly exist. 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).

Is it possible it is what you say; a smokescreen to hide other information of its inclusion in the vaccine? Yes, it is possible, but 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 micelles, which are little spheres of lipids. It turns out, micelles are exactly what is stated as being in the vaccine (the mRNA is transported and protected from an aqueous environment in lipid micelles). It looked like that to me, because I have worked with creating micelles in a lab. I have seen them before myself. It is even trivially easy to distinguish micelles 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. Micelles 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 "micelle theory" did.

To me, that "graphene" evidence looked like bullshit, and likely 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.