All along I thought the graphene oxide thing was bunk
Like, I’m into Conspiracy Stuff as much as the next guy but this just seemed a bridge too far. So I watched the following video with a heavy dose of skepticism. The interview starts at the 30 minute mark.
Thanks to tealeaf10 for also finding the same info. So the video is by Stew Peters who has no wiki page on him but I would guess he is on the right wing. So he had a lady on who calls herself a former Pfizer exec, Karen Kingston. I don’t know if I would consider her 2.5 years at pfizer as an executive position but what do I know? https://www.linkedin.com/in/karenkingstonkk/
Here is a summary of what she has found. The vaccine (pfizer and moderna… maybe more) is in a pegylated lipid nanoparticle. The composition of this is in their patent. It’s composition is intellectual property. You are not allowed to know what is going into you. I am just going to trace through her steps with moderna. The patent application is listed here: https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/US10702600.pdf . I just can’t resist saying that the patent is under Ciamarella, the name that cannot be mentioned.
The UK submission for the moderna vaccine includes a reference to SM-102 (a trade secret that we don’t know what it is made of). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-moderna/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-covid-19-vaccine-moderna
Which brings us to the site sinopeg. Karen Kingston found this site by googling the trade secret name for the pfizer drug. I did not do that but I just went to sinopeg.com. Specifically, this page: https://www.sinopeg.com/heptadecan-9-yl-8-2-hydroxyethyl-6-oxo-6-undecyloxy-hexyl-amino-octanoate-sm-102-cas-2089251-47-6_p480.html https://archive.ph/wip/7BAUi
That is sinopeg.com having a page listed under the heading: (heptadecan-9-yl 8-((2-hydroxyethyl)(6-oxO-6-(undecyloxy) hexyl) amino) octanoate)[SM-102] CAS：2089251-47-6 (emphasis mine)
Okay this is where she loses me. She somehow jumps to this page that lists a news article for sinopeg.com which shows that this company makes graphene polymer coatings. https://www.sinopeg.com/core-shell-structured-polyethylene-glycol-functionalized-graphene-for-energy-storage-polymer-dielectrics-combined-mechanical-and-dielectric-performances_n28
She says that this you can find the excipient on the sinopeg page in the moderna patent (reminder the moderna patent is here: https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/US10702600.pdf ). But this is where she lost me, I have no idea how to search for the molecule listed above ( (heptadecan-9-yl 8-((2-hydroxyethyl)(6-oxO-6-(undecyloxy) hexyl) amino) octanoate) ) in the patent filing. Any chemists or chemical engineers here?
It IS pretty sketchy that the company that is providing one of the lipid nanoparticles also happens to have a news article talking about how great their graphene is.
tl;dr: She shows strong links that the moderna vaccine has a polymer from a company specializing in graphene coatings.
I don’t know either way if it is in the vaccine or not, or whether that really matters. Below is another link for research done on this subject. Westcoastjan has a thread running called, Being Transhuman = Loss of Human Rights?, which has some other links on the subject as well. I wish we had some information from more authorative sources, it is what it is.
If any of the ingredients in the vaccines have been granted a patent, then the formulas will be available for all to see, since that is a condition of being granted a patent: In return for patent protection, patents must become part of the public domain.
From the SinoPEG link;
The [email protected] with a“core-shell”structure exhibited homogeneous dispersion in epoxy and also effectively reduced the dielectric loss, hence contributing excellent dielectric properties and mechanical strength to the final [email protected]/epoxy nanocomposites.
This is just using the PEG functionalization as a means to get graphene dispersed into an epoxy nanocomposite. Nothing to do with being a vaccine ingredient. Grasping at straws and maybe even mis-direction in order to create silly, straw man conspiracy theories so that we take our eyes of the real conspiracy theory which is your loss of freedom over yourself, and your immune system.
I did say that this was a related news story on the site. I also said in the tl;dr that it was suspicious that they were experts in graphene. Sorry if there was too much text in order to make this point stand out. There is no link to the vaccine ingredients from the sinpeg site except the name sm-102.
That brings me to the other point. How would the patent work if moderna said that SM-102 was in their compound but didn’t list the ingredients from another companies trade secret? Would that let it go through?
I think it’s too quick to reject this. What other remotely plausible explanation is there, for why refrigerator magnets are sticking to vaccine recipients’ arms?
In the Karen Kingston interview, she shows that Moderna uses “SM102” (and also that Pfizer uses “ALC-0159”) lipid nanoparticles, both manufactured by Sinopeg. And then she also proves that Sinopeg has expertise in fabricating “polyethylene glycol functionalized graphene” nanocomposites. This is indeed a suspicious connection.
As far as I can tell, the only tie-back to the Moderna patent is that the patent leaves open the possibility that “SM102” involves some proprietary trade secret. She also points out that the Pfizer GMP (manufacturing processes) document is heavily redacted. So here we have more suspicious shenanigans, but I don’t see anything definitive.
But then she shows one more patent, apparently granted on a worldwide basis by the Chinese government.
The new corona vaccine contains graphene oxide, carnosine, CpG and new corona virus RBD; binding carnosine, CpG and neocoronavirus RBD on the backbone of graphene oxide; the CpG coding sequence is shown as SEQ ID NO 1; the novel coronavirus RBD refers to a novel coronavirus protein receptor binding region which can generate a high-titer specific antibody aiming at the RBD in a mouse body, and provides a strong support for prevention and treatment of the novel coronavirus.
This would be the smoking gun, if only there were any evidence that this Chinese patent is actually implemented in the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, or any other widely used vaccine. The patent explains that CPG is used as an adjuvant, and that the graphene is used as a matrix to hold the CPG and the RBD (“Receptor Binding Domain”) of the spike protein. That is, the graphene is performing the same role as the lipid nanoparticle, as a delivery system. But there’s no mention of using mRNA as a means of creating spike protein; instead the protein is used directly. And, there’s no mention of lipid nanoparticles as excipient. So, this patent seems to be describing an entirely different vaccine technology from the Pfizer or Moderna.
Overall this seems suggestive, but far from convincing.
The story also ran this morning on Michel Chossudovsky’s GlobalResearch.ca site. There’s a video interview of Ricardo Delgado Martin of Quinta Columna with Chossudovsky, and a link to a PDF of an English translation of the 17-page report by Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid that was commissioned by Quinta Columna. (The link works, but it’s accompanied by annoying popup windows attempting to re-install Flash Player, so I’m not recommending it.) The conclusion of the report is that “Microscopic study of the sample provides strong evidence for the probable presence of graphene derivatives, although microscopy does not provide conclusive evidence.”
Strong evidence is better than nothing, and Dr. Madrid is well qualified. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just “strong evidence”. As Chossudovsky rightly says:
This is a controversial study. There are scientists and medical doctors who disagree with the results of the Spanish study.
The evidence has to be ascertained and corroborated. What is required is that independent scientists and health professionals conduct their own lab analysis of the contents of the vaccine vial.
Similarly, we call upon the national health authorities of the 193 member states of the UN which are currently vaccinating their people, to conduct their own study and analysis of the vaccine vial. And if graphene-oxide is detected, the vaccination program should immediately be discontinued.
So far, I can only find one other independent effort to determine whether the claim is true or false. This is discussed at Orwell City:
In an exclusive interview that Andreas Kalcker’s team gave for Rafa Talbo’s channel last Thursday 21, they confirmed the evidence of graphene oxide in the vaccination vials.
In the video, Kalcker’s associate Dr. Isignares of “Genesis Foundation” says that a team member looked at the vaccine using an electron microscope. Which is the same method used by Dr. Madrid, who views that method as inconclusive.
Unless somebody has a spectroscopy lab, we’re going to have to wait and see whether this story has legs.
Here is the archive.is link to the above post (I hope): https://archive.ph/wip/AMKL7
She did say that she thought it was a “trade secret” which isn’t public domain. (A good example of this is the formula for Coke). Not that familiar with patents, but have watched at least two InventRight videos that covered trade secrets. Seems possible to me.