All along I thought the graphene oxide thing was bunk

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   35 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 34 total)
  • Sun, Aug 01, 2021 - 05:42am

    #22
    sammaye

    sammaye

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 31 2021

    Posts: 11

    count placeholder0

    Reply To: All along I thought the graphene oxide thing was bunk

> What is the source of that? That sounds like the person is imagining that the whole body is magnetic. That is not the claim.

Well, many videos includes magnetic fingers and forehead etc etc, some yes, claim the actual area is magnetic but I’ve seen a few whereby the person sticks stuff all over their arm for example which would require circulation which in turn would require a constant flow of magnetic material in their blood

  • Sun, Aug 01, 2021 - 05:45am

    #23
    sammaye

    sammaye

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 31 2021

    Posts: 11

    count placeholder0

    All along I thought the graphene oxide thing was bunk

It’s also good to note that “they” have come up with a explanation as to why others do not see this: placebo group. Those others didn’t actually get the vaccine and so are not tainted. They just change their story every second to fit current events

  • Sun, Aug 01, 2021 - 06:54am

    #24
    davefairtex

    davefairtex

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2729

    count placeholder5

    crimes & coverups

I note that “someone” has enlisted the aid of a professor over at Forbes to help debunk graphene oxide – as well as making space in the mag to get the oped published.   This was on July 10th.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/07/10/graphene-oxide-in-pfizer-covid-19-vaccines-here-are-the-latest-unsupported-claims/

Here’s a google trends of some possibly-interesting search terms on point.  Note that “graphene” popped higher around July 4th.

Here’s my current thought.  We’re presented with the following choice: either the shot is 99%-graphene-oxide, or there isn’t any GO in the shot.

With regard to the 99% number: there are lots of people out there who ran antibody tests on vaxxed people, and have seen specific, spike-protein antibodies created post-shot.  Does graphene oxide do this all by itself?  My guess is no.

And yet – “someone” (probably BMGF – our debunker has acknowledged received funding from them) cared enough about this meme to prod this professor into writing the “debunking” article and serving as front man.

And I also note that this “debunking” article didn’t involve doing a mass-spec analysis, then proclaiming: “we found no GO in this vial.”  This wasn’t science – the article was just a carefully written hit piece.  It didn’t say there was no GO in the shot.  Go check it out and see if you see what I saw.

Hit piece = coverup.  Whenever I see energy put into a coverup, I then suspect that a crime might have taken place.

Glutathione reduces GO.  NAC is a glutathione precursor.  Another reason to like NAC.

I do think Jim is right – the amount of crime here is already legendary – but noting the potential for a specific remedy to have utility, just in case this coverup has a crime behind it – I think that’s useful too.

  • Sun, Aug 01, 2021 - 08:43am

    #25
    sammaye

    sammaye

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 31 2021

    Posts: 11

    count placeholder0

    All along I thought the graphene oxide thing was bunk

> Here’s a google trends of some possibly-interesting search terms on point.  Note that “graphene” popped higher around July 4th.

Wouldn’t the search terms also go up from the emergence of it as a claim and people searching for it? For example: someone sends me an email saying “OMG look at this” and I, unlike them, search it up and research. It makes sense that search terms could be manipulated by mass distribution of a theory, aka its emergence

  • Mon, Aug 02, 2021 - 09:52am

    #26
    reynos

    reynos

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 02 2021

    Posts: 3

    count placeholder5

    Reply To: All along I thought the graphene oxide thing was bunk

Agree with Dave Fairtex’s suspicions and his nuanced talent for spotting hatchet jobs.

Re NAC and glutathione somehow deactivating or neutralizing graphene oxide in vivo, the FDA suddenly moved to have NAC registered solely as a drug requiring a prescription to treat only certain approved or indicated diseases some months into the Covid-19 fun and games, after it’s been available as a safe supplement for some 60 years in health food stores to treat a variety of illnesses.  In particular it greatly mitigates the symptoms of influenza (on average) and a whole range of other URTIs, disrupts the cytokine storm that causes pneumonia, is thrombolytic, mucolytic, and acts as an antiviral, towards Coronaviruses as much as anything.  It has been targeted as a possible preventative and remedy in itself for Covid-19 – studies on this commenced on clinicaltrials.gov are all mysteriously frozen at the recruiting stage with no progress for what would be a very inexpensive straightforward RCT to run, with a positive result surely indicating a safe effective non-vaccine preventative and remedy for the Killer Covid, with its alleged ‘half a million deaths’ in the US ‘ravaging towns and cities’ (although undertakers seem to be no busier than usual), it’s all your/Trump’s/China’s fault, when will the vaccines be ready, thank god they’re going to save us, rah-rah-rah.  Surely such studies should have been hastened for completion, with any promising progress reported ASAP, in mid-2020?  My first suspicion was that they were simply attempting to smear, discredit or block access to potentially simple, safe, effective, inexpensive, plentiful, unpatentable or off-patent substances that might reduce newly patented vaccine sales by presenting a viable safe alternative that both defused the bogeyman and the single cure in the form of a novel experimental dangerous vaccine narrative, achieved by inflating the risk of the disease itself to appear more risky than the vaccine (which it may not be), as well as unveiling the possibility that there may be safe, effective, low-tech, inexpensive, unpatentable, ‘broad spectrum’ and eugenic alternatives to unsafe, high tech, high cost, single disease, dysgenic vaccines in general to many illnesses – and nobody in big pharma wants that kind of information getting out.

For instance, in 2005, chloroquine was put forward as the most likely go to drug to defeat SARS or MERS, and was touted as safe and effective. Hydroxychloroquine is even safer, yet 15 years later – suddenly it’s not so good.  It may be effective due to being a zinc ionosphore, requiring zinc to be supplemented as an adjunct – and then the even safer foodstuff-derived supplement quercetin can do this job just as well.

However, as glutathione apparently reacts with graphene oxide to somehow denature or destroy it, if some/most/all of these new (mRNA) vaccines are using GO possibly as a delivery vehicle into cells by being bound to the vaccine active ingredient (as has been discovered with an anti lymphoma drug therapy), then they may not work particularly well and we won’t be thanking and praising the pharmaceutical companies and ‘science’ and monopoly-granting, profiteering patents for saving us again.  (Next stop, Mars!)  That would provide even more impetus for the FDA, through ‘strings’, to want to illegitimately restrict access to this supplement level substance ASAP.  Note that Amazon(!) has already taken it upon itself to ban any NAC sales from its platform when the stuff isn’t even controlled yet – that’s hardly the spirit of free wheeling commerce, is it, when there was a buck to be made for them in it as well – or is it possible that there are bigger monopoly bucks waiting to be made for the owners of the vaccine IP, major pharmaceutical company shareholders who shall remain nameless (Fauci, Bezos and Gates), even the suppliers selling reagent test kits and masks and gloves and swabs and crap, the entire US international balance of payments and economy vis a vis the rest of the world, and possibly other dividends and planned outcomes?  Being, at the very least, the usual expected and largely undeserved reputational boost to modern medicine and its practitioners to justify high salaries and high costs in healthcare and the infinite gratitude of the peasants.  The only problem with this last being an already discovered evidence trail of the NIH and NIAID commissioning so-called ‘gain of function’ viral research on SARS Coronavirus strains in particular, touted publicly as a great thing by Tony Fauci in about 2011, working on it for a year until a presidential moratorium was declared on any such public research due to the risks and the fact they’re only useful if released as bioweapons, and even then not useful in conventional wars due to blowback or the fact that we’re all human and can be infected equally – unless everybody in my country and all my allies have been given a secret vaccine beforehand and nobody else has! – transferring the research to the Wuhan facility paying them $3.5M over 3 years to make SARS1 10 to 20 times more infectious in humans, splicing in some bat SARS RNA gathered from 1,000 miles away, and moving certain peptides into the capsid spike to increase infectiousness, by targeting ACE2 receptors in the lower respiratory tract, and a second receptor in the upper respiratory tract and the gastrointestinal tract, an unlikely adaptation to humans with no wild predecessor, while secretly developing vaccines in tandem with this work, then choosing to release it earlier than desired in order to embarrass and wrongfoot Donald Trump’s presidency, as he was thwarting and stalling far too many deep state plans for global hegemony using proxy armies, etc etc.  It’s also very strange how prescient Bill Gates, an IT nerd, was in anticipating exactly this unexpected outcome in prior announcements or in corporate wargaming seminars.  I’ve never seen anyone look happier about a pandemic either.

 

  • Mon, Aug 02, 2021 - 10:14am

    #27
    reynos

    reynos

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 02 2021

    Posts: 3

    count placeholder1

    All along I thought the graphene oxide thing was bunk

Steve Hilton investigates origins of COVID-19, links to US commissioned research:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6225847837001#sp=show-clips

This is the most likely deductive origin of Covid-19, if we hadn’t been made aware of its direct provenance. This Norwegian virologist and his team realised the implications and were suppressed, but this article is still publicly available:

https://www.minervanett.no/corona/the-most-logical-explanation-is-that-it-comes-from-a-laboratory/361860

 

  • Mon, Aug 02, 2021 - 01:59pm   (Reply to #24)

    #28
    jerryr

    jerryr

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2008

    Posts: 181

    count placeholder4

    All along I thought the graphene oxide thing was bunk

: there are lots of people out there who ran antibody tests on vaxxed people, and have seen specific, spike-protein antibodies created post-shot.

Dr. Madrid says he used “QUBIT2.0 fluorometry” to look for RNA in his vaccine sample, and he found it. The concentration was 6 ng/ul. I don’t know how that compares with official claims for the concentration, but there’s no reason to doubt that the vaccine sample could create spike protein antibodies.

He says that there was “a high quantity of substance or substances other than RNA” with an absorption spectrum compatible with graphene, at a concentration of 747 ng/ul. Not necessarily graphene — could it be PEG nanoparticles, or something else? Madrid doesn’t say.

There’s an amusing moment in Dr. Jane Ruby’s interview with Stew Peters, when she reads off those numbers and then concludes, “DO THE MATH, my friends! That’s 99.99103 percent graphene!” (57:00) But when I do the math, I get 99.2 percent graphene (or something else).

Not only is her answer wrong, but who would quote a result to seven significant figures? Maybe I shouldn’t get too upset about this, but it does undermine my confidence in Dr. Ruby. Which doesn’t change the fact that Dr. Madrid’s work looks very professional and provides “strong” though not extraordinary or conclusive evidence.

And I also note that this “debunking” article didn’t involve doing a mass-spec analysis, then proclaiming: “we found no GO in this vial.”  This wasn’t science – the article was just a carefully written hit piece.  It didn’t say there was no GO in the shot.

Exactly. Although, unfortunately, the CDC and BMGF and MSM are in a difficult position. They’ve lied so often that even if they are telling the truth about what’s in the vaccine, and even if they run a new study to verify there’s no graphene, why should anyone believe them? We have to wait for someone to do another independently funded study to verify or refute this rumor.

Sammaye’s debunking article about vaccine magnetism was another data-free hit piece. So what if there’s an old discredited meme about earlier vaccines being magnetic? This has nothing to do with the facts on the ground about this covid-19 vaccine.

Wouldn’t the search terms also go up from the emergence of it as a claim and people searching for it? For example: someone sends me an email saying “OMG look at this” and I, unlike them, search it up and research. It makes sense that search terms could be manipulated by mass distribution of a theory, aka its emergence.

Uh.  Yes.

The query frequency spike is simply about forming a timeline.  The rest of the terms were on there just for reference.

I assume that the spike is when this bit of news popped up on the Stakeholder’s radar screen.  It took just six days from the spike, to the publishing of the hit-piece.

That’s really fast.  Can I get something researched, written, and published, by some front-man, from “spike in interest” to in-the-magazine in six days?  No way.  I don’t have the contacts.  But a Stakeholder sure does.  The timeline and the prominence of the magazine is how I know a Stakeholder was involved.

Now – normally I would have dismissed graphene out of hand.

Observing the level of effort going into “graphene debunking”, it makes me want to locate a mass spec device, get a vial, and see WTF is inside.  I’m really curious now.

I call this: Debunking = Confirmation.

Might be a pony in there.  And every comment you make adds to my curiosity.

Kind of a catch-22, isn’t it?

  • Thu, Aug 05, 2021 - 12:47am

    #30
    D580

    D580

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 05 2021

    Posts: 2

    count placeholder3

    All along I thought the graphene oxide thing was bunk

https://www.sinopeg.com/discussion-on-covid-19-vaccine-excipients_n35

  • Smoking gun right here! Scroll down and read. Sinopeg is the supplier for the delivery system, and it’s never been used before. CHINA is supplying these experimental vaccine ingredients to the West.
  • Thu, Aug 05, 2021 - 02:09am   (Reply to #30)

    #31
    Friedrichs_teeth

    Friedrichs_teeth

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2019

    Posts: 534

    count placeholder0

    All along I thought the graphene oxide thing was bunk

Can you imagine if Pfizer and Moderna bought non-graphine and substituted graphene? It would be just the level of incompetence we are used to.

About all the pushback. The thing that makes me suspicious is that the denials aren’t coming from Moderna or Pfizer. The ones I’ve seen are science writers for fact checking organizations. Am I wrong?

Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 34 total)

Login or Register to post comments