Pfizer Confirms Via FOIA Graphene Oxide in the Clot Shots
(en-volve.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (18)
sorted by:
There's plenty of information in those documents that's not "innocuous", such as the damning information about the LNP distribution following injection in animal models, but this electron microscopy protocol is red herring. In my opinion, the whole graphene oxide "conspiracy" is a fake story spread to discredit those opposed to these injections.
They better retract these papers then:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32531395/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26814441/
Oh! You found references to graphene oxide as a potential ingredient in vaccines in the scientific literature! Therefore, obviously all vaccines must have graphene oxide in them! What a stupid argument. It's a red herring.
The expression of the spike protein is toxic enough by itself (and maybe the LNPs themselves), without needing to invoke some other toxic components, yet alone the ludicrous graphene oxide "nanobot" hypothesis (as if humans have technology that advanced).
https://phys.org/news/2021-07-tiny-sensors-brain-surgery-implants.html
This is based on silicon oxide but a working model of such a technology definitely exists.
Not sure why you're mad, I was poking fun at the fact that GO may actually be a better adjuvant. Are you saying that this isn't the case?
Some researchers over-hyping their discoveries with fun-sounding acronyms and lots of language such as "could one day offer" is nothing new. Human hubris knows no limits, but where are our flying cars already?
Two papers you randomly plucked out of the literature regarding graphene oxide say nothing about whether it's a useful adjuvant in the real world. Most likely it's more researchers over-hyping their research using fancy terminology such as "nano-adjuvant", which is laughable since most functional structures within cells are proteins and protein complexes that are already in the scale of nanometers, but that's usually not what people mean when they are talking about "nano" this and that.
It could be real but also a distraction from other more harmful ingredients in the drug, while also discrediting some of the graphene proponents by raising the "nanobot" theory that you have. (despite that not being what the papers say)
There may be graphene oxide in these injections, but I doubt it. I've seen the actual manufacturing protocol from various released documents, and although some details are still redacted, it's pretty clear there is no step that adds graphene oxide, so if this was to be present it would be unintentional contaminant or intentional addition outside the official protocol; in both cases the "official" documents aren't going to reveal much about this.
I'm just annoyed that people could be so stupid to mistake an electon microscopy sample preparation protocol for the manufacturing protocol for these injections. Even for someone who doesn't know about electron microscopy sample preparation, it's pretty obvious that the protocol in question doesn't refer to manufacture of the injections themselves. But one mention of the word "graphene oxide" and "OMG! I saw the word graphene oxide in a document released by Pfizer! This must mean it is really in the shots!" and we have bullshit headlines like "Pfizer Confirms Via FOIA Graphene Oxide in the Clot Shots".