By Steve Rotter
Graphene Oxide and the Vaccine – The Ultimate Goal of ID2020?
If you have not yet heard about something called graphene oxide having been found in the COVID-19 vaccines, let me give you a little rundown.
What is graphene oxide?
To answer this question I am going to refer to a peer-reviewed article titled: Synthesis and Toxicity of Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles: A Literature Review of In Vitro and In Vivo Studies. (Rhazouani, et al., 2021)
Graphene oxide is an electrically charged nanoparticle, utilized in biotechnology, and is an “oxidized derivative of graphene.” (Rhazouani, et al., 2021). Graphene oxide is most widely found in electronics, lithium batteries, agriculture, energy, and aeronautics; just to name a few.
The article also goes on to say that, “They are currently used to administer drugs, proteins, genes, vaccines, polypeptides, and nucleic acids.” However, it also notes its toxic effects which depend on the amount administered, how it is administered, and how graphene oxide is synthesized, the size of graphene, and the electric surface charge.
Graphene oxide has been around for 150 years, the article notes, however, scientists had not been able to synthesize it correctly for quite some time.
Only until 50 years ago were two scientists, Hummers and Offeman, able to process graphene oxide correctly, “thereby reducing the risk of explosion and reaction time,” (Rhazouani, et al., 2021) by using a “mixture of sulfuric acid, sodium nitrate, and potassium permanganate.” (Rhazouani, et al., 2021.)
There is no standard way to produce graphene oxide (GO.)
Each synthesis method produces a different type of GO. Which, the article, notes is part of the biggest problem in utilizing GO in “advanced applications.” (Rhazouani, et al., 2021).
Graphene Oxide Synthesis Results
So, while it is used in the medical field, such as in cancer treatment, graphene oxide is still subject to toxicity in any advanced application especially in conjunction with human cells.
One study noted in the article in breast cancer treatment showed that GO decreased cell viability because of the GO dose exposure. The article notes that some studies show GO has no negative effects on cell behavior, while other studies show that GO can elicit cell damage.
Essentially it sounds like GO unless thoroughly investigated and tested in way of synthesis which is partial to the diagnosis in many ways, is unstable.
If a nanoparticle like GO has toxic effects due to such a large multitude of factors like surface charge, size of GO, how it is administered, how it is synthesized, and the actual amount of GO before it is toxic to human cells; we have to ask ourselves if this is a vaccine that should have been rushed.
Now that a little background has been covered about GO, let’s get into Dr. Robert Young’s and the other scientist’s findings of GO in the vaccines.
In the abstract of the article, it notes the absence of vaccine ingredients, and according to the Nuremberg Code of 1947, this is vital information and a human right for informed consent.
The article goes on to note that the scientists analyzed Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna-Lonza mRNA-1273, Vaxzevria from AstraZeneca, and Janssen by Johnson & Johnson for the study.
STUDY FINDS PFIZER VACCINE CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF TOXIC GRAPHENE OXIDE
Former Pfizer Employee Confirms Poison in COVID ‘Kill Shot’ – Stew Peters
While I will go into some detail on the actual methodology and technique, feel free to read the full article for further analysis.
The scientists used various methods of microscopy, as well as X-ray, spectroscopy, and nuclear magnetic resonance to analyze the vials.
Images of the substances were obtained and the scientists note that there were many visually similar characteristics of GO and what they had found in the vials.
The scientists describe the substance as looking like folds, having irregular shapes and sizes, and that they were very apparent. Here are images obtained from their findings:
In the article, the scientists touch on the dietary effects and eating meat in relation to inoculation. This video they have attached to the study shows something extremely interesting and something I suspected from the actual virus, shortly after COVID-19 was first announced, though not the vaccine itself. My own theories, we will get into.
The scientists are saying (see video) that the orange semicircular object is solidified uric acid mixed with blood. This is the result of the inoculated person eating a high protein diet.
You can see in the video that neutrophils (white blood cells) are trying to pick up and remove the toxic nanoparticle because as they mention in the article, that is their main function!
In reference to the actual chemicals found in the vials, the study shows Pfizer had elements of Carbon and Oxygen, thus the make-up of rGO, which is a reduced form of graphene oxide. It is relatively cheaper, especially when considering a mass quantity, to reduce graphene oxide into rGO and there are various ways to do this. However, the reduction makes graphene oxide that much more unstable.
Also found in the vaccines, according to the scientists was chromium, sulfur, aluminum, chloride, nitrogen, bismuth, copper, titanium, vanadium, iron, and silicon. (CITE)
In the AstraZeneca vaccine, they found: histidine, sucrose, Poly-ethylene glycol (PEG), and ethylene alcohol (which they note to be carcinogenic and genotoxic), however, these were also found in the Pfizer vaccine as noted.
Ultra Violet Fluorescence was used to determine the amount of graphene in rGO, and the article suggests there be a significantly high level.
Not only are there high levels of graphene found, but the scientists also found a Trypanosoma cruzi parasite in the Pfizer vaccine. This parasite, they note, has multiple lethal variants “of which several variants are lethal and is one of many causes of acquired immune deficiency syndrome or AIDS.” (CITE)
The Janssen vaccine study shows stainless steel particles fused together by the reduced graphene oxide, forming a shape like a golden nugget. The scientists note that this formation is very magnetic and is what can cause “the pathological blood coagulation.” (CITE) or as they also note, “The Corona Effect,” or “The Spike Protein Effect.” shown in the image obtained by the scientists below.
Here, the scientists obtained an image of the Moderna vaccine which they note has “Aluminum silicate nanoparticulates.”
Dr. Robert Young goes on to say that these are in fact NOT vaccines “but nanotechnological drugs working as a genetic therapy.” (CITE)
Here is a great table he also uploaded to the article for further understanding and knowledge.
Also, provided was a link to a video surrounding some of this information that I personally watched and was directed by the video to his website and article mentioned above. To which he also gives tons of amazing and informative links to videos, books, and studies surrounding his work. I mean, tons! So, check out the actual article, his website, and all of what he references for more material.
Other scientists have also found similar findings. Such as these scientists and doctors from Spain.
Now to get into my theory, and many others, of what the “bigger picture” or “plan” is because there has to be one, right? We have to refer back to graphene oxides other uses, besides pharmaceuticals, to be able to understand their end goal.
In the photos from Dr. Robert Young’s analysis, we can clearly see that graphene oxide forms a tube-like shape. There are a few theories around this. Check out this video here about a theory of GO changing the charge of red blood cells, essentially making them stack together into a tube formation. This is normally found in people who have blood cancer, mentioned in the video.
If the graphene oxide changes the charge of blood cells, then some of these tubes might consist of blood and graphene oxide. Graphene oxide is magnetic. (and you will have to search for the article on hydrogen molecules inducing this magnetic effect.) However, searching is what I want you to do because this site holds a plethora of articles and references to GO and COVID-19.
Now, we have to ask ourselves if there is an overall purpose of the blood and GO to form this tube-like shape.
Going further, graphene oxide also aids in the desalination of water. As well as in ridding drinking water of certain toxic chemicals, such as pharmaceuticals. After GO creates the cylinder shape, in this case, though sometimes it forms a mesh formation depending upon synthesis, water molecules start to infiltrate the cylinder or mesh. What is most interesting is water molecules also block the openings of these cylinders.
Essentially, the only thing that can get in or out of the mesh or tube-like shape, are water molecules.
Why would it be necessary to trap or water into a structure?
I will tell you my theory, but we have to go back a little.
In 2000, former President Bill Clinton advocated for the progression of nanotechnologies and spoke about it at Caltech. Former President Clinton tried to pass this initiative and obtain funding, however, he was not successful. Although he was not successful, former President George W. Bush was and signed into law this nanotech initiative in 2003.
After browsing through Caltech’s website, I found something extremely interesting and also intersectional in relation to the question of the vaccine’s true initiative.
On Caltech’s website, I found a brief synopsis of nanotech and its role in the human body as well as a quick interview from 2013 with Axel Scherer, Caltech’s Bernard Neches Professor of Electrical Engineering.
In the interview Axel Scherer says:
“So, our goal is to build tiny chemical laboratories that will function inside the body and allow you to know there’s a problem before you get symptoms, and you can seek treatment before the damage is done.” (cite)
Ahhh, now it is starting to make sense. We now have encapsulated water that can be detected by a central system via conductivity from the graphene oxide.
You did not think the roll-out of 5G and COVID-19 at the same time was a coincidence, did you? Or the launch of Tesla’s Starlink satellites? So, what kind of information do you think is being beamed back and forth from these satellites? Why would it be necessary to ensure everyone in the world has Internet capability?
It seems like overnight we went from 4G to 5G, had hundreds of new satellites orbiting our atmosphere, as well as a supposed cure to COVID via the vaccines.
The thing is, some of us saw the manipulation of the media and have felt the bias well before COVID, so what did we do?
We turned off our TVs and we researched. We followed the scientists who were de-platformed from major social media sites to other smaller platforms. We watched, we spent countless sleepless nights, took notes, endured terrible and negative initial findings, and we dug for almost two years. All in an effort to find the truth, to expose it, and to save at least one human’s life if we could.
I will end on this, the toxic effects of graphene oxide are as follows: small fiber neuropathy, POTS (Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome), general neuro complications, GBS (Guilliane-Barre Syndrome), autoimmunity, visual disturbances, Steven Johnson Syndrome.
You will see further why this is true in relation to the actual toxic side-effects of GO. The article notes many different toxic side-effects in administration variation. Though, intravenous is relational to the COVID-19 vaccine, and in relation to it the article notes it has shown that “after entering the body by intravenous injection, could also be retained in the lung and induce the formation of granulomas and pulmonary edema. As well as, “hemolytic activity, Lactate Dehydrogenase release (plays a large role in the body’s energy level), generation of Reactive Oxygen Species, decreased cell viability, dose-dependent cell cytotoxicity, apoptosis, inflammatory responses, and oxidative stress. (Rhazouani, et al., 2021).
Another source, The Graphene Council Organization, did an interview with Dr. Andrew Maynard, the National Science Foundation’s International Chair of Environmental Health Sciences and the Director for the University of Michigan’s Risk Science Center. The article is not dated, though it mentions Dr. Richard Maynard maintaining a science blog up until sometime in 2020. With that, we can assume it was sometime after 2020. The interviewee asks a few substantial questions to which Dr. Andrew Maynard replied with such speculation as to the authors of the previous article mentioned.
Interviewer: “In your recent article for Slate, you make the implied distinction between nanomaterials in their free form,”… “and those same nanomaterials after they have become part of a larger material matrix belonging to the product.”….”Why has the important distinction remained often absent in most discussions on the risk of nanomaterials, especially in the mainstream press? And, is there a way to counteract that omission?”
Dr. Richard Maynard: “To be honest, I’m not entirely sure why poor differentiation between the materials that go into a product, and the potential risks associated with that product, continue to exist, although I can certainly hazard a professional opinion.”…
…” Understanding the potential relevance to risk of this mutability of engineered nanoparticles is much more complex than addressing the precursor nanomaterials that go into products,” … “Fortunately, research is now beginning to focus more on released materials and exposures. But there is still a long way to go before uses of nanomaterials are assessed by what comes out of a product, rather than what goes into it.”
Interviewer: “You reference some 6000 research papers that have been published about studies into the toxicity of nanomaterials. Do you have any sense of how many of those, or still others, have looked into the toxicity of the products that contain the nanomaterials in their material matrix?”
Dr. Richard Maynard:…”Where I think the research community is still struggling though is in designing experiments that offer insight into what happens when these materials are incorporated into a product, and then complex, heterogeneous materials are released from the product into the environment.”
Interviewer: …“’ These materials can be inhaled unintentionally, or they may be intentionally injected or implanted as components of new biomedical technologies.’ What do you suppose he imagined would be the scenario in which we unintentionally inhaled graphene? Could this happen outside of a manufacturing facility in which graphene was used to make a product?”
Dr. Richard Maynard: “There’s always a chance that poor exposure control during the production or use of a material like graphene could lead to inhalation.” … “But it’s possible that ill-conceived uses might lead to small clusters of platelets entering the lungs.”
A group of scientists obtained unopened boxes of the various COVID-19 vaccines with plans to study what is really contained in the vials. The scientists argue that it is their right and citizens of the world’s right, according to the Nuremberg Code of 1947 to know what is being distressingly forced upon many across the globe. As noted on Dr. Robert Young’s website, there are no facts sheets or labels found with the vaccines, nor is there FDA disclosure listed on the box.
You know, I will give it to you that perhaps all of us blindly being administered vaccines for years and years, not reading the labels, “trusting the science” and maybe it’s just that people questioning them is throwing you off a bit, and giving you the willy wonkers; I get it, but it’s okay you won’t glitch out.
Change can be good. I mean look at us, we are reading the labels now! “Oh, shit…ya…stainless steel particles floating to my joints causing inflammation doesn’t sound good…”
Heck, at least now that you have taken it, you know first-hand not to give it to your children, right?
I mean, because you have done the research, right?
But, like, not just watching the news?
Wait, are you reading real medical journals at least?
Have you looked at VAERS?
What about c19vaxreactions.com?
Have you at least considered maybe the people who were banned from certain social media platforms were banned because they had some legitimate stuff to say?
The scientists analyzed Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna-Lonza mRNA-1273, Vaxzevria from AstraZeneca, and Janssen by Johnson & Johnson “according to new nanoparticulate technological approaches,” according to Dr. Robert Young’s study on his website.
What they found were multiple ingredients not given to the public, at least they are severely different than what each of the vaccine websites is alleging.
It is one thing to not read the labels or inquire about ingredients from a vaccine that has been around for years or decades. But now that people are inquiring, suddenly they are the enemy? Sure. No questions, look straight ahead and let’s all blend in together like a damn happy, New World Order family.
That’s like someone giving a person a cross-bred vegetable, never grown or tasted before, and asking their best friend to be the first to take a bite.
And, let’s be real, what is contained in vaccines that have had adequate testing and trials is still far more harmful than a cross-bred vegetable full of GMO. That’s beside the point, if you want to fill yourself with metals after the “coincidental” roll-out of 5G then you go right ahead, Tin Man.
Article by Epigirl for ROTTER News