Different Strokes For Different Folks

Opinion: Current Events Series

Different Strokes For Different Folks

The official Covid narrative, in terms of outright admissions by the establishment, seems to be this; the virus came from the wild, it initially appeared to be deadly, the Chinese posted some genetic code on the web and our leaders had to achieve 'Warp Speed' to save us all. In so doing, they may have slightly miscalculated the risk/reward ratio, but they cannot be blamed for that because they couldn't possibly have known many of the things that they know now. So, the 'vaccines' don't prevent infection or transmission, but they are 'safe and effective' and definitely do prevent serious disease, hospitalization and death. And, no matter what the evidence, they're not planning on ever giving any ground on that last point.

There are a number of problems with that version of history;

1. They're not 'vaccines'. They are an experimental gene therapy.(1) Here's the president of Bayer's Pharmaceutical Division in March 2021; “...ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say: if we had surveyed two years ago in the public – ‘would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?’ – we probably would have had a 95% refusal rate.”(2)

2. However, they had to be fraudulently represented as such, otherwise Emergency Use Authorisations (EUA) could not have been issued (see Vaccines, Part Four; Remember Nuremberg).

3. Other early treatments had to be suppressed, otherwise EUAs could not have been issued (see Vaccines, Part Three; A Lack Of Judgement) and not enough damage would have been done.

4. As Pfizergate has demonstrated, the data from the clinical trials is fraudulent in large part (see Document Dump).

5. As the Twitter Files are in the process of demonstrating, governments are engaged in comprehensive attempts to suppress the truth by labelling it mis/disinformation.(3)

Call me old fashioned, but the narrative arc is not that of hapless authorities being overtaken by a genuine, natural pandemic who then struggle to stay afloat while doing the best they can for their citizens. Or, to put it rather more bluntly, their credibility is shot and real life doesn't match the narrative. Blunter still – they are serial liars. Therefore, everything we've been told needs to be checked and rechecked, as we can take nothing on trust.

The 'vaccines' are a case in point. Numerous studies, from all over the world, have produced contradictory findings, particularly when the study is focused on the contents of the vials. It seems that there has been a tendency for dissident doctors to obtain some vials, analyse them and then conclude that the contents that have been discovered are uniformly distributed across all vials. However, given the huge disparities in known outcomes, it seems much more probable that there are substantial differences in 'vaccine' content, either from the production stage or because of the way that they have been handled subsequently. Alternatively, what if all the analyses are correct and there are many different versions of the 'vaccines'?

The following is what we knew already; we just didn't know why. 4% of Pfizer lots and 5% of Moderna's were responsible for all the deaths. All of them. 96% of Pfizer's and 95% of Moderna's didn't have a single death report attributed to them. Even more remarkably, 94% of Pfizer lots (2,908) didn't even have a single adverse event recorded against them. But Pfizer also had five lot numbers that returned between 61-80 deaths, five that had 81-100 deaths and two that registered over 100. It was a similar story with Moderna. So far, the contamination theory still holds water, although we might think it a little strange that both companies had the same issues in the same percentages.(4)

The problems came pretty much exclusively from lots that were widely distributed. In general, the lots were far more widely disbursed than those of the flu vaccines. Nonetheless, the pattern is startling and served to disguise the signal. The first question might be; why are the lots so widely distributed anyway? I'm assuming that neither Pfizer nor Moderna have a manufacturing facility in each state and that the lots are probably numbered in the order in which they are produced. It might be said that there was a need to distribute widely and equitably. The same could be said of the flu vaccines. And it still doesn't explain why the ones most dispersed are the most deadly. For example, only 130 of the more than 4,500 Pfizer lots were split between 13-50 states.(5)

So what we end up with is the following. The vast majority of the 'vaccines' did not cause a single death, initially; a good majority of them did not even attract an adverse event report. As an aside, that frequency is totally at odds with the clinical trial reports, when there were many more adverse events. But the 'vaccines' that did cause deaths were overwhelmingly from a small number of lots and these lots were also part of a very small number that were the most widely distributed. In the case of Pfizer, around 180 lots did all the damage. It just so happened that 130 of them went to more than 13 states and these were the only ones that did. The Moderna story is very similar.

The net result is that the deadly batches were spread far and wide, wreaking havoc in a fairly uniform fashion and not attracting anywhere near as much attention as if an entire lot had landed in one location and devastated a community. If we are to cling to the wreckage of the contamination theory, we must accept that these correlations are benign and that the outcome is mere coincidence.

In the US, in general terms, the more 'vaccinations', the more adverse events and deaths. There are, however, some striking elements to geographical spread. Of the top 15 states in terms of deaths per 100,000 citizens, 10 are Republican and the other five are Blue. However, all five are swing states; New Hampshire, Minnesota, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan.(6)

What we have is a peculiar trend, especially when one realises that the average overall 'vaccination' rate for the Republican states is 52.5%, whereas the Democrat states' number is 71% (the swing states, 56.8%). By rights, given the fact that the mortality statistic is calculated in relation to 100,000 residents and given an even distribution of 'vaccines', the Blue states should have suffered more adverse events; considerably more. And yet the opposite is true. Red states have twice the number of 'vaccine' injuries and deaths than Democrat states.(7)

The data around US state distribution strongly suggests that Big Pharma is in bed politically with an entity that is not the Republicans. Whether that can be said to be the Democrats, the administrative state or the elites (or, indeed, all of the above) is unknown to me, but when an effect can be seen that has some consistency over a data set of 50 states, I think we can be confident that we are onto something. Is this effect because of a wide variance in the biological dose?

Different concentrations

The clinical trials are still ongoing for both Pfizer and Moderna. While Moderna only uses 100 microgrammes of mRNA per injection,(8) Pfizer/BioNTech has a plethora of options; 10, 20, 30 and 100 microgrammes in three different age ranges.(9) Is it possible that, with Pfizer at least, the vast majority of their 'vaccines' have been laced with very small doses of mRNA, less than they are letting on? That wouldn't explain Moderna, though; if they are telling the truth.

Figure 1

This is the Australian distribution – there are seemingly no immediate problems after the campaign started. Then there were. What does this indicate? Was there an initial series of placebos? Romania has the same distribution.

There are other countries with a similar distribution. There are yet others with the much more explicable spikes in deaths in the days after 'vaccination'. So why is there a mammoth delayed reaction in some and not others? The two most obvious explanations are that some doses are more deadly and/or there is a concerted effort to cover up the deadly effects of the 'vaccines'. If the former theory still holds water, then it's possible that doses shipped internationally in the second half of the year were the deadly batches and that, simultaneously, more placebos or benign shots were distributed domestically in the US.

The saline theory

On the subject of placebos; there have been numerous press reports of 'accidental' saline shots instead of the jab in Minneapolis,(10) Ontario,(11) North Carolina,(12) South Carolina,(13) Miami,(14) Virginia (15)....the list goes on. That's a lot of mistakes; how does it even happen, given that the bottles are presumably labelled 'vaccine', not 'saline'? Don't expect an answer that withstands scrutiny any time soon, unless you wish to place your faith in the 'fact checkers' online. Is it possible that these are just the instances that have come to light and that it points to the existence of unwitting control groups? After all, how would you know that you're being injected with saline in the first place? The biological product is mixed with 1.8ml of saline as it is.(16)

The next brick in the wall is the issue of lot expiry dates, which doesn't sound as if it could ever be compelling. However, not all the lots have expiry dates. In fact, the vast majority of them don't; which is curious, as is the fact that the list is a closely guarded secret, not to be trusted to the general public. If all of them contain the live biological agent, then they should all have expiry dates. One might surmise, therefore, that the expiry date is a non-issue for the bulk of batches and take a punt as to the reason for this. The lots with expiry dates are, exclusively, those with the highest number of adverse events.(17) It would seem that Occam's Razor is in play once more. The only reasonable explanation is that these lots are biologically active and that the remainder are almost certainly placebos, quite possibly saline, which would fit with the numerous reports of 'accidental' injections of salt water. Is there any other legitimate reason for this state of affairs?

So, is it possible that a vast cohort of allegedly 'vaccinated' are nothing of the sort? That they've actually been injected with saline? A recent study, which has been ignored by the corporate media (just for a change), may hold the key to that question. The authors collected blood from 16 young adults and adolescents who were hospitalised with myocarditis shortly after inoculation. These samples were taken between January 2021 and February 2022. The results of the tests were compared to 45 healthy, asymptomatic subjects from the same age range who were also 'vaccinated'. Now, granted, it's a small study, but the results are intriguing;

“A notable finding was that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein...unbound by antibodies, were detected in the plasma of individuals with post vaccine myocarditis, whereas no free spike protein was detected in asymptomatic, vaccinated control subjects...”(18)

How can this be? Naturally, the authors cannot bring themselves to speculate about the full range of possible causes, preferring to avoid speculation of the third rail variety. They are naturally puzzled, as the narrative decrees that mRNA 'vaccines' simply instruct cells to make the spike protein and yet it seems that this mechanism is only present in some recipients, not all. The study touts bio-distribution variance as the probable cause and criticises both Pfizer and Moderna for failing to account for why no bio-distribution studies were done prior to the roll-out.

Of course, this is not the only possible outcome, nor is it even the most likely. There is at least one study (from May 2021) that showed that the spike protein was circulating in the blood of eleven out of thirteen who had received the Moderna jab.(19) Another showed that the 'vaccine' mRNA persisted in the body for at least 60 days, which was the study end point, so it's a given that it was there for longer yet.(20) Yet another demonstrated that the spike protein and mRNA were still present in the lymph nodes two months after 'vaccination'. And an autopsy of a jab recipient, who had died shortly after inoculation, showed that the 'vaccine' dispersed rapidly from the site of the injection, to be found pretty much everywhere within the body.(21)

Yes, it's just about conceivable that some people were injected into the bloodstream and some were not, and only the former suffered from a widespread distribution; but it isn't a plausible explanation, as Pfizer themselves have demonstrated.(22) Plus, the Japanese government released Pfizer's bio-distribution data from their rat studies. There is no suggestion that only a proportion of the rats were affected in this way, as can be seen from the following table.(23)

Figure 2

Even the sceptical seem to suffer from a shortage of chutzpah and fail to draw out the possibilities. While acknowledging that most of what we've been told about the spike protein, its action and its distribution is not true, they are still unprepared to say the quiet part out loud. They won't entertain the thought that, rather than these outcomes being a long series of mistakes, it might just be that we have been deliberately deceived. They would rather not dwell on the fact that Moderna had at least eight years research experience with mRNA which, presumably, included knowledge as to bio-distribution. Nor do they care to address the evidence provided by one of the inventors of the technology (Dr Robert Malone), who has revealed that mRNA research programmes have been repeatedly halted because they cause too much cancer.(24) The following is from as long ago as 2009;

“Currently, no mRNA therapeutic is approved for use in humans, and a beneficial safety profile in patients still has to be demonstrated. A first clinical application will likely not be a prophylactic vaccine, because the tolerance for side effects is very low for a drug that is injected into healthy individuals.”(25)

It's the same impulse that afflicts most of those who are willing to address the possibility that the original SARS COV 2 came from a laboratory. They then say that they think it likely that it's man made and must have accidentally leaked in some way. They evince a curious blend of boldness and timidity, of rigorous scientific reasoning and a blatant failure of nerve. If they are unwilling to continue pulling on the thread, the most they can say is that they believe it came from a lab. They have enough evidence to do that. They have absolutely no evidence which would prove that it was an accidental leak. Therefore, if we are to 'follow the science', we could either just leave it there or we could examine other circumstantial evidence which may help us to make a judgement as to whether there an accidental leak or the deliberate release of a bio-weapon.

The alternative explanation in our scenario, the one that ought to be obvious, is that some people were not injected with mRNA, but with some other material. Given that the 45 participants were healthy, it seems reasonable to assume that whatever that material was, it was benign. Saline is benign, it already forms part of the injection and we know that it has been 'accidentally' injected on numerous occasions.

The graphene 'vaccine'

For well over a year, numerous researchers have been claiming that the 'vaccines' contain graphene oxide nanoparticles.(26)(27)(28) This shouldn't be surprising, on one level, as not all ingredients have been revealed to the public under the guise of a claim of trade secrecy. Additionally, the massive investment in graphene research has been made for a reason;

(In 2013) “the European Union (EU) embarked on an ambitious project to create a kind of Silicon Valley for the “wonder material” of the last decade: graphene. The project—called the Graphene Flagship—would leverage €1 billion over 10 years to push graphene into commercial markets. The project would bring together academic and industrial research institutes to not only ensure graphene research would be commercialized, but to also make Europe an economic powerhouse for graphene-based technologies.”(29)

To industry and Big Pharma, graphene is miraculous as it is cheap to manufacture, extremely strong and capable of carrying 'vaccine payloads'. It's also toxic to humans, which isn't something that seems to evince any real concern;

“GFNs (Graphene-family nonomaterials) can induce acute and chronic injuries in tissues by penetrating through the blood-air barrier, blood-testis barrier, blood-brain barrier, and blood-placenta barrier etc. and accumulating in the lung, liver, and spleen etc. For example, some graphene nanomaterials aerosols can be inhaled and substantial deposition in the respiratory tract, and they can easily penetrate through the tracheobronchial airways and then transit down to the lower lung airways, resulting in the subsequent formation of granulomas, lung fibrosis and adverse health effects to exposed persons.”(30)

Normal people might reasonably ask why graphene is being developed at all. One might think that the considerable downsides described above should disqualify its use in humans, but one would clearly be wrong. There is no evidence that a responsible adult has stuck their hand in the air and expressed concern. It's press on regardless, no matter the cost. That said, when it comes to the Covid 'vaccines', the manufacturers emphatically deny the presence of graphene. The question was put to the EU, who had this to say;

“Graphene oxide is not used in the manufacture or formulation of any of the COVID-19 vaccines or other medicines, so it would not be present at manufacturing facilities and there is no obvious way that it could get into the vaccines. Quality control testing and quality assurance review, by the vaccine manufacturers and OMCLs responsible for batch release, confirm that each batch met all quality standards prior to release....The presence of graphene or graphene derivatives in the vaccines therefore are not plausible.”(31)

So, the usual 'nothing to see here, move along' response; the EU as stenographers for Big Pharma, who would never even consider misleading anyone (more on that below). Except, of course, that graphene has clearly been found by researchers from Spain, Canada, Argentina, New Zealand and other countries besides. Not just in the Pfizer and Moderna shots – also in the Sputnik, Cansino, AstraZeneca and Sinopharm 'vaccines', too.(32) So, the only logical conclusion is that either Pfizer et al are lying to the EU or that they're not and the EU is lying instead.

We already know that another part of their statement is untrue. For a start, EUAs for the 'vaccines' were issued without inspections of any manufacturing facilities. Ordinarily, the FDA stipulates that several batches must be made and that they must all display the same safety, consistency and potency standards.(33) But, because of the alleged 'pandemic', this requirement – like so many others – was waived. The result of this negligence has been entirely predictable; while the Pfizer clinical trial was allegedly run with mRNA integrity at 72%, the switch to commercial production coincided with a sharp decline in stability.

The regulatory authorities in the US, UK and EU therefore reduced the requirement to 50% or, put another way, they authorized the production of a treatment that hadn't been tested at all. There have been no clinical trials conducted with mRNA at 50% integrity.(34) That's not the worst part, though. The mRNA integrity varies greatly between batches, from 81.3% to 55.7%. As a retired Australian barrister put it, while giving testimony;

“A recipient of a batch above 72% mRNA integrity is essentially getting a toxic dose. Had they used 80% mRNA toxicity in the clinical trials, we would’ve seen a lot of problems.”(35)

He's still being a little charitable, I think. After all, the information is coming from the manufacturers and is not independently verified, due to the aforementioned lack of physical oversight of the manufacturing process. It may be that the wide variance is deliberate. It may also be the case that this issue is at least partly responsible for the lethality of a small number of batches.

Nonetheless, when deception is clearly being practiced in one statement, we would be well advised to view other statements with a jaundiced eye. With that in mind, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that graphene is indeed an ingredient of the 'vaccines'. What other factors may contribute to the uneven effect of the jab?

Quality Control

Given that there appear to be multiple manufacturing facilities spread across multiple countries (the US, Germany, Belgium and elsewhere)(36) and given the requirement for extreme refrigeration - initially, Pfizer's shot was stored at minus 70° Celsius – there were always likely to be problems. Allegedly, the mRNA starts breaking down after only a few hours at room temperature and the WHO estimates that, even under less challenging storage conditions, around a half of all vaccines go to waste.(37)

So, it seems likely that there are some quality control issues. How widespread they are is unknowable to those of us looking in from the outside. Additionally, although assumptions have been made about the manufacturing process itself, we cannot verify them. Claims from the ranks of the dissidents often have a mix of logic and assumption, all presented as gospel.

One particular assertion doing the rounds is the 'break down thesis'; that, after a period of time, the mRNA will degrade if not stored correctly. This seems a little odd to a non-scientist such as myself, as it seems to contradict a key part of the narrative, namely that the lipid nanoparticles have been coated with polyethylene glycol (PEG), so that the mRNA will survive long enough to penetrate the cell in a human body whose temperature is around 36° C. However, even if we accept that the mRNA will degrade swiftly, 'breaking down' is still not the same as 'disappearing'. Stable elements shouldn't break down anyway, but if they do there is at least one that should still be present – phosphorous.(38)

But some vials contain no phosphorous, just PEG. This means that they are blanks – they never contained mRNA.(39) These results are widespread.

Figure 3

On the face of it, even with manufacturing quality control issues and a wide range of mRNA integrity, if an analysis finds no phosphorous or nitrogen, then there cannot have even been 1% mRNA in the shot. That's not poor quality control; that's an intentionally blank shot, consisting of saline and PEG. It's difficult to see how that outcome could have occurred accidentally.

Nanotech possibilities

So far then, we have a mixture of evidence – actual analysis of 'vaccine' vials – and information provided to us by the manufacturers, such as Pfizer and Moderna. Clearly, information isn't evidence and cannot be treated as reliable. If we are to believe them, then we must accept that Pfizer, particularly, experimented with different doses in the clinical trials and, that everyone in the real world who has allowed themselves to be inoculated by Pfizer is effectively part of a phase 3 clinical trial. If that is the case, then there are a variety of different dosing levels being tested.

That's if we believe that they are genuinely searching for the evidence they need to gain full approval. That, in turn, requires us to suspend disbelief and hold fast to the view that the jab is not a bioweapon but a 'vaccine' and that Big Pharma is on a quest to salvage our collective health. This would be an act of faith, because the evidence doesn't support a conclusion that's even in the same ballpark. I say that not just because of what has been presented thusfar; I say it because there's more that they aren't telling us, but which has nonetheless been proven, both from physical examination and via documentation that is in the public domain. And that something is the presence of nanotechnology in the 'vaccines'.

Yes, I know. Yet another 'conspiracy theory'. But have you noticed how many of them seem to come true somewhere further down the track? In this case, dozens of scientists from around the world have found nanotechnology in all of the four main offerings from Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and J&J.(40) Many of them can also testify to the now familiar lack of biological material, but they did find a variety of shapes and structures;

“They all seem to be made predominantly out of carbon and oxygen and they were in both the Moderna and Pfizer samples, and they seem to be in fibre forms. In the Moderna sample, the carbon-oxygen structures seem to be taking nanosphere forms and crystalline forms. And in the Pfizer sample … seem to only be forming fibres and crystals.”(41)

That was a Canadian researcher. Thousands of miles away, in New Zealand, another doctor (using specialised microscopic techniques) found the following in a Pfizer 'vaccine'.

Figure 4

There are any number of reports listing microtechnology as an ingredient of the shots, some of them noting that it appears to self-assemble. Frequently, this technology is paired with graphene and a dearth of biological material.(42) The Italian researchers that I referenced in a previous offering – the ones who found that 94% of their 'vaccinated' patients had damaged blood – came to some conclusions;

“They believe the damaged blood is contributing to post-vaccine coagulation disorders, which in turn contribute to increased malignancies, while graphene-family materials are associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, inflammation and damage to those parts of the immune system that suppress tumours.”(43)

I know this sounds like science fiction, but I would suggest that this is for two reasons only; firstly, we don't understand that this technology exists and has done for years and, secondly, we still find it difficult to believe that our governments would deceive us to this degree, despite plentiful evidence to the contrary in pretty much all other matters Covid.

Nanotech exists. Academic papers from as far back as 2014 reference graphene achieving a variety of nanostructures via a process of self-assembly.(44) By 2019, the terminology had moved on and academics were now referencing nanoarchitectonics and nanoparticles, nanosheets and gels.(45) Graphene itself is an antigen delivery system, capable of relaying the spike protein through the wall of human cells when it is positively charged.

“So, I would almost think that it would be obvious that someone, somewhere, would have taken the next step to introduce this technology as the delivery system of say, mRNA? Since GO is easily conjugated to PEG – was it? Is the so-called lipid nanoparticle not a lipid nanoparticle at all?”(46)

But is that all that's obvious? Simply using graphene to trick our cells into accepting foreign mRNA, which four billion years of evolution would ordinarily prevent? Or is there a little more to it, in the light of what the physical analyses of the 'vaccines' have revealed? Well, as long ago as 2008, universities were writing papers containing passages like the following;

“The recent developments in the field of nanoelectronics, with transducers progressively shrinking down to smaller sizes through nanotechnology and carbon nanotubes, are expected to result in innovative biomedical instrumentation possibilities, with new therapies and efficient diagnosis methodologies. The use of integrated systems, smart biosensors, and programmable nanodevices are advancing nanoelectronics, enabling the progressive research and development of molecular machines. It should provide high precision pervasive biomedical monitoring with real time data transmission.”(47)

The reasoning was that this type of technology would provide an early warning system in the event of another 'pandemic'. It's the sort of tech that Bill Gates has harped on about repeatedly. The detail is not dwelt upon publicly, but several factors can be deduced. If this tech is to work, it must have diagnostic capabilities. There must also be some way of communicating what's going on inside the body to the outside world. This will inevitably require some sort of power source.

Talking of the seemingly ever present Gates, who has a long track record of promoting causes that he is invested in, we find that, once again, he's putting his mouth where his money is. He's in partnership with a company called Profusa and also with DARPA (the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency) which has developed a chip that is implanted under the skin using hydro-gel. Here's a Profusa press release from March 19th 2018:

“Today scientists are presenting results showing tiny biosensors that become one with the body…and stream data to a mobile phone and to the cloud….tiny biosensors composed of a tissue-like hydrogel, similar to a soft contact lens, that are painlessly placed under the skin with a single injection.”(48)

That may be still in the future, but probably not far into it. In the here and now, quantum dot technology is available and is more than capable of transmitting and receiving information.

Figure 5

Notice the word lipid in this diagram. So, lipids, graphene and nanotechnology – they've all been found in physical analyses, they all exist in actuality and, lastly, their presence all make sense if we just listen to what the likes of Klaus Schwab have committed to print;

“Recent technological advancements have ushered in a new era of the Internet of bodies (IoB), with an unprecedented number of sensors attached to, implanted within or ingested into human bodies to monitor, analyse and even modify human bodies and behaviour, immediate actions are needed to address the ethical and legal considerations that come with the IoB. The urgency of such actions is further brought to the forefront by the global COVID-19 pandemic, with extensive IoB technologies and data being enlisted for the surveillance and tracking of coronavirus.”(49)

You will doubtless notice that Klaus isn't using the future tense here – he's admitting that this technology has already been deployed to combat the Covis 'pandemic'. Is this true? After all, Schwab doesn't always seem to be firmly tethered to reality. However, in this case, he is merely admitting what we probably should have seen coming some time ago. The clincher is in the text of a patent, submitted to the US patents office and not only does it reveal the deployment of this nanotechnology without our consent, it also sets out (in excruciating detail), what its true purpose is. The patent is US11107588 B2 and the subject of it is a

“...system comprises a plurality of electronic devices comprising instructions to generate an ID and, when in proximity of another such electronic device, one or both electronic devices transmit/receive the ID to/from the other electronic device."(50)

They helpfully provided a diagram to demonstrate how this would work in practice.

Figure 6

So far then, we have much talk from the WEF, Gates et al and we also know that the tech exists. But that still doesn't mean that it's been deployed, does it? Well, here's the kicker. The patent is an application to wholly own and market the technology itself. Firstly, the rather coy description of the invention itself;

" The system comprises a plurality of electronic devices comprising instructions to generate an ID and, when in proximity of another such electronic device, one or both electronic devices transmit/receive the ID to/from the other electronic device."(51)

This isn't referring to a mobile phone. Those already have the capability of transmitting and receiving via existing technology, namely Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. It isn't referring to a sensor in your clothes for example, which could be discarded. It's referring to tech that is located inside the human body. On the twentieth page (out of fifty three), the applicant refers to the 'vaccines' that contain this nanotech and reveals that the list of compounds on the WHOs recommended list are all candidates and that they are all

“...optionally provided (e.g., as a kit) with software such as described herein and/or provided with instructions for targetting potential super spreaders detected, for example, using methods and apparatus as described herein and include the following: candidate vaccines in clinical evaluation...”(52)

There is then a huge list of vaccines; all the Covid 'vaccines' are included. All of the nanotechnologies in those 'vaccines' are said to be in pre-clinical evaluation, which I take to mean that the technology has been deployed, but the data that it provides is not yet being analysed clinically. I can only see one way of reading this. The patent isn't referring to some future event. It specifically states that the kits (the nanotechnology) have been “optionally provided” for the Covid 'vaccines', presumably to the manufacturers or, possibly, governments. From this, we can deduce that this nanotechnology has been deployed – we just don't know how many times.

This reading fits with the available evidence. I have a low energy Bluetooth scanner application on my phone; it picks up Bluetooth emitting devices. Some come with an identity – perhaps a Smart watch, some ear buds or a tablet. However, when I scan a crowd, I get scores of unidentified Mac addresses listed. Yes, I know some people have their Bluetooth on permanently, but they are in a definite minority, especially amongst older cohorts. And yet, the signals keep appearing. Say it quietly, but real world circumstantial evidence is matching with real world actual documented evidence.

Further on in the application we get to the crux of the matter. While the authors never wholly abandon the 'super spreader' narrative, the wider ramifications of this technology become clear. There are pages of text referencing a score that will be given to each person, dependent on a number of factors such as proximity to others, whether they are in or have been in a crowd, whether that was an indoor or outdoor crowd and so forth. Some of the wording is dystopian. For instance, the authors discuss people who are “prone to frequent religious events” and reveal that they will be given a higher score (penalised) because those in attendance would have been in close proximity to others who are also prone to attending church. Ditto for those that use public transportation.

The patent talks about government ordering its citizens to download a dedicated application to help the government “with the logistics of the vaccination procedures” and to “send a communication to the user to enhance his awareness to behavioural rules during pandemic, to come and be vaccinated, to avoid certain locations which are at high risk of contagion”. The wording does not suggest that any of this is optional. After all the verbiage about individual scores, there is then the following with reference to vaccine trials;

“In some embodiments, vaccine potency is a quantitative measure of the specific ability of the vaccine product to achieve an intended biological effect...the system is used to identify which individuals will receive what type of vaccines in relation to their potency.”(53)

I'll bet. It's not difficult to see where this leads. The level of surveillance and control detailed in the patent is chilling. When combined with other data, it will form the foundation for the social credit score to come. Nor is it difficult to see why 5G is being foisted upon us. The demand for bandwidth – particularly when Central Bank Digital Currencies are also mandated – will increase exponentially. Think “they” wouldn't do it?

A complete absence of trust

In 2009, Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion in criminal and civil liability categories. That's bad enough, but the reason for the fine is worse. They were found guilty of illegally promoting an anti-inflammatory drug called Bextra, for purposes and in doses that were not approved by the FDA, specifically on safety grounds.(54) So, not a 'technical' breach. A deliberate attempt to mislead.

Regrettably, that was the latest in a long line of financial settlements for various misdemeanors. Whilst drug companies must be more than averagely vulnerable to lawsuits, Pfizer seem to be more susceptible than most. They were fined in the 1990s for defective heart valves that resulted in over 100 deaths, fined again for a drug called Rezulin (for diabetes) that caused patients to die of acute liver failure, out of pocket once more for overcharging the NHS in the UK by £40 million a year (for a drug that should have cost less than £2 million), and paid a number of other fines for a variety of offences, both civil and criminal in nature, both domestically and overseas, including bribery, racketeering, bribery again and, finally, for riding roughshod over informed consent for a trial involving Nigerian children.(55) All in the past thirty years. That's what you call a rap sheet.

Moderna has, thusfar, avoided legal action by dint of not bringing a product to market in the ten years of its existence, prior to its Covid 'vaccine'.(56) While this is encouraging news in one regard, the reason for their relative lack of historic success is more troublesome. They, alone among their current competitors, worked exclusively with mRNA technology and they hadn't been able to make a product that worked safely. Until now, of course.

The company, which has no FDA-approved or authorized products, has seen its market capitalization increase to about $54.3 billion in recent trading from just $6.6 billion at the end of 2019, according to FactSet data. In comparison, Pfizer’s market cap was $211.1 billion.

“Moderna’s stock tumbled to a low for the year at $17.78 on Jan. 7, five days before it announced plans to begin developing a vaccine aimed at preventing infection with what was then referred to as the novel coronavirus. At that time, the virus was still primarily infecting people in Wuhan, China. Since then, Moderna’s stock had soared, closing at an all-time high of $169.86 on Dec. 8. It’s been testing mRNA vaccines for cancers like melanoma and solid tumors, other infectious diseases like Zika, and some rare, inherited disorders like methylmalonic acidemia. None of the experimental vaccines have made it through mid-stage clinical trials except for its COVID-19 vaccine. ”(57)

And what of the state and its organs? If anything, they are worse. They don't just have the 'vaccines' on their record; they also have lock-downs, mandates, hospital protocols that killed people, non-consensual Do Not Resuscitate notices, the suppression of early treatments and many other sins to account for. They have shown themselves to be liars and charlatans. Nothing they say can be taken on trust.

Conclusion

It can sometimes be helpful if one works backward from outcomes to likely causes. In this case, the 'vaccine' outcomes vary greatly, in both the short term and the slightly longer term. Some die swiftly, some appear to suffer no ill effects and there are many other outcomes between the two extremes. While data shows that more 'vaccines' generally means more illness and death – the triple 'vaccinated' account for 91% of UK Covid deaths since January 2022 (58) and the same cohort are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised in Australia (59) – the effect is uneven. Given the known toxic action of the shot, this is problematic.

Unless, not all 'vaccines' are created equal. Copious evidence shows that this is the case. Indeed, samples with no biological matter seem to be more prevalent that those that possess it. Some shots are clearly blank, many have graphene as an ingredient and those that do, also include nanotechnology. All the tech exists, its deployment fits with the stated aims of entities and individuals who are committed to the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the depopulation agenda and also fits into a wider picture whereby CBDCs, a Pandemic Treaty, a 'vaccine' passport and 5G are all set to become features of surveillance states. Don't forget, we'll own nothing and be happy.

And is it in any way surprising that “they” would have deceived us? I think not. It's become obvious that that is their principal modus operandi. The link between quantum dot technology – which is necessarily radioactive – and 5G is particularly disturbing and will not end well. The next phase in “their” plan will be to surrender all national sovereignty to the WHO, giving them the right to declare 'pandemics' whenever they feel like it (even climate change will now qualify), which is scheduled for May this year. Combine that development with the G20's commitment to the passport and the walls will start closing in; if we let them.

Citations

(1) https://expose-news.com/2022/12/08/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-mrna-vaccine/

(2) https://expose-news.com/2021/11/06/bayer-pharmaceuticals-president-admits-mrna-vaccines-are-cell-and-gene-therapy-and-the-public-would-not-have-agreed-to-take-them-if-it-were-not-for-the-pandemic/

(3) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/infographic-key-revelations-twitter-files

(4) https://expose-news.com/2022/05/18/how-harmful-is-my-covid-vaccine-batch/

(5) Ditto

(6) https://howbadismybatch.com/states.html

(7) Ditto

(8) https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427

(9) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04368728?term=immunogenicity+covid+tolerability+healthy&cntry=US&draw=2

(10) https://www.fox9.com/news/2-patients-receive-saline-shots-instead-of-covid-19-vaccine-doses-in-sauk-centre

(11) https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/six-people-injected-with-saline-instead-of-covid-19-vaccine-at-ontario-clinic-in-june-1.5498635

(12) https://nypost.com/2021/04/19/walgreens-store-injected-saline-instead-of-covid-19-vaccine/

(13) https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2294949201834/in-south-carolina-saline-was-injected-instead-of-the-covid-vaccine

(14) https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article250779019.html

(15) https://www.newsobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article249846668.html

(16) https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/downloads/diluent-poster.pdf

(17) https://howbadismybatch.com/cdcexpiry3.pdf

(18) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36597886/

(19) https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/74/4/715/6279075?login=false

(20) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35148837/

(21) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8051011/

(22) https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm

(23) https://www.docdroid.net/xq0Z8B0/pfizer-report-japanese-government-pdf

(24) https://expose-news.com/2022/12/14/ryan-cole-gives-his-insights-into-covid-vaccines/

(25) Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 4: Vaccines (p. 13). Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

(26) https://www.orwell.city/2021/07/absorption-signal.html

(27) drrbertyoung.com/post/science-team-reveals-graphene-aluminum-lnp-capsids-peg-parasites-in-4-cov-vaccines

(28) https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/downloads/en/vaccines/nanotech-vaccines.pdf

(29) https://spectrum.ieee.org/europe-has-invested-1-billion-into-graphenebut-for-what

(30) https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-016-0168-y

(31) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-000303-ASW_EN.html

(32) https://expose-news.com/2022/12/01/graphene-nano-covid-vaccines-scientists-worldwide/

(33) https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/10/29/fda-will-not-inspect-vaccine-production-plants/?sh=4f06c6884616

(34) https://expose-news.com/2022/04/02/covid-vaccines-not-the-same-as-those-trialled/

(35) Ditto

(36) https://www.dw.com/en/the-covid-19-vaccines-where-do-they-come-from-where-will-they-go/a-56134178

(37) https://www.vox.com/21552934/moderna-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-biontech-coronavirus-cold-chain

(38)

What's Really in the Shots?

(39)

Want to know what's inside the vaccine vials?

(40) https://expose-news.com/2022/12/01/graphene-nano-covid-vaccines-scientists-worldwide/

(41) Ditto

(42) https://ebmcsquared.org/statement-lab-testing-on-vaccine-content

(43) https://expose-news.com/2022/11/05/covid-vaccines-graphene-nano-cancer/

(44) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.201400267

(45) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374972/

(46)

Graphene oxide conjugated to PEG and PEI as a antigen delivery system

(47) https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/8/5/2932/htm

(48) https://profusa.com/injectable-body-sensors-take-personal-chemistry-to-a-cell-phone-closer-to-reality/

(49)

Part 5: Dismantling COVID-19 Deceptions: Why are Quantum Dots in the COVID-19 Injections?

(50) World Economic Forum - Shaping the Future of the Internet of Bodies: New Challenges of Technology Governance, Briefing Paper, July 2020, p7.

(51) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/68/80/73/6a17a66e9ec8c5/US11107588.pdf

(52) Ditto

(53) Ditto

(54) https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history

(55) https://www.dmlawfirm.com/crimes-of-covid-vaccine-maker-pfizer-well-documented/

(56) https://www.marketwatch.com/story/moderna-nears-its-first-ever-fda-authorization-for-its-covid-19-vaccine-11608134670

(57) https://www.marketwatch.com/story/moderna-nears-its-first-ever-fda-authorization-for-its-covid-19-vaccine-11608134670

(58) https://expose-news.com/2022/11/01/triple-jabbed-91-percent-covid-deaths-this-year/

(59) https://expose-news.com/2023/01/08/triple-jabbed-35x-likely-hospitaised-study/

Figure 1

Zeroing in on Gifts from “Science” to Humanity

Figure 2 https://thepulse.one/2023/01/18/circulating-spike-protein-discovered-in-blood-of-children-young-adults-with-vaccine-induced-myocarditis/

Figure 3 https://web.archive.org/web/20221113023342/https://www.mccairndojo.com/research/sha1-edaf1c60bce445ce342ceb26dba99c317490a125/Flier_For_Lab_Funding_1_1.pdf

Figure 4 https://expose-news.com/2022/12/01/graphene-nano-covid-vaccines-scientists-worldwide/

Figure 5

Part 5: Dismantling COVID-19 Deceptions: Why are Quantum Dots in the COVID-19 Injections?

Figure 6 https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/68/80/73/6a17a66e9ec8c5/US11107588.pdf