What would be the wackiest theory out there at the moment? It's difficult to keep up. After all, it wasn't long ago that mandatory 'vaccines' were a far right conspiracy theory. Maybe the one about the horse de-wormer being an effective treatment? Pretty much beyond dispute that it is, although that's never been known to derail Big Media fantasies. What about the one about the’ vaccines’ being dangerous, deadly even, but government is ignoring all the evidence and lying to us? Well, there are over 20,000 deaths recorded on VAERS now, as well as over a million injuries. Previously, 150 deaths – at most – was all it required for a vaccine to be pulled from circulation. The US government, of course, claims that none of these deaths have anything to do with the 'vaccines', not an argument that was ever sustainable previously and not one that can be made now, because there would actually have to be some checking done and nobody wants to be the one with their name on that report. It's just yet another blithe assertion, made without any evidence and accepted by all and sundry as gospel. Except us.
There are any number of other theories, but the daddy of them all has to be the one about the Internet of Bodies; nanosensors injected into us via the jab, people connected to the internet and so forth. Biosensors that would have had to have been implanted without our knowledge. Say it ain't so. Saying it ain't so is, of course, the state/media specialty, with the aid of the online 'fact-checkers'- the storm troopers tasked with enforcing the orthodoxy. But, as we've seen, things aren't what they used to be and Facebook, caught between a rock and a hard place when filing court documents in a pending case, have opted for a clandestine mea-culpe hoping that no-one would notice.(1)
Fortunately, for us at least, they were unmasked. They have asserted that 'fact-checkers' only give opinions, not facts, a distinction they have never drawn attention to previously (for obvious reasons) and one which is not likely to be divined from the title 'fact checker, either. So, they are just offering an opinion, same as everyone else. The difference, of course, is that they are claiming opinion as fact. This isn't news to anyone who has every read a 'fact-checker' article, but it will be to the ranks of the sheople.
So, the 'fact-checkers' can take a long walk off a short plank and, instead, we'll have a look at what the globalists have actually said:
“We’re entering the era of the Internet of Bodies: collecting our physical data via a range of devices that can be implanted, swallowed or worn.”(2)
Or how about:
“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.”(3)
Crazy town, right? The emphasis in that last quote is mine stating, as it does, that this technology is already being widely used (or, just possibly, about to be) to track coronavirus. Well, how could that be so? Do they mean that people are carrying them around inside them already?
Of course, I could be quoting some fringe website or Icke or Jones (both of whose batting averages' seem to be picking up); alternatively, they read like the sort of arid techno-jumbo favored by basement bound incels with taped together reading glasses. However, both are the work of the World Economic Forum, Klaus 'Blofeld' Schwab's outfit (in partnership with the prestigious McGill University), which has single-handedly dragged the hamlet of Davos into public consciousness and whose members (and honored guests) include the likes of Biden, Xi, Gates, Soros et al. One thing they are not is fringe and they can all afford new reading glasses.
Which rather begs the question; if not the unsuspecting rule followers, from whom, exactly, is all this biometric data being collected? Where are the stories of legions of test subjects who have volunteered to have sensors inserted into their bodies? Have you seen any, because I haven't and I'm pretty sure the media would want to normalize this practice as much as possible? There are, on the other hand, plenty of stories 'debunking' (‘fact-checkers' love that word) any hint of a suggestion that there are nano-sensors in the 'vaccines'. You'd think they might mention the fact that there are some clinical trials with genuine volunteers; if there are any, of course. But, no. And it's known that the technology exists; Sweden just launched an under-the-skin sensor that acts as a debit card (4) and it is common knowledge that DARPA has developed a gel like substance containing biosensors:
“You put it underneath your skin and what that tells you is that there are chemical reactions going on inside the body, and that signal means you are going to have symptoms tomorrow. It’s like a “check engine” light.”(5)
So says retired Colonel Matt Hepburn, an Army infectious disease doctor who led DARPA’s response to the pandemic, DARPA being the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. He was, naturally, at pains to point out that the Pentagon isn't looking to track a citizen's every move. Of course not; why would anybody think that a military agency which works on secret projects injecting citizens with microchips would be interested in actually using the information provided by those same chips? I mean, if someone seemed to be running a high temperature, it's not like they'd want to know where they were, is it? I think we can just take them at their word.
Naturally, the inevitable Master Gates pops up once more, in partnership with a company called Profusa and with DARPA. Profusa, backed by both of the above, has developed a chip that is implanted under the skin using hydro-gel. Indeed, hydrogel is already being used in therapeutics, in cancer treatment, for one.(6) 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.”(7)
Hydrogels. Such a neutral, unthreatening word. Something to do with gel like water, presumably. Which are, somehow, simultaneously bio-sensors. Well, no. Not even close, really. Hydrogels are coyly referred to as gelatinous substances with one or more polymers suspended in water. The Merriam Webster dictionary even uses the scientific term 'squishy' to lull us into unthreatening territory. The first hint that there may be a little more to it comes in the next sentence, where our new word is used in context:
“The hydrogel the team designed contains DNA and electrodes hooked up to an electrical sensor.”(8)
Ah. Perhaps we should examine the word 'polymer' next:
“a chemical compound or mixture of compounds formed by polymerization and consisting essentially of repeating structural units.”(9)
Not sounding quite as warm and fuzzy now, is it? I guess 'chemical' was a given, but 'repeating structural units' doesn't necessarily sound that 'squishy', even if it's at the molecular level. It turns out that polymers are made of big molecules formed from smaller ones and they can be natural (DNA) or synthetic, like graphene oxide. I appreciate the fact that it's taken me a while to get there, but there we finally are. Graphene Oxide.
Why, of the many polymers in existence, would I be talking about that one? How does that tie in to the 'vaccines'? Well, in two ways it seems. From the point of view of its usefulness in RNA therapeutics, it has two outstanding qualities. It is a very efficient conductor of heat and electricity and it's huge surface area relative to weight mean that it's ideal for carrying RNA:
“The graphene oxide can efficiently load drug substances thanks to its large surface area, and the polyethyleneimine binds the mRNA content for translation.”(10)
Graphene is only one atom thick; it's two dimensional, not three. And it's the thinnest two dimensional material known to man, a hundred times stronger than steel.
Still, why would it be used in mRNA vaccines? The more useful question is, why wouldn't it? It's handy. One of the problems with RNA is that it is too big and negatively charged. So, no matter how much of a genius the scientist thinks they are in concocting some lifesaving combination of RNA, it can't do any good unless it reaches the target. The way to do this is to trick the cell into allowing entry. And the way to do that is to coat the RNA with lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). In the case of the 'vaccine', of course, we are told that the LNPs are coating the synthetic spike protein. There are four ingredients; cholesterol, a phospholipid, a PEGylated lipid and an ionizable lipid. Without getting into the weeds too far, the first two are fatty lipids that cells like, the third helps stabilize the notoriously fragile mRNA and the last possesses a neutral charge to penetrate the cell; allegedly neutral, anyway. It is first amongst equals. It's contended that these nanoparticles are positively charged while outside the body in an acidic solution, but neutral when injected into the body to neutralize toxicity.(11)
So, there needs to some sort of material that performs the task of an ionizable lipid, or it won't get into the cell. And, as it turns out, the question is, not whether there is graphene oxide in at least some of the vaccines. There have now been numerous studies which have demonstrated that there is.(12)(13)(14) This is not so left field as to deserve derision. Academic papers have been written about the desirability of graphene as an adjuvant in vaccines.(15)(16) It's just that the 'fact-checkers' don't want you to know, so we have the usual straw man articles stating that graphene can't be in the 'vaccines' because it's not listed as an ingredient:(17)
“The interest in using GRMs (Graphene Related Materials) in medicine lies chiefly upon the extraordinary properties of G, including its mechanical properties, flexibility, transparency, thermo-electrical conductivity and good biocompatibility. GRMs could therefore overcome the limitations of metals and silicon, which are currently used for implantable devices, but are characterized by elevated stiffness, high inflammatory potential and poor long-term stability in physiological environments.”(18)
Not only that, but it appears that an awful lot of our tax dollars have been spent developing its efficacy:
(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.” (19)
So, the possibility that graphene oxide might be present shouldn't be a surprise, to anybody familiar with the field of drug delivery. Research has been ongoing for years, especially as it pertains to hydro-gels:
“Graphene and graphene derivatives (e.g., graphene oxide (GO)) have been incorporated into hydro-gels to improve the properties (e.g., mechanical strength) of conventional hydro-gels and/or develop new functions (e.g., electrical conductivity and drug loading/delivery).”(20)
And, indeed, after a little detective work, when this ingredient is tracked via the specific scientific name, typically a combination of words and numbers, the Moderna version of this lipid is made by a company in China called Sinopeg. This evidence is obviously independent of any physical examination.
The patent, also registered in China, clearly references the use of polyethylene glycol (the PEG part) and graphene oxide in coronavirus vaccines.(21) And Sinopeg list the nanoparticles used in Covid 19 vaccines along with an explanation, which is now severely curtailed, but which wasn't prior to the discovery of their role. One of the ingredients of the polyethylene glycol lipids is graphene, which is, apparently,
“the thinnest, strongest and stiffest material ...an excellent heat and electric conductor”.(22)
This does seem a little confusing at first (to the uninitiated, at least), as graphene oxide is not included in the list of ingredients either on the fact sheets in the US or UK, nor in the filings for Phase III with the FDA.(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28) Why? Because it's a trade secret and trade secrets get a pass when it comes to public disclosure in patent applications. You or I might think that the whole point of a patent application is precisely that: to establish rights to trade secrets and transparency should, therefore, be expected. Otherwise, surely, the published patent (if granted) cannot actually be relied upon to tell the full story. Every other ingredient (as far as we know) is listed, but not graphene oxide. One can deduce from this that no other constituent of the 'vaccine' is regarded as worthy of being kept secret. So, why would graphene oxide fit the mould?
Figure 1 The yellow strip is graphene oxide atoms
I suspect the answer to that question comes from the fact that the graphene story does not end there. The examinations of the 'vaccines' have revealed a little more than its mere presence. It appears that the mRNA (if there is any at all) is suspended is an aqueous solution that contains large amount of graphene oxide, too. So, not just the covering of the difficult to locate mRNA; everywhere else as well. It's used in the suspension. But why? What function does this serve? And is there, just possibility, more to the subterfuge than a mere attempt to safeguard a trade secret?
I can merely assemble a stable of possibilities; a string of apparently unrelated facts. In no particular order. The first is that it's toxic. And, yes. I'm listing that as a benefit, rather than an encumbrance. It's not as though they didn't know. This article is from 2016:
“GFNs (Graphene-family nanomaterials) 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.”(29)
Any of those symptoms sound familiar? Yes, me too. They are all inflammatory responses and the graphene can be inhaled as well as administered by jab. And bear in mind, this study was concerned with the coating on the nanoparticles, not the suspension solution. The study states that the toxicity is affected by the structure and charge (positive/neutral/negative), in particular. In mice, when injected, they pass through the bloodstream in 30 minutes and accumulate in tissue and organs.
The size of the graphene sheets dictated which organ was likely to retain the compound. There are a number of studies highlighting the toxic affects of graphene. My impression is that the theory is far more impressive than the reality and that ways to utilize the obvious possibilities of graphene have not come close to outweighing the huge downsides. The reward would have to be enormous if it were to outweigh the risk.
Next up. As long ago as 2010, scientists were experimenting with ways of controlling neural pathways with radio frequencies:
“Here, we show an approach based on radio-frequency magnetic-field heating of nanoparticles to remotely activate temperature-sensitive cation channels in cells...This approach can be adapted to stimulate other cell types and, moreover, may be used to remotely manipulate other cellular machinery for novel therapeutics.”(30)
They couldn't possibly mean things like 5G, could they? It sounds implausible, right? Science fiction. Only, they were writing papers about it on nature.com twelve years ago. What could possibly go wrong? Well, certain formulations of graphene, the flake shaped embodiments, could annihilate anything it came into contact with in those circumstances. It would need to be activated by an electro magnetic field. If this could be accomplished, it would create a problem; the only question would be the severity of it. And that, presumably, would depend upon the quantity of infected cells and their location. Additionally,
“...several typical mechanisms underlying GFN (graphene family nanomaterials) toxicity have been revealed, for instance, physical destruction, oxidative stress, DNA damage, inflammatory response, apoptosis, autophagy, and necrosis.”(31)
That's without the casual destruction that a strong, sharp compound would do to the endothelial cells in the blood vessels and the consequent clotting and white blood cell shortage:
“...a team of biologists, engineers and material scientists at Brown University examined graphene’s potential toxicity in human cells. They found that the jagged edges of graphene nanoparticles, super sharp and super strong, easily pierced through cell membranes in human lung, skin and immune cells, suggesting the potential to do serious damage in humans and other animals.”(32)(33)
Figure 2: healthy blood on left, vaccinated on right.
Then there is the familiar sight of regulatory authorities trying to clear away any potential palliatives. For hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, read N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC), with which you may or may not be familiar. It's a dietary supplement (there are over 1,000 products with an active NAC ingredient). It has a long history as an antidote to paracetamol/Tylenol overdose and has proven effective in combating blood clotting and in helping to loosen mucus in the lungs:
“Interestingly, NAC may also be useful against COVID-19.... By raising glutathione, it helps combat oxidative stress, which is a main factor in the cytokine storm associated with COVID-19.”(34)
Notably, there are currently 17 trials examining its further effectiveness in treating Covid, along with another 50 other trials testing its impact on conditions as wide ranging as OCD, alcoholism, arrhythmia and autism. By reducing inflammation it protects the body from toxins, enhances the immune system and removes free radicals which contribute towards neuro-degenerative diseases and ageing.(35) It's easy to see why it needs regulating. People might start offsetting the effects of the shot, otherwise; especially, the graphene content:
“We demonstrate that N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) reduces graphene oxide (GO) at room temperature.... NAC adheres to the rGO surface as demonstrated by several spectroscopy techniques and avoids GO-mediated oxidation of glutathione.”(36)
Are there any other clues? It depends what you consider a clue. Sometimes, casting the net wide catches more than is useful. Like people popping up out of nowhere to seemingly do their bit – in one interpretation – or decide to get something unrelated off their chest at an unpropitious time, in another. For instance, Kissinger appeared at a Council for Foreign Relations meeting and said that AI will result in us possibly redefining what it is to be human. He may not have been thinking about us all being bar coded, but who knows? He is an arch globalist, after all, and they do like to give us a gentle heads-up.(37) That may be a little tenuous. On the other hand:
“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.”(38)
I think that might well qualify; particularly as it was written in 2008. We have news that the DARPA/Gates axis may well have already achieved some sort of authorization with the FDA, as their biosensor was slated for an attempt at approval early last year.(39) And, right on cue, another nerdy numpty from Sweden feels it's his right to get snotty with us about the scannable Covid passport chip that his company is marketing:
“This technology exists and is used whether we like it or not. I am happy that it is brought into the public conversation. New technologies must be broadly debated and understood. Smart implants are a powerful health technology.”(40)
An observation, if I may. It seems to me that it's only available because someone spent a lot of time and money making it available (presumably our bristly CEO or his lab coated minions). It's a pretty specific item. I think it unlikely that it happened into existence randomly. So, he – or someone like him – has decided that we should have these chips and they're now saying like it or lump it. So, once again, the scientists, instead of being handmaidens, are setting the agenda and we'd better join 'the public conversation' and 'understand'. There isn't the slightest hint that this debate and understanding might result in said chips being thrown into the nearest furnace. It's the same attitude that the 'hesitant' are subjected to; overweening arrogance.
But, once again, it normalizes something abnormal and introduces yet another technology that has been advanced on the basis that it can be done, rather than it should be done. It's the way people talk when they want to persuade you that tech has a life of its own, inexorably advancing and we'd better keep up if we know what's good for us.
So, what to make of it all? I don't doubt that graphene is in the 'vaccines'. A number of different sources have confirmed that. And it's not there just as a coating for the lipid nanoparticles. It's the major component of the shot. In my reading of the science, this cannot be an accident, nor can it be benign. The purported benefits of graphene are met when the cell is penetrated by the mRNA. I cannot see why it is necessary to include more graphene in the solution. To what beneficial purpose?
And have they already injected these biosensors into the compliant? It seems likely that they have, at least in some. We have the apocryphal stories of people themselves showing up on wireless networks as Mac addresses. Some of these tests are well conducted, if we are to believe the participants. Deserted beaches, isolated doctors’ surgeries in the middle of lock-downs. There are some gaps, although these are not of a type fatal to the hypothesis. I appreciate that a Bluetooth device has a limited range and would need to be relayed by a mobile 'phone, at present; although, if there is a 5G booster every 300 metres (as envisaged) this requirement may become moot. Clearly, a user would need to be complicit by utilizing an application to forward data on to some government entity. That clearly isn't happening at the moment, as it would rather give the lie to the official denials.
Again, it sounds fantastical until you realize that the technology exists and that the intention to implant biosensors within us beats in the breast of the Gates' of this world; and that the WEF appears to have admitted that it is already happening. It would hardly be the first time in this saga that the authorities have had us over, would it? I think the jury is out on Mac addresses, at the moment, but possibly not for long. And it's worth remembering; this type of biosensor system is being touted. That is not in doubt. So, if it's arrived ahead of time and without consent; what of it? Plenty of what is currently occurring is without informed consent.
If they believe they are correct and therefore have the right to circumvent accepted norms in order to 'protect' us in one aspect of this 'pandemic', is it so hard to believe that they would do it in another? I'm giving them the benefit of a massive doubt there, I know. The alternative view would be that the sensors have nothing to do with preventing the next 'pandemic', as we haven't had the first one yet and they are simply about control. I find that view difficult to refute.
We know that one of the tactics of people who wish to mislead is to move past the lies as swiftly as possible and onto firmer ground, never to revisit these vulnerabilities. That's where the obsession with 'settled science' comes in. But lies about the virus and the 'vaccines' are still lies; nothing's changed with the passage of time.
The mind recoils, sometimes. It's a result of discovering things that you can't get your head around. Not the science of it; the malign intent of it. It's not comforting in the slightest. It makes you question your judgement, which is no bad thing, I guess. There is a tendency to just say it can't be true, rather than following the evidence and most people gave up anything evidence based many months ago. They aren't being dispassionate, they aren't being logical, they aren't prepared to address what is happening because it's too painful and difficult. It would involve a fundamental realignment of a belief system. It would mean that many safe anchors would not longer be viable. It's distressing. But not as distressing as being completely had over is going to be.
If we really want to understand what's happening, it is incumbent upon us to think in a different way. Instead of running up against the psychological brick wall of “Why would they do that?”, we need to ask “Can they do that?” Attempting to divine their intent, their willingness to cross moral boundaries, is a subjective task. Genuinely following the scientific method and establishing what is actually possible is objective.
Assemble the evidence, establish what is possible and then face whatever conclusions present themselves. Graphene oxide is a case in point. If covidisfromaliens.org publishes a study (and only they or someone of their ilk do so), that's one thing – and, even then, shooting the messenger for being wrong about one thing may not be wise as they may be right about others. Factor in the academic papers advocating its use in vaccines, the fact that the technology is known to exist and has been developed by an agency of the US government and the answer to “What can they do?” becomes pretty straightforward. As is the question of whether, at times, they have.
Somehow, we must overcome the feeling of inevitability, of helplessness. Of believing that it is all one way traffic and the knowledge that pretty much every institution with power is opposed. That we are fated to lose. We must keep 'em peeled and fight on. Momentum can shift in a moment and there is some evidence that the tide is turning. That’s the subject of a whole other essay.
Citations
(2) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/internet-of-bodies-covid19-recovery-governance-health-data/
(3) World Economic Forum - Shaping the Future of the Internet of Bodies: New Challenges of Technology Governance, Briefing Paper, July 2020, p7.
(8) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hydrogel
(9) Ditto
(10) https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c05039
(11) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27493-0
(12) drrbertyoung.com/post/science-team-reveals-graphene-aluminum-lnp-capsids-peg-parasites-in-4-cov-vaccines
(13) drrobertyoung.com/post/transmission-electron-microscopy-reveals-graphene-oxide-in-cov-19-vaccines (14)https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/downloads/en/vaccines/nanotech-vaccines.pdf
(15) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26814441/
(16) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32531395/
(18) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2018.00012/full
(19) https://spectrum.ieee.org/europe-has-invested-1-billion-into-graphenebut-for-what
(20) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41428-020-0350-9?proof=t
(21) https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112220919A/en
(22) https://www.sinopeg.com/covid-19-vaccine-excipients_c138
(23) https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download
(24) https://www.fda.gov/media/144638/download
(26) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-moderna
(28) https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427
(29) https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-016-0168-y
(30) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27493-0
(31) Ou et al. Particle and Fibre Toxicology (2016) 13:57 DOI 10.1186/s12989-016-0168-y
(32) https://newatlas.com/graphene-bad-for-environment-toxic-for-humans/31851/
(33) https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/07/09/1222276110
(36) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30892320/