Our Grave Concerns About the Handling of the COVID Pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK

Open letter from several healthcare professions to the UK government/administrators.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Mr Boris Johnson, Prime Minister

Ms Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister for Scotland

Mr Mark Drakeford, First Minister for Wales

Mr Paul Givan, First Minister for Northern Ireland

Mr Sajid Javid, Health Secretary

Dr Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer

Dr Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Officer

 

22 August 2021

Dear Sirs and Madam,

Our grave concerns about the handling of the COVID pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK.

We write as concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally “smeared” by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.

We are taking the step of writing this public letter because it has become apparent to us that:

  • The  Government (by which we mean the UK government and three devolved governments/administrations and associated government advisors and agencies such as the CMOs, CSA, SAGE, MHRA, JCVI, Public Health services, Ofcom etc, hereinafter “you” or the “Government”) have based the handling of the COVID pandemic on flawed assumptions.
  • These have been pointed out to you by numerous individuals and organisations.
  • You have failed to engage in dialogue and show no signs of doing so. You have removed from people fundamental rights and altered the fabric of society with little debate in Parliament. No minister responsible for policy has ever appeared in a proper debate with anyone with opposing views on any mainstream media channel.
  • Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.
  • The pandemic response policies implemented have caused massive, permanent and unnecessary harm to our nation, and must never be repeated.
  • Only by revealing the complete lack of widespread approval among healthcare professionals of your policies will a wider debate be demanded by the public.

In relation to the above, we wish to draw attention to the following points. Supporting references can be provided upon request.

  1. No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies

The evidence of disastrous effects of lockdowns on the physical and mental health of the population is there for all to see. The harms are massive, widespread, and long lasting. In particular, the psychological impact on a generation of developing children could be lifelong.

It is for this reason that lockdown policies were never part of any pandemic preparedness plans prior to 2020. In fact, they were expressly not recommended in WHO documents, even for severe respiratory viral pathogens and for that matter neither were border closures, face coverings, and testing of asymptomatic individuals. There has been such an inexplicable absence of consideration of the harms caused by lockdown policy it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this is willful avoidance.

The introduction of such policies was never accompanied by any sort of risk/benefit analysis. As bad as that is, it is even worse that after the event when plenty of data became available by which the harms could be measured, only perfunctory attention to this aspect of pandemic planning has been afforded. Eminent professionals have repeatedly called for discourse on these health impacts in press-conferences but have been universally ignored.

What is so odd, is that the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.

  1. Institutional nature of COVID

It was actually clear early on from Italian data that COVID (the disease – as opposed to SARS-Cov-2 infection or exposure) was largely a disease of institutions. Care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population. Hospital infections are the major driver of transmission rates as was the case for both SARS1 and MERS. Transmission was associated with hospital contact in up to 40% of cases in the first wave in Spring 2020 and in 64% in winter 2020/2021.

Severe illness among healthy people below 70 years old did occur (as seen with flu pandemics) but was extremely rare.

Despite this, no early, aggressive and targeted measures were taken to protect care homes; to the contrary, patients were discharged without testing to homes where staff had inadequate PPE, training and information. Many unnecessary deaths were caused as a result.

Preparations for this coming winter, including ensuring sufficient capacity and preventative measures such as ventilation solutions, have not been prioritised.

  1. The exaggerated nature of the threat

Policy appears to have been directed at systematic exaggeration of the number of deaths which can be attributed to COVID. Testing was designed to find every possible ‘case’ rather than focusing on clinically diagnosed infections and the resulting exaggerated case numbers fed through to the death data with large numbers of people dying ‘with COVID’ and not ‘of COVID’ where the disease was the underlying cause of death.

The policy of publishing a daily death figure meant the figure was based entirely on the PCR test result with no input from treating clinicians. By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat.

Moreover, in headlines reporting the number of deaths, a categorisation by age was not included. The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, higher than the average life expectancy when these people were born. This is a highly relevant fact in assessing the societal impact of the pandemic. Death in old age is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be said that a disease primarily affecting the elderly is the same as one which affects all ages, and yet the government’s messaging appears designed to make the public think that everyone is at equal risk.

Doctors were asked to complete death certificates in the knowledge that the deceased’s death had already been recorded as a COVID death by the Government. Since it would be virtually impossible to find evidence categorically ruling out COVID as a contributory factor to death, once recorded as a “COVID death” by the government, it was inevitable that it would be included as a cause on the death certificate. Diagnosing the cause of death is always difficult and the reduction in post mortems will have inevitably resulted in increased inaccuracy. The fact that deaths due to non-COVID causes actually moved into a substantial deficit (compared to average) as COVID-labelled deaths rose (and this was reversed as COVID-labelled deaths fell) is striking evidence of over-attribution of deaths to COVID.

The overall all-cause mortality rate from 2015-2019 was unusually low and yet these figures have been used to compare to 2020 and 2021 mortality figures which has made the increased mortality appear unprecedented. Comparisons with data from earlier years would have demonstrated that the 2020 mortality rate was exceeded in every year prior to 2003 and is unexceptional as a result.

Even now COVID cases and deaths continue to be added to the existing total without proper rigour such that overall totals grow ever larger and exaggerate the threat. No effort has been made to count totals in each winter season separately which is standard practice for every other disease.

You have continued to adopt high-frequency advertising through publishing and broadcast media outlets to add to the impact of “fear messaging”. The cost of this has not been widely published, but government procurement websites reveal it to be immense – hundreds of millions of pounds.

The media and government rhetoric is now moving onto the idea that “Long Covid” is going to cause major morbidity in all age groups including children, without having a discussion of the normality of postviral fatigue which lasts upwards of 6 months. This adds to the public fear of the disease, encouraging vaccination amongst those who are highly unlikely to suffer any adverse effects from COVID.

  1. Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere.

The harm caused by COVID and our response to it should have meant that advances in prophylaxis and therapeutics for COVID were embraced. However, evidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed. For example, a study in Oxford published in February 2021 demonstrated that inhaled Budesonide could reduce hospitalisations by 90% in low risk patients and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high risk patients too. However, this important intervention has not been promoted.

Dr. Tess Lawrie, of the Evidence Based Medical Consultancy in Bath, presented a thorough analysis of the prophylactic and therapeutic benefits of Ivermectin to the government in January 2021. More than 24 randomised trials with 3,400 people have demonstrated a 79-91% reduction in infections and a 27-81% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin.

Many doctors are understandably cautious about possible over-interpretation of the available data for the drugs mentioned above and other treatments, although it is to be noted that no such caution seems to have been applied in relation to the treatment of data around the government’s interventions (eg the effectiveness of lockdowns or masks) when used in support of the government’s agenda.

Whatever one’s view on the merits of these repurposed drugs, it is totally unacceptable that doctors who have attempted to merely open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID have been heavily and inexplicably censored. Knowing that early treatments which could reduce the risk of requiring hospitalisation might be available would alter the entire view held by many professionals and lay people alike about the threat posed by COVID, and therefore the risk / benefit ratio for vaccination, especially in younger groups.

  1. Inappropriate and unethical use of behavioural science to generate unwarranted fear.

Propagation of a deliberate fear narrative (confirmed through publicly accessible government documentation) has been disproportionate, harmful and counterproductive. We request that it should cease forthwith.

To give just one example, the government’s face covering policies seem to have been driven by behavioural psychology advice in relation to generating a level of fear necessary for compliance with other policies. Those policies do not appear to have been driven by reason of infection control, because there is no robust evidence showing that wearing a face covering (particularly cloth or standard surgical masks) is effective against transmission of airborne respiratory pathogens such as SARS-Cov-2. Several high profile institutions and individuals are aware of this and have advocated against face coverings during this pandemic only inexplicably to reverse their advice on the basis of no scientific justification of which we are aware. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence suggesting that mask wearing can cause multiple harms, both physical and mental. This has been particularly distressing for the nation’s school children who have been encouraged by government policy and their schools to wear masks for long periods at school.

Finally, the use of face coverings is highly symbolic and thus counterproductive in making people feel safe. Prolonged wearing risks becoming an ingrained safety behaviour, actually preventing people from getting back to normal because they erroneously attribute their safety to the act of mask wearing rather than to the remote risk, for the vast majority of healthy people under 70 years old, of catching the virus and becoming seriously unwell with COVID.

  1. Misunderstanding of the ubiquitous nature of mutations of newly emergent viruses.

The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains – especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination – is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of mutations of the original Wuhan strain have already been identified. Chasing down every new emergent variant is counterproductive, harmful and totally unnecessary and there is no convincing evidence that any newly identified variant is any more deadly than the original strain.

Mutant strains appear simultaneously in different countries (by way of ‘convergent evolution’) and the closing of national borders in attempts to prevent variants travelling from one country to another serves no significant infection control purpose and should be abandoned.

  1. Misunderstanding of asymptomatic spread and its use to promote public compliance with restrictions.

It is well-established that asymptomatic spread has never been a major driver of a respiratory disease pandemic and we object to your constant messaging implying this, which should cease forthwith. Never before have we perverted the centuries-old practice of isolating the ill by instead isolating the healthy. Repeated mandates to healthy, asymptomatic people to self-isolate, especially school children, serves no useful purpose and has only contributed to the widespread harms of such policies. In the vast majority of cases healthy people are healthy and cannot transmit the virus and only sick people with symptoms should be isolated.

The government’s claim that one in three people could have the virus has been shown to be mutually inconsistent with the ONS data on prevalence of disease in society, and the sole effect of this messaging appears to have been to generate fear and promote compliance with government restrictions. The government’s messaging to ‘act as if you have the virus’ has also been unnecessarily fear-inducing given that healthy people are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus to others.

The PCR test, widely used to determine the existence of ‘cases’, is now indisputably acknowledged to be unable reliably to detect infectiousness. The test cannot discriminate between those in whom the presence of fragments of genetic material partially matching the virus is either incidental (perhaps because of past infection), or is representative of active infection, or is indicative of infectiousness. Yet, it has been used almost universally without qualification or clinical diagnosis to justify lockdown policies and to quarantine millions of people needlessly at enormous cost to health and well-being and to the country’s economy.

Countries that have removed community restrictions have seen no negative consequences which can be attributed to the easing. Empirical data from many countries demonstrates that the rise and fall in infections is seasonal and not due to restrictions or face coverings. The reason for reduced impact of each successive wave is that: (1) most people have some level of immunity either through prior immunity or immunity acquired through exposure; (2) as is usual with emergent new viruses, mutation of the virus towards strains causing milder disease appears to have occurred. Vaccination may also contribute to this although its durability and level of protection against variants is unclear. 

The government appears to be talking of “learning to live with COVID” while apparently practicing by stealth a “zero COVID” strategy which is futile and ultimately net-harmful.

  1. Mass testing of healthy children

Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.

During Easter term, an amount equivalent to the cost of building one District General Hospital was spent weekly on testing schoolchildren to find a few thousand positive ‘cases’, none of which was serious as far as we are aware.

Lockdowns are in fact a far greater contributor to child health problems, with record levels of mental illness and soaring levels of non-COVID infections being seen, which some experts consider to be a result of distancing resulting in deconditioning of the immune system.

  1. Vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions.

Based merely on early “promising” vaccine data, it is clear that the Government decided in summer 2020 to pursue a policy of viral suppression within the entire population until vaccination was available (which was initially stated to be for the vulnerable only, then later changed – without proper debate or rigorous analysis – to the entire adult population).

This decision was taken despite massive harms consequent to continued lockdowns which were either known to you or ought to have been ascertained so as to be considered in the decision making process.

Moreover, a number of principles of good medical practice and previously unimpeachable ethical standards have been breached in relation to the vaccination campaign, meaning that in most cases, whether the consent obtained can be truly regarded as “fully informed” must be in serious doubt:

  • The use of coercion supported by an unprecedented media campaign to persuade the public to be vaccinated, including threats of discrimination, either supported by the law or encouraged socially, for example in co-operation with social media platforms and dating apps.
  • The omission of information permitting individuals to make a fully informed choice, especially in relation to the experimental nature of the vaccine agents, extremely low background COVID risk for most people, known occurrence of short-term side-effects and unknown long-term effects.

Finally, we note that the Government is seriously considering the possibility that these vaccines – which have no associated long-term safety data – could be administered to children on the basis that this might provide some degree of protection to adults. We find that notion an appalling and unethical inversion of the long-accepted duty falling on adults to protect children.

  1. Over-reliance on modeling while ignoring real-world data

Throughout the pandemic, decisions seem to have been taken utilising unvalidated models produced by groups who have what can only be described as a woeful track record, massively overestimating the impact of several previous pandemics.

The decision-making teams appear to have very little clinical input and, as far as is ascertainable, no clinical immunology expertise.

Moreover, the assumptions underlying the modeling have never been adjusted to take into account real-world observations in the UK and other countries.

It is an astonishing admission that, when asked whether collateral harms had been considered by SAGE, the answer given was that it was not in their remit – they were simply asked to minimise COVID impact. That might be forgivable if some other advisory group was constantly studying the harms side of the ledger, yet this seems not to have been the case.

Conclusions

The UK’s approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group – the elderly – the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children. Moreover your policies have failed in any event to prevent the UK from notching up one of the highest reported death rates from COVID in the world.

Now, despite very high vaccination rates and the currently very low COVID death and hospitalisation rates, policy continues to be aimed at maintaining a population handicapped by extreme fear with restrictions on everyday life prolonging and deepening the policy-derived harms. To give just one example, NHS waiting lists now stand at 5.1m officially, with – according to the previous Health Secretary – a likely further 7m who will require treatment not yet presented. This is unacceptable and must be addressed urgently.

In short, there needs to be a sea change within the Government which must now pay proper attention to those esteemed experts outside its inner circle who are sounding these alarms. As those involved with healthcare, we are committed to our oath to “first do no harm”, and we can no longer stand by in silence observing policies which have imposed a series of supposed “cures” which are in fact far worse than the disease they are supposed to address.

The signatories of this letter call on you, in Government, without further delay to widen the debate over policy, consult openly with groups of scientists, doctors, psychologists and others who share crucial, scientifically-valid and evidence-based alternative views and to do everything in your power to return the country as rapidly as possible to normality with the minimum of further damage to society.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Jonathan Engler, MB ChB LLB (Hons) DipPharmMed

Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS B Med Sci FRCS FFSEM,  Consultant Surgeon, ran vaccination program for a Polio Outbreak, Past President BOSTA, for Orthopaedic Surgeons, Faculty member FFSEM

Mr Tony Hinton, MB ChB, FRCS, FRCS(Oto), Consultant Surgeon

Dr Renee Hoenderkamp, BSc (Hons) MBBS MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Ros Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician

Mr Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB MD FRCSEd FRCS (Gen Surg) MIHM VR

Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician

Dr Alan Mordue, MB ChB, FFPH (ret), Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine

Mr Colin Natali, BSc(Hons), MBBS FRCS FRCS(Orth), Consultant Spine Surgeon

Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner

Click here for the complete list of signatories and if you wish to add your name to the letter.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Prime Minister Boris Johnson during a press conference on 16 March, with Chief Medical Officer Prof Chris Witty and Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance. Picture by Andrew Parsons

Stew Peters Show Interview with Former Pfizer Employee | Poisonous Graphene Oxide is 100% in the Vaccines

DEADLY SHOTS! Former Pfizer Employee Confirms Poison in COVID ‘Vaccine’ [Full Transcript]

I made this post: Doctors/Whistleblower: LARGE Amounts of Graphene Oxide Found in Certain COVID Vaccines detailing a few quotes/excerpts/studies that have purportedly shown that graphene oxide is indeed in the COVID vaccines. One source of information was from Karen Kingston, a former Pfizer employee and scientific data/clinical analyst.

While I highlighted some of the pertinent information from her interview focusing on graphene oxide in the above link, I also wanted to offer the whole transcript since she goes into further descriptions of her findings and the harm that graphene oxide can do to the human body.

The below video of the interview between Karen Kingston and the Stew Peters Show has been transcribed in full, with some emphasis added.

Stew Peters: “Well we have gone back and forth with fact-checkers – some independent researchers who have attempted to debunk the findings of Spanish researchers called La Quinta Columna, originally broken here on the Stew Peters Show by Dr. Jane Ruby. That video revealing that graphene oxide, a toxic substance – a poison!, was found in the Pfizer vaccines. Those researchers later found that the same applied to Moderna and AstraZeneca, is now being tested as a result of our reporting. The truth is here.

USA Today and Lead Stories, all funded by the cabal, were all over me, all over Dr. Jane Ruby, and out and out calling us liars for reporting those findings to the world in a video that has now soared over well I think about a million views on Rumble.

We have sought the input of many medical experts, world-renowned doctors, Dr. Jane Ruby, Dr. Tenpenny, Dr. Judy Mikovitz, Dr. David Martin, they have all confirmed that report. But despite all of that confirmation, the assaults on our truth continue.

On twitter, you may have recently been following the hashtag ‘pfizerleak’ [#pfizerleak]. We want to know what’s in them. We want to know if it was pre-planned. Who’s behind all of it. We want to know what to believe, so today we’re going to get the confirmation that we need.

It’s hard to fact-check documents. It’s hard to fact-check publicly discoverable propriotary ingredients. It’s hard to fact-check Karen Kingston. She is a former Pfizer employee, currently an analyst for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

Karen, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate your bravery. We admire your desire to expose the truth behind what appears to be, to me at least, one of the most, if not THE most, evil agenda mankind has ever been subject to.”

Karen Kingston @1:50: “Well, thank you for giving me a platform to share my findings and to spread the truth. And you’re right, it is extremely difficult to find this information and link it together.

I do have a unique set of skills, this is what I do in the industry; I analyze intellectual property, the legal landscape, for both physicians, pharma and consumers, and then I’m also a scientific writer and do the clinical analysis as well. So you can’t expect everyone to have that skill set to find this information, and the truth is I’m – you know, the whole do your own research was born out of the reality that the mainstream media has been lying to us and big tech and social media have been blocking the truth. And that’s why people have had to do their own research. And that’s – that violates our first amendment.”

SP: “Is graphene oxide in these shots?”
KK: “100% it is, and it’s irrefutable.”

Stew Peters @2:38: “So, just lay it out there. Is graphene oxide in these shots?”

Karen Kingston: “100% it is, and it’s irrefutable. And I’ll walk you through it.

So, what’s really important to know is that all of the mRNA vaccines contain what’s called a PEGylated lipid nanoparticle. And that’s what we’re going to go through. So if you take a look at the Moderna patent, it says, right there, that this contains lipid nanoparticle formulation. And as you go through the patent, which I’ll show you, they specifically talk about various ingredients and various PEGylated formulations that have alpha-numeric codes. And then you can also find them in the filings with the FDA with the IND [investigational new drug] and phase 3 trials for both Moderna and Pfizer. And you can also find them, you know, across the pond with the UK filings. I hope that’s making sense so far.

So here’s the important thing about the patent. I read the patent; it’s 193 pages plus attachments. And I read the patent to look for graphene oxide. It is not listed in the patent because it is a trade secret. So remember Bill Gates saying that there was a trade secret? Trade secrets are not, you know, privy to the public, so they cannot be in the patent. So graphene oxide is not listed in the patent, and it lists everything BUT that. But I’m still going to show you evidence that these contain graphene oxide and the patent in China that shows they contain graphene oxide.”

Stew Peters: “So let me just ask you, why would they put every other ingredient on the patent, with the exception of the standalone, graphene oxide? Why would they not put that on there?”

Karen Kingston: “I would say the number one reason is because it’s poisonous to humans and well-known that it’s poisonous to humans.

Yeah, and the other reason is because it is the main ingredient in hydrogel, which is the liquid, you know, AI template that’s used for some of Elon Musk’s, you know, research and Bill Gates, as far as that creating an interface between humans and, you know, the internet, if you will.”

Stew Peters: “So there is a legitimate theory that these shots are actually designed to create some sort of connectivity between humans, 5G – whatever this is, controlling your thoughts, your memories, all of these things, I mean, those are realistic and plausible possibilities?”

Theory: Humans as guinea pigs | Injecting people with as much graphene oxide as possible before they die

Karen Kingston @4:56: “That’s not possible with this round. They rushed this thing out. They’re just seeing, you know, how much they can put into people before they die, I think, honestly.”

Stew Peters: “So this is a dose finding study? Basically a live dose finding study, and those that are dying or multiple sclerosis, Guillan-Barre, these tremors, the magnetism, all these things – “

Karen Kingston: “Well remember, we’re supposed to get boosters every 6 months. So we’re gonna get graphene oxide boosters every 6 months, to see how much we can build up in the system. We’ll go through this, because when you see the nations that are being injected, we’re the guinea pigs, you know, and so once they perfect this technology, I think there’s a second plan. I actually am not super comfortable talking about this stuff, because I don’t like to, you know, opinions on things, you know, and hypothesize, so I’d rather just stick to the data, if that’s okay.

So if you take a look at chemical and engineering news, there is these non peer-reviewed journals, we call them RAGS in the industry, every industry has it. And it’s basically, you know, the whales of the industry, the who’s who, and they just kind of brag about what they’re doing. So this article talks about the PEGylated lipid nanoparticles that are in all the COVID-19 vaccines. And there’s 4 lipids. And I’ll go over this.

So the first lipid is cholesterol, and that’s, our body loves cholesterol, it makes it go through the blood. Then there’s a phospholipid; the phospholipid adheres to the cell membrane, so that allows permeability to enter the cell membrane. There’s an ionizable lipid, so that gives it a positive ionic charge to help penetrate the mRNA to get into the cell. And then there’s the PEGylated lipid.

And so the reason why they created these is because mRNA is very unstable. Whether it’s synthetic or zoonic, which means it’s from an animal, you know, or a human. It’s very unstable. 80 degree weather kills it. Sunlight kills it. If you breathe on it, it dies. I mean, and researchers all say this. It’s just – it rarely gets past the nasopharynx area of any healthy individual. It just – you know, your saliva kills it. It cannot survive on its own, so it needed this kind of biosphere that they created for it. And that’s why we have these four lipids and then they put the graphene oxide.

Now what’s interesting about the graphene oxide is that it’s 4,000 times stronger than titanium, and can withstand seventeen hundred degree fahrenheit temperature. So we took this very unstable virus, single helix virus, and we made it indestructible. Or “we”… they made it indestructible. So the PEGylated lipids, if you take a look, it’s ‘peg’: PEG, they’re made by a company called SINOPEG, which is [SINOPEG], and they’re located in China.

Now, how did I find this out? Well if you take a look at the Pfizer EUA filing, they list the 4 lipids – they have 2 lipids, each of which have 4 lipids of them in there, and so does Moderna. And Moderna’s is called – it’s called a Material Safety Data Sheet, this is what they use in industrial products. And it has a cast number, and there’s is SM102 for Moderna; and then if you go to Pfizer’s filing with the UK, the number – the 2 lipids that are in there, are called ALC0315 and ALC0159.

So when I googled MSDS cast, don’t ask how I know all this information, and I put in some of those numbers, I found SINOPEG. I didn’t find SINOPEG by googling SINOPEG. I literally put in the MSDS number. And so if you go to the website, you’ll see the, you know, extremely long, like I don’t know, hundred alpha-numeric name of each of these lipids. And you’ll see it under a tab called COVID-19 Excipients. And it says ‘polyethylene glycol PEG 2000’, right? And then here you’ll see it’s ALC0159, and this company is located in China. And then if you pull from the patent, from the Moderna patent, it lists out all the different polyethylene glycol 200, PEG 200, PEG 2,000, and you will find those listed under the COVID-19 Excipients in SINOPEG.

So… it’s right there. It’s manufactured in China. And so, there’s other vaccines that are mRNA vaccines that are not being sold in the United States. You can find those excipients here too, by the cast number, the Material Safety Data Sheet cast number.

Graphene oxide as a conductor of electricity | “positive charge annihilates anything that it comes in contact with”

Karen Kingston @9:15: And so if you want to know what is graphene, you know, what they explain here on SINOPEG, is, it is the ‘core-shell structure polyethylene glycol functionalized graphene for energy-storage polymer dielectrics: combined mechanical and dielectric performances’. So what that means is that graphene is a conductor – it can be a conductor of electricity. If it has a positive charge, and this is in all the – some of the studies from the NIH and Moderna and stuff, if graphene gets a positive charge, it annihilates anything that it comes in contact with. Right now they’re not charged. They’re neutralized.

You know, well like, how does a positive charge get into the cell? That’s that other lipid. That ionizable lipid that gives it the positive charge for cell penetration. But these currently are not – they’re neutral, they have a neutral field. But if they are, if there’s an electrical magnetic field that activates a positive charge, potentially there’ll be damage and potentially death, depending on where these nanoparticles ended up in people’s bodies and how much of them did.”

Stew Peters: “So it’s apparent to me that they’re lying, to the world. (Karen Kingston: “Yeah.”) They’re trying to hide this; this is the secret ingredient.

Lead Stories, USA Today, and all these other publications fact-checking this program, it appears to me that they are out and out lying. We’re going to get to who’s in on all of this in a minute, because I’m going to ask you, but, why are they using this graphene oxide? It’s a toxic substance, it’s poisonous. Why would – why are they using it?”

Karen Kingston: “Because it’s a great conductor of electricity and it can host magnetic field. So it can literally – it can connect you to the internet. That’s why.”

Stew Peters: “All right. I just wanted to make sure that I was clear on that. Because I know that you’re not comfortable opining opinions, things like that, but I just wanted to make sure factually that that’s what it can do, that’s what it’s capable of doing.”

Karen Kingston: “Yeah, and I mean, I haven’t had the chance, but I could probably go into some tech publications and AI publications, and we can find more information on how graphene oxide is a great electromagnetic – “

Graphene oxide is poisonous/toxic – Who’s responsible for it being in the vaccines?

Stew Peters @11:24: “Well the bottom line is that it’s poisonous. It’s poisonous (Karen Kingston: “It is poisonous.”) – it annihilates if it has a positive charge; it annihilates anything that it comes into contact with. It’s toxic for humans, it should not be in there and it is. That is what I needed to know. Who’s behind this? That’s what I’d like to know. Who’s behind all of this?”

Karen Kingston: “Well, I don’t… so, hold on, I didn’t put this in here but, there’s a company called Shanghai Nanotech, and they filed a patent, and you can – for graphene oxide for the use in COVID-19 excipients, and this is a meeting of them at their headquarters and that looks like, I think his name is Tal Zaks, the chief technology officer for Moderna, and if you go to the World Health Organization website, there is a page where they talk about how the global world needs to work together on these COVID-19 vaccines. It’s from some time last year. And you’ll see the usual suspects there. You’ll see like Peter Daszak and the names from Moderna and several names from the NIH and NIAID, so… there is a large group of billionaires and millionaires, many many times over that have coordinated for the development and execution of these products.” 

Stew Peters: “So you knowing this, you bringing this confirmation, why would the – I guess, I mean this is opinion, so you can just tell me if you’re not comfortable answering this, but I gotta ask, why would people like President Trump, Ron DeSantis, Sean Hannity, what do they have in – what stake in the game do they have? How do they not know this stuff? They have – I mean…”

Attempts to expose these vaccines as bioweapons are silenced/censored

Karen Kingston @13:05: “No, there’s no way they can know this stuff. I want to be…[long pause], when I – sorry, when I found out, when I read this information, I didn’t know a woman could cry as hard as I cried.

So I sent an email out on May 26th, to about 30 outlets with this information; I sent an email summarizing that these are bioweapons. I even spoke to – and I don’t mean to be disparaging to anybody, I even spoke to American Frontline Doctors and stuff and after I spoke to them, you know, some of the doctors still went on saying, “Oh, as long as you’re – if you’re under 30 you shouldn’t get the vaccine.” And I called them up and I’m like, “What the hell are you doing? These are bioweapons.” They’re like, “We can’t say that.

So the cognitive dissonance of the depravity and the evil of these “vacc” – injections, is very difficult for anyone to understand. And you have to also understand that for the whole year and a half these were being developed, anyone that came out and said, “Hey, this virus isn’t that bad”, they were mocked, they were ridiculed, they were ostracized, doctors were threatened to have their license taken away. So the truth couldn’t get out there. And then when people, anyone that was questioning about the speed for any of these vaccines to market, the need for them, even the FDA documents, they talk about “Hey, we don’t think someone under 18 should get these things. We’re worried about viral shedding.” If you show this like here – the manufacturing section of the application is redacted!

No one in good conscience should have approved this. But there is such brainwashing going on, such control of what basically the big tech wanted us to know as “the truth”, which was a bunch of lies, that it’s very difficult then for when someone says to you, “this is what’s going on”, to believe it.

I would compare it to anyone that’s been in a marriage where they had a spouse that was cheating on them. Your friends can tell you they’re cheating, there’s tons of evidence, but you are not going to believe it. You’re not going to believe all your trusted – all your trusted advisors have been telling you this stuff is safe, everything on the media says it’s safe, and then someone says “No. It’s actually lethal, and this is a planned, you know, planned genocide.” It’s impossible to believe.

Stew Peters: “Wow.”

Karen Kingston: “Does that make sense?”

Questioning people’s complicity with these agendas

Stew Peters @15:25: “Yeah, and, you know, I’m just, I’m having a hard time. I mean, honestly, I mean, I’m a human. You know. And so just knowing people that have subjected themselves to this inoculation; knowing how hard, how difficult it is to have a conversation with somebody, doing what I do, downloading to my brain, terabytes of information, every single day. Trying to determine what’s real, what’s not, what’s mis- and what’s dis-information? Who’s deepstate, who’s trying to throw me off, who’s controlled opposition?

You know, I mean it really – it happens. It sounds like some kind of a sci-fi movie, but you’re living in it, so you understand. I’m just trying to process all of this as you’re saying it. And I’m imagining, you know, people in the media. You know, I’m imagining, you know, people that they don’t understand that there are billions of lives at stake, or maybe they do, which makes it even worse. Because they’re complicit in this. They’re part of this – the carrying on of this.

And then, I think about everybody who’s going to be mandated; these shots. Um, listen, I’ve – Karen, I got an email this morning. I got an email this morning from a very concerned mother, of a young woman, who is going to be attending a Christian college in South Carolina. And they’re going to mandate this thing for her. 18 year old young woman with her entire life ahead of her. And she’s just one of millions of stories like this that are happening here in this country. What we’re doing to our young people. Poisoning them.

And so, then you got healthcare workers. I mean, I have a dozen emails in the last 48 hours from nurses, healthcare workers, doctors, people who are working at these facilities, in these clinics at these hospitals that are going to be mandated this. They don’t want to do it, they need help! And, you know, the DOJ is telling everybody that they can do this. The governors can mandate this, that businesses can mandate this. And so…”

“There’s no benefit to your health when you get injected;
the only thing it can do is poison, harm and kill.”

Karen Kingston @17:15: “Well, the DOJ – just because someone says something, especially in this current administration, doesn’t make it true. Okay? The DOJ can say, “We recommend this is mandated. We’re saying that this is  – we mandate these vaccines.” But I, you know, it’s a memo, I read the memo, okay? It’s a memo that was written by Dawn Johnsen. She’s the acting assistant attorney general to the president, saying that, under title code 21, section 564, you can – private companies and local governments can mandate the vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization.

Her interpretation is reckless, and it has no merit. So it’s just an opinion. It is not enforceable. Period. You know. And on top of that, what’s happened with these vaccines, or these injections, these EUA injections, not only is all the campaign and the propaganda a bunch of lies to terrify people into getting injected, which is a violation of human rights in and of itself, on top of that, she doesn’t mention title code 21 in her memo, which is what this falls under, because they violated 4 other sections of that title code under drug safety: drug and vaccine safety.

They have, under section 502, it’s false and misleading labeling, because this thing is NOT a vaccine, there’s no benefit to your health when you get injected; the only thing it can do is poison, harm and kill. So there’s false and misleading labeling. It doesn’t tell you that it contains graphene oxide. Adulterated drugs and devices, it also violates section 501, which again, adulterated drugs and devices is if it includes a toxin, which is the graphene oxide.

It also violates section 312.23 under initial new drug application. So if you go through an IND, you have to prove safety in animals before you move on to humans. They signed a letter of intent for pregnant rats. If that doesn’t make you furious, and we’re injecting pregnant women? And under the IND it says that if there is shedding, if there is risk to people of child-bearing age, then you need to stop the trial.

We KNOW there is shedding. We KNOW there is risk to child-bearing age. And the FDA even talks about it in their protein therapy and oncolytic virus that treatments that shedding is a real thing and you need to do animal studies first, then you need to do phase 1 human studies, and if there is, you know, if there is shedding, then you need to come up with controlled measures so that you don’t infect the uninjected. Which is what’s going on right now. They also violate section 312.42, which is clinical research holds and request for modifications. So that says if any of these things, I said, there’s at least 3 dozen, you need to stop the trials.”

Difference between trials of the past, and the COVID injections

Stew Peters @20:08: “Trials have been stopped when 25 people die; when 6 beagle dogs die.” 

Karen Kingston: “They were supposed to have stopped the trials when they did the mice study, and all the mice – 80% died in 24 hours, and the rest died by the end of the week.  […] They should’ve stopped the trials – “

Stew Peters: “But there is no threshold here. Is there? I mean – that’s the bottom line. There is no threshold. It doesn’t matter how many people die, they will continue this incessant push, won’t they?”

Karen Kingston: “Until American people speak up, and say ‘Enough is enough. Stop it!’ They will keep pushing us until, you know, they basically wipe out America. And they’re going after the children. Which is what is so disheartening. There is a – there will be no posterity. There will be no America. You know, if people of child-bearing age become infertile, and then children are at most risk for having serious adverse events and death from these injections. I mean, just look at the myocarditis numbers. They’re 1 to 25,000 reported, we know that’s at least 10%, which would be 1 in 2500, and it’s probably more like 1 in 250, which would be 4% of children are getting – having decades taken off their life or dying.

Stew Peters: “I am up against a hard break. And I have to go. Will you come back on this program? Because, we are dedicated to the truth. You are a wealth of information, and I’ve got so many more questions that I would like to continue this conversation with you. Will you promise to come back? I mean, are you comfortable with doing that?”

Karen Kingston: “Oh yeah! No, I’d love to be on. If I’m not comfortable answering your question I’ll just say that I’m not comfortable answering the question. I’m okay with saying that.”

Stew Peters: “Yeah, because I mean I have so many more, and I know that there’s going to be pouring out of questions on my social media and my DMs and my protonmail, ‘please ask her this’. And so I just want to reserve the future opportunity to have that conversation with you.”

Karen Kingston: “Absolutely. And I sent you a lot of the documents from the FDA website and the patent office and – “

Stew Peters: “We’re going to post all of those at stewpeters.tv. Karen Kingston, thank you so much.”

Karen Kingston: “Put it all up there. And, I do, I drafted letters to healthcare associations, and I’ve just been so busy, but obviously after talking to you I will finish those letters today, so that people can send them to their employer and they can send them to their school, they can send them to healthcare providers saying that, you know, I have the right to informed consent. I’m not saying it’s going to stop them from getting fired. But what will happen is eventually justice will prevail and our constitution always prevails, and you will have evidence that they can’t, they can’t plausibly deny that they didn’t know this information.” 

Stew Peters: “I believe that to be a 100% true, and I appreciate your optimism because that is what I’m trying to hold on to here as well. Unbelievable.

Thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate it.

The Stew Peters Show continues in 60 seconds. Go nowhere.”

Stew Peters @22:51: “You know what this is, right? Number 2 pencil? Everybody’s got one. Everybody’s got – everybody remembers filling out tests-  we should all be filling out our ballots with these number 2 pencils. That’s what we should be doing. But you know what’s in the tip of every number 2 pencil, right?

Lead! Put it on paper, it turns into graphene; that’s graphite, right? Lead! They want to inject you with lead. Lead is poisonous. Graphene oxide is poisonous. Graphite is poisonous. This is – they want to inject your children with lead!

‘Oh, but it’s just a little bit, Stew. It’s just a little bit. Don’t worry about it. Just a little – just a tiny little bit of lead.’

Remember when they wanted to inject the world with just a little tiny bit of mercury? It’s not going to – the point is, it’s not going to stop, unless you stop it. I stop it. Unless WE stop it. And you can. No matter what weight, no matter what muscle they come at you with; the federal government – blablabla, propaganda this –

No! They cannot mandate this. Mandates are NOT legal, not at work, not at school, nowhere! They are not legal; they cannot force you to inject yourself or your children with this poison! Please! Share that video everywhere. We have once again been vindicated.

So USA Today, Lead Stories, Politico, all these other people you – if you google Stew Peters and click on news, you’ll see right now, “No graphene oxide!” We showed it in the segment. What are they going to do? Redact? Retract? Correct? I don’t think so. Say ‘NO’. Do not allow them to do this to you or your kids.”

[outro promotion for CBD @24:21]

Really appreciate the Stew Peters Show and Karen Kingston for informing us and reporting about the composition of these vaccines and the possible agendas that are in place.

They, as well as others speaking up, show great integrity and bravery in exposing these egregious narratives and spreading awareness so that people can make their own educated decisions and be discerning to the corruption and lies that surround us due to government/big tech/mainstream media/”health” & pharma industries’ collusions to keep the truth hidden.

And a big thank you to everyone for reading and being/becoming informed. If you have already taken the COVID vaccine, please read up on some resources that may be able to help reduce the toxicity of the injection from your system.

How to Neutralize Potential Damage from mRNA Vaccines (I take no liability or responsibility for the remedies listed at this link. It is just one source of information that may be beneficial in reducing vaccine harm. Please research further and get in touch with HONEST doctors to find the best treatment for you. Anyone who is blindly “trusting the science/the experts” and endorsing the COVID vaccines is NOT HONEST; and if they are honest, then they are honestly misinformed/deceived.)

Featured image by nts01 from Pixabay

Doctors/Whistleblower: LARGE Amounts of Graphene Oxide Found in Certain COVID Vaccines

Proof with patents/documents and lab results shows that graphene oxide is in the vaccine.

Researching this subject of course brings up several “fact-checking” websites set on debunking this claim; however, as educated individuals have found out, these fact-checking websites serve one main purpose – and that is to perpetuate only one side of the narrative, even if they’re WRONG.

So instead of me attempting to fact-check the fact-checkers or debunk the doctors/scientists – which I know I can’t do since I am not adept in their fields, my sole purpose in this post is to point out what these doctors/scientists ARE saying and let people decide for themselves what may be the truth.

Of course, the truth is the truth and nothing can change that, but with so much misinformation and misleading content running rampant in today’s world, it’s crucial to scrutinize all of the information and discern the truth from the lies.

The following quotes/transcripts offered here allege to have found a substantially dangerous amount of graphene oxide in several different vaccines. And some speculation as to why these same companies are insisting that just one shot, two shots, booster shots, etc., may not be enough.

(…Again, I’m not a scientist. But what would multiple doses of large graphene oxide amounts do in the human body, especially if it is administered several times per year?… Another haunting question, why have there been graphene oxide found in masks and test swabs as well?)

Graphene Oxide in Jabs, Masks and Swabs

La Quinta Columna discovers large amount of graphene oxide in the vaccination

The following excerpts (timestamps were added for the time of the subtitles) were taken from orwell.city / La Quinta Columna: ‘98% to 99% of the vaccination vial is graphene oxide’ Please visit their site for a full transcript and video of the interview.

Ricardo Delgado @3:43: “Graphene is toxic, it is a chemical, a toxic chemical agent. Introduced in the organism in large quantities, it causes thrombi. It causes blood clots. We have all the scientific articles to back it up. It causes post inflammatory syndrome, it causes alteration of the immune system. And when the redox balance is broken, in the sense that there is less of the body’s own reserve glutathione than an introduced toxicant such as graphene oxide, it generates a collapse of the immune system and a cytokine storm. In other words, something very similar to the fashionable disease, isn’t it?”

José Javier Esparza: “The entire COVID disease. And then you, who already suspected what all this was about, got a vial of vaccination and took it to the Public University of Almeria.”

Ricardo Delgado @5:51: ” – because remember that the marketing of face masks was stopped precisely because they carried graphene particles, both a run of 500 thousand in Madrid, in La Rioja, in Castilla-La Mancha, etc., in a large part of the world and in Canada. You all know that masks with nanotechnology, such as those of Decathlon, and with the graphene symbol, are still being marketed. So, what we have to ask ourselves is: if the masks were removed because they caused or could cause pulmonary affections by introducing the graphene toxicant, how is it possible for it to be introduced into the vial? Moreover, in a considerable amount.

What we have found there, according to what the university that has done this study says, is that the main component is precisely graphene oxide and in a very small amount of something else, but above all it is graphene oxide. And given that all the people who are inoculated with the Pfizer vaccine, which was the one we sent for analysis, as well as Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson&Johnson, Janssen, Sinovac, and all types of vaccines acquire magnetic properties, we suspect with many indications that they all contain more or less doses of graphene, of graphene oxide.”

Ricardo Delgado @7:36: “It seems that the body has a certain capacity to naturally eliminate graphene oxide through certain immunological mechanisms. Once inside the body it acts as if it were a biological agent as such, as if it were precisely SARS-CoV-2. precursor of glutathione. So that is why, we probably suspect, they are trying to introduce a second and a third dose. Now intranasally. They are already talking about new intranasal vaccines with graphene oxide nanoparticles. Both for influenza and COVID-19, because in aerosols it is much more potent.”

Ricardo Delgado @11:53: “98% to 99% of the vial is precisely graphene oxide, that is, the main component of the vaccine is graphene oxide.”

Former Pfizer employee CONFIRMS La Quinta Columna’s findings of graphene oxide in the vaccines

(Some excerpts with corresponding timestamps and embellishment added for emphasis):

Stew Peters: “Well we have gone back and forth with fact-checkers – some independent researchers who have attempted to debunk the findings of Spanish researchers called La Quinta Columna, originally broken here on the Stew Peters Show by Dr. Jane Ruby. That video revealing that graphene oxide, a toxic substance – a poison!, was found in the Pfizer vaccines. Those researchers later found that the same applied to Moderna and AstraZeneca, is now being tested as a result of our reporting. The truth is here.

USA Today and Lead Stories, all funded by the cabal, were all over me, all over Dr. Jane Ruby, and out and out calling us liars for reporting those findings to the world in a video that has now soared over well I think about a million views on Rumble.

We have sought the input of many medical experts, world-renowned doctors, Dr. Jane Ruby, Dr. Tenpenny, Dr. Judy Mikovitz, Dr. David Martin, they have all confirmed that report. But despite all of that confirmation, the assaults on our truth continue.”

Karen Kingston @1:50: “Well, thank you for giving me a platform to share my findings and to spread the truth. And you’re right, it is extremely difficult to find this information and link it together.

I do have a unique set of skills, this is what I do in the industry; I analyze intellectual property, the legal landscape, for both physicians, pharma and consumers, and then I’m also a scientific writer and do the clinical analysis as well. So you can’t expect everyone to have that skill set to find this information, and the truth is I’m – you know, the whole do your own research was born out of the reality that the mainstream media has been lying to us and big tech and social media have been blocking the truth. And that’s why people have had to do their own research. And that’s – that violates our first amendment.”

Stew Peters @2:38: “So, just lay it out there. Is graphene oxide in these shots?

Karen Kingston:100% it is, and it’s irrefutable. And I’ll walk you through it.

So, what’s really important to know is that all of the mRNA vaccines contain what’s called a PEGylated lipid nanoparticle. And that’s what we’re going to go through. So if you take a look at the Moderna patent, it says, right there, that this contains lipid nanoparticle formulation. And as you go through the patent, which I’ll show you, they specifically talk about various ingredients and various PEGylated formulations that have alpha-numeric codes. And then you can also find them in the filings with the FDA with the IND [investigational new drug] and phase 3 trials for both Moderna and Pfizer. And you can also find them, you know, across the pond with the UK filings. I hope that’s making sense so far.

So here’s the important thing about the patent. I read the patent; it’s 193 pages plus attachments. And I read the patent to look for graphene oxide. It is not listed in the patent because it is a trade secret. So remember Bill Gates saying that there was a trade secret? Trade secrets are not, you know, privy to the public, so they cannot be in the patent. So graphene oxide is not listed in the patent, and it lists everything BUT that. But I’m still going to show you evidence that these contain graphene oxide and the patent in China that shows they contain graphene oxide.

Stew Peters: “So let me just ask you, why would they put every other ingredient on the patent, with the exception of the standalone, graphene oxide? Why would they not put that on there?”

Karen Kingston:I would say the number one reason is because it’s poisonous to humans and well-known that it’s poisonous to humans.

Karen Kingston @4:58:They’re just seeing, you know, how much they can put into people before they die, I think, honestly.

Stew Peters: “So this is a dose finding study? Basically a live dose finding study, and those that are dying or multiple sclerosis, Guillan-Barre, these tremors, the magnetism, all these things – “

Karen Kingston:Well remember, we’re supposed to get boosters every 6 months. So we’re gonna get graphene oxide boosters every 6 months, to see how much we can build up in the system. We’ll go through this, because when you see the nations that are being injected, we’re the guinea pigs, you know, and so once they perfect this technology, I think there’s a second plan. I actually am not super comfortable talking about this stuff, because I don’t like to, you know, opinions on things, you know, and hypothesize, so I’d rather just stick to the data, if that’s okay.”

Karen Kingston @9:15: And so if you want to know what is graphene, you know, what they explain here on SINOPEG, is, it is the ‘core-shell structure polyethylene glycol functionalized graphene for energy-storage polymer dielectrics: combined mechanical and dielectric performances’.

So what that means is that graphene is a conductor – it can be a conductor of electricity. If it has a positive charge, and this is in all the – some of the studies from the NIH and Moderna and stuff, if graphene gets a positive charge, it annihilates anything that it comes in contact with. Right now they’re not charged. They’re neutralized. You know, well like, how does a positive charge get into the cell? That’s that other lipid. That ionizable lipid that gives it the positive charge for cell penetration. But these currently are not – they’re neutral, they have a neutral field. But if they are, if there’s an electrical magnetic field that activates a positive charge, potentially there’ll be damage and potentially death, depending on where these nanoparticles ended up in people’s bodies and how much of them did.”

Karen Kingston @11:47: ” – there’s a company called Shanghai Nanotech, and they filed a patent, and you can – for graphene oxide for the use in COVID-19 excipients, and this is a meeting of them at their headquarters and that looks like, I think his name is Tal Zaks, the chief technology officer for Moderna, and if you go to the World Health Organization website, there is a page where they talk about how the global world needs to work together on these COVID-19 vaccines. It’s from some time last year. And you’ll see the usual suspects there. You’ll see like Peter Daszak and the names from Moderna and several names from the NIH and NIAID, so… there is a large group of billionaires and millionaires, many many times over that have coordinated for the development and execution of these products.” 

Dr. Andreas Kalcker’s team finds graphene oxide in the vaccines

There is also further confirmation of Ricardo Delgado’s findings from Dr. Andreas Kalcker’s team, showing similar research results and investigations of graphene oxide in the vaccines.

The following excerpts (timestamps were added for the time of the subtitles) were taken from orwell.city / Andreas Kalcker’s team confirms evidence of graphene oxide in ‘vaccines’ Please visit their site for a full transcript and video of the interview.

Dr. Isignares @00:12: “For example, there is an issue that concerns us a lot because we had already detected certain things in the vaccines. And that’s that these vaccines contain graphene oxide. It’s been verified by electronic microscopy by someone from our team. The question is: why is there graphene?”

Dr. Andreas Kalcker: “To make it crystal clear. What varies is the biological composition of the vaccines. What doesn’t change in any of them, and that’s in all of them, are the crystals that are present in different amounts. They’re present in all the vials. There is both the magnetite, which has a Chinese patent, by the way. It’s patented. You can see… It’s not magnetite. It’s graphene.

Dr. Andreas Kalcker @1:51: “What happens then? The body needs its electromolecular capabilities to work. The heart beats because there’s a magnetic field that creates, subsequently, the electricity for pumping and everything else. And, therefore, what graphene is doing is that it’s completely altering our electromagnetic field. Something that has never happened before. And, let’s say, what we’re seeing is something ‘in vivo’ with some dramatic effects.

To understand more, we have also been watching a lot of videos of people who are dying after being vaccinated. There’re others where you see people spasming. These spasms have, for example, very specific frequencies, and they are, basically the same in all kinds of spasms. These spasms, clearly indicate that there is a disruption of the human electromagnetic fields.”

Research and studies proving that graphene oxide is being attempted to use in vaccines

It’s almost humorous that all of these fact-checking websites are refusing to acknowledge that there might be large amounts of graphene oxide in these vaccines, although the doctors/scientists above have allegedly found evidence that it does, and there are also some published studies that might suggest that graphene oxide will be used in vaccines as well. (please let me know if any of the links are no longer working)

An article on pubmed published the following research in 2016:
Functionalized graphene oxide serves as a novel vaccine nano-adjuvant for robust stimulation of cellular immunity

“Our work not only presents a novel, highly effective GO-based vaccine nano-adjuvant, but also highlights the critical roles of surface chemistry for the rational design of nano-adjuvants.”

Another article on pubmed published this research in 2018:
Effects of Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles on the Immune System Biomarkers Produced by RAW 264.7 and Human Whole Blood Cell Cultures

“These applications include batteries, super capacitors, drug delivery and biosensing. However, few studies have investigated the effects of these nanoparticles on the immune system.”


The current study shows that GONPs modulate immune system biomarkers and that these may pose a health risk to individuals exposed to this type of nanoparticle.”

And yet another article from pubmed published in 2020:
Recent progress of graphene oxide as a potential vaccine carrier and adjuvant

“Our work describes the surface modification of graphene oxide and for the first time summarizes that functionalized graphene oxide serves as a vaccine carrier and shows significant adjuvant activity in activating cellular and humoral immunity. In the future, it is expected to be introduced into vaccine research to improve the efficacy of vaccines.”

“Keywords: Adjuvant delivery; Antigen delivery; Functionalized-GO; Immune adjuvant; Vaccine adjuvant; Vaccine nano-carrier.”

There is also this study showing how graphene oxide can inhibit certain responses, such as anxiety, fear, etc. (which, just theorizing, may perhaps take away someone’s natural instinct to perceive danger or threats…) when injected into certain parts of the brain. (Which also begs the question… what happens when this material gets injected into other parts of the brain…)

Soothing the symptoms of anxiety with graphene oxide

Of course the title of the link downplays the implications that this graphene oxide can cause – which seems to be a manipulative tactic that people employ to try and convince others of the benefits of a potentially dangerous substance and/or decision. And while on the surface drugs and medicines may have advantageous effects, we can’t overlook the possibility that others may use the same drugs and medicines/procedures/gene therapy, etc. and twist it to fit their own purposes.

From the same link:

“Serge Picaud, Deputy Leader of the Graphene Flagship’s Biomedical Technologies Work Package, comments: “This work provides another great demonstration of the therapeutic potential of graphene, used either alone or included in a medical device.”

Now I propose a theory of my own: In the near future, the same fact-checking writers/articles that were “debunking” all of the ‘graphene oxide in vaccines research’ will state something to the effect of: “Even though there is graphene oxide in the vaccines, there’s no reason for alarm” and/or “The graphene oxide material found in vaccines are not large enough to cause harm”, etc., etc., until the headlines change once again to state, “Why too much graphene oxide in your system is detrimental to your health” and “Further booster shots will not contain graphene oxide due to its dangers”.

Only time will tell…

Thank you to the Stew Peters Show and all those exposing this egregious corruption.
And a special thank you to Orwell City for translating and transcribing the videos with Ricardo Delgado and Andreas Kalcker & team.

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by seagul from Pixabay

Get an Earful

DARPA BRAIN Initiative – Inhumane Experimentations Using Fusion Centers and Electromagnetic Fields to Control & Torture People - "If they want to experiment on you, by the thousands, they will. And you can be driven to insanity and death"
The “FEW” Involved in the “WEF” | Davos and the Purloined Letter Conspiracy. Klaus Schwab’s “Global Leaders of Tomorrow” - "A conspiracy like this could never happen because 'too many people would be involved'." ...
Senator Ron Johnson’s “A Second Opinion” Panel: Renowned Doctors and Medical Experts Discuss Medical Tyranny and Vaccine Injuries/Deaths (Highlight Video – FULL TRANSCRIPT) - Dr. Pierre Kory: "And that’s what I wanted us to be clear that we’re calling attention to today. This is corruption! Plain and simple, it’s corruption!”