So at the end of June when the FDA announced that they would be adding a warning to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines of a rare heart inflammation side effect (myocarditis), many of us were surprised - not that the vaccines can cause heart inflammation, but that the FDA actually admitted it! Perhaps the most shocking part of these side effects is that they are most pronounced in younger shot recipients, those who have the lowest risk of Covid-19 itself.
Join us on this episode of Objective:Health where we discuss the heart complications resulting from mRNA vaccinations.
And check out Objective:Health on Brighteon!
For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:
♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth
♥LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@objectivehealth:f
♥Odysee: https://odysee.com/@objectivehealth:f
And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here:
♥https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16H-nK-N0ANdsA5JFTT12_HU5nUYRVS9YcQh331dG2MI/edit?usp=sharing
Running Time: 00:32:10
Download: MP3 — 29.5 MB
Here is the transcript:
Erica: Hello and welcome to Objective: Health. I am your host today Erica, and joining me in our virtual studio are Doug and Elliot and behind the scenes is Damian.
Hellos.
Erica: So welcome all. Thanks for tuning in. More interesting and frightening news to share today. Today we're going to talk about jabbing kids. Is the treatment worse than the disease? I'd say most definitely. There's a lot of information coming out now about side effects from the covid vaccine, particularly the mRNA vaccines in children over the age of 12, young adults, adolescents, tweens, whatever you want to call them.
So I wanted to mention to folks, if you did not get a chance to watch the show that we did back on April 20 of 2021, called Kids and Covid Shots, we talked for about half an hour about the serious concerns about giving children this covid-19 vaccine, considering the fact that they're really not at risk and do the benefits outweigh the risks? Now we're starting to receive information and stories about how the risks are much greater than the benefits. One of those stories that came across the news feed is the WHO recently came out saying children should not be vaccinated for the moment and this was carried by The Defender which is part of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s website. Megan Redshaw wrote the article and it discusses how the WHO has recently updated guidance and actually changed the wording once again and Damian has an image of that that you can share.
So they have an editor's note in the article that says, "After a publication on June 22, the World Health Organization edited its guidance on who should get the covid vaccine by REMOVING the sentence 'Children should not be vaccinated for the moment' and instead saying that 'A panel of experts' - I wonder who they are - 'had found the vaccine is suitable for use by children over the age of 12.' The red hairline box was added to highlight the sentence that was removed and so you can check that out for yourself if you're interested. Pretty scary stuff.
There's quite a lot of information in this short little article but it's very enlightening, as we talked about in our show three months ago. One argument for not vaccinating children against covid is that they have relatively little benefit from it. There's a sub-header in the article for kids, Benefits of CoV Vaccines Don't Outweigh the Risks. They're pointing to Pfizer's trial of 12-15 year olds which supported the recent UAE. "The Harms Outweigh the Benefits and Those who had the placebo were better off than those who received the vaccine."
So every moment we're getting more and more information. One last thing: Kim Witczak, an FDA consumer representative expressed great concerns over the premature approval of covid vaccines for children, said, "Data showed children are neither in danger or dangerous and the growing evidence of harm caused by covid vaccines should not be ignored."
Doug: Interestingly enough, the FDA has just come out and added a warning about a rare heart inflammation happening in young adults with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, both of which are the mRNA ones. I was actually surprised and glad to see this, that they actually are adding this warning so that the word will get out there about this. Of course when you go through this article, which was a Reuters article, it was called FDA To Add Warning About Rare Heart Inflammation to Pfizer and Moderna Vaccines, I was pleasantly surprised to see that they were doing this. Of course within this article they probably used the word rare about 50 times. I'm exaggerating of course but they keep on going on and on about how rare this condition is. "Don't worry about it, it's rare, it's rare, it's rare. Keep getting your vaccines. Don't worry."
But rare is pretty subjective. Yes, it is rare if you look at per 100 million I think it was 12 per 100 million was the number. So technically that is rare, but some people are still going to be affected by this. I'm just glad that the warning is getting out there so that people are a little bit more informed because the media loves to spread around the idea that these vaccines are completely, 100% safe, there is no danger whatsoever in getting them and you're just being selfish if you don't get it.
Well now there's a chance that people under 30 might end up with a heart condition. I'm just glad that that's getting out there somewhat and I'm surprised that the FDA would actually do that.
Erica: In that article it says that the CDC said that patients with heart inflammation following vaccination generally recover from the symptoms and do well. What does that even mean?
Doug: Do well.
Erica: And then they go on to say, "We strongly encourage everyone aged 12 and older who are eligible to receive the vaccine under emergency use authorization to get vaccinated." That's Reuters for you. Wow!
Doug: What the warning specifically is talking about is reports of myocarditis and pericarditis which are different inflammations of the heart, the cardiovascular system. The funny thing is, one article that we looked at for this was another one from Reuters which was actually from back on May 7th. It was called "EMA Reviews Reports of Rare Nerve Disorder After Astrazeneca's Covid-19 Shot". Astrazeneca is not an mRNA one, so this is an article about the non-mRNA and they're talking about a rare nerve disorder that's a side effect from this.
Well buried down at the bottom they say, "On Friday the EMA also said it was looking into reports of heart inflammation with Pfizer BioNTech," the vaccine Moderna shot. It said, "There was no indication at present that these cases were due to the vaccines." It goes on and on and on. This was two months ago, that they were already reporting on looking into this issue but they buried it at the bottom of one where they were slamming Astrazeneca.
We've talked on this show about how we're no fans of any of these vaccines obviously, but we have commented in the past that it is rather curious that the publicized side effects are all coming out about the non-mRNA ones. Astrazeneca, Johnson & Johnson. Those are the ones where all these reports of side effects are coming out. For a while there anyway until recently, the Pfizer and Moderna were getting off scot-free, despite the fact that there were reports of things like cardiovascular issues. So it seemed like from early on they were pushing people towards the mRNA vaccines and people away from the viral vector ones.
Erica: I noticed this a couple of months ago even before we did that covid kids shot show, how all of a sudden in mainstream you were seeing - particularly here in the US - the side effects from Johnson & Johnson. Having followed this vaccine topic for over 20 years, it was the first time you actually saw public, mainstream information coming out about vaccine side effects. Previous to that you would never - and I know I've mentioned this before, but I just thought, "Wow this is really interesting that they're really trying to target these non-mRNA vaccines like the Johnson & Johnson. We don't have the Astrazeneca one in the US but we do have the J&J.
I've even said to people who have asked me - I tend to be very limited in my sharing of information with the average person, but if you do have to get it, get the Johnson & Johnson one. So I just found that that was very interesting that all this mainstream stuff was coming up about the side effects which never has happened before. So that's just a small observation. If you pay attention to those details, they do paint a pretty bleak picture.
Elliot: One of the shows that we did a couple of weeks back, a month ago now, we were talking about a paper written by an Israeli scientist looking at the cost benefit analysis of mass vaccination campaigns and his hypothesis was that the stronger the immune system or the more robust the immune system, demographics which have good robust immunity, for instance children, would have a greater level of side effects. That was his theory and that was before they had been rolling out vaccines for children, if I'm correct.
So he was saying theoretically that because children have better immune systems they are likely to have very severe and potentially longstanding consequences to a much greater degree than the average person or elderly adult would. Does this surprise you, right? We've seen a bunch of different side effects. Loads of people having adverse events, but it seems as though some of the worst or most severe ones and the ones that are actually getting reported on are the ones with children. And I suspect this is probably, again like we said last week, the tip of the iceberg because we have so few children who've actually been vaccinated in comparison to the rest of the population!
Really, the children are the last ones to have even been offered the vaccine. So really, the fact that we've seen so many adverse events and there's been so much publicity already, I would not be surprised if the theory put forth by the Israeli researcher is correct.
Doug: Yeah.
Elliot: I find it particularly saddening in the case of children because children can't make decisions for themselves. That's the problem. They're not responsible for making decisions about their health. They're relying on their guardians to make informed decisions for their best interests. Unfortunately what we're seeing is that parents are basically giving their kids over to big pharma. It's what it seems like. They are just handing over their kids and we're seeing kids drop dead like flies. Like you've said, the ones who don't have an immediate death, they get a "mild" form of pericarditis or myocarditis or whatever it is and then they recover. But the question is, what's the long term side effects of that?
Doug: Exactly.
Elliot: Does this mean that this is going to predispose them to heart failure? Doug, you were telling me the other day that there was a statistic showing that pericarditis or myocarditis earlier on is a predisposing factor for going on to develop early stage heart failure, right?
Doug: Was I telling you that?
Elliot: Maybe you weren't. (laughter}
Doug: I don't remember that.
Elliot: Maybe it wasn't you who told me that. I do apologize. Anyway, that is something that someone told me. Now I'm not sure. I would imagine because of the damage that you do to the heart during inflammation - that's what these conditions are, inflammation of the lining or muscle of the heart - then it's very possible that this could lead to something further on down the line and is something that unfortunately can't really be predicted.
Erica: Which is so fascinating to me because with all the traditional vaccines that they give children, they sit there and tell you you've got to get the measles/mumps/rubella, you've got to give the kids the HIB, the polio to prevent illness later in life, right? So as a parent you're thinking, "Okay, I'll take my chances because I don't want my child to get this illness later in life." And now you're giving a product to children that is going to cause this illness later in life. As you said Elliot, the informed consent - again, I shared on a previous show - states in the United States are changing the age of consent to 12 years old! Twelve to 18 children now can get a free ice cream, they can go to a live concert, if they get vaccinated. So they are putting this wedge in the family, which is a whole other discussion for another show, but telling children "Go out and get this. You don't need parental consent." This is having very serious side effects.
I remember as a parent, they'd tell you, "Your child has a one-in-10,000 chance of contracting the illness from the vaccine. So now you're having this obviously more than one in 10,000 event with children. Like you said, the children don't understand. They're still very in the moment at that age. They're not thinking, "Well when I'm 30 I might die of a heart attack."
So it is so nefarious and like everyone here on this show, it just makes my blood boil because how are they even getting away with this on any real level? Where are all the advocates for children's rights? And there are people out there that are advocating for more information and we're seeing it. It's coming out. We just did a show last week about the spike protein and Dr. Bridle had talked about how in Canada they don't even have information on teen trials and the duration of the clinical trials for teens and children. You already know that. They don't have the information and let's just go ahead with it anyway. Why not? Let's just see what happens.
Doug: And the kids will do anything for a free ice cream basically. So it's incredibly effective.
Elliot: Without going into specifics, I know that there's at least one example and probably many others, of individuals who've had a loved one die, a child. There was a case of a 13-year-old boy who died of pericarditis, some kind of cardiac event that led to a heart attack. They found that he had an enlarged heart. So even after knowing a child had died from taking this vaccine, in this particular case the family member essentially said that she would still recommend that all children are vaccinated, that she would still recommend that her own children were vaccinated, that she would still recommend that her family's children were vaccinated.
So the programming runs so fundamentally deep. Even these people after having a loved one die of an event because of a vaccine, they still recommend that everyone else should get it. It's just bizarre really. It's totally bizarre. It's very difficult to understand this kind of mindset I think but it seems as though they have so much faith that the authorities are doing their best to 1) provide honest information and 2) essentially look out for their health. They are exporting all of the responsibility that they should be taking for their own health and putting it in the hands of big pharma essentially. As long as that happens we're going to see parents and guardians hand over their children.
Even if, like you said, they're lowering the age of consent, that's irrelevant. That's completely irrelevant because children are so suggestible at that age. They're not competent to make one of those decisions. These children can't drink alcohol. There's a good reason for that. They can't drive cars. There's also a very good reason for that. So why on earth would they be able to make a decision about getting a vaccine or not.
So ultimately it's going to come down to the parents and the guardians. Unfortunately it seems that there are that many people who have the utmost faith in the authorities and the information that's provided to them that I don't see this slowing down. And although we see the WHO recently saying that children should not be vaccinated at the moment, will this actually stop anything? The WHO has made recommendations in the past about things. Just because the WHO makes recommendations does not necessarily mean that we're going to see an immediate slow down in vaccination rates among children. Sometimes it can take a while to filter through.
It's one of those things where it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out and exactly what comes of this. I know the way I would HOPE to see it play out, I would HOPE that there would be people on the streets putting their foot down and saying, "I'm sick of this!" Will that happen? Maybe but probably not.
Erica: Well I think you do see it happening a little bit with Dr. Malone who created the mRNA vaccine coming out on the Bret Weinstein Show and recently Dr. Pierre Kory and Bret Weinstein were on the Joe Rogan Show and they called it an emergency podcast. I think that these people know there's something really wrong here and we could lose everything, we could lose our funding as scientists, we could lose our credibility, but as we have said before on many other shows, their conscience is, "We've got to do this. We've got to let people know because what is the price of not sharing the information that you have, to your soul, really or to your being as a person."
So I think that we are seeing it. And then we see the censoring just on fire again and all the misinformation that comes out. Doug or maybe it was Damian, was sharing how "It's not true. Those guys aren't saying that kind of stuff. It's safe and effective." They always go back to that trite, "It's safe and effective. It's safe and effective" as every day more and more really damning information comes out. When the guy who invented the technology comes out and says, "This is bad news and we knew about it", that's pretty damning evidence, I think.
Doug: It's true. Elliot, you were saying it's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. It makes me wonder because I think this is the tip of the iceberg. We're seeing the immediate effects. We're not seeing the long term, long range effects yet. I'm just wondering if future generations are going to be crippled, absolutely crippled generations. Once you start to see these long term effects coming out, people aren't going to be able to do anything. They'll be sick all the time, an entire generation of sick people. I don't know.
Elliot: And when we factor that in, before the covid stuff, what were we talking about? What have we been talking about for six years?
Erica: Yeah.
Elliot: The other toxic stuff.
Doug: All the other stuff.
Elliot: There have been hundreds of different shows of different topics of all the things that negatively affect our health. And back then we were saying, "This is so terrible! How are humans ever going to continue on because we're exposed to so much toxic stuff!" Now we throw the covid vaccine into the mix. Humans are relatively resilient, right? We've made it this far and even though everything is toxic it seems as though we're exposed to so much junk, we still somehow manage to kind of cope, even though it does make us sick in some respects. But if we look at the death rate, the survival rate, people generally live longer than they ever did before, or at least in recorded history.
Quality of life is questionable. It's difficult to say. It could go either way. It could be just something that human beings adapt to in some way and they're like, "Okay, this is really bad and some people die but other people manage to adapt." I don't think it's going to be like that, I'm just being the devil's advocate here.
Doug: Yeah.
Elliot: On the other hand I am probably more in agreement with you that we are going towards a downward slope, a downward spiral.
Doug: Definitely seems to me.
Elliot: And this would be just another one of the probably key things which is enough to massively affect our health.
Doug: Well it's a good point. I do find it kind of funny that covid has come along and just wiped everything else off of the front page. We actually do sit around and say, "Why don't we do a show not about covid?" It's very difficult. The non-covid news. You don't find much of it. None of that stuff has gone away. All the stuff we were talking about - the GMOs, the other vaccines, all that kind of stuff, the toxicity, the estrogens in the environment, all the stuff that we've been talking about for years - none of that stuff has gone away.
So all this stuff about the covid vaccines is really just compounding the issue. It's the most present one, the most important one at the moment, I'd say. But yeah, you're right Elliot. It's just one more thing added onto the pile. I'm glad you're hopeful for it although I don't know that I am. {laughter}
Erica: I'm hopeful too Elliot. I feel like if anything, this is going to get people interested who may not have been interested before, or at least they start to see the very glaring information coming out. One of the articles that we read for this show that I just want to share some information from was called The CDC is Investigating Reports of Heart Inflammation in Young Covid Vaccine Recipients. This was carried in the New York Times which is again, kind of shocking, that a mainstream news outlet would carry such information.
But I just wanted to share. It says,
The cases seem to have occurred predominantly in adolescents and young adults about four days after their second dose of one of the mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer. The cases were more common in males than females.So I find that kind of interesting. They said,
Most cases appear to be mild and follow-up of cases is ongoing, the vaccine safety group said.So now the CDC comes out and strongly recommends covid vaccines for Americans ages 12 and older. So they say all that and then they strongly recommend it and then they go on to write,
We look forward to seeing more data about these cases so we can better understand if they are related to the vaccine or if they are coincidental.You're saying in this article you think this is coincidental?! That all of a sudden young males in particular are dying of heart attacks?!
Elliot: But also, what they're saying is, "We want to experiment."
Doug: Yeah.
Elliot: "We're happy for our children to be the experiment because then we can look at the data after the fact"!! That's what they're saying. They're saying offer your children up as guinea pigs and then we'll make our decision instead of doing all of the safety trials beforehand to come to that conclusion before administering en masse. It's the opposite way round to how it should actually be, no? Sorry I cut you off Erica.
Erica: No. You're making a very important point, that we're going to continue to give it to them so we can collect more data because you are the experiment. So now the big joke is for those of us who are unvaccinated, we're the control group.
Doug: Yeah.
Erica: We are the control group in this experiment because in all experiments you have to have a control group. The children should be the control group! No children under 18, they're not at risk. They should be the control group. Children should not be vaccinated, period! I stand very strongly - with the covid vaccine. I am not pro-vaccine. I'll just share that. {laughing} I know we did a show a while back about Nuremberg and all that. I know Doug, you have no faith that that will come to pass.
Doug: It might, but I think it would be a show trial. I don't think the people who are really responsible for this stuff, we'll never see brought before a tribunal or anything like that. That's my feeling anyway. Maybe I'm just being cynical.
Erica: No, I think you're being realistic.
Doug: Yeah.
Erica: I think you're being realistic. We know that because all pharma making this vaccine were given immunity beforehand. So they set up that whole structure from the very beginning. They cannot be held accountable. I think they knew that they should take away accountability because there would be side effects. They knew that.
Doug: When are there ever not side effects? Somebody name me one pharmaceutical drug that doesn't have any side effects. Zero. It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. So of course they know there's going to be side effects. Of course they know there's going to be issues. That's why it makes me so mad when the media tries to portray it as being 100% safe. No pharmaceutical is 100% safe so how are you going to tell me that this vaccine is? It doesn't make any sense.
Erica: They always throw that word 'effective' in there as well. 'Safe and effective'. It's just trotted out. It's mind programming, straight up, especially for parents. "It's safe and effective, it's safe and effective. They would never do anything to harm my child."
Doug: And there's no data to show that it is safe and effective. They're talking out their ass, as usual.
Erica: Yeah. So anything else? For those who are interested, who actually want to read all of the reports about this - and again it does seem to be predominantly male as opposed to female which I find kind of interesting in that respect - you can look on SOTT.net. They have an extended, probably 10 or 15 articles to go through just of the side effects for children.
So anything else? Anything new? Elliot, Doug, Damian, that you'd like to add for today?
Doug: I think we've covered it.
Erica: And as always, the information will be ongoing. Things change. New information comes out. We just hope that parents in particular, but people in general understand you, and especially children have a very low incidence of dying from covid. If you get it then you have lifelong immunity. If you get the vaccine that wipes out all of the lifelong immunity. Right now the way that it looks, you're much better doing vitamin C, vitamin D, alternative health approaches to stay healthy. Keep your children safe. Let them get outside. Don't make them wear a mask. We can go on and on and on. Listen to our previous shows.
Thank you guys for joining me today. Please like and share our video. There's lots of sharing going on, lots of alternative health researchers are talking about these types of topics. I know sometimes the information can be overwhelming but better we know now, than not. Thank you all and I hope you have a wonderful day.
Good-byes.
Reader Comments
It really breaks my heart.
RC
may look for xscript, thx for vid. link.
Aussies learn that their High Court has already ruled that under law, they can refuse ALL government ‘mandatory’ vaccinations.
[Link]
..
So, as long as it doesn't impose civil conscription.
I have never encountered an etiological argument as comprehensive as this. Graphene oxide as the etiological agent for COVID-19 explains:
1. Why glutathione/ N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is the most effective treatment for "COVID-19" (and incidentally how HCQ and Ivermectin work against it)
2. Why children and athletes are mostly unaffected (they have sky-high glutathione levels)
3. Why the over 65s are the most affected (they have decreasing glutathione levels with age)
4. Why people lose O2 saturation
5. Why areas with 5G saturation see more COVID (EMF [5G] excitation of graphene oxide in the body causes immediate loss of oxygen)
6. Why governments banned gyms and outdoor exercise
7. Why governments locked people in their homes (low vit. D is associated with low glutathione levels).
STOCK UP ON GLUTATHIONE, VIT. D, AND N-acetylcystine NOW!
Please, read through the microscopic study they performed.
In a vial intended for making 6 doses (i.e. undiluted), the quantity of "graphene oxide" (it's probably graphite oxide, I'd bet) was estimated at ~750 nanograms / microliter (w%/v%), based on %UV absorbance spectra between 260-270nanometer wavelength ; WHICH THEY THEN REPORTED AS THOUGH IT'S W%/V%, WHICH IS APPROACHING SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. 98-99% w%/v% "graph.. whatever", carbon, is like a block of charcoal that a drop of water happened to precipitate upon; or really they're saying the vial (solution) is saturated with graph (solute) and that is bogus.
Please, this is not a large amount of this compound that they found, and their misrepresentation of that is highly questionable. The "vial" they tested is FAR from "98-99% [W%/V%] GRAPHENE OXIDE"; they're deduce that 98-99% UV absorbance between 260-270nm is seemingly from G.O., but the amount of solute (G.O.) in solution (constituent solvent in vial, e.g. glycerin, + solute) is around 700 pico grams / milli liter which is miniscule.
Graphite oxide or graphene oxide are not going to be strong oxidizing or reducing agents, in my opinion, but I'll have to make double sure on that. Following their premise, the "graph*mumblejumblejarglejumblegarbagebundle* oxide" is "depleting" (more like oxidizing) glutathione , which would mean glutathione is being used to quell a oxygen-radical ion that draws away a reducing equivalent (hydrogen) from Glut. I cannot imagine why graph oxide would be a strong oxidizing agent, but I'll investigate.
better advice overall incorporates Vitamin C, melatonin, r-s-sodium-alpha lipoate (or just r-@lipoic acid), perhaps *reduced* glutathione, N-A-C; providing reducing equivalents ("anti-oxidants"). and get 50g collagen/gelatin a day to boot ffs that'll help.
Hypothesizing an amount from a previous injection is sequestered in the body, and then set off remotely with radiation causing an oxidative burst. If there are different amounts in different people that'd be a factor, and a test of their anti-oxidant reserves.
"When glutathione is high we have no problem, but when graphene oxide exceeds glutathione in the balance it causes the collapse of the immune system and triggers a cytokine storm. And how does graphene oxide exceed glutathione? Well, by electronic excitation. That is to say, it bombards it, oxidizes it more rapidly, and the balance between oxidants and antioxidants in the organism is much higher for the former, thus rapidly triggering the disease."
Not sure it follows that an oxidative injury is going to cause immune system collapse and cytokine storm.
"Everything, everything leads us to believe that N-acetylcysteine worked because it reduced —as it is an endogenous precursor of glutathione— directly the graphene oxide. So we have a weapon there; it is the famous lifelong mucolytic that people have been treated with. We have seen clinical trials with hundreds of patients who were in the ICU, on a respirator and intubated, practically on the verge of death. With bilateral pneumonias caused by the spread of graphene oxide and subsequent 5G radiation in the lung plaques. Well, this diffuse stain in these patients is symmetrical, which would not happen with a biological agent since it would be rather asymmetrical, as for example when there is a pneumococcal infection, right? Well, in that case a diffuse stain usually appears in one part of the lung, but not in another, not in both symmetrically. So when treated with glutathione via direct intravenous —or even orally as well— or with N-acetylcysteine 600 mg or higher doses, people within hours began to recover their oxygen saturation because, of course, they raise their glutathione levels to cope with the toxin that has been introduced or that has been excited, electronically speaking."
Yep, I like their theory, too, Tsidkenu. Up the N-Acetyl Cysteine, sure.
[Link]
was graphene oxide, graphite oxide, graphene nanoparticles NOT listed in the ingredients, and THEN discovered? that would be news. if it was published and known to be in there, this pinche pequinta culo sus puedan comer mi bota
G.O. was the cause of COVID-19? It was injected in flu shots, they say. Then it was tuned by electromagnetic bidding, that everybody knows about... I still don't understand how they can misconstrue the reporting on the current vials they're testing.
Doubt I understand how it goes, though. The G.O. is looking like a catalyst could set off a chain reaction. But,it underwent massive oxidation in production, and I think it could be stable unless touched off.
Editorial on Chin Ac Sci development: Scientists Report Rapid, Green Synthesis of Graphene Oxide Using Electrolytic Oxidation [Link] from 2018
"Graphene oxide is typically produced from graphite using strong oxidizing agents. The current routes to graphene oxide have significant disadvantages. The Brodie and Staudenmaier methods, which use KClO3 and nitric acid to oxidize graphite, both produce dangerous gases and present an explosion risk. The more commonly used Hummers’ method uses concentrated H2SO4 and KMnO4 for oxidation. However, reactive intermediates produced by the Hummers’ method can also cause explosions. All three methods produce copious amounts of chemical waste and can produce graphene oxide that is contaminated with metal ions. For this reason, researchers have been searching for new, greener, and more efficient methods to produce graphene oxide."
"The reported method used a two-step electrochemical process. First, flexible graphite paper is subjected to electrochemical intercalation in concentrated H2SO4 to form stage-I graphite intercalation compound paper (GICP). The GICP then undergoes water electrolytic oxidation in dilute H2SO4. The graphite oxide produced is then exfoliated in water to produce graphene oxide."
"The electrochemically synthesized graphene oxide has similar properties to graphene oxide produced using the Hummers’ method, with a similar structure, degree of oxidation, and oxygen-containing functional groups. The team demonstrated the use of their graphene oxide in transparent conductive films, flexible and strong papers, and ultra-light elastic aerogels."
That sounds like it'd be the best current version. I'd be more concerned with environmental accumulations, and then yeah, sure, that electromagnetic bidding everyone knows about lol... than wth the mini bit in the vial. maybe we don't have normal metabolism for the stuff and a bit in the bloodstream is worse than ingestion, but I'd bet the liver grabs it and shunts it. Let's see if we can find it in vivo.
[Link]
[Link]
Crucial article on Rockefeller University's server, which contains scientific publications and general summaries of Professor Jeffrey M. Friedman's research from 2016 to 2017, which created a groundbreaking mouse radio remote control technology. who, after pressing a button, are forced to feed for a fraction of a second because they get very hungry, although this is not true, only they switch neurons with an engineered nano-switch that switches the neuron in the mouse brain, which informs the mouse brain system about a sharp drop in blood sugar and the mouse immediately runs to the feeder and begins to stuff himself, even if it is a falsely connected neural signal.As early as 2013, Professor Friedman used this wireless neuron control technology to release insulin in mice.
The switch mounted on the neuron contains ferromagnetic iron oxides, which are encapsulated in a polymer on a viral carrier, which serves as a switch that switches and rotates when it enters the electromagnetic field of the radio transmitter. The carrier is nothing but an adenovirus. Yes, exactly the one used in vaccines! The mouse begins to feed each time the button is turned on, over and over again, until it eventually stutters due to a perforation of the stomach due to the enormous pressure of the food.
Friedman and his colleagues demonstrated radio remote control of appetite and glucose metabolism in mice - a sophisticated technique for wirelessly changing neurons in animal brains. By simply pressing a switch, they are able to induce hunger in mice or suppress their appetite while mice live normally. It is a tool they use to discover the neurological basis of food, and it is likely to be used to study other types of behavior that are firmly entrenched in the brain.
Jeffrey M. Friedman has been working on this technique for several years with Sarah Stanley, a former post-doctoral student in his laboratory, who is now an associate professor at the Icahn School of Medicine in Mount Sinai, and with Fensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The group was aware of the limitations of existing methods of triggering brain cells in live animals, and therefore decided to invent a new method. They thought that the ideal approach should be as invasive as possible and as harmful as possible. And it should work quickly and repeatedly.
[Link]
[Link]
Let me see if I'm getting your point about the magnets on the hand.
If I am understanding what you are suggesting. Are you saying that you think it's possible that the mechanism that originally made a person put a magnet on their arm/hand-was (their mind being controlled?) To be fair, it was mostly on the arms; initially anyway. On, or very close to the injection site. I do get what you are saying- and I asked myself that very question. Who thought of putting a magnet on their jabby? It's quite a bizarre thing. The information that there was potentially a chip in the vaccine was floated out in the intra-sphere first. Perhaps that is what prompted a person somewhere to put a magnet on their arm? Now there are people who have not only magnets but whole menagerie of metal objects that appear to be sticking to them. I'm sure you've seen the videos. AND what is even more troubling and concerning is that there now seems to be UN-Vaxxed people who are slowly becoming magnetic. You have probably seen the foods that are turning up with this same magnetic ability?
I wonder now if the graphene oxide component of vaccine, which is heavily oxidized, might hit ferritin and light it up. Then, that cluster of iron could be magnetizable? I still haven't seen this magnet trick business.
👉Sequoia Pharmacutical (later Pfizer) files a patent on the detection and treatment of the disease on April 28th 2003.
👉SARS "outbreak" in Asia in 2003.
👉Rinse and repeat for Covid