Several things:
1) It is incumbent upon the author of the article this freeper posts from, to provide the link for the study for my review.
2) I have some passing acquaintence with scientific documentation, and I read this (for s**ts and giggles). Note that Dr. Campra does not assert that there is graphene oxide in ‘high levels’, only that it is POSSIBLY present. He uses visual evidence, which is not a quantitative measure. Nor do I see any indication or references that this document is peer-reviewed.
3) But okay, let us stipulate that graphene oxide is presentin nominal amounts. So what of it? Graphene oxide has long been mentioned as a possible carrier for vaccines. I recall such talk back in the mid- and early-2000’s.
In short, it appears as though the original article creator is taking a few facts here and there and throwing them together for the most breathless, subscription- and revenue-generating article possible.
I agree that hype beyond the documented is often not helpful, which is why it is always good to go to ultimate source.
But all it took was googling the cited title to the study to find it online—and that is what you were claiming wasn’t available.
Visual evidence can be quantitative if passed through an image analysis s/w program.