Graphene Oxide Is the Main Ingredient in Covid Jabs Says Former Pfizer Employee

Editor’s Commentary: For the last couple of months, readers and sources have encouraged us to cover Graphene Oxide. The toxin that is almost certainly found in the Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines,” among others, may be the key to uncovering the conspiracy being perpetrated against American and the world.

I’ve held back for three reasons. First, and I’m just being frank, it’s over my head. I’m not a scientist, doctor, or even a particularly smart guy. My early research revealed to me that I needed an adult to explain it all, which brings me to the second reason I haven’t covered it. There weren’t the right “adults” talking about it. I generally lean on the expertise of people like Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny to guide me through the science surrounding the so-called “vaccines.” None of them have gone after Graphene Oxide, at least not that I have seen, so I waited.

The third reason I haven’t tackled the conspiracy is because we had not seen high-profile real-world examples of reporting on it. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting I wait around for mainstream media to report on something before I consider it legitimate. On the contrary, one of the reasons I explored it in the beginning was because mainstream media was conspicuously attempting to suppress or debunk discussion about it. What I was waiting for was the “accidental” reports of loosely related stories that mentioned the toxin. That happened over the past week, as the article from Free West Media details below.

Graphene Oxide Is the Main Ingredient in Covid Jabs Says Former Pfizer Employee According to a former Pfizer employee and current analyst for pharmaceutical industries, graphene oxide nanoparticles are the key ingredient in Biotech’s Covid-19 shots, the product which is being marketed as a “vaccine”. But bad news from Japan may have an impact on this marketing strategy.

In an interview with Stew Peters on July 28, Karen Kingston said graphene oxide was not listed as an ingredient, because the manufacturers claimed that it was a trade secret. It was therefore not included in Biotech’s patent filing as an ingredient in the Covid-19 shots, since it is purported to be the intellectual property of the pharmaceutical giant.

Kingston explained that while the ingredient was redacted from Pfizer’s US patent due to its alleged status as a “trade secret”, it was actually included in Pfizer’s Chinese patent application.

According to Kingston, the Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine are essentially the same injection. It is therefore interesting to note that in the July 2020 Moderna patent [US #10703789B2], lipid nanoparticles, the phospholipid, the cholesterol, the cationic (positive ionic-charged lipid) and the PEGylated polyethylene glycol lipid are also listed as was done for the Pfizer product.

The Chinese patent described the compound hydrogel, composed primarily of graphene oxide. She has no doubt that these jabs contain the ingredient that the Japanese government has now alluded to in their ban on alleged “contaminated” vials of these products. “I’m as confident that graphene oxide is in these as I am that gravity exists,” she said. She also underlined that graphene oxide was the “main ingredient in the Covid shots”.

Like India, Japan has launched the discussion of the success of Ivermectin to treat Covid-19.

There are at least 2000 studies on graphene oxide toxicity and 500 of them were published in 2017. Graphene oxide has been developed for biomedical gene and drug delivery under the EU’s “Graphene Flagship” programme.

The EU programme spent billions of euros on testing gene delivery for an intranasal SARS-Cov-2 flu vaccine containing graphene oxide. In fact, in China a patent was filed and approved last year, using graphene oxide nanotechnology in gene and drug delivery and diagnostic purposes for a “Coronavirus vaccine”.

Moderna had previously developed graphene oxide for cancer treatment since it had specialized in cancer cures, not vaccines. Moderna had been a struggling oncology cancer therapy company, before its surprising success as a “global leader” in “vaccines”.

Japan has now reported yet another “contamination case” involving Moderna’s (MRNA.O) vaccine, the fourth such incident in less than a week, suggesting that the country’s inoculation campaign is about to hit a wall. Moderna claims that it was caused as “bits of the vials’ rubber stopper break off when needles are incorrectly inserted”.

The bad news from Japan may have also pushed two leading FDA members to resign. The two top vaccine officials, Marion Gruber, director of the Office of Vaccines Research & Review, and Phil Krause, her deputy director, announced their decision on Tuesday. Gruber has been at the FDA for 32 years and Krause has worked at the agency for more than a decade.

They had been “frustrated” by the CDC’s meddling in the vaccine approval process, as well as with White House pressure to market booster vaccines, a former top FDA official told Endpoints.

After two animal trials that resulted in the death of all the animals, graphene oxide was deemed to be unfit for use in humans due to its toxicity to healthy cells as well as vaccine-induced ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement) resulting in the immune system destroying itself.

Leading virologist Professor Dolores Cahill, world-renowned virologist Geert Vanden Bossche and Pfizer whistleblower, Dr. Michael Yeadon have all warned of the danger of ADE.

Animal studies had already confirmed that graphene oxide enabled “self-replicating vaccines“, i.e. transmission.

In his last interview, Julian Assange described the advances in this kind of nano-technology which graphene oxide made possible. It is a world in which computers are as small and weightless as dust particles. These mini machines, invisible to the naked eye, would be breathed in or injected. A researcher named Kristofer Pister coined the term “smart dust” in 1997, a reference to wireless microelectromechanical sensors (or MEMS).

Proponents visualize these particles as the Internet of Things on another level. Smart dust would make it possible to run a Google search in the physical world by using smart dust, but it also raises serious issues about privacy, weapons, and surveillance. Whoever controls smart dust – or graphene oxide weaponized blood circuits in the human body in the case of these injections – and its data could theoretically control every aspect of human interaction.

A Spanish investigative team known as La Quinta Columna revealed on June 30 that graphene oxide was indeed the key ingredient in Pfizer’s “Covid-19 vaccine” serum.

Should We Be Worried? I already made the self-deprecating admission that I’m not the smartest guy in the room, but I do have a nose for conspiracies. This one passes the smell test. It’s a legitimate concern, but there’s a caveat. Is Graphene Oxide as an ingredient in the vaccines part of the plan by the powers-that-be to commit some heinous crimes against the world? I’d say there’s a 95% chance that it is.

With that said, the caveat is that most of the theories surrounding it are lacking. There is speculation that they could be used to modify our DNA. Others say it’s a 5G play. Some are saying the magnetic nature of Graphene Oxide could be used as a “kill switch.” We have the standard mind-control theories that invariably pop up whenever a foreign agent is injected into our bodies.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg as far as Graphene Oxide theories. Which are true? Are there others? I’d love to hear from readers in the comments or through the contact form on this site, which goes directly to me. We need as much information as possible so we can sift through and find reality. Remember (tinfoil hat time), there are those in the “conspiracy theory” world who are actually working for the powers-that-be to cast misdirection into the conversations. The mystery is never about discovering the right answer. The mystery is in determining which seemingly right answer is real and which ones are planted to keep the truth hidden.

At this point, we’re still in rapid-information-gathering mode. Like I said, the smell test tells us there’s something here. Theories surrounding it range from crazy to crazier. We’re in a hurry to discover what is going on, but not in a rush to come to a false conclusion.

Ok so I looked in depth at your meta analysis study posted upthread, read the studies as well as the reviews and comments regarding the studies. I have summarized the findings of these studies for you. Studies with an asterisk are included in the https://ivmmeta.com/ meta analysis I posted, of 63 studies.

———-

Chachar et al (2020) Pakistan (n = 50) 12 mg, 12 mg at 12 h, and 12 mg at 24 h

Statistically there was no significant difference between case group who were given ivermectin along with symptomatic treatment and control group who were only given symptomatic treatment without ivermectin, being asymptomatic on day 7 at follow up. p-value (0.500)

Comment: “Small study. Risk of no recovery at day 7, 10.0% lower, RR 0.90, p = 0.50, treatment 9 of 25 (36.0%), control 10 of 25 (40.0%).”

Another comment: “The article states: “On October 20, 2020, the lead pharmacist observed that a labeling error had occurred between September 29 and October 15, 2020, resulting in all patients receiving ivermectin and none receiving placebo during this time frame. The study blind was not unmasked due to this error. The data and safety monitoring board recommended excluding these patients from the primary analysis but retaining them for sensitivity analysis. The protocol was amended to replace these patients to retain the originally calculated study power. The primary analysis population included patients who were analyzed according to their randomization group, but excluded patients recruited between September 29 and October 15, 2020, as well as patients who were randomized but later found to be in violation of selection criteria. Patients were analyzed according to the treatment they received in the as-treated population (sensitivity analysis).”

To me this is an error that should have stopped the study. It is my belief, and I suspect that of many others, that the editors erred allowing publication of this article.”
H. Robert Silverstein, MD | Preventive Medicine Center, Hartford

Another comment: “Their approach is fundamentally flawed. It is clear that all parameters were trending to favor ivermectin at the time they truncated their study. It is of concern that this issue was not highlighted by the reviewers.”

Binh Ngo, M.D.
Keck USC School of Medicine

Many more comments regarding flaws in this study at link.

*Krolewiecki et al (2020) Argentina (n = 45) 0.6 mg/kg (168 mg) once daily for 5 d

There was no difference in viral load reduction between groups but a significant difference in reduction was found in patients with higher median plasma IVM levels (72% IQR 59 – 77) versus untreated controls (42% IQR 31 – 73) (p=0·004). The mean ivermectin plasma concentration levels also showed a positive correlation with viral decay rate (r:0·47, p=0·02).

*Niaee et al (2020) Iran (n = 180) 4 doses: from 200 μg/kg single dose to 800 μg/kg over 5 d (preprint, not peer reviewed)

Conclusion: Ivermectin as an adjunct reduced the rate of mortality, low O2 duration, and duration of hospitalization in adult COVID 19 patients. The improvement of other clinical parameters showed that the ivermectin, with a wide margin of safety, had a high therapeutic effect on COVID-19.

*Podder et al (2020) Bangladesh (n = 62) Single dose: 200 μg/kg (14 mg) The mean recovery time after enrolment in the intervention arm was 5.31 ± 2.48 days vs. 6.33 ± 4.23 days in the control arm, p>0.05. Recovery time from enrollment, 16.1% lower, relative time 0.84, p = 0.34, treatment 32, control 30.

*Ahmed et al (2021) [32] Bangladesh (n = 48) 12 mg once daily for 5 d

A 5-day course of ivermectin resulted in an earlier clearance of the virus compared to placebo (p = 0.005), thus indicating that early intervention with this agent may limit viral replication within the host. In the 5-day ivermectin group, there was a significant drop in CRP and LDH by day 7, which are indicators of disease severity. It is noteworthy that the viral nucleic acid Ct value (indicator of viral load) dropped significantly compared to the placebo group on day 7 and day 14. In the absence of co-morbidity, a 5-day course of ivermectin treatment showed faster SARS-CoV-2 virus clearance compared to the placebo arm (9 vs 13 days; p = 0.02).

Beltrán-Gonzalez et al (2021) [33] Mexico (n = 73) Single dose: 12 mg if less than 80 kg; 18 mg if less than 80 kg (not peer reviewed)

During the month of August, the admission of patients requiring hospitalization mostly encompassed cases with severe respiratory failure, so we ended the recruitment process and analyzed the data that was available at the time. One hundred and six (106) patients with an average age of 53 yrs. (±16.9) were included, with a greater proportion of males (n=66, 62.2 %). Seventy-two percent (72%) (n= 76) had an associated comorbidity. Ninety percent (90 %) of patients were discharged due to improvement (n=96). The average duration of hospitalization was 6 days (IQR, 3 – 10). No difference in hospitalization duration was found between the treatment groups (Group1: 7 vs Group 2: 6 vs Group 3: 5, p=0.43) nor in respiratory deterioration or death (Group 1: 18 % vs Group 2: 22.2 % vs Group 3: 24.3 %, p =0.83).

Comments on study: The trial was stopped early and did not enroll enough subjects to meet its own initial power calculations. 2. Single dose ivermectin at this stage is not the recommended regimen. 3. Ivm arm had the highest d dimer (p 0.01) and I do not see any discussion of anticoagulant beyond thromboprophylaxis. 4. Absorbtion of ivm with food rises ~4 fold, was it given on an empty stomach or with food? 5. The authors write that this is the first trial of ivm vs placebo. There are already 5. More comments at study.

*Chaccour et al (2021) [34] Spain (n = 24) Single dose 400 μg/kg (28 mg)

The ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24). Patients in the ivermectin group recovered earlier from hyposmia/anosmia (76 vs 158 patient-days; p<0.001).

Comments: symptom probability, 52.9% lower, RR 0.47, p<0.05, treatment 12, control 12, relative probability of symptoms at day 28, mixed effects logistic regression, data in supplementary appendix.
viral load, 94.6% lower, relative load 0.05, treatment 12, control 12, day 7 mid-recovery, data in supplementary appendix.

*Bukhari et al (2021) [35] Pakistan (n = 86) Single dose: 12 mg

There was early viral clearance in group B as compared to group A (p=0.001). No adverse reaction or derangements in laboratory parameters was noted in the intervention arm during the trial period.
Conclusion In the intervention arm, early viral clearance was observed and no side effects were documented. Therefore ivermectin is a potential addition to the standard care of treatment in COVID-19 patients.

*López-Medina et al (2021) [36] Colombia (n = 398) 300 μg/kg once daily for 5 d (84 mg)

This study should not be part of any meta analysis -
An open letter, signed by over 100 physicians, concluding this study is fatally flawed can be found at https://jamaletter.com
More discussion of the flaws here: https://c19ivermectin.com/lopezmedina.html

*Ravikirti et al (2021) [37] India (n = 115) 12 mg/d for 2 d

Conclusion There was no difference in the primary outcome i.e. negative RT-PCR status on day 6 of admission with the use of ivermectin. However, a significantly higher proportion of patients were discharged alive from the hospital when they received ivermectin.

————
This metanalysis is better, it does not include flawed studies.

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 (2021)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

I suspect that the majority of people on this forum are older people, many of whom have health issues that may have caused them to appreciate and want the vaccine. There seems to be a lot of effort here to frighten and intimidate them, and I don’t like seeing that.

No, you have it ass backwards.

Most of the people here know not to trust Faux-Xi given that the original virus was bioengineered; that he funded the Wuhan gain-of-function experiments; and that others involved in the funding rigged a fake "fact-check/deBOOOONKING" article in The Lancet that the virus did not start there; despite TWO Nobel Prize winners in virology saying the virus was bioengineered.

They then noted that the mRNA technology pushed, was never successfully tested in humans; that there were TREMENDOUS financial temptations for the companies involved, to use mRNA technology (Moderna admitted in their 2020 SEC filing that it was an experimental gene therapy and they were $1.74 billion in debt); and that the trials were incomplete, rushed (2 months followup) and mis-stated the relative risk reduction as absolute risk reduction; they noted the FDA suppressed knowledge given by the manufacturers of known risks of the jabs; and they noted that these jabs had more deaths reported to VAERS in its first year, than the total number of deaths of all other vaccines combined during their entire lifetime -- while the Swine Flu vaccine was pulled from the market after 25 or 50 deaths.

Then they noticed the falsification of trials of cheap, safe, oral medications which would both eliminate the EUA granted to the jabs, and threaten Big Pharma's profits.

Then they noticed the systematic persecution and deplatforming of Medical Doctors and Scientists who reported real-world risks of the drugs either through studies of patients or biomolecular study of the molecules involved.

Those who HAVE gotten the jab on FR -- including a number of self-proclaimed doctors -- have almost entirely been condescending pricks; a lot of the jabbed (though, to their credit, mostly NOT the self-proclaimed doctors) -- have been pushing for mandatory jabs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.