I don't doubt they could have different chemicals in different vials. But I think it is strange La Quinta early on claimed it was 100% graphene and nothing else. No other groups were seeing just that.
Also graphene doesn't explain the rope like structures found in the blood while an amyloid forming protein like the spike protein seems plausible.
They reported 98 to 99%. If you state 100%, then show me evidence. I've watched many of their videos. I also know that additional solution will help the graphene, so this statement that 100% graphene oxide is in the vials is something I can hardly believe. Please show any proof of that, if you have any.
Here's how graphene oxide can create these rope-like structures.
How come you state that a "spike protein seems plausible to make rope-like structures"? Please explain because everything I know on the matter seem to be against your statements in the comments. I can support that with evidence, but I would like to hear your arguments first, if you have any evidence of course.
If they actually said 99% and not 100%, ok. That's basically saying it is 100%.
How come you state that a "spike protein seems plausible to make rope-like structures"? Please explain
I already explained, since it is an amyloid forming protein when it breaks down. Some doctors have said the ropes could be amyloid formations.
Here's how graphene oxide can create these rope-like structures.
Those are carbon nano-tubes. Graphene may be carbon, but it is a flat sheet and not a tube. That also requires an electric field and a hell of a lot more material than could be inside a small injection.
Sorry, I cannot agree with these assumptions. Here's why:
That's basically saying it is 100%.
Assumption. And unproven. It denies the possibility of other materials that will assist graphene oxide, thus you stop the examination process already.
Some doctors have said the ropes could be amyloid formations.
Another assumption based on an opinion. Should we just ignore the rest that call it graphene oxide? Or should we trust those doctors that say that the vaccine is good for you? That would also be an assumption.
Graphene may be carbon, but it is a flat sheet and not a tube.
That also requires an electric field and a hell of a lot more material than could be inside a small injection.
It doesn't require more materials. The link can help you more with that. Furthermore, it's nanotech. This "small injection" as you've put it has tons and tons of atoms inside... Probably it will help you to calculate the number of atoms inside a "small injection", so you can properly understand the math.
Also, "requires an electric field"... Now, please think on this one, where would you find electric field in 2023 around the world? https://www.nperf.com/en/map/5g
Thanks for the opinions though. However, I do prefer a better educated response than that. I would rather not waste my time telling you the different ways you are wrong in a single comment. I see you already went with some assumptions to create a theory, but that's not how theories should be formed in the first place. Review more facts and base a theory on that. I hope the link brings you closer to understanding.
Sorry for the way I reply, but I hate it when people give vague explanations and later state "I already explained". I have been a teacher and a top math student that had to "explain" a lot of problems in my international competitions. If I ever try to be vague and say "I already explained", I would be removed immediately from whatever teaching position or competition.
Anyway, in case you actually are willing to look deeper in a theory that questions your own, I would be more than happy to assist you. But considering your username, I would suggest this important connection:
Doesn't your Bible state that the number of the beast is 666?
Remind me, please, how many protons, neutrons, and electrons does carbon have?
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020060606 - Here's another connection to the same.
Does that fit the bill? A mark that you take that contains 666. It is branded on poor and rich alike. It is specifically created for "buying and selling" - Patent ID 2020060606. Those, who take it shall drink from the cup of the wrath of God? As if their neural system is highjacked?
Please just review the theory and the links I've shared before you compile your next comment. I deeply respect educated replies, even if you are able to disprove the theory I put forth.
That article just supported exactly what I was saying. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your arguments since you've proven you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to graphene and carbon nano tubes.
I don't doubt they could have different chemicals in different vials. But I think it is strange La Quinta early on claimed it was 100% graphene and nothing else. No other groups were seeing just that.
Also graphene doesn't explain the rope like structures found in the blood while an amyloid forming protein like the spike protein seems plausible.
They reported 98 to 99%. If you state 100%, then show me evidence. I've watched many of their videos. I also know that additional solution will help the graphene, so this statement that 100% graphene oxide is in the vials is something I can hardly believe. Please show any proof of that, if you have any.
https://conspiracies.win/p/16c2RVgvpx/how-graphene-oxide-creates-a-net/c/
Here's how graphene oxide can create these rope-like structures.
How come you state that a "spike protein seems plausible to make rope-like structures"? Please explain because everything I know on the matter seem to be against your statements in the comments. I can support that with evidence, but I would like to hear your arguments first, if you have any evidence of course.
If they actually said 99% and not 100%, ok. That's basically saying it is 100%.
I already explained, since it is an amyloid forming protein when it breaks down. Some doctors have said the ropes could be amyloid formations.
Those are carbon nano-tubes. Graphene may be carbon, but it is a flat sheet and not a tube. That also requires an electric field and a hell of a lot more material than could be inside a small injection.
Sorry, I cannot agree with these assumptions. Here's why:
Assumption. And unproven. It denies the possibility of other materials that will assist graphene oxide, thus you stop the examination process already.
Another assumption based on an opinion. Should we just ignore the rest that call it graphene oxide? Or should we trust those doctors that say that the vaccine is good for you? That would also be an assumption.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/graphene-and-carbon-nanotubes-two-great-materials-even-better-together - Here's a link where you can educate yourself more on Graphene nanotubes and how they require no additional material. Single atom layer nanotube, not whatever you were thinking.
It doesn't require more materials. The link can help you more with that. Furthermore, it's nanotech. This "small injection" as you've put it has tons and tons of atoms inside... Probably it will help you to calculate the number of atoms inside a "small injection", so you can properly understand the math.
Also, "requires an electric field"... Now, please think on this one, where would you find electric field in 2023 around the world? https://www.nperf.com/en/map/5g
Thanks for the opinions though. However, I do prefer a better educated response than that. I would rather not waste my time telling you the different ways you are wrong in a single comment. I see you already went with some assumptions to create a theory, but that's not how theories should be formed in the first place. Review more facts and base a theory on that. I hope the link brings you closer to understanding.
Sorry for the way I reply, but I hate it when people give vague explanations and later state "I already explained". I have been a teacher and a top math student that had to "explain" a lot of problems in my international competitions. If I ever try to be vague and say "I already explained", I would be removed immediately from whatever teaching position or competition.
Anyway, in case you actually are willing to look deeper in a theory that questions your own, I would be more than happy to assist you. But considering your username, I would suggest this important connection: Doesn't your Bible state that the number of the beast is 666? Remind me, please, how many protons, neutrons, and electrons does carbon have? https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020060606 - Here's another connection to the same.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/513413 - Doesn't that say that Graphene Oxide can be used as, and I quote, "work like an artificial nervous system".
Does that fit the bill? A mark that you take that contains 666. It is branded on poor and rich alike. It is specifically created for "buying and selling" - Patent ID 2020060606. Those, who take it shall drink from the cup of the wrath of God? As if their neural system is highjacked?
Please just review the theory and the links I've shared before you compile your next comment. I deeply respect educated replies, even if you are able to disprove the theory I put forth.
That article just supported exactly what I was saying. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your arguments since you've proven you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to graphene and carbon nano tubes.