Anti-vaxx Redditor debunks graphene disinfo
(media.scored.co)
Comments (73)
sorted by:
I do believe that a lot of disinformation was presented to make anti-vaxxers look crazy. I still wouldn't get the jab though
I do believe that grifters spread bullshit to make money off of gullible idiots.
This also
You believe a lot of brainwashy shit
You believe the SAME dumb shit. You think "grifters spread bullshit" (people who expose globe deception), and you claim the reason that I try to explain what I've learned is because "I want to make money"
You troll me and others just to do it.
Your hypocrisy was so blatant I had to troll back. .it's just internet shitty talk, don't actually matter
That triggered rant was funny af
I'll bet this faggot has blue hair
A rant is an emotional, unstructured venting of frustration, often lacking focus on evidence.
Exposing hypocrisy involves highlighting inconsistencies in someone’s behavior or beliefs, typically with reasoned arguments to reveal a contradiction.
And the entire point of this, that you're a retard for assuming I'm some kind of Jewish blue haired agent to poison the well. You believe some dumb shit
Exactly. I could barely understand wtf you wrote because very little of it is composed of complete sentences. You melted down like a little bitch.
When I read what you wrote, all I see is brainwashed retards screaming while they film their breakdowns.
Suck a dick, you worthless faggot. Probably Captain Sparrow's alt. Who would defend that cunt?
You should copy paste into GPT to help simplify sentences people write into something simple you can comprehend.
You are too pussy even address what I write. All you are programmed to do is talk shit. Worthless.
Even your assumptions are like a dick on the dark, who the fuck is captain sparrow? The fucking actor?
How is the new account going TallestSkil... err, I mean TallSkillet?
At least I made you post for a while, didn't I?
:D
Same old, same old TallestSkil insults... Cancer to any discussion as usual... xD
You're too smart for this forum...
Well that settles it, better close this board and move on with our lives...
Some random usernamed Redditor says Graphene is Sugar.
Enough proof for me.
Why did you think he said that?
Why do you think they said that?
I don't. You made the claim he said that.
You posted it, you hypocrite...
I should quote your own post??
Stop playing dumb, we know you have a black belt in it.
He didn't say graphene is sugar.
Like I said - "black belt in playing dumb".
There were definitely lipid nano particles used to infiltrate cells. The most mainstream, seminal research admits this because mRNA requires it for both infiltration and replication. These LNPs are expensive, fragile and need to be temperature controlled. Why wouldn't they try to improve upon this as part of a normal R&D effort? The conspiracy comes in when they were using the cover of immunity to perform their own toxicity studies on a batch basis to determine how to use GO vs LNPs. Bonus points: bad batches tended to target political enemies.
It's not impossible that they used some bad batch experiments with exotic material. The issue at hand is whether Pablo Campra's Raman spectroscopy proved graphene was in the vials he looked at or not.
Lipid nano particles are fully admitted in the patents as part of this technology, yes. That's a separate issue.
Well so then my feedback would be that they have shown it could be GO but not that it is GO. Additional evidence comes from the dozens of peer reviewed articles admitting they're exploiting GO to replace or augment LNPs. For some this is enough, for a skeptic they'll require more proof. Even if they admitted they were doing it some people would still refuse to believe it or would begin downplaying the safety concern. Denial can be dogmatic
Actual proof is needed to make a strong claim. When you have multiple liars saying it is graphene, but no proper studies that can withstand peer review, why still believe it is in there?
Articles admitting GO is used in other experiential products doesn't prove it is in these shots. That's still speculation. I admit, they could be putting that stuff into some shots for experimentation, but I'm not going to tell people I know it is in there.
In my own experience, I found at least some of the graphene theory pushers, like Karen Kingston and Todd Callender to be complete frauds.
I hadn't yet seen a rebuttal of Dr. Pablo Campra's work which the Fifth Column bases so much of it's analysis on. Though my bs alarm went off right away when Fifth Column originally declared the shot was "99%" graphene which is simply not possible. This looks like the final nail in the coffin for graphene.
What is your issue with Karen Kingston? To be fair I have not kept up with her in over a year but she was one of the first people bringing actual documents with the proper background to explain them.
I checked the patents she cited and they didn't say what she alleged at all.
She claimed proof for Graphene from some technical document on a Chinese chemical manufacturer for a chemical that had nothing to do with the covid vaccine. Just because a manufacturer has a compound with graphene, that in no way states this is in the vaccine.
She claimed it was 100% proof that graphene was in the vaccines. If she knows how to read, which she does, this is a clear lie.
Here is the evidence laid out in a website. They seem to be taken in by it, but if you read the SINOPEG document it is a special form of PEG they are talking about. No where does it state this is in the vaccines.
https://prepareforchange.net/2021/08/27/former-pfizer-employee-confirms-poison-graphene-oxide-in-vaxxxine/
Here is more info. Take the wayback machine in SINOPEG website for ALC 0159 she mentions in the Stew Peters interview, and it has no mention of graphene.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220925130302/https://www.sinopeg.com/2-polyethylene-glycol-2000-n-n-ditetradecylacetamide-mpeg-dta-alc-0159-cas-1849616-42-7_p477.html
Same for this entry on PEG 2000 https://web.archive.org/web/20211016074831/https://www.sinopeg.com/polyethylene-glycol-peg-2000-dimyristoyl-glycerol-dmg-mpeg2000-dmg-cas-160743-62-4_p479.html
Interview: https://prepareforchange.net/2021/08/27/former-pfizer-employee-confirms-poison-graphene-oxide-in-vaxxxine/
Look how this snake transitions from talking about PEG they make into talking about graphene without explicitly stating that the chemical MSDS she cited contains graphene.
A larp anti-vax probably.
"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." - 2 Corinthians 13:1
Not by a comment from a redditor, who can't figure out SUGAR from Graphene oxide, and his whole theory (which you're promoting) is - "Look the other way, people. Nothing to see here... Ignore all these reports from scientists all over the world..."
Ok I am out of patience. You're an idiot if you think this person said the vaccine is only sugar. That didn't happen.
That study (which I read and you didn't because you're scientifically illiterate) didn't have a control group on the main part of the study (the long incubation period showing growth). That's deliberate malfeasance.
That's exactly the study which spectroscopic Geoff Pain was criticizing for not ruling out sugar in the Raman spectra.
I'm not comforted by the notion they are adding sugar to vaxines.
[QUOTE]
This reads a poorly programmed bot
Redditors always do that...
Confusing sugar with nanotechnology is totally something OP would promote.
If you have information refuting the arguments against graphene presented by this spectroscopist please present them https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/fifth-column-promoting-graphene-fantasies
Vague attacks on what "OP would promote" just makes you look bitter that an idea you cling to was challenged. If you want to engage in scientific discussion you must be prepared to have your ideas challenged and have some humility.
Your post is about sugar...
Sugar desolves in most liquids. 100% sugar desolves in blood.
The post is ridiculous, and I stand behind my previous comment - you're as ridiculous as your post.
Sugar dissolves in water and blood, therefore what? What are you trying to refute with that?
Resorting to attacks instead of making a clear point back to the science. Did you even read the article?
It's not sugar, as your post states.
Normally, obvious things shouldn't be spelled out, but here we are.
Also, that's not an insult - I just call it like I see it. And the fact that you play dumb is just confirming my initial evaluation of your mental ability, or the lack of it.
It's not that things shouldn't be spelled out, it's that you're being vague. Communication should always be clear especially on complex topics.
I feel like I'm dealing with a narcissist who can't stand being questioned or proven wrong. Otherwise the hostility makes no sense.
"It's not sugar" doesn't make sense in the context of his argument. What do you think he said was sugar? What is the "it" you're referring to?
Your post:
Awaiting your next comment where you play dumb and try to redirect the topic...
So the "it" you're referring to is the Raman spectrum? Is that correct?
Then your argument is saying you're certain the spectrum was for graphene and not sugar? Please elaborate to back up that argument, if it is in fact what you're trying to say. You haven't made any clear scientific argument.
You're just being vague.
Afraid to reply?
I see you replied to others after my comment, so I know you don't reply now because you're too scared...
What is this god you're following? Must be some god of fear and lies... Only cowards and liars would turn to it.
I'm still waiting for an actual scientific argument.
What an annoying post, I want to check the sauce, but .
So......no graphene hydroxide razorblades or.....
While people are worried about something not even in the shots (at least not the vast majority) they openly put in a known poison protein that gets produced in unknown quantities throughout the body.
By their own science it is already a bioweapon.