Toxic, Metallic Compounds Found in All COVID Vaccine Samples Analyzed by German Scientists - https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/toxic-metallic-compounds-covid-vaccines-german-scientists/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=f7cf9f90-f6de-447f-8b4c-3b94cd5f6219
Japanese study proves Pfizer and Moderna shots contain entities that assemble themselves in complex structures - https://communities.win/c/TrueChristianity/p/19957kg1BP/nanobots-in-covid-shots-that-ass/c
German scientists reveal what's in the shots with Raman spectroscopy - https://odysee.com/@ildrzaius:6/German_Scientists_Show_Magnified_Images_Of_Massive_Vaccine_Damage_and_Unnatural_Contaminants_In_Vaccines:5
Spanish scientists exposed the Graphene Oxide in covid shots using Raman spectroscopy. La Quinta Columna has over 1000 scientists, who have collaborated for this information with over 1000 hours of research combined. - https://odysee.com/@ekab:2/VID_20220326_082809_583:f
Spanish scientists discover that the vaccinated and the tested for covid emit unknown bluetooth signals - BlueTruth documentary full - https://odysee.com/@ARGONAUT:d/CC_2022_06_11_DocBluetruth_English:10?src=embed
Graphene oxide discovered in covid shots using optical microscopy - Greg Reese report - https://odysee.com/@InfoNews:f/What-Graphene-does-in-your-body:5
Surveillance Under The Skin - Dr. Yuval Noah Harari - A tiny gae joo, who's WEF's right hand man. "The thing that people would remember from the covid crisis is that this was the moment when everything became monitored" - https://odysee.com/Surveillance-Under-The-Skin---Dr.-Yuval-Noah-Harari:1?src=embed
This guy didn't die from sugar - https://communities.win/c/TrueChristianity/p/1995H03Swm/covid-strikes-again-at-a-person-/c
This guy also didn't die from sugar - https://communities.win/c/TrueChristianity/p/1995CQBlf3/those-of-you-who-think-the-vacci/c
These athletes didn't have heart complications and didn't die from sugar. Jwilderness - https://www.youtube.com/@JWilderness/search?query=what%27s%20going%20on
"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 distinguish SUGAR from Graphene oxide, and his whole theory (which is promoted on Reddit, and here) is - "Look the other way, people. Nothing to see here... Ignore all these reports from scientists all over the world..."
I found very strange that there is still no any independent full chemical analysis results of any mRNA vaccine ever done.
To make such analysis you need mass-spectrometer to find out existence and concentrations of basic elements and chromatograph to determine actual chemical composition. Not a very simple task, and not very cheap financially and in time, but it is routinely done every day in thousands of scientific and research labs.
Eventually you get exact and full list of actual ingritients of studied specimen.
Why nobody still did that is a greatest mistery with those who declare themselves as coronahoax and vaccinehoax enemies. Seems they are not really, and even more - they work to defile public questioning this hoaxes.
At the time, I had a conversation with one biochemist who was very critical about coronahoax and vaccinehoax. When talk come to the question why he didn't make an full chemical analysis of mRNA vaccine, he told that he can't obtain a sample legally, so paper he would wrote will not be accepted by any peer-reviewed journal. Later I come to conclusion that modern scientists don't care about science and research at all, they care only about fucking publications in official journals and citations.
All those who mentioned in your posts do have the ability to make straight full chemical analysis of vaccine and obtain its full and exact composition with every ingridient concentration and exact formula. And publish that list. However none of them ever did that. They only mumble something about some overhyped ingridient even without any quantative data about it. That's absolute nonsense in science. When you study something unknown you don't limit yourself with single ingridient with most popular name and you absolutely want to know exact concentrations and full composition.
It is like you care only about amount of salt in a dish and suddenly have no any interest about sugar, vinegar, pepper, antioxidants, thinners and other stuff which could not only interfere with effect of salt, but also be more harmful and bad than what you stick to.
Weird.
Also in this paper they mention generic spectroscopy wouldn't be able to differentiate graphene (since you'd just see carbon and whatever else) so they used micro raman spectroscopy https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355979001_DETECTION_OF_GRAPHENE_IN_COVID19_VACCINES
Raman spectometry does not detect graphene. It detects bonds in molecules. Every bond have specific frequency, so you could differentiate them. Graphene basically is just carbon rings assembly. But a lot of substances have same carbon rings with same bonds.
So, Raman spectrometry alone is nowere enough to make any exact conclusion about composition. But it could be very useful as additional study to determine specific isomeres of substances with already known chemical formula.
You will get similar spectrums for graphite, graphene, benzene, any other cyclic hydrocarbons including even sugar that have two carbon rings.
Raman spectrometer is cheaper and simplier than quadrupole mass-spectrometer. There even successfull DIY projects of Raman spectrometers. But they are only supplement tools in figuring out unknown substance composition.
") shows the measured Raman spectrum of benzene, where the peaks at 3,063, 2,950, 1,586, 1,177, 992 and 606 cm −1 represent its characteristic features. " https://www.researchgate.net/figure/b-shows-the-measured-Raman-spectrum-of-benzene-where-the-peaks-at-3-063-2-950-1-586_fig4_221749919
Compare that to the spectrum obtained in figs 4 and 6 here, which shows peaks at different locations: https://www.graphene.cam.ac.uk/files/518.pdf
In general it looks like you wouldn't be able to distinguish graphene from graphite with just raman spec but you should be able to distinguish it from other hydrocarbons.
Here we go. 1,586 G-peak in benzene ring is the same G-peak in graphene/graphite ring.
However, benzene have only one ring, there are no connections with other rings. So it does not have 2D peak. But if you take naphtalene, made from two benzene rings, you suddenly get that 2D Raman peak around 3000 cm-1.
When you go to more benzenes connected together, like in anthracene or phenalene you get raman spectras with peaks also specific to graphite. Meanwhile some polycyclic hydrocarbons are coagulants and could be a reason for blood clots. Unlike graphene.
Doing raman spectrometry with complex unknown substance, you get a lot of peaks everywhere, you don't get that nice two-peak picture from pure graphite/graphene even if graphite/graphene present in specimen. And they would not be that sharp and visible as on pictures you look at in a paper about pure graphene. You will obviously have peaks from all bonds of all substances at once. Including water. It will be a complete mess.
To make Raman spectrometry useful you have to find composition first. Then, thoroughly separate ingridiens and do a raman spectrometry on them separately to find out bonds you have. Then, using chemical formula and what bonds used to connect atoms in it you finally could determine what exact substance you have.
Raman spectrometry don't give you composition, it gives you what bonds you have. In case of simple compounds, you will be able to figure out that, say, there is water, table salt and some organic. But with such thing as vaccine where lot of stuff mixed, it is impossible to do any conclusions from Raman spectra you get. Well, in best case you will be able to tell that there is a lot of water in it. May be salt will be also obvious.
To clearly find out graphene among other organic and inorganic substances in water with Raman spectrometry you will need a suspension where graphene overhelmingly prevail over all other stuff, so G and 2D peaks will be comparable to peaks from water and salt. It will be grey or even black liquid, not that clear solution we see,
Strange indeed.
Mass spectrometry requires accelerators which are only going to be available at large institutions. For example, a national lab in the USA. I am not familiar with the European institutions but I'm guessing it is a similar situation there. This means that these researchers would have to send their sample off to the equivalent of a national lab in order to get the type of analysis you are speaking of done. Of course all the major institutions that would be available for this type of work are government funded and controlled, so none of them would touch an illegally obtained sample. However, the researchers can certainly perform their own analysis of the sample with the tools they have available to them, thus the different microscopy analyses (and other smaller scale analyses) we see.
It does-not. Typical quadrupole mass-spectrometer is a tabletop device with a size of a good office printer. It is not even very expensive in comparison with other lab equipment.
You could even find used ones for the price affordable to a small private business or a middle-class enthusiast.
Yes, they work from regular wall outlet and consume around 1kW.
Mass-spectrometer does have particle accelerator, just like CRT monitor or home air ionizer. "Particle accelerator" does not mandatory mean some giant cyclotrone or LHC. Any device that accelerate particles is particle accelerator, be it electron gun in CRT tube or very similar assembly of few electrodes in mass-spectrometer.
You are correct, there are table top devices. I was doing some more digging and it looks like a combination of time of flight secondary ion mass spectroscopy is used to study graphene. Although its not clear to me how one would use that to study graphene suspended in a liquid. In principal though, I think you are correct that one could devise a means to do so in a medium sized lab.
The table top devices for typical quadrupole mass spec wouldn't be useful here since they would just tell you the relative amounts of carbon, oxygen, etc. How could you tell if graphene is present with that information?
Exactly. This gives the first and basic clue about composition of substance on atomic and submolecular level. It allow you to get preliminary information for chromatography and chemical tests for specific substances. If you have carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, lead and iron, you don't need to look for arsenic compounds or cesium. But force you to look for cyanides and lead compounds.
You will have high relative amount of carbon, much higher than for hydrocarbons or carbonates.
Also, just think why they so stick to that graphene stuff. Graphene is one of greatest nothingburger of science. It is known for around century, but still we don't have any more or less useful use of that substanse other than fill MSM articles and empty scientific papers.
Of course, talking about some polyhexamethylene guanidine in vaccines or sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate will not create attention from regular public, but overhyped graphene will.
Also, graphene narrative as microblades in vaccine that cut everything in bloodstream directly contradicts blood clots facts. You can't create a clot with something that cut objects in pieces. But some uninterestin calcium hydrocarboaluminate (widely used coagulant) or other complex calcium compounds or, say, synthesized thrombines, easily could be the reason.
And, suddenly, you need mass-spectrometer to detect calcium in specimen to get a clue where to look for if you want to find a reason of blood clots.
Don't you understand that whole anti-vaccinehoax publications just does not fit together and with known facts about not-a-vaccine. It is just insane - "who cares why blood clots is a main consequence of not-a-vaccine, look, GRAPHENE!!!!".
Unscientific, non-systematic, self-contradictory "studies" floating around on non-official side with all that overhyped "nano", "graphene", "aluminium" and other keywords just make things worse.