I don't agree, that's a way for False Dissidence to con people. What really counts is a chemical analysis, something that has not been done to determine if it is hydrogel or spider webs. Therefore, nothing can be scientifically stated.
We have analyzed the vaccines in 2021, and it was demonstrated that there are…
I don't agree, that's a way for False Dissidence to con people. What really counts is a chemical analysis, something that has not been done to determine if it is hydrogel or spider webs. Therefore, nothing can be scientifically stated.
We have analyzed the vaccines in 2021, and it was demonstrated that there are no plastics, no spiders, no polymers or hydrodeles inside. These people have used the term hydrogel to confuse people so they never know the truth. The hydrogel is the liquid of the vaccines, and inside this gel is the graphene.
You don't know that both the hydrogel and the polymers do not last more than 5 days in the body. Consult the scientific literature. But what we see in the blood of vaccinated people corresponds to months or years, and what we see is graphene oxide, which is indestructible as well as being an excellent conductor.
Without a chemical analysis, words are useless. In my country they say that words are carried away by the wind.
So you've got evidence that those who claim it's the same thing identified in the patents for the vaccines are liars? Please show me how you are absolutely certain the vaccines only contain graphene and none of the polymer-based hydrogels listed in the patents for them, and/or how those who were injected somehow magically avoided actually being injected with the things listed in the patents?
Or maybe you can show me your evidence that Dr. Ana is a lying "CON" who could not possibly have found anything OTHER THAN graphene in the blood of these people?
Look, I know it's in the vaccines, and I know this is what's causing the clots. The clots may contain graphene (I do believe this) but I do NOT believe there are no hydrogels or other polymer-based products in these vaccines, OR in the people who've been injected with them.
The fact you've completely ruled out the hydrogels as a possible component of the fibrous clots, EVEN THOUGH the vaccine patents CLAIM these components are present, is beyond obtuse. And the fact you're making this baseless claim in support of your theory that anyone talking about the connection is a "con", is fully absurd.
Again, this dialogue is unproductive. If you've got "proof" that nobody was injected with, or affected by, the components which the vaccine patents CLAIM are in these things, please provide it.
In science you don't work like that. Do you know what a peer study is? In science it is demonstrated with evidence, not with what others say, whether they are professors or Nobel Prize winners. In science it is demonstrated with facts, and with analysis. Is there any analysis that confirms that it is hydrogels or spiders? No, then everything you tell me is of no use to me.
Is there analysis that confirms that it is graphene oxide? Yes, there is. Well, it's more than clear.
Because there is clear evidence of the presence of graphene oxide, (and I agree that there is) this does NOT mean there are not ALSO polymer-based hydrogels.
If you'd read the patents for this technology you would plainly see that these systems rely upon BOTH (and other elements as well) in order to function.
And "science" should NOT begin with the ruling out the existence of one (OBVIOUS) element, (that's described in the specs of the patent filings) merely because another element is proven to be present.
I find it ODD that you would presume there's no possible way these jabs could possibly contain hydrogels when the patents themselves SAY they do, AND these rubbery clots are clearly NOT "organic" and they behave as polymer-based objects, rather than as "blood" clots, which easily "squish" into jelly when lightly touched. They are pulling freaking "calamari-like" crap out of these people. I do believe the self-assembling graphene could be acting as a scaffold for the formation of these "casts" which line the arteries. But it's OBVIOUS these clots are not entirely made up of pure graphene oxide.
..."DOES NOT mean that polymer-based hydrogels ALSO exist."
He demonstrates that what you see are hydrogels and not graphene, but with a chemical analysis, not because a patent says so. Give me the name or link of that patent you mention.
These gummy clots form due to carbon nanotubes that self-assemble inside. Have you seen our images of that tangle of fibers made of carbon nanotubes? Blood proteins surround them to prevent damage and the formation of these clots.
I think I told you in another comment that the hydrogel or polymers are expelled by the body after 5 days. And what we see in the blood, which you say are polymers, are graphene ribbons that are several years old. They cannot be polymers. Graphene is indestructible.
You don't realize that these people are trying to hide the truth about graphene with words like hydrogel, polymers or spiders. Ask yourself why no one talks about Dr. Campra, who was the first in the world to do a chemical analysis of vaccines.
They want to hide the truth about graphene. I was already talking to some of them, and they confirmed it to me. They have been hired to create controversy in the English-speaking world, so that people are confused. You will see that neither in Europe nor in the Hispanic world do they talk about hydrogels or polymers, because, being European, we have been collaborating with other research groups in Europe, and being Hispanic, the message reached South America perfectly.
I have also read that mass spectroscopy of the vaccines show zero phosphorus or nitrogen- the building blocks of RNA. So, is mRNA also a red herring meant to confuse people?
To me, the graphene Oxide/Hydroxide aspect- as discussed by Dr. Andrew Noack- before his premature death, is looking to be the most likely explanation.
Correct. The mRNA was a children's story, a smokescreen.
Dr. Noak also did a great job. In reality, oxide and hydroxide are the same technically. Graphene oxide converts to hydroxide when introduced into the human body. Its edge makes destruction wherever it passes.
You are persistent. So I am spending time thinking about what you're saying.
So your theory is that they completely lied about the inclusion of these polymer-based lipid nanoparticles and hydrogels in the vaccine patents? Or are you trying to say the patents do not exist? I cannot believe you've never seen the patents at this late stage. You can find them with a simple google search, and many substackers, including Dr. Ana, have them referrenced in their stories. Here's a link to a list of them that I found in about 5 seconds. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-00912-9
So you're saying the polymers simply cannot be present because graphene is present? And that the entire reason the vaccine-makers made us believe there are any lipid nanoparticles, was to create a red herring, (by naming these elements as essential to their products)? And this ruse was to cause us to overlook the graphene?
Pretty much everyone studying this crap (real people) are blowing the whistle on the fact BOTH the graphene and polymers are present. In fact, I don't know of anyone who's concerned about the polymers who has overlooked the graphene.
But I do agree with you that it's possible to "cast" the clots with self-assembling graphene, and you've said a few things that make it seem plausible the clots could be formed in this way. I just don't understand what benefits it produces for us to go after anyone who's also concerned about the polymers which are described in the patents, which clearly lay out the mechanisms by which the graphene and the hydrogels work together in ways that can clearly form clots.
Just because someone is exposing how MANY deadly toxins are present in the jabs, doesn't mean they're wrong to show people these things, cite the patents, and show others how all of this is working together to injure us.
One thing I am hoping, is that you're RIGHT and that the primary thing we need to be worried about is the graphene. But those pesky patents describe much more, all of which is DEADLY.
What you have sent me is not a patent, it is a study.
What I supposed. The article you send me is from 2021.
The studies from 2020 so far are not reliable, they control the institutions, how are we going to trust a study that hides graphene in favor of spider polymers? Let's be serious.
See if the study you send me is false, which talks about mRNA, when there are already 3 scientists who have analyzed the vaccines and have ruled that there is no mRNA. Don't you realize?
You continue to avoid what I have already told you several times. The polymers dissolve after 5 days in the body. Do you expect people to believe that what is seen in the blood of a person (I'm not talking about clots) vaccinated two years ago is a polymer? Please.
Do polymers or hydrogels explain the magnetism of vaccinated people? Do polymers or hydrogels explain the MAC addresses of vaccinated people? I can explain it to you with graphene because it has been in scientific literature for decades.
Which side are you on in this story? You know that time is running out
Here is a "study" of the PATENTS using this tech. It is called: "Systematic Patent Review of Nanoparticles in Drug Delivery and Cancer Therapy in the Last Decade"
I intended to give you what appeared to be an overview of the actual patents (there are many) using this platform for "drug delivery" and vaccines. The citations for the specific patents covered in the study are listed in this paper.
2. It doesn't say anything about hydrogels or polymers, just nanoparticles that are supposed to be graphene. In scientific literature we never talk about hydrogel nanoparticles, that does not exist.
The study was of the patents. And I also reminded you that Dr. Ana's feed has the patents, AND that you can easily locate the relevant patents with a Google search. I used "USPTO Patent" and added the relevant terms to this. The link I gave you was the first search result, and since it was listing of related patents in one location, I thought it might be helpful.
I was trying to get you going on being able to find the relevant patents on your own.
And you're quite correct that the polymers CANNOT explain the phenomenon of signals, (IP address, etc.) nor many of the other items which have been well confirmed. But this is not evidence that the jabs do not ALSO contain the polymers. And those are also toxic, standing alone. So it's best if we're able to look at all of the issues we're dealing with her, in order to locate whatever remedies we can that can help.
For instance, there are some countermeasures which are showing themselves to be particularly helpful in "grabbing" the graphene (using a negatively-charged and safe mineral) and safely transporting it to be eliminated. Graphene is a terrible thing, and this part is a serious challenge, but early results from certain studies are giving me the impression there is hope. Here is on site that appears to be devoted to this issue, with many various items of interest; https://www.altermindset.com/how-to-detox-graphene-oxide/
And there are items which appear to be effective for clearing and detoxing from the polymers. Here's an item I found with some clues: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01717
Also, I know that Dr. Ana has done a great deal of research into this particular issue (as well as into the graphene detox information).
Just because they are CLEARLY trying to kill us (and track/control) with self-assembling graphene nanotech, doesn't mean we can rule out and completely ignore the many additional things they're clearly doing to us with other toxins.
Here's a great article (MIT work) to bring you up to date on why it appears they are deploying the hydrogels in addition to graphene. They've been working on this for a very long time.
Title: Hydrogel interfaces for merging humans and machines
The hydrogels themselves can build "tissues" similar to ours. (Sort of a part synthetic/bio BORG?) I am thinking the self-assembling graphene can swiftly build a scaffold for just about anything else that they want to integrate, and it's clearly useful for any nanotech electronics.
I know what hydrogels are. Research has also been carried out in this regard, especially in polymers. But that's not the case, believe me.
Please think, I see that you are interested in knowing. In Dr. Campra's first report he says that there is 99.9% graphene oxide and 0.1% other materials such as minerals or DNA (which is surely DNA origami). You and other researchers you follow put the balance at that 0.1% instead of 99.1%. What do you think is more important? Think why these people are trying to change the situation and only focus on 0.1%. Is the damage caused by that 0.1 and not the graphene? Have you seen in scientific literature for decades what graphene does to the body? Where are those studies on the toxicity of hydrogels or polymers? Wake up!
Wow. So there was only 0.1% of anything BUT graphene oxide in the vials they were studying?
I am, and always have been, TERRIBLY concerned about the graphene. This stuff is SO deadly. It does seem a bit confusing though, because a vial containing 99.9% graphene would be BLACK, solid black. And if there was nothing in the fluid to make it viscous, there would be no way to keep the graphene from settling within any pure liquid/water. Without any sort of "gelling" ingredients in the vial, literally all of the graphene would settle on the bottom of the vial, and there would be no way to hide it. You'd SEE the black crap on the bottom of the vial.
And yet, I am seeing vials with viscous (thickened) liquid of some kind, which suspends the graphene, forcing people to warm the vial up to loosen the graphene suspension SO THAT it will be attracted to a magnet (swarm) so that a little "cloud" of graphene can finally be seen with the naked eye.
Hmm. Some of what you're saying is raising more questions for me. Are you saying that the liquid was pure water only? Or that the vial LITERALLY contained 99.1% graphene? Because if it did, the entire vial would be solid BLACK in color. Graphene doesn't come in any OTHER color, and it is NOT invisible UNLESS it's suspended in a liquid, and not able to concentrate into a "swarm" or grouping.
Oh, one other thing, are you saying that Dr. Campra's investigation ruled out the presence of any polymer-based chemicals in the clots? I thought you said he didn't actually test for it? So I'm wondering why you believe it should be be ruled out?
My knowledge with almost all things "pharma", and particularly vaccines, is that it appears they pack just about everything known to be toxic into every product they produce. And it also appears they go out of their way to pack as MANY of the MOST toxins things they can locate into the injections. Most of them they admit to including, but often the FDA lets them have a free pass to put WHATEVER they want to in the jabs, with no regard for whether it's been disclosed in the inserts.
The mainstream, and shills like "Snopes" or "MediaMatters" keep saying there's no graphene in any of the vaccines, but the actual makers admit it's in their products.
Because you only know half.
I don't agree, that's a way for False Dissidence to con people. What really counts is a chemical analysis, something that has not been done to determine if it is hydrogel or spider webs. Therefore, nothing can be scientifically stated.
We have analyzed the vaccines in 2021, and it was demonstrated that there are no plastics, no spiders, no polymers or hydrodeles inside. These people have used the term hydrogel to confuse people so they never know the truth. The hydrogel is the liquid of the vaccines, and inside this gel is the graphene.
You don't know that both the hydrogel and the polymers do not last more than 5 days in the body. Consult the scientific literature. But what we see in the blood of vaccinated people corresponds to months or years, and what we see is graphene oxide, which is indestructible as well as being an excellent conductor.
Without a chemical analysis, words are useless. In my country they say that words are carried away by the wind.
So you've got evidence that those who claim it's the same thing identified in the patents for the vaccines are liars? Please show me how you are absolutely certain the vaccines only contain graphene and none of the polymer-based hydrogels listed in the patents for them, and/or how those who were injected somehow magically avoided actually being injected with the things listed in the patents?
Or maybe you can show me your evidence that Dr. Ana is a lying "CON" who could not possibly have found anything OTHER THAN graphene in the blood of these people?
Look, I know it's in the vaccines, and I know this is what's causing the clots. The clots may contain graphene (I do believe this) but I do NOT believe there are no hydrogels or other polymer-based products in these vaccines, OR in the people who've been injected with them.
The fact you've completely ruled out the hydrogels as a possible component of the fibrous clots, EVEN THOUGH the vaccine patents CLAIM these components are present, is beyond obtuse. And the fact you're making this baseless claim in support of your theory that anyone talking about the connection is a "con", is fully absurd.
Again, this dialogue is unproductive. If you've got "proof" that nobody was injected with, or affected by, the components which the vaccine patents CLAIM are in these things, please provide it.
In science you don't work like that. Do you know what a peer study is? In science it is demonstrated with evidence, not with what others say, whether they are professors or Nobel Prize winners. In science it is demonstrated with facts, and with analysis. Is there any analysis that confirms that it is hydrogels or spiders? No, then everything you tell me is of no use to me.
Is there analysis that confirms that it is graphene oxide? Yes, there is. Well, it's more than clear.
Because there is clear evidence of the presence of graphene oxide, (and I agree that there is) this does NOT mean there are not ALSO polymer-based hydrogels.
If you'd read the patents for this technology you would plainly see that these systems rely upon BOTH (and other elements as well) in order to function.
And "science" should NOT begin with the ruling out the existence of one (OBVIOUS) element, (that's described in the specs of the patent filings) merely because another element is proven to be present.
I find it ODD that you would presume there's no possible way these jabs could possibly contain hydrogels when the patents themselves SAY they do, AND these rubbery clots are clearly NOT "organic" and they behave as polymer-based objects, rather than as "blood" clots, which easily "squish" into jelly when lightly touched. They are pulling freaking "calamari-like" crap out of these people. I do believe the self-assembling graphene could be acting as a scaffold for the formation of these "casts" which line the arteries. But it's OBVIOUS these clots are not entirely made up of pure graphene oxide.
..."DOES NOT mean that polymer-based hydrogels ALSO exist."
He demonstrates that what you see are hydrogels and not graphene, but with a chemical analysis, not because a patent says so. Give me the name or link of that patent you mention.
These gummy clots form due to carbon nanotubes that self-assemble inside. Have you seen our images of that tangle of fibers made of carbon nanotubes? Blood proteins surround them to prevent damage and the formation of these clots.
I think I told you in another comment that the hydrogel or polymers are expelled by the body after 5 days. And what we see in the blood, which you say are polymers, are graphene ribbons that are several years old. They cannot be polymers. Graphene is indestructible.
You don't realize that these people are trying to hide the truth about graphene with words like hydrogel, polymers or spiders. Ask yourself why no one talks about Dr. Campra, who was the first in the world to do a chemical analysis of vaccines.
They want to hide the truth about graphene. I was already talking to some of them, and they confirmed it to me. They have been hired to create controversy in the English-speaking world, so that people are confused. You will see that neither in Europe nor in the Hispanic world do they talk about hydrogels or polymers, because, being European, we have been collaborating with other research groups in Europe, and being Hispanic, the message reached South America perfectly.
Thank you.
I have also read that mass spectroscopy of the vaccines show zero phosphorus or nitrogen- the building blocks of RNA. So, is mRNA also a red herring meant to confuse people?
To me, the graphene Oxide/Hydroxide aspect- as discussed by Dr. Andrew Noack- before his premature death, is looking to be the most likely explanation.
Correct. The mRNA was a children's story, a smokescreen.
Dr. Noak also did a great job. In reality, oxide and hydroxide are the same technically. Graphene oxide converts to hydroxide when introduced into the human body. Its edge makes destruction wherever it passes.
You are persistent. So I am spending time thinking about what you're saying.
So your theory is that they completely lied about the inclusion of these polymer-based lipid nanoparticles and hydrogels in the vaccine patents? Or are you trying to say the patents do not exist? I cannot believe you've never seen the patents at this late stage. You can find them with a simple google search, and many substackers, including Dr. Ana, have them referrenced in their stories. Here's a link to a list of them that I found in about 5 seconds. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-00912-9
So you're saying the polymers simply cannot be present because graphene is present? And that the entire reason the vaccine-makers made us believe there are any lipid nanoparticles, was to create a red herring, (by naming these elements as essential to their products)? And this ruse was to cause us to overlook the graphene?
Pretty much everyone studying this crap (real people) are blowing the whistle on the fact BOTH the graphene and polymers are present. In fact, I don't know of anyone who's concerned about the polymers who has overlooked the graphene.
But I do agree with you that it's possible to "cast" the clots with self-assembling graphene, and you've said a few things that make it seem plausible the clots could be formed in this way. I just don't understand what benefits it produces for us to go after anyone who's also concerned about the polymers which are described in the patents, which clearly lay out the mechanisms by which the graphene and the hydrogels work together in ways that can clearly form clots.
Just because someone is exposing how MANY deadly toxins are present in the jabs, doesn't mean they're wrong to show people these things, cite the patents, and show others how all of this is working together to injure us.
One thing I am hoping, is that you're RIGHT and that the primary thing we need to be worried about is the graphene. But those pesky patents describe much more, all of which is DEADLY.
What you have sent me is not a patent, it is a study.
What I supposed. The article you send me is from 2021.
The studies from 2020 so far are not reliable, they control the institutions, how are we going to trust a study that hides graphene in favor of spider polymers? Let's be serious.
See if the study you send me is false, which talks about mRNA, when there are already 3 scientists who have analyzed the vaccines and have ruled that there is no mRNA. Don't you realize?
You continue to avoid what I have already told you several times. The polymers dissolve after 5 days in the body. Do you expect people to believe that what is seen in the blood of a person (I'm not talking about clots) vaccinated two years ago is a polymer? Please.
Do polymers or hydrogels explain the magnetism of vaccinated people? Do polymers or hydrogels explain the MAC addresses of vaccinated people? I can explain it to you with graphene because it has been in scientific literature for decades.
Which side are you on in this story? You know that time is running out
Here is a "study" of the PATENTS using this tech. It is called: "Systematic Patent Review of Nanoparticles in Drug Delivery and Cancer Therapy in the Last Decade"
SEE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8811617/
I intended to give you what appeared to be an overview of the actual patents (there are many) using this platform for "drug delivery" and vaccines. The citations for the specific patents covered in the study are listed in this paper.
You do insist.
1. The study is still from 2021, unreliable.
2. It doesn't say anything about hydrogels or polymers, just nanoparticles that are supposed to be graphene. In scientific literature we never talk about hydrogel nanoparticles, that does not exist.
What EXACTLY do you believe the lipid nanoparticles are comprised of? Farts?
Of graphene of course. The graphene was wrapped in peg so that the immune system does not detect it. It is in the scientific literature.
The study was of the patents. And I also reminded you that Dr. Ana's feed has the patents, AND that you can easily locate the relevant patents with a Google search. I used "USPTO Patent" and added the relevant terms to this. The link I gave you was the first search result, and since it was listing of related patents in one location, I thought it might be helpful.
I was trying to get you going on being able to find the relevant patents on your own.
And you're quite correct that the polymers CANNOT explain the phenomenon of signals, (IP address, etc.) nor many of the other items which have been well confirmed. But this is not evidence that the jabs do not ALSO contain the polymers. And those are also toxic, standing alone. So it's best if we're able to look at all of the issues we're dealing with her, in order to locate whatever remedies we can that can help.
For instance, there are some countermeasures which are showing themselves to be particularly helpful in "grabbing" the graphene (using a negatively-charged and safe mineral) and safely transporting it to be eliminated. Graphene is a terrible thing, and this part is a serious challenge, but early results from certain studies are giving me the impression there is hope. Here is on site that appears to be devoted to this issue, with many various items of interest; https://www.altermindset.com/how-to-detox-graphene-oxide/
And there are items which appear to be effective for clearing and detoxing from the polymers. Here's an item I found with some clues: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01717
And here is more on this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC143667/
And more: https://denutrients.substack.com/p/vinyl-chloride-risks-and-detox-possibilities
Also, I know that Dr. Ana has done a great deal of research into this particular issue (as well as into the graphene detox information).
Just because they are CLEARLY trying to kill us (and track/control) with self-assembling graphene nanotech, doesn't mean we can rule out and completely ignore the many additional things they're clearly doing to us with other toxins.
Here's a great article (MIT work) to bring you up to date on why it appears they are deploying the hydrogels in addition to graphene. They've been working on this for a very long time.
Title: Hydrogel interfaces for merging humans and machines
http://zhao.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/160.pdf
The hydrogels themselves can build "tissues" similar to ours. (Sort of a part synthetic/bio BORG?) I am thinking the self-assembling graphene can swiftly build a scaffold for just about anything else that they want to integrate, and it's clearly useful for any nanotech electronics.
I know what hydrogels are. Research has also been carried out in this regard, especially in polymers. But that's not the case, believe me.
Please think, I see that you are interested in knowing. In Dr. Campra's first report he says that there is 99.9% graphene oxide and 0.1% other materials such as minerals or DNA (which is surely DNA origami). You and other researchers you follow put the balance at that 0.1% instead of 99.1%. What do you think is more important? Think why these people are trying to change the situation and only focus on 0.1%. Is the damage caused by that 0.1 and not the graphene? Have you seen in scientific literature for decades what graphene does to the body? Where are those studies on the toxicity of hydrogels or polymers? Wake up!
Wow. So there was only 0.1% of anything BUT graphene oxide in the vials they were studying?
I am, and always have been, TERRIBLY concerned about the graphene. This stuff is SO deadly. It does seem a bit confusing though, because a vial containing 99.9% graphene would be BLACK, solid black. And if there was nothing in the fluid to make it viscous, there would be no way to keep the graphene from settling within any pure liquid/water. Without any sort of "gelling" ingredients in the vial, literally all of the graphene would settle on the bottom of the vial, and there would be no way to hide it. You'd SEE the black crap on the bottom of the vial.
And yet, I am seeing vials with viscous (thickened) liquid of some kind, which suspends the graphene, forcing people to warm the vial up to loosen the graphene suspension SO THAT it will be attracted to a magnet (swarm) so that a little "cloud" of graphene can finally be seen with the naked eye.
Hmm. Some of what you're saying is raising more questions for me. Are you saying that the liquid was pure water only? Or that the vial LITERALLY contained 99.1% graphene? Because if it did, the entire vial would be solid BLACK in color. Graphene doesn't come in any OTHER color, and it is NOT invisible UNLESS it's suspended in a liquid, and not able to concentrate into a "swarm" or grouping.
Oh, one other thing, are you saying that Dr. Campra's investigation ruled out the presence of any polymer-based chemicals in the clots? I thought you said he didn't actually test for it? So I'm wondering why you believe it should be be ruled out?
My knowledge with almost all things "pharma", and particularly vaccines, is that it appears they pack just about everything known to be toxic into every product they produce. And it also appears they go out of their way to pack as MANY of the MOST toxins things they can locate into the injections. Most of them they admit to including, but often the FDA lets them have a free pass to put WHATEVER they want to in the jabs, with no regard for whether it's been disclosed in the inserts.
Now they're calling graphene an "adjuvant" which helps vaccines to "trigger" the immune system. SEE: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37866317/ And here's a nice sales-pitch (NIH) from 2020, explaining why graphene is a great thing to put in the jabs: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7577689/
The mainstream, and shills like "Snopes" or "MediaMatters" keep saying there's no graphene in any of the vaccines, but the actual makers admit it's in their products.