Odds are good I will be adding more reports to this.
Why Are Cytotoxic Carbon NanoTubes or NanoWorms Found In mRNA Vaccines?
https://rumble.com/vg0gul-what-is-a-carbon-nanotube-or-nano-worm-doing-in-a-vaccine.html
I would suggest the following: what you are viewing is a carbon multi-walled nanotube (MWCNTs) which I have shown to elicit asbestos-like toxicological effects on cell membranes and cell genetics.
To reduce the risk for humans and animals, I would suggest that the physicochemical characteristics or reactivity of nano materials should be used to predict a serious health hazard.
Fibre-shape and the ability to generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) are important indicators of highly acidic hazardous materials. Asbestos is one of those known toxic acidic ROS generators, while MWCNTs may either produce or scavenge ROS.
However, certain biomolecules, such as albumin – used as dispersants in nano material or particulate preparations for toxicological testing in vivo and in vitro - may reduce the surface reactivity of these nano materials.
Testing MWCNT materials induced highly variable cytotoxic effects which generally are related to the abundance and characteristics of agglomerates/aggregates and to the rate of sedimentation.
I have found that All carbon nano materials - MWCNTs, like the one you are asking about in the above video, will scavenge hydroxyl radicals which is a major alkaline buffer (OH-) released by lymphocytes to protect the alkaline design of the body fluids for the purpose of reducing proton/hydrogen concentrations in the body fluids, leading to the risk of decompensated acidosis in all of the fluids or solutions of the body which I have tested, including the vascular and interstitial fluids of the Interstitium, leading to pathological blood coagulation, hypoxia and death by suffocation in humans and animals.
The effect of bovine serum albumin (BSA) in cell culture medium with and without BEAS 2B cells on radical formation/scavenging by five MWCNTs, Printex 90 carbon black, crocidolite asbestos, and glass wool, using electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy, showed cytotoxic effects measured by trypan blue exclusion assay among the materials tested. Two types of long, needle-like MWCNTs (average diameter > 74 and 64.2 nm, average length 5.7 and 4.0 μm, respectively) induced, in addition to a scavenging effect, a dose-dependent formation of a unique, yet unidentified radical or antioxidant release in both absence and presence of cells, which also coincides with cytotoxicity of these nanotubes or in simple terms MWCNTs are a contributing factor in the cause of a cancerous condition.
Based upon the microscopic evaluation presented in the above video it is my professional opinion that what is being viewed is a MWCNTs or a carbon nanotube which is highly cytotoxic or an acidifier to blood, interstitial fluid compartments and intracellular fluids, which may lead to cell membrane degeneration and genetic mutation of the body cells putting at risk the healthy state of all glands, organs and tissues in humans and animals.
Watch, listen, learn, care and share with everyone you love and care about - www.drrobertyoung.com/blog
References
1. De Volder MFL, Tawfick SH, Baughman RH, Hart AJ: Carbon nanotubes: present and future commercial applications. Science 2013, 339:535–539.
2. Liu Y, Zhao Y, Sun B, Chen C: Understanding the toxicity of carbon nanotubes. Acc Chem Res 2012, 46:702–713.
3. Fenoglio I, Aldieri E, Gazzano E, Cesano F, Colonna M, Scarano D, Mazzucco G, Attanasio A, Yakoub Y, Lison D, Fubini B: Thickness of multiwalled carbon nanotubes affects their lung toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol 2011, 25:74–82.
4. Service RF: Nanotubes: the next asbestos? Science 1998, 281:941.
5. Lam C-W, James JT, McCluskey R, Hunter RL: Pulmonary toxicity of singlewall carbon nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicol Sci 2004, 77:126–134.
6. Shvedova A, Castranova V, Kisin E, Schwegler-Berry D, Murray A, Gandelsman V, Maynard A, Baron P: Exposure to carbon nanotube material: assessment of nanotube cytotoxicity using human keratinocyte cells. J Toxicol Environ Health A 2003, 66:1909–1926.
7. Kim J, Song K, Lee J, Choi Y, Bang I, Kang C, Yu I: Toxicogenomic comparison of multi-wall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) and asbestos. Arch Toxicol 2012, 86:553–562.
8. Palomäki J, Välimäki E, Sund J, Vippola M, Clausen PA, Jensen KA, Savolainen K, Matikainen S, Alenius H: Long, needle-like carbon nanotubes and asbestos activate the NLRP3 inflammasome through a similar mechanism. ACS Nano 2011, 5:6861–6870.
9. Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A, Wallace WAH, Seaton A, Stone V, Brown S, MacNee W, Donaldson K: Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nano 2008, 3:423–428.
10. Sakamoto Y, Nakae D, Fukumori N, Tayama K, Maekawa A, Imai K, Hirose A, Nishimura T, Ohashi N, Ogata A: Induction of mesothelioma by a single intrascrotal administration of multi-wall carbon nanotube in intact male Fischer 344 rats. J Toxicol Sci 2009, 34:65–76.
11. Takagi A, Hirose A, Futakuchi M, Tsuda H, Kanno J: Dose-dependent mesothelioma induction by intraperitoneal administration of multi-wall carbon nanotubes in p53 heterozygous mice. Cancer Sci 2012, 103:1440–1444.
12. Takagi A, Hirose A, Nishimura T, Fukumori N, Ogata A, Ohashi N, Kitajima S, Kanno J: Induction of mesothelioma in p53+/- mouse by intraperitoneal application of multi-wall carbon nanotube. J Toxicol Sci 2008, 33:105–116.
13. Xu J, Futakuchi M, Shimizu H, Alexander DB, Yanagihara K, Fukamachi K, Suzui M, Kanno J, Hirose A, Ogata A, et al: Multi-walled carbon nanotubes translocate into the pleural cavity and induce visceral mesothelial proliferation in rats. Cancer Sci 2012, 103:2045–2050.
14. Murphy FA, Poland CA, Duffin R, Al-Jamal KT, Ali-Boucetta H, Nunes A, Byrne F, Prina-Mello A, Volkov Y, Li S, et al: Length-dependent retention of carbon nanotubes in the pleural space of mice initiates sustained inflammation and progressive fibrosis on the parietal pleura. Am J Pathol 2011, 178:2587–2600.
15. Murphy F, Poland C, Duffin R, Donaldson K: Length-dependent pleural inflammation and parietal pleural responses after deposition of carbon nanotubes in the pulmonary airspaces of mice. Nanotoxicology 2012, 1:11.
16. Nagai H, Okazaki Y, Chew SH, Misawa N, Yamashita Y, Akatsuka S, Ishihara T, Yamashita K, Yoshikawa Y, Yasui H, et al: Diameter and rigidity of multiwalled carbon nanotubes are critical factors in mesothelial injury and carcinogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2011, 108:E1330–E1338.
17. Nagai H, Toyokuni S: Differences and similarities between carbon nanotubes and asbestos fibers during mesothelial carcinogenesis: Shedding light on fiber entry mechanism. Cancer Sci 2012, 103:1378–1390.
18. Sargent L, Reynolds S, Castranova V: Potential pulmonary effects of engineered carbon nanotubes: in vitro genotoxic effects. Nanotoxicology 2010, 4:396–408.
19. Shvedova AA, Pietroiusti A, Fadeel B, Kagan VE: Mechanisms of carbon nanotube-induced toxicity: Focus on oxidative stress. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2012, 261:121–133.
20. Sund J, Alenius H, Vippola M, Savolainen K, Puustinen A: Proteomic characterization of engineered nanomaterial–protein interactions in relation to surface reactivity. ACS Nano 2011, 5:4300–4309.
21. Jaurand M-C, Renier A, Daubriac J: Mesothelioma: Do asbestos and carbon nanotubes pose the same health risk? Part Fibre Toxicol 2009, 6:1–14.
22. Kamp DW, Graceffa P, Pryor WA, Weitzman SA: The role of free radicals in asbestos-induced diseases. Free Radic Biol Med 1992, 12:293–315.
23. Fenoglio I, Greco G, Tomatis M, Muller J, Raymundo-Piñero E, Béguin F, Fonseca A, Nagy JB, Lison D, Fubini B: Structural defects play a major role in the acute lung toxicity of multiwall carbon nanotubes: physicochemical aspects. Chem Res Toxicol 2008, 21:1690–1697.
24. Jacobsen NR, Pojana G, White P, Møller P, Cohn CA, Smith Korsholm K, Vogel U, Marcomini A, Loft S, Wallin H: Genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and reactive oxygen species induced by single-walled carbon nanotubes and C60 fullerenes in the FE1-Muta™Mouse lung epithelial cells. Environ Mol Mutagen 2008, 49:476–487.
25. Bihari P, Vippola M, Schultes S, Praetner M, Khandoga A, Reichel C, Coester C, Tuomi T, Rehberg M, Krombach F: Optimized dispersion of nanoparticles for biological in vitro and in vivo studies. Part Fibre Toxicol 2008, 5:1–14.
26. Elgrabli D, Abella-Gallart S, Aguerre-Chariol O, Robidel F, Rogerieux F, Boczkowski J, Lacroix G: Effect of BSA on carbon nanotube dispersion for in vivo and in vitro studies. Nanotoxicology 2007, 1:266–278.
27. Vippola M, Falck G, Lindberg H, Suhonen S, Vanhala E, Norppa H, Savolainen K, Tossavainen A, Tuomi T: Preparation of nanoparticle dispersions for invitro toxicity testing. Hum Exp Toxicol 2009, 28:377–385.
28. NANOGENOTOX: Facilitating the safety evaluation of manufactured nanomaterials by characterizing their potential genotoxic hazard. Nancy: Bialec; 2013.
29. Foucaud L, Wilson MR, Brown DM, Stone V: Measurement of reactive species production by nanoparticles prepared in biologically relevant media. Toxicol Lett 2007, 174:1–9.
30. International Agency for Research on Cancer: Man-made vitreous fibres. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2002 [ IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, vol 81.].
31. Jacobsen NR, White PA, Gingerich J, Møller P, Saber AT, Douglas GR, Vogel U, Wallin H: Mutation spectrum in FE1-MUTATMMouse lung epithelial cells exposed to nanoparticulate carbon black. Environ Mol Mutagen 2011, 52:331–337.
32. Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H, Pauluhn J: Pulmonary toxicity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (Baytubes®) relative to α-quartz following a single 6 h inhalation exposure of rats and a 3 months post-exposure period. Toxicology 2009, 266:16–29.
33. Jensen KA: Summary report on primary physicochemical properties of manufactured nanomaterials used in NANOGENOTOX. NANOGENOTOX Final Report 2013: [http://www.nanogenotox.eu/files/PDF/Deliverables/ d4.1_summary%20report.pdf].
34. Murray A, Kisin E, Tkach A, Yanamala N, Mercer R, Young S-H, Fadeel B, Kagan V, Shvedova A: Factoring-in agglomeration of carbon nanotubes and nanofibers for better prediction of their toxicity versus asbestos. Part Fibre Toxicol 2012, 9:10.
35. Searl A, Buchanan D, Cullen RT, Jones AD, Miller BG, Soutar CA: Biopersistence and durability of nine mineral fibre types in rat lungs over 12 months. Ann Occup Hyg 1999, 43:143–153.
36. Saber A, Jensen K, Jacobsen N, Birkedal R, Mikkelsen L, Møller P, Loft S, Wallin H, Vogel U: Inflammatory and genotoxic effects of nanoparticles designed for inclusion in paints and lacquers. Nanotoxicology 2012, 6:453–471.
37. Roche M, Rondeau P, Singh NR, Tarnus E, Bourdon E: The antioxidant properties of serum albumin. FEBS Lett 2008, 582:1783–1787.
38. Pacurari M, Yin X, Zhao J, Ding M, Leonard S, Schwegler-Berry D, Ducatman B, Sbarra D, Hoover M, Castranova V, Vallyathan V: Raw single-wall carbon nanotubes induce oxidative stress and activate MAPKs, AP-1, NF-kappaB, and Akt in normal and malignant human mesothelial cells. Environ Health Perspect 2008, 116:1211–1217.
39. Bennett SW, Adeleye A, Ji Z, Keller AA: Stability, metal leaching, photoactivity and toxicity in freshwater systems of commercial single wall carbon nanotubes. Water Res 2013, 47:4074–4085.
40. Carella E, Ghiazza M, Alfè M, Gazzano E, Ghigo D, Gargiulo V, Ciajolo A, Fubini B, Fenoglio I: Graphenic nanoparticles from combustion sources scavenge hydroxyl radicals depending upon their structure. Bio Nano Sciences 2013, 3:112–122.
41. Kagan VE, Tyurina YY, Tyurin VA, Konduru NV, Potapovich AI, Osipov AN, Kisin ER, Schwegler-Berry D, Mercer R, Castranova V, Shvedova AA: Direct and indirect effects of single walled carbon nanotubes on RAW 264.7 macrophages: Role of iron. Toxicol Lett 2006, 165:88–100.
42. Mercer R, Hubbs A, Scabilloni J, Wang L, Battelli L, Schwegler-Berry D, Castranova V, Porter D: Distribution and persistence of pleural penetrations by multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Part Fibre Toxicol 2010, 7:28.
43. Henstridge MC, Shao L, Wildgoose GG, Compton RG, Tobias G, Green MLH: The electrocatalytic properties of Arc-MWCNTs and Associated ‘Carbon Onions’. Electroanalysis 2008, 20:498–506.
44. Ambrosi A, Pumera M: Amorphous Carbon Impurities Play an Active Role in Redox Processes of Carbon Nanotubes. J Phys Chem C 2011, 115:25281–25284.
45. He H-y, Pan B-c: Studies on structural defects in carbon nanotubes. Front Phys China 2009, 4:297–306.
46. van Berlo D, Clift M, Albrecht C, Schins R: Carbon nanotubes: an insight into the mechanisms of their potential genotoxicity. Swiss Med Wkly 2012, 142:w13698.
47. Tsuruoka S, Takeuchi K, Koyama K, Noguchi T, Endo M, Tristan F, Terrones M, Matsumoto H, Saito N, Usui Y, et al: ROS evaluation for a series of CNTs and their derivatives using an ESR method with DMPO. J Phys: Conference Series 2013, 429:012029.
48. Srivastava R, Pant A, Kashyap M, Kumar V, Lohani M, Jonas L, Rahman Q: Multi-walled carbon nanotubes induce oxidative stress and apoptosis in human lung cancer cell line-A549. Nanotoxicology 2010, 5:195–207.
49. Reddy ARN, Reddy YN, Krishna DR, Himabindu V: Multi wall carbon nanotubes induce oxidative stress and cytotoxicity in human embryonic kidney (HEK293) cells. Toxicology 2010, 272:11–16.
50. Lindberg HK, Falck GCM, Singh R, Suhonen S, Järventaus H, Vanhala E, Catalán J, Farmer PB, Savolainen KM, Norppa H: Genotoxicity of short single-wall and multi-wall carbon nanotubes in human bronchial epithelial and mesothelial cells in vitro. Toxicology 2013, 313:24–37.
51. Miserocchi G: Physiology and pathophysiology of pleural fluid turnover. European Respiratory Journal 1997, 10:219–225.
52. Porter D, Hubbs A, Chen B, McKinney W, Mercer R, Wolfarth M, Battelli L, Wu N, Sriram K, Leonard S, et al: Acute pulmonary dose–responses to inhaled multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Nanotoxicology 2012, 7:1179–1194.
53. Shen J-W, Wu T, Wang Q, Kang Y: Induced stepwise conformational change of human serum albumin on carbon nanotube surfaces. Biomaterials 2008, 29:3847–3855.
54. Yang M, Meng J, Mao X, Yang Y, Cheng X, Yuan H, Wang C, Xu H: Carbon Nanotubes Induce Secondary Structure Changes of Bovine Albumin in Aqueous Phase. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 2010, 10:7550–7553.
55. Salvador-Morales C, Townsend P, Flahaut E, Vénien-Bryan C, Vlandas A, Green MLH, Sim RB: Binding of pulmonary surfactant proteins to carbon nanotubes; potential for damage to lung immune defense mechanisms. Carbon 2007, 45:607–617.
56. Wang F, Yu L, Monopoli MP, Sandin P, Mahon E, Salvati A, Dawson KA: The biomolecular corona is retained during nanoparticle uptake and protects the cells from the damage induced by cationic nanoparticles until degraded in the lysosomes. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine 2013, 9:1159–1168.
57. Reddel RR, Ke Y, Gerwin BI, McMenamin MG, Lechner JF, Su RT, Brash DE, Park JB, Rhim JS, Harris CC: Transformation of human bronchial epithelial cells by infection with SV40 or adenovirus-12 SV40 hybrid virus, or transfection via strontium phosphate coprecipitation with a plasmid containing SV40 early region genes. Cancer Res 1988, 48:1904–1909.
58. Park MVDZ, Neigh AM, Vermeulen JP, de la Fonteyne LJJ, Verharen HW, Briedé JJ, van Loveren H, de Jong WH: The effect of particle size on the cytotoxicity, inflammation, developmental toxicity and genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2011, 32:9810–9817. doi:10.1186/1743-8977-11-4
59. Nymark et al.: Free radical scavenging and formation by multi-walled carbon nanotubes in cell free conditions and in human bronchial epithelial cells. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2014 11:4. Source
DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) 675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 703.526.6630. This is an official U.S. Department of Defense website sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. They also make the Hydro Gel. Found in the new swabs as noted below and is also probably in the so called vaccines. The tiny particles on swabs and masks could come from there as well. They have the tech to do that.
They can make things small enough to go through a syringe and have for some time. This is a report from DARPA from 2016. Imagine what they can do now.
8/3/2016
Therapeutic modulation of the activity of the body’s peripheral nervous system (PNS) (holds a world of potential for mitigating and treating disease and other health conditions)—https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-10-05 if researchers can figure out a feasible long-term mechanism for communicating with the nerves and pathways that make up the body’s information superhighway between the spinal cord and other organs.
What does “feasible” look like? Small is the best start—small enough to someday perhaps be injected or ingested—but also precise, wireless, stable, and comfortable for the user. Modern electrode-based recording technologies feature some, but not all of these qualities. Hardwired solutions present challenges for chronic use, while existing wireless solutions cannot be adequately scaled down to the sizes needed to record activity from small-diameter nerves and record independently from many discrete sites within a nerve bundle. DARPA’s Electrical Prescriptions (ElectRx) https://www.darpa.mil/program/electrical-prescriptions. program is focused in part on overcoming these constraints and delivering interface technologies that are suitable for chronic use for biosensing and neuromodulation of peripheral nerve targets.
Now, as described in results published today in the journal Neuron, a DARPA-funded research team led by the University of California, Berkeley’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences has developed a safe, millimeter-scale wireless device small enough to be implanted in individual nerves, capable of detecting electrical activity of nerves and muscles deep within the body, and that uses ultrasound for power coupling and communication. They call these devices “neural dust.” The team completed the first in vivo tests of this technology in rodents.
“Neural dust represents a radical departure from the traditional approach of using radio waves for wireless communication with implanted devices,” said Doug Weber, the DARPA program manager for ElectRx. “The soft tissues of our body consist mostly of saltwater. Sound waves pass freely through these tissues and can be focused with pinpoint accuracy at nerve targets deep inside our body, while radio waves cannot. Indeed, this is why sonar is used to image objects in the ocean, while radar is used to detect objects in the air. By using ultrasound to communicate with the neural dust, the sensors can be made smaller and placed deeper inside the body, by needle injection or other non-surgical approaches.”
The prototype neural dust “motes” currently measure 0.8 millimeters x 3 millimeters x 1 millimeter as assembled with commercially available components. The researchers estimate that by using custom parts and processes, they could manufacture individual motes of 1 cubic millimeter or less in size—possibly as small as 100 microns per side. The small size means multiple sensors could be placed near each other to make more precise recordings of nerve activity from many sites within a nerve or group of nerves.
Though their miniscule size is an achievement in itself, the dust motes are as impressive for the elegant simplicity of their engineering. Each sensor consists of only three main parts: a pair of electrodes to measure nerve signals, a custom transistor to amplify the signal, and a piezoelectric crystal that serves the dual purpose of converting the mechanical power of externally generated ultrasound waves into electrical power and communicating the recorded nerve activity. The neural dust system also includes an external transceiver board that uses ultrasound to power and communicate with the motes by emitting pulses of ultrasonic energy and listening for reflected pulses. During testing, the transceiver board was positioned approximately 9 millimeters away from the implant.
The piezoelectric crystal is key to the design of neural dust. Pulses of ultrasonic energy emitted by the external board affect the crystal. While some of the pulses are reflected back to the board, others cause the crystal to vibrate. This vibration converts the mechanical power of the ultrasound wave into electrical power, which is supplied to the dust mote’s transistor. Meanwhile, any extracellular voltage change across the mote’s two recording electrodes—generated by nerve activity—modulates the transistor’s gate, which changes the current flowing between the terminals of the crystal. These changes in current alter the vibration of the crystal and the intensity of its reflected ultrasonic energy. In this way, the shape of the reflected ultrasonic pulses encodes the electrophysiological voltage signal recorded by the implanted electrodes. This signal can be reconstructed externally by electronics attached to the transceiver board to interpret nerve activity. “One of the most appealing features of the neural dust sensors is that they are completely passive. Because there are no batteries to be changed, there is no need for further surgeries after the initial implant,” Weber said.
Another benefit of the system is that ultrasound is safe in the human body; ultrasound technologies have long been used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Most existing wireless PNS sensors use electromagnetic energy in the form of radio waves for coupling and communication, but these systems become inefficient for sensors smaller than 5 millimeters. To work at smaller scales, these systems must increase their energy output, and much of that energy gets absorbed by surrounding tissue. Ultrasound has the advantage of penetrating deeper into tissue at lower power levels, reducing the risk of adverse effects while yielding excellent spatial resolution.
This proof of concept was developed under the first phase of the ElectRx program. The research team will continue to work on further miniaturizing the sensors, ensuring biocompatibility, increasing the portability of the transceiver board, and achieving clarity in signals processing when multiple sensors are placed near each other.
IEach neural dust sensor consists of only three main parts: a pair of electrodes to measure nerve signals, a custom transistor to amplify the signal, and a piezoelectric crystal that serves the dual purpose of converting the mechanical power of externally generated ultrasound waves into electrical power and communicating the recorded nerve activity.
https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2016-08-03
Also video of what Dr Young looked at.
Direct Link https://www.bitchute.com/video/NQH8cLGFqsiT/
Links:to patents
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9067047B2/en
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1e/fc/a1/3e3d17d2c1a878/WO2018002938A1.pdf
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2011011725A2/en
Hydro gel was also found in the new swabs.
https://shadowsbearsoutlook.blogspot.com/2021/03/pcr-swab-sterilized-with-cancer-causing.html
When it comes to the parasites people found those in the masks
https://shadowsbearsoutlook.blogspot.com/2020/09/masks-are-just-not-good-thing.html
If this is real it is also something anyone could try. So how magnetic are you?
Now I think, I get why others, by times had to flip the magnets. Well all I can say is try this out. Science experiment time. Again.
I stoped the video to read all her posts.
Direct Link https://www.bitchute.com/video/XKU4LibPxlEt/
WHAT ARE THE INGREDIENTS IN THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE?
I looked a few that other did not. Here are just a few.
The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine contains the following ingredients: messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), lipids (SM-102, polyethylene glycol [PEG] 2000 dimyristoyl glycerol [DMG], cholesterol, and 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine [DSPC]), tromethamine, tromethamine hydrochloride, acetic acid, sodium acetate trihydrate, and sucrose.
I looked up a couple of them not all.
Cholesterol That is the stuff they people Statin drugs for. Like Lipitor or Crestor. The drugs that are really bad for you by the way. Look up side effects. Look up Lawsuits even.
I wonder where that is coming from animal or human? I don’t want either or shoved into my arm.
Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a polyether compound derived from petroleum with many applications,
Tromethamine
Tell your caregivers right away if you have:
- weak or shallow breathing;
- a light-headed feeling, like you might pass out; or
- headache, hunger, weakness, irritability, dizziness, fast heart rate, or feeling jittery.
Common side effects may include:
- fever;
- swelling;
- feeling short of breath; or
- bruising or swelling around the IV needle.
https://www.everydayhealth.com/drugs/tromethamine
Here’s a website containing further links. SM-102 is a concern for many.
https://truthinplainsight.com/moderna-vaccine-contains-sm-102/
Product Description
SM-102 is an ionizable amino lipid that has been used in combination with other lipids in the formation of lipid nanoparticles.1 Administration of luciferase mRNA in SM-102-containing lipid nanoparticles induces hepatic luciferase expression in mice. Formulations containing SM-102 have been used in the development of lipid nanoparticles for delivery of mRNA-based vaccines.
WARNING This product is not for human or veterinary use.
https://www.caymanchem.com/product/33474
What are the ingredients in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine?
The Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine includes the following ingredients:
Active Ingredient
- nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike glycoprotein (S) of SARS-CoV-2
Lipids
- (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis (ALC-3015)
- (2- hexyldecanoate),2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide (ALC-0159)
- 1,2-distearoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine (DPSC)
- cholesterol
Salts
- potassium chloride
- monobasic potassium phosphate
- sodium chloride
- basic sodium phosphate dihydrate
Other
- sucrose
They tested 44 vaccines
With the number of meatals they found there is no way they got into the vaccines by accident. They were put in there on porupose. For what is the question. Were they testing nan tech on the children all these years. We know they tested microchips on dogs and still do. Dogs make good lab rats.
Metals, Micro- Nanocontamination found in Vaccines
Direct Link https://www.bitchute.com/video/HKpABJ2D9bRF/
There are a lot of videos out there about this one. Anyone can try this.
THE COVID VACCINE MAGNET CHALLENGE The “Covid Vaccine Magnet Challenge” is the new viral sensation on social media where vaccinated individuals place a magnet on their arm near the shot site to see if it will stick. Our Mom-on-the-Street, Carmen Estel, tested this out in the field with some pretty shocking results.
Direct Link https://www.bitchute.com/video/FApEqfMvbOYw/
So some are magnetic and some are not. Maybe it depends on the batch. This applies to both Moderna and Pfizer. From the videos I have seen.
UK Medical Doctor - Experimental Covid-19 "Vaccines" and Genocide
Direct Link https://www.bitchute.com/video/sgFALLzNb3US/
In the UK SPI-B and SAGE group once again at it this time collecting more data
https://www.rt.com/uk/524596-oxford-collected-phone-data/
This could be possible. Wireless anything emitts EMF's If they are chipping people, this is posible as it would have to connect through wireless. Like Cell Phone to Cell towers. Or Smart Meters to where ever. This could be one of the reasons they want 5G so badly. This one might be worth checking out. If they want to track people it would have to emmit and EMF or a fequency of some sort.
EMF Reader shows a vaccinated person emitting a high level of EMF radiation
Direct Link https://www.bitchute.com/video/6y6EBtrtRnNt/
Now if werid stuff like this happens to you let me know. I doubt this one is a real thing. Everything needs two conections, be it electric or battery operated, to work. Just adding a little sceince to the equation. BUT If you light up like a neon light, the world would want to know of course.
VAX WEAPON SITE LIGHTS UP LIGHT BULB
Direct link https://newtube.app/carmenjq17/OVQyHoi
Is this posssible. I doubt it, but I could be wrong. Again if anything werid like this happens let me know. I find this one terribley amusing.
YOU MAY BE BLUETOOTH COMPATIBLE IF YOU HAVE HAD THE VACCINE
Direct Link https://newtube.app/user/Fredyatelmstreet13/U9HptKD
When it comes to SAGE in the UK I am not a fan. When it comes the UK modeling that to date has been a complete farce. So take this with a grain of salt. But odds are those that are vaccinated will get very sick theis fall. Since they started the vaccinations along came the so called new variantes as well. If they are using the PCR test to test for them, then it is all BS.
A recent document published by the UK’s Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modeling, Operational subgroup (SPI-M-O), has triggered controversy among netizens due to its predictions about a potential third wave of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. SPI-M-O reports to the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and advises the British government.
The authors predict that the “resurgence in both hospitalizations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age groups, such that immunization failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals.”
“This shows that most deaths and admissions in a post-Roadmap resurgence are in people who have received two vaccine doses, even without vaccine protection waning or a variant emerging that escapes vaccines,” the document continues.
The bottom line is those that have been vaccinated will be the sickest in the fall of 2021
The rest is pretty much propeganda.
https://www.visiontimes.com/2021/04/21/uk-third-wave-fully-vaccinated.html
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment