Is Graphene Oxide Really in the 'Vaccines'? And Why Are Scientists Claiming This Toxic Substance Is Safe?

Authors of new study claim graphene oxide is safe, results indicate opposite is true.

A new study is being used to push the claim that graphene oxide is safe. Before I dissect that study, it behooves me to address a few myths about this so-called 'wonder' material.

Among the many controversies surrounding the toxic COVID ‘vaccines’ is the claim they contain graphene oxide, an ingredient not found in the drugs' package inserts. A water-insoluble, super-thin material formed by the oxidation of graphite, graphene oxide has already been established in numerous studies as toxic to living organisms.

Which no doubt makes it a highly attractive entity to the depopulation-obsessed Davos crowd, who seem hellbent on pumping as much toxic junk into us as they can (in)humanly get away with.

But does that mean it's surreptitiously included in the COVID gene therapies?

The hotly-contested claim that COVID ‘vaccines’ contain graphene oxide first gained traction in mid-2021 when Spanish organization La Quintana Columna (The Fifth Column) publicized a study reporting its presence in said drugs.

That study was conducted by Dr Pablo Campra Madrid, PhD in Chemical Sciences at the Food Technology Division of the Department of Agronomy, University of Almeria, Spain.

He tested vials of the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen/J&J gene therapies, and detected "conclusive" evidence of graphene in samples of the first three products, and seemingly strong evidence of its presence in the Janssen drug.

That same year, a Dr Robert O Young (a naturopath with a PhD in nutrition and DSc in Biochemistry) published an online article describing how he detected graphene oxide in the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen 'vaccines.'

Both studies have been loudly touted online as proof the vaxxxines do indeed contain graphene, but both have a number of critical limitations.

Neither study has been peer-reviewed and published, meaning their results have not been subjected to professional scrutiny, let alone replicated by other researchers.

Neither study has presented the crucial "chain of custody" for the drug samples that were analyzed.

Dr Madrid presented batch numbers for all but one drug sample, but his online paper does not state how the drugs were sourced.

A "provisonal" report by Dr Madrid dated June 28, 2021, describes a single Pfizer vial that was received by messenger on June 10, 2021. He includes lot and expiry information for the vial, but again the chain of custody for the vial is unknown.

According to Healthline.org, Dr Campra Madrid "clarifies that the person who sent him this supposed vial is Ricardo Delgado Martín,” who runs La Quintana Columna.

Furthermore, in Madrid's November 2021 paper, we learn that the Moderna sample was "Not sealed," while the Janssen sample was not only lacking a seal but also a batch number.

Dr Young's paper, meanwhile, makes no mention whatsoever of batch numbers and how/where the 'vaccine' samples were sourced.

This lack of traceability is a fatal flaw. In a court of law, any half-wit lawyer could easily undermine the credibility of these studies with one simple question:

"Can you guarantee, beyond all reasonable doubt, that these samples were not in any way tampered with or adulterated before you received them?"

The honest answer to that question, of course, would be no.

I'm not saying Madrid and Young are wrong or lying. What I'm saying is their studies are unfortunately flawed and, as they stand, cannot be taken as proof of anything.

Graphene oxide.

The Aha! Paper That Isn't

Another paper that has been widely trumpeted as proof of graphene in the vaxxxines is this document. It is part of the tranche of Pfizer-related documents the FDA was forced to release after a US court squashed its request to keep the documents hidden for 75 years.

The fourteen-page document mentions graphene oxide only once, on page 7. Here's a screenshot:

That passage is widely quoted as an admission that the gene therapies contain graphene oxide. It isn't. It is simply describing how Pfizer scientists allegedly used cryo-electron microscopy to identify the so-called P2 S antigen for the mythical Sars-Cov-2 virus. The passage above describes a step in this experiment, not a step in the manufacturing process of the company's pseudo-vaccine.

Pfizer Cannot Guarantee Its Vaxxxine Does Not Contain Graphene

Melissa McAtee is a former Pfizer quality auditor turned whistleblower. In this video, she shares an interesting email exchange between two Pfizer staff members. On July 12, 2021, around the time the Madrid study begins getting attention, Sandra Van Zyl from Pfizer UK writes to colleague Steven Hays and tells him she has been receiving "quite a few" inquiries about graphene oxide.

She proposes a standardized response stating: "Graphene oxide is not used during the manufacture of the vaccine and the final product does not contain graphene oxide."

She then adds a disclaimer that begins, "We cannot guarantee that minute amounts of substances are not contained in raw materials obtained from our suppliers." She adds that Pfizer "must" use a variety of suppliers globally, which sounds a lot like hand-balling the blame for any impurities to these third parties.

Hays replies the same day, telling Van Zyl it would be preferable to omit "we cannot guarantee ... "

Hays admits that specifically omitting that section would "require some extensive confirmation" from Pfizer's Global Chemistry, Manufacturing & Controls section. Not to be deterred by such trivial formalities, Hays says "But I think that is the statement we should go with for now."

In other words, Hays can't guarantee that no graphene oxide has slipped into Pfizer vaxxxines via third party raw materials, but tells Van Zyl it would be best not to admit that to the masses.

Again, this doesn't necessarily mean the vaxxxines do in fact contain graphene oxide. It does constitute an implicit admission that the possibility of contamination with "minute amounts" of graphene oxide by third parties cannot be ruled out.

OK, Now Here's What We Know For Sure About Graphene Oxide

Whether or not the vaxxxines contain or have contained graphene oxide, there are some things everyone should know about this substance.

The first is that experimental studies have repeatedly shown graphene oxide to be toxic.

As a 2021 review noted, graphene oxide "is currently used in biotechnology and medicine for cancer treatment, drug delivery, and cellular imaging ... However, the toxic effect of GO on living cells and organs is a limiting factor that limits its use in the medical field."

When administered directly to the lungs of mice, graphene oxide causes inflammation and/or fibrosis in lung tissue at 21-30 days (for examples, see Duch 2011, Mutlu 2011, Shvedova 2005).

More recently, Zhang et al injected groups of rats for seven consecutive days with varying doses of graphene oxide, and found "that GO causes lung injury in a dose‐dependent manner by inducing autophagy."

Flasz et al observed that "relatively low (approaching real)" doses of graphene oxide caused DNA damage in house crickets, with DNA breaks and oxidative damage more common in larvae and young adult crickets.

Graphene oxide has been shown to reduce reproduction and survival of water fleas.

Graphene oxide administered in low concentrations caused "remarkable" weight loss, delayed development, retarded motion, and shortened lifespan of flies.

Graphene oxide's toxic effects on reproduction and growth have also been observed in, among other species, green algae, cyanobacteria and diatoms (Yin 2020), microalgae (Hazeem 2017), nematodes (Kim 2018; Wu 2014), and zebrafish (Chen 2012; Chen 2014; d’Amora 2017; Jeong 2015).

Now, I know what you're thinking: "That's all well and good, Anthony, but I ain't no zebrafish. What does this stuff do to humans?"

Patience my little house crickets, patience. I'll get to that in a moment.

Before I do that, I want to share something else you must know about graphene oxide: Despite it's demonstrated toxicity, scientists are determined to expand its use in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. That's because, like fellow toxic nanoparticle polyethylene glycol (aka PEG, which definitely is in the Pfizer and Moderna gene therapies), graphene oxide is an efficient delivery vehicle of foreign substances in the body.

Graphene oxide has already found its way into some of those stupid-looking, unhealthy and utterly useless face masks people were forced to wear during the peak of the Great COVID Con. In March 2021, Health Canada warned of the potential for "early lung damage" from a specific model of grey and blue Chinese-made face masks that contained graphene oxide. The masks had been distributed to Quebec schools and daycare centres. According to Radio-Canada, some daycare educators had become suspicious of the grey and blue masks "because they felt like they were swallowing cat hair while wearing them."

A quick check on Amazon.com shows masks advertised as containing graphene are still being sold at the site (see here and here).

Yet Another Toxic 'Wonder' Adjuvant

Big Pharma seems to have a near-sexual level fetish for using toxic substances as adjuvants in vaxxxines. I'm not sure which megalomaniac first came up with the idea of injecting mercury-based preservative thimerosal into children, a practice that is not conspiracy theory but indisputable fact.

Whether or not the current batch of COVID gene therapies contain graphene oxide, the proposed use of this substance in vaccines is not a conspiracy theory either. Several papers have already been published hailing graphene oxide as a mucho magnifico vaccine adjuvant (for examples, see Xu 2016; Vakili 2023).

A 2022 paper named graphene oxide among the nanomaterials that might serve as an adjuvant in future COVID-19 'vaccines.'

Chinese researchers recently published a study claiming a graphene oxide-containing influenza vaccine produced far stronger IgG antibody responses in mice than vaccines containing inactivated virus alone.

So, if vaccine researchers get their way, graphene oxide will be coming soon to a flu and clot shot near you.

That leaves the task of conditioning people to believe that being injected with carbon-based nanomolecules is good for them.

Which brings us to a study recently published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.

Let the Graphene Brainwashing Begin

On February 16, Nature Nanotechnology published an article titled "First-in-human controlled inhalation of thin graphene oxide nanosheets to study acute cardiorespiratory responses."

The researchers had synthesized what they considered new and improved graphic oxide nanosheets. Their working hypothesis was "that inhalation of our high-purity, thin GO would have only modest effects on cardiorespiratory function and blood markers of inflammation and coagulability, the magnitude of which would be lower the smaller the lateral dimensions of the nanosheets."

On three separate occasions, each 2 weeks apart, 14 volunteers visited the lab. In randomized order, they inhaled small or ultra-small graphene oxide nanosheets, or filtered air for two hours under carefully controlled conditions while intermittently cycling on a stationary bike. After the two-hour exposure, the subjects were monitored for a further 4 hours.

In the four hours post-exposure, the researchers reported no significant differences in lung function, heart rate or blood pressure between treatments.

Now here's where things get shady.

To investigate the possible effect of graphene oxide exposure on blood clotting, blood drawn from the subjects was circulated through a shear chamber designed to simulate the flow of blood through arteries. Two test conditions were employed: A "low-shear" chamber simulating normal, open coronary arteries, and a "high-shear" chamber simulating mildly atherosclerotic and narrowed coronary arteries.

The results showed that inhalation of either small or ultra-small graphene oxide nanosheets "led to a greater blood thrombogenicity compared with air exposure in the low-shear chamber."

A similar pattern was observed in the high-shear chamber, although the effect was statistically significant only for the small graphene oxide nanosheet exposure.

So a study with healthy volunteers showed a single, isolated bout of graphene oxide ingestion caused a statistically significant increase in blood clotting tendency.

This, keep in mind, was observed with a dose "carefully chosen to avoid overt physiological effects."

In conclusion, the researchers wrote "Overall, acute inhalation of highly purified and thin nanometre-sized graphene oxide nanosheets was not associated with overt detrimental effects in healthy humans."

Well, it's true no-one died or had a heart attack.

But what might happen in the case of repeated exposure or even significant acute exposure to individuals who are at risk of or already suffering coronary heart disease or ischaemic stroke?

The authors were clearly unfazed by such concerns when drafting up their press release. As was SciTechDaily, which posted an article the same day the study was published, complete with the following egregious headline:

"Wonder Material” Graphene Verified Safe in Groundbreaking Human Study"

Are they for real?

"Carefully controlled inhalation of a specific type of graphene," said the patently misleading article, "has no short-term adverse effects on lung or cardiovascular function, the study shows."

"Researchers noticed a slight suggestion that inhalation of the material may influence the way the blood clots [read: a statistically significant increase in thrombogenicity], but they stressed this effect was very small."

One of the study authors, Kostas Kostarelos, of the University of Manchester and Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, said:

“This is the first-ever controlled study involving healthy people to demonstrate that very pure forms of graphene oxide – of a specific size distribution and surface character – can be further developed in a way that would minimize the risk to human health."

The study results do not show that. As the press release acknowledged, this is the "first controlled (graphene oxide) exposure clinical trial in people." Only a single human study to date - one designed to avoid "overt" toxic effects - and it already found an increase in blood clotting tendency in healthy volunteers after an isolated exposure. Yet the researchers and SciTechDaily talk as if the safety of graphene oxide is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

It clearly isn't. Animal research has repeatedly shown graphene oxide to exert an array of adverse effects, including reproductive dysfunction and shortened lifespan. The first ever controlled human study with "highly purified" and supposedly contaminant-free graphene oxide has detected increased blood clotting tendency after a single 2-hour exposure. That sounds like the last thing we need in a world where most folks have been repeatedly pinned with cardiotoxic clot shots.

The Nature Nanotechnology paper is cause for concern, not celebration.

Get ready for more pro-graphene propaganda, as the Davos crowd lube us up for yet another bout of toxic chemical buggery.