Graphene Oxide: The actual contents inside Pfizer vials exposed

He claims to be the inventer of mRNA vacines.

This is what the medical community is questioning.

I was about to post the links for you but saw someone had done it for you, I honestly assumed you'd be able to do it yourself so I apologize for that.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: tanstaafl

Ok apparently beyond you so i will help you.

Notice what it says at the top of his website.

www.rwmalonemd.com...

So he claims he invented something he did not.

I actually clicked the link and read.

Nowhere does he claim to have invented these current mRNA jabs.

Reading the linked page makes it very clear he pioneered the technology used to make the current jabs. He has a lot of patents, and describes the process big pharma used to get around them.

So, no, he still hasn't claimed to have invented these jabs.

Next?

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: nonspecific
How can it be sound advice if your not a doctor though?

I'd take your advice on something you have credentials for but you can't expect people to choose random bloke on conspiracy site over medical professionals really can you?

originally posted by: RazorV66
Many members, including myself, have said to stay away from the “vaccine” for a virus that has less than a 1% death rate.
None of them or myself are doctors, but it is sound advice.
I’ll continue to take my chances without the “vaccine’

Same advice given for the creator of the (vaccine)

Did you talk to her? i doubt it severly

originally posted by: Salander
That's a good picture of you with your ears plugged, and most appropriate for your apparent mindset.

No, it’s for horsesh*t posts like yours

This graphene oxide discovery has you and other guardians of the official narrative quite concerned, eh?

Show me where graphine oxide is listed as an ingredient:

“www.cdc.gov...-C”

It isn’t.

Likely certain individuals can tolerate some level of graphene oxide for some period of time, while others succumb quickly, in hours, days or weeks.

And if there WAS in the vaccine, then sure.

But let me guess, like most people here, you base your information on social media, right? What people post on Facebook, Instacrap, TikTok, etc.

Basically, your OP is debunked : “www.politifact.com...“

I am pretty sure that any "fact checking" websites are instantly dismissed as government funded disinfo by most people making outlandish claims.

They are a bit like how a rational person treats Alex Jones sadly.


a reply to: noonebutme

originally posted by: Salander
It sounds to me like the fools are those who buy into the claims of well known liars with an agenda. An example would be Pharma and its many advertising brochures.

Irony is off the scale!

originally posted by: baggy7981
Much better to believe the experts who drive up to Scotland whilst in the midst of lockdown, and then further drive to a castle to 'check their eyesight is suitable for driving'. Real scientific.

Dominic Cummings? He's not an expert or a scientist.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: tanstaafl
Well its not my fault you cant read the top of the page right next to his email is english a second language?

I said these mRNA jabs.

The linked info makes it very clear.

But, it's not my fault you can't read, is english your second language?

But even pioneered as you want to claim thats false too. None of his patents were used why would they it was the 80s and we have learned alot since then.

All of it is based on his pioneering work.

But yeah, you go ahead and believe the lying murderering priests of your religion - as they say, 'you do you'.

a reply to: dragonridr

I know you have seen him before but he is insistent that the new data is saying do NOT take the other shots!

Professor Emeritus of Microbiology at the University of Mainz
Military medal Order of Merit of Rhineland-Palatinate
Military medal Aronson Prize for achievements in Microbiology and Immunology
www.bitchute.com...

a reply to: nonspecific

I don't know enough about it but if you look into it what you see is either Dr Malone or his wife claiming that he is the inventor of mRNA vacenes and also DNA vacenes and just about everyone else saying that he did not invent mRNA vacenes but he was involved in the groundbreaking work that eventually led to the invention of usable mRNA vacenes.

Oh, dear. This is still going on?

Even after dragonridr was kind enough to link to Dr. Malone's website?

Here's what it says, verbatim:

Dr. Malone is the inventor of mRNA vaccines (and DNA vaccines). He also discovered lipid mediated and naked RNA transfection technologies.

It all started when he was at the Salk Institute in 1987 and 1988. There, he pioneered in-vitro RNA transfection and also in-vivo RNA transfection (in frog embryos, as well as mice).

This resulted in his seminal paper: Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection RW Malone, PL Felgner, IM Verma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 86 (16), 6077-6081

His filed patent and disclosures from the Salk included in-vivo RNA transfection and also methods for mRNA stabilization - now being claimed as invented by others. These are available for review.

No one by themselves invented practically anything. That's not what is being claimed. The claim is that Dr. Malone holds patents on ("invented") substantial components of the mRNA vaccination process. Others likely contributed as well. That's how "invention" works: we all stand on the shoulders of giants, and we all support each other.

Dr. Malone deserves the credit for the section of process he invented, and since it is integral to the development of mRNA technology, yes, he "invented" the mRNA vaccination process. There is nothing whatsoever wrong or improper about his claim. If one wishes to dig deeper, all patents are available online at the US Patent and Trademark Office website. The search function is about halfway down on the left. You can find the exact patent describing in detail exactly what Dr. Malone discovered/invented. Knock yerself out; I'm good with the claim.

Nikola Tesla invented the fluorescent light bulb, too... based on the works of others that came before him and while following his contemporaries' experimentation into phenomenons used. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone... based on the work of others like Morse, Faraday, etc. That's just how things work, and anyone who understands the invention process would understand that.

TheRedneck

I have a general question that has been nagging at me about the linked article that started this thread. It states the following:

Dr Jane Ruby joins Stew Peters to discuss a scientific report that just came out from the University of Almería School of Engineering in Spain entitled, “Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension: Observational Study in Optical and Electron Microscopy”, where it was found that each dose of the Pfizer shot “was found to contain 6 ng of RNA and 747 ng of graphene oxide, which is 99.103% of the medication.

Now, maybe I'm missing something, but the minimal dosage of the vaccines I have looked at is 0.3 ml, which is 300,000 nl. This appears to be claiming that 753 nl (6+747) is 99.103% of 300,000 nl?

That's not a rounding error... that's an absolute absurdity. The only way that statement could be accurate is if the dose used was 760 nl, or 0.00076 ml.

To be fair, I looked up graphene oxide just to refresh my memory... it's pretty close to simple graphene, just a slightly acidic version containing some oxygen and hydrogen as well as carbon. Noting the ease at which carbon binds to oxygen and hydrogen, and noting the abundance of both in the environment, I would venture to state that practically every sample of graphene would contain some amount of graphene oxide as a contaminant.

I cannot get a clear answer on the toxicity level of graphene oxide elsewhere. One site claims the FDA has listed it as a toxic substance; another states it is under consideration as part of a medical delivery system. I honestly don't know how toxic it is; I do know that everyone who has ever licked a pencil has ingested graphene and likely therefore graphene oxide. I also know kids used to chew on pencils quite a bit in high school, so I doubt it is extremely toxic taken orally. Direct injection may be different of course.

So my next question becomes, is there a reason to include graphene oxide in the mRNA vaccines? I don't see one. I have been researching the methodology behind mRNA vaccines and am fairly fmailiar with the mechanism used. A strand of mRNA is encapsulated in a lipid (fat globule); that fat globule containing the mRNA is ingested by cells as food; the mRNA is released in the cell and causes the cell to create a specific protein (in the case of the Chinese virus vaccine, the spike protein used by the virus); the proteins are not used by the cellular mechanisms, so they accumulate at the surface of the cell; the body's innate immunity recognizes the proteins as invaders and creates antibodies to neutralize them; the presence of antibodies against the spike protein gives the body immunity should the Chinese virus show up carrying said spike protein.

Nowhere in that do I see a need for the use of graphene oxide.

Now, maybe there is, but based on the glaring mathematical discrepancy claimed as the very basis of the concern and the lack of reliable information on the toxicity and need for graphene oxide, I'm not going to worry about this claim. If someone else presents more substantial evidence, then perhaps I will revisit that conclusion, but for now... sounds like poppycock to this old redneck.

Still not getting the shot, though. My major concern is more the effects of the spike protein itself.

TheRedneck

Stew peters is a menace and has extremely poor rethoric. And his "Dr" Jane Ruby...... she is a nurse. He doctorad covers education, not medicine.

And ffs why does he never provide the original links to those studies.....? /facepalm

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have a family member who is pregnant and had only gotten one dose. I am worried. I had as site on the internet wont say publicly where some are reporting of adverse reactions like for some women they were experiencing some issues with their periods.


I dont like how these mRNA vaccines are being forced now by leaders and politicians if you are unvaccanited and haven't gotten you wont able to return to your nation just yet.

I dont trust the polticans or the media anymore when it comes to these mRNA vaccines. If you go to Youtube and look for videos how safe the covid mRNA shots are? you will see just some videos with just 53 seconds text and a NPC character in it.

And those videos are being posted by health official channels. And on YT the most often asked question is.

Does anyone know what materials are used to make the vaccine?

No answer given.

a reply to: HawkEyi

Yeah, I have close family members who took it, mainly because their job required it. If you ask me, it should be illegal for any employer to demand vaccinations... and that includes the Federal government. A simple waiver stating someone understands the risk of being unvaccinated is all that is needed to alleviate legal concerns.

I'll try to put your mind at ease somewhat: thus far the rate of problems with the vaccines is quite low. Not as low as the virus itself, but still quite low. So hold out some hope: some of us are praying it will turn out to be a big nothing-burger.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: nonspecific
Did Dr Malone invent Mnra vaccenes or not?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: nonspecific
I am concerned as to his validity and intentions somewhat though given his claims as to being the inventor of mRNA vaccenes as although he made some very important breakthroughs from what I understand he certainly did not invent the vaccene process as it is now.

He has never claimed to have invented these particular jabs. that is a fake-news talking point designed solely to attempt to discredit him.

He invented the technology used to create them.

The technology can have any number of essentially unlimited applications, these jabs being just one - or is it just one? Who knows, they could have 150 different versions identified by batch number, as an experiment to see which ones work better for whatever their purpose is.

The bottom line is, the only reason I am anti-vaxx at all, is the same reason I am against these non-vaxx jabs:

I do not trust those who are manufacturing them, or pushing them. At all. Ever. Period.

Simple way to explain it:

He didnt invent milk. He invented the carton that is now used to deliver many types of milk.

But there is a problem with the milk and there is a problem with the carton.

The milk has parts that break off with shouldnt break off.
The carton is supposed to stay in the muscle but doesnt.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Let me explain it this way m RNA transfection can be done multiple ways(i can think of 6 just off the top of my head and their are more). In science when you patent a process to do something you will get paid or if you choose simply given credit for development. Now heres the kicker his method failed miserably Salk failed MRNA replication for humans. RNA is diferent for each species you cant use RNA from mice in humans. Next he only worked with salk for 1 year even the process they developed was 3 years after he left.His patents involved a transfection process that is no longer used because it showed to be inefective on humans.

His process isnt used if it were he could easily point to that and even sue the pharma companies for using his work. Hed be worth millions. Hes decieving you making you think his patents is somehow relevant to mRNA vccines.

originally posted by: flice

originally posted by: nonspecific
Did Dr Malone invent Mnra vaccenes or not?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: nonspecific
I am concerned as to his validity and intentions somewhat though given his claims as to being the inventor of mRNA vaccenes as although he made some very important breakthroughs from what I understand he certainly did not invent the vaccene process as it is now.

He has never claimed to have invented these particular jabs. that is a fake-news talking point designed solely to attempt to discredit him.

He invented the technology used to create them.

The technology can have any number of essentially unlimited applications, these jabs being just one - or is it just one? Who knows, they could have 150 different versions identified by batch number, as an experiment to see which ones work better for whatever their purpose is.

The bottom line is, the only reason I am anti-vaxx at all, is the same reason I am against these non-vaxx jabs:

I do not trust those who are manufacturing them, or pushing them. At all. Ever. Period.

Simple way to explain it:

He didnt invent milk. He invented the carton that is now used to deliver many types of milk.

But there is a problem with the milk and there is a problem with the carton.

The milk has parts that break off with shouldnt break off.
The carton is supposed to stay in the muscle but doesnt.

Ummm no just completely wrong in every way. As i said its all about how to do it. And the problem i see is you dont understand what your arguing?

a reply to: TheRedneck
Thank you i will hope though. Normally vaccines should in testing last at least 10, 5 15 years. These mRNA vaccines had being rushed, i find it amazing how they plan to have a door to door type of thing to as they claimed to repel some of the rumors that the unvaccinated had heard.

This really wont help the unvaccinated convince their fears or worries.It makes the govt look suspicious by going to door to door trying to destroy the "Rumors"


If they want to destroy the rumors why cant they release the list of whats really in the mRNA vaccines then publicly? whats the secret? the govt officials haven't being very honest or transparency when it comes to the mRNA vaccines.

Thank you for that post, i will keep updating.

originally posted by: HawkEyi
a reply to: TheRedneck
Thank you i will hope though. Normally vaccines should in testing last at least 10, 5 15 years. These mRNA vaccines had being rushed, i find it amazing how they plan to have a door to door type of thing to as they claimed to repel some of the rumors that the unvaccinated had heard.

This really wont help the unvaccinated convince their fears or worries.It makes the govt look suspicious by going to door to door trying to destroy the "Rumors"


If they want to destroy the rumors why cant they release the list of whats really in the mRNA vaccines then publicly? whats the secret? the govt officials haven't being very honest or transparency when it comes to the mRNA vaccines.

Thank you for that post, i will keep updating.

They have I even posted them as well you just choose not to believe it. Be like me saying pop corn is made with corn and you saying no its not. At that point if your willing to dismiss the facts no point in further discussions huh?

a reply to: dragonridr

Again if you want to believe pfizer that's fine. Its not like they lied before to the medical community right? of course not.

them as well you just choose not to believe it.

Because pfizer is not transparency like they haven't being honest about their human testing trails.

At that point if your willing to dismiss the facts no point in further discussions huh?

You mean the facts that you are willing to trust a company like pfizer that had a number of lawsuits and fraud cases as well?

a reply to: dragonridr

In science when you patent a process to do something you will get paid or if you choose simply given credit for development.

No, that's not true. When someone (and in this context, "someone" can include a company) patents a process, device, or procedure, they own it. That's what a patent means. If Dr. Malone owns the patent, the ownership of the patent is his pay. If he developed the process, device, or procedure for someone else while getting paid by them to do so, they would own the patent. That's no different in "science" than anywhere else: a patent belongs to the entity who is listed as owner (or to the entity that the owner may have sold rights to).

He may have operated under a grant, but even most (not all) grant providers want a little of whatever comes out of the project.

Again, I am willing to take the information on his website at face value. If you disagree, feel free to show me wrong: look up the patent(s) and see if Dr. Malone's name is on them as sole owner. Then show me where his process differs from the process being used. Finally, show me how the process he patented does not provide information for a different process being used... that is quite possible, you know. Alexander Bell used information from a cornucopia of patents to develop the telephone, but that does not mean he violated any patents to do so. One can take research from previous work and develop parallel without directly building on the work. Only where a patent is a build upon the patented work of another is patent infringement a concern, and usually royalties fix any problems there.

TheRedneck