Graphene Oxide: The actual contents inside Pfizer vials exposed

a reply to: dragonridr

Don't need to provide evidence to agree with the story. You are the one disagreeing with the storyline. I honestly don't care if the dude got a patent or not. I just pointed out that you were incorrect in your description of how the patent process works.

So no, I'm not going to do a patent search just to verify something you disagree with. Look up the patent number and I might... might... take a closer look. Until you can do that, neither of us really know what we're talking about.

Here's a hint: the patent is not maintained by Nature. It's at the USPTO.

TheRedneck

a reply to: nonspecific

Well go take the Vacc then.

If you think it's safe and wholesome and all, take two doses..

Drink the S#@T..

I don't care.

Each to their own and all that.

But, if there's even a hint of a rumor I won't throw caution to the wind just because a few armchair chemists on ATS tell me to..lol

I'm pretty sure if some actual researchers in France are alarmed about it, I'll take their word for it if it's all the same to you..lol

I've already taken it.

Twice in fact.

As my job involves assisting people taking covid 19 tests meaning I'm in close contact with several people a week who are suspected to have the virus it seemed somewhat prudent.

originally posted by: Ironclad1964
a reply to: nonspecific

Well go take the Vacc then.

If you think it's safe and wholesome and all, take two doses..

Drink the S#@T..

I don't care.

Each to their own and all that.

But, if there's even a hint of a rumor I won't throw caution to the wind just because a few armchair chemists on ATS tell me to..lol

I'm pretty sure if some actual researchers in France are alarmed about it, I'll take their word for it if it's all the same to you..lol

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dragonridr

Don't need to provide evidence to agree with the story. You are the one disagreeing with the storyline. I honestly don't care if the dude got a patent or not. I just pointed out that you were incorrect in your description of how the patent process works.

So no, I'm not going to do a patent search just to verify something you disagree with. Look up the patent number and I might... might... take a closer look. Until you can do that, neither of us really know what we're talking about.

Here's a hint: the patent is not maintained by Nature. It's at the USPTO.

TheRedneck

No, I wasn't I said that his patent is not involved in any way with the covid vaccines. Don't try to rewrite history its all here. What I should you was all the patents that were involved and yet you argued that his patent could still have been used. To which I told you to prove it and you at that point suddenly couldn't so a new storyline was created.

If none of his patents were used and no one credits him its simple he didn't help invent mRNA vaccines. What he's attempting to do is make his early work in the field seem more relevant than it actually was. And to be honest I'm ok with that however him claiming he invented it is a bit much.

If he truly invented it he would easily be able to point to where and when even his wifes testimony had a problem with that.

On May 13, 1961, two articles appeared in Nature, authored by a total of nine people, including Sydney Brenner, François Jacob and Jim Watson, announcing the isolation of messenger RNA (mRNA) 1, 2. In the same month, François Jacob and Jacques Monod published a review in Journal of Molecular Biology in which they put mRNA into a theoretical context, arguing for its role in gene regulation. Aside from the technical prowess involved, these papers were feats of the imagination, for they represented an entirely new way of thinking about gene function.


Ok so we established wasn't his idea was around long before he was even born.

So now what method did he develop? Well, he didn't his patent was for a process that injects mRNA into mice. he patented the mice gene in essence. Problem is that research failed to work on humans. As I said multiple times you CANNOT INJECT mRNA INTO A PERSON!!! It doesnt work like it did on the mice. So a new approach needed to be invented.

Do you know how many people have come up the woodwork claiming they invented it hes not the only one.

Heres one claiming it was Luigi Warren

themarshallreport.wordpress.com...

Everybody has suddenly invented mRNA vaccines no matter how minor their contributions. Why because this is a huge deal in medicine. This gives us the ability to fight cancer or create medicines specifically made for you and your body. Can be used to solve things like anemia or even diseases such as vaccines. This really is a huge deal and most people dont get it but its on level of changing the way we handle illness.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I agree.

I see that graphene has potential super conductor status. I wonder what advantage Pharma saw by incorporating it into their toxic brew?

a reply to: dragonridr

So now what method did he develop? Well, he didn't his patent was for a process that injects mRNA into mice. he patented the mice gene in essence. Problem is that research failed to work on humans.

And you just admitted that the man was involved in the creation of the mRNA vaccine. Thank you. I agree.

No one is working in a vacuum. Every work that has been worked on the process of using mRNA to effect a vaccine is a part of that overall goal. Since Dr. Malone holds the patent on a process to inject mRNA into a mouse, it follows that he accomplished unique work toward the vaccines we have today; that's sort of the reason for the patent process in the first place, to establish ownership of a process, method, procedure, or device for the one who created it.

Had Dr. Malone never injected mRNA into mice, would we have tried injecting it into humans? I daresay not; the information obtained from his work was integrated into future works; that's how science works. The injection into humans may not have infringed upon his patent, but it certainly was based in some part upon his work. Thus, it is entirely possible for him to have been involved in the "invention" of the mRNA vaccine process and yet his patent not be infringed upon by others.

I am reminded of an old joke... a group of scientists, after many years of study and work, developed a way to create simple one-celled life from dirt. The head researcher was exuberant! He stepped outside the lab and shouted at the sky, "We can create life itself! There is no more need for a God!"

Suddenly there was a blinding flash of pure white light, and God Himself stood before the researcher. "So you don't think there is a need for me?" asked God. "You think you can create life? Show me."

"Certainly!" The researcher stooped down and began to scoop up some dirt.

"Whoa! Whoa!" interrupted God. "Get your own dirt!"




The point of that joke is that nothing... and I mean nothing came from nothing. There is not a single person alive or in history who completely and solely created anything. We all stand on the shoulders of giants who came before us, and we support each other as we struggle to advance. Hopefully, when the next generation of research comes along, they can stand on our shoulders as we stand on the shoulders of others, and reach just a little higher.

I find any indication otherwise, any argument that downplays the work of those who came before us extremely arrogant and offensive... not to mention ignorant.

TheRedneck

So in that basis would you say that the ancestors of Eugenio Barsanti could say that he was the inventor of the electric car?



a reply to: TheRedneck

a reply to: nonspecific

So in that basis would you say that the ancestors of Eugenio Barsanti could say that he was the inventor of the electric car?

I would say he was one of the inventors of the car. He didn't do anything with electric motors. His contribution was an early version of the internal combustion engine.

Of course, I suppose if one wished, one could say that because the electric car is a subset of cars and Barsanti was one of the earliest inventors of the car, that his contribution was relevant even there. Might be stretching it a little, since his work was actually concerning an internal combustion engine design which is not relevant in electric cars, but I could see the argument. Nicolaus Otto perfected his work to make the internal engine design feasible.

My point is that one need not be the sole person responsible for an invention to have contributed to that invention, and basing contribution on whether or not a patent was infringed by later work is a poor metric to use to gauge contribution.

TheRedneck

So you agree the similarities are there in both examples then?

I can't accept that his claim is valid and neither by the looks of can the vast majority.

He's damaging his reputation and that is sad as it appears to me as a layman that his input was important.

He will not be remembered as he should have been.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific

So in that basis would you say that the ancestors of Eugenio Barsanti could say that he was the inventor of the electric car?

I would say he was one of the inventors of the car. He didn't do anything with electric motors. His contribution was an early version of the internal combustion engine.

Of course, I suppose if one wished, one could say that because the electric car is a subset of cars and Barsanti was one of the earliest inventors of the car, that his contribution was relevant even there. Might be stretching it a little, since his work was actually concerning an internal combustion engine design which is not relevant in electric cars, but I could see the argument. Nicolaus Otto perfected his work to make the internal engine design feasible.

My point is that one need not be the sole person responsible for an invention to have contributed to that invention, and basing contribution on whether or not a patent was infringed by later work is a poor metric to use to gauge contribution.

TheRedneck

a reply to: nonspecific

So you agree the similarities are there in both examples then?

Some similarities in general.

I also see some differences. Barsanti worked on the internal combustion engine. He did nothing on any other systems that are included in a car. An electric car does not contain an internal combustion engine. So while he may have contributed to the car in general, said cars being overwhelmingly powered today by internal combustion, he did nothing on an electric car. His contribution would be pretty distance.

Malone worked with introducing mRNA into mice. The vaccine under discussion introduces mRNA into humans. In both cases, mRNA is being introduced into a living creature and mice are generally considered to be fairly common test subjects for new procedures before human testing takes place. Therefore, any work that was performed on mice using mRNA was a direct ancestor to introduction of mRNA into humans.

Quite the difference, wouldn't you say?

I can't accept that his claim is valid and neither by the looks of can the vast majority.

I realize that. Your example was intended to prove a point it did not address, as explained above.

I hope you realize that anyone who expects to profit in any way from their research had better be the one who finally puts it all together. Otherwise, all those pieces of the puzzle are meaningless to you and the general public. It's going to be pretty hard under those circumstances to have any scientific breakthroughs when the researchers get nothing whatsoever for their contribution. So the next time you think, "Someone should come up with _________ because we need it," remember that they can't. No one is doing the preliminary work that won't be recognized. The people who would have put all that preliminary work together will now have nothing to put together.

Barsanti did the preliminary work that Otto then continued, leading to a working mobile internal combustion engine that then became the primary power source for automobiles. But hey, forget all that! Henry Ford put it all together, right? Henry Ford created the automobile all by himself. Barsanti and Otto were just nobodies who wasted their lives. Amirite?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

In a lab, we keep logs of everything done and I mean everything. These logs are worth huge sums of money when it comes to research. You will even put don't reference materials you use. If he had any contribution it's in a log in a lab somewhere. So either the lab didn't notice unlikely because you have to review your logs and even supply them for patents. Or he didn't really have a contribution. I get it you want to believe him as I said he's not the only one making claims as I showed you. But the bottom line is if his research was not used and no one seems to know who he was it seems to me we have some revisionist history going on.

But theoretically, let's say he made a contribution in that year he worked as an undergrad that was 30 years ago.A lot has changed technology-wise. That be like comparing a p 51 mustang to an F35. I was just discussing fighters can you tell?

a reply to: dragonridr

If not for the Model A Ford, there would be no FoMoCo today.

If not for that crazy old codger Michael Faraday, we would not have cell phones.

TheRedneck

On Brighteon go watch the conversation between Ricardo Delgado and Jose Sevillano I pasted the title below. They talk about how graphene could damage human cells when exposed to the right frequencies to induce an electrical charge. It would explain all the adverse reactions and perhaps the cause of deaths on Vaers and other vaccine safety data. Also graphene becomes magnetized when exposed to hydrogen atoms (we are mostly made of hydrogen), this would also explain the phenomena of magnets sticking to the injection site of some peoples arms. I know this leads to the 5G hypothesis being harmful to all which I was very skeptical of before all of this but now you have a catalyst that could possibly interact with the ultra-high millimeter wave spectrum, I'm curious to know if it is even possible.

GRAPHENE MULTIPLIES FREQUENCIES AND DAMAGES CELLS WHEN EXPOSED TO EMF

originally posted by: 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.


TheRedneck

How about 99 percent of the vaccine that is not the solution it is embedded in. Would that make sense. I'd say most is water, but 99 percent of that which is not water is the graphene oxide. Do the maths make sense then?