Rick Potvin's Interesting Topics / Email: rick_potvin@yahoo.com

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



10/01/2021 9:55 am  #1


JonRappoport/NoMoreFakeNews.com---> Secret ingredient in vax

JonRappoport/NoMoreFakeNews.com---> Secret ingredient in vax

Rick says- I published a comment on Jon's blog this morning about this extra ingredient being graphene oxide... a response to Jon's article about a missing secret ingredient-- where he AGAIN fails to mention graphene oxide...
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/10/01/boosters-how-to-kill-more-people-with-impunity/

So in the comments section we see someone point that out..
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/10/01/boosters-how-to-kill-more-people-with-impunity/#comment-545358

QUOTE
October 1, 2021 at 9:28 am
Haniel Adhar says:

I know people want to say that Graphene is the 22% “secret ingredient”. That would not be possible. It could be .2% or something, but 22% is unrealistic. That 22% is likely excess tissue or genetic material from the chimpanzee or monkey cells they are using to “grow” these “COVID vaccines” on, which would be consistent with what happened with Kaprowsky’s and Salk’s vaccines that were loaded with contaminants that likely comprised up to 40% of their vaccines. That 22% is most likely an organic contaminant. The original findings indicated it was 99% graphene but that was then reviewed and re-explained as a lab-reduced version of the vaccines. I should look up that explanation again but the conclusion was that a significant amount of the material is nano graphene oxide which reacts with cellphone waves and infects the brain and heart where it "finds" electrictical activity to thrive on.
UNQUOTE


Rick responded...
There is nothing consistent with Salks or any previous "vaccines" because the current covid-vax injection material has, as its primary functional ingredient, nano graphene oxide, according to orwell.city which translates Dr. Delgado's lab in Spain and which publishes on La Puenta Columna.

You and other readers including Jon are pretty much going to have to refer and defer to that lab, I think, for cutting edge analysis. Jon has been pretty lame from the start of this whole thing on blaming nano-graphene-oxide because he's fixated on the idea that his previous research bore out the idea, quite accurately actually, that there has never been any "one thing" that caused diseases blamed on "a virus". However, I believe he continually misses the target on THIS particular situation by side-lining nano-graphene oxide.

Jon, if you delete that last paragraph, it will be consistent with my accusation but I'll publish the full post in my own blog anyway. If you DO publish it, I'll be delightfully surprised. If you do, then by standards of intellectual honesty, you ought to look at Orwell.city and consider their findings. It's one thing to be an investigative journalist but another to be an independent research lab that is doing actual work and publishing.

Again, Haniel's post says "graphene oxide... could be 0.2% or something"... which is true because the actual higher figure, originally 99%, also cannot be literally true. There is a spectroscopy and lab-spin on the percentage that lowers that amount by orders-of-magnitude-- but which does not negate the essence of the concept. In one paragraph, Haniel wrote "it's not possible" and "it IS possible", directly contradicting herself. I've just explained the contradiction.

ADDENDUM-- I just noted that Haniel wrote "I know people want to say that Graphene is the 22% “secret ingredient”. Well, if she "knows people" that "want to say that", then where is the link or reference? Surely she must have a source she can site off the top of her head if she KNOWS these people. It's a silly way for her to write. She could have said "I've read articles on Rense.com that point to" or "I read AmericanThinker where they said..."... but "I know people who..."?

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum