Please, you need to review the literature on graphene oxide and hydroxide (lots of it in physics), and their medical applications. There's been countless conferences on the topic.
Please do keep an open mind and keep learning; or perhaps unlearn then relearn.
To add to the evidence that this article is 'on the mark', I recommend for any who would align themselves with Dr Ryan Cole, to purchase this in-house academic volume being released Feb 8th: "Nanotechnology Platforms for Antiviral Challenges Fundamentals, Applications and Advances"_by (Editors) Soney C George & Ann Rose Abraham. This insider discussion of the field of 'Nanotechnology' is a rebuke to all who consider it unbelievable that substances of the kind that Dr Cole denies could be present with the vials. This volume fully references the science going back for many, many years, developing the very substances Dr Cole denies could be present, and it does so with great detail. For example, here is the contents just for one of its chapters describing what has and is being used in such a technology:
Perhaps there is reliable discrediting information somewhere to indicate this? …if anyone can post this, please add. Many people are following them (LaQuintaC), they have much literature out online, publications for several years now ~ would appreciate seeing more of why/how they are not reliable. It is discouraging not to know. And to see someone like Ryan Cole act as he does does not help this. I have great respect for you Dr. Nass, thank you for all you do!
I was just considering your remark on Dr. Cole and the gap between what he sees and what others have seen. In particular I am thinking of Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea and her associates. I believe that we do not have the luxury to even hint at purging anyone from this loyal opposition. The field is vast and each brings unique tools and perspectives. And that certainly includes La quinta columna, who fearlessly jumped into this early on.
Those 'crystal arms' in the above link don't in the least resemble the images I have seen elsewhere. Nor does the response in growth and complexity (as well as an opposite process when the energy source is removed) to varying energy sources abundantly noted by other researchers jibe with cholesterol or sugar crystal appearances. More importantly, perhaps, is that we do know that there is an immense variability in the contents of these vials, so much so that any generalization that attempts to put the jab contents under an all-inclusive umbrella is likely doomed.
Also, scientists from many fields, 'German working group' (as they call themselves and they explain that they want to remain anonymous) have analysed the vaccine vials and published their results. I cannot find it now.
It's very detailed and very well done.
All of the vials they analysed are full of different metals that are not on the list of ingredients and should not be in injectables at all.
Thank you for this. It mirrors the work of the Quinta Columna as well as what Doug Taylor, David NIxon, Shimon Yanowitz and Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea have seen in their microscopy. Here is a recent (1 month old) presentation by Dr. Ricardo Delgado, with English on-screen translation:
Thank you Jennifer for the link, quoting from it, “So I just want to conclude by saying that, it’s pretty clear that graphite composite forms as undeclared ingredients are very common in the vials.”—Dr. Rob Verkerk
And this (same source), “…from Lao…saying being deeply loved by someone gives you strength while loving someone deeply gives you courage. And right now we all need loads of courage.”
I keep waiting for a follow up from that group on further exploration into the topic but it's been crickets... maybe I will reach to Lawrie or Verkerk to see why they dropped the lead
Yes, I saw it, too. I would simply say that Dr. Cole, like all the doctors will necessarily be informed and also limited by his experience. It's the old "a man sees what he wants to see" paradigm. Actually, a better example would be what different beings see in a tree: The carpenter sees boards and buildings; the book maker sees a source of pulp; the conservationist an organism that can heal destroyed landscapes; the bird a place to make a nest; caterpillars a food source; etc., etc. There are many researchers who quite disagree with Dr.Cole's assessments, at least in part. That is how it should be. We are all learning. It seems that the recognition of an evil source for this deceitful operation is the one thing that unites us.
Do you consider Tess Lawrie to be unreliable? She commissioned a lab study that found graphene compounds in Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca vials. https://pennybutler.com/uk-lab-vial-contents/
See my comment of July 14 for two more findings of graphene besides La Quinta Columna's.
Besides, the Establishment says without evidence that you are not reliable. (I think you are reliable but can be mistaken.) I'd like to know why you think La Quinta Columna is not reliable.
You might like my extended comment of July 14. A Midwestern Doctor wrote that Ryan Cole used mass spectrometry, but published papers on finding graphene generally use Raman spectroscopy. La Quinta Columan used micro-Raman spectroscopy. That alone puts them in the more-reliable camp.
Not a reliable group and may not even be a group
Time will tell!
Please, you need to review the literature on graphene oxide and hydroxide (lots of it in physics), and their medical applications. There's been countless conferences on the topic.
I'll copy this from another commenter from Ana's substack https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/
I hope the commenter does not mind!
Please do keep an open mind and keep learning; or perhaps unlearn then relearn.
To add to the evidence that this article is 'on the mark', I recommend for any who would align themselves with Dr Ryan Cole, to purchase this in-house academic volume being released Feb 8th: "Nanotechnology Platforms for Antiviral Challenges Fundamentals, Applications and Advances"_by (Editors) Soney C George & Ann Rose Abraham. This insider discussion of the field of 'Nanotechnology' is a rebuke to all who consider it unbelievable that substances of the kind that Dr Cole denies could be present with the vials. This volume fully references the science going back for many, many years, developing the very substances Dr Cole denies could be present, and it does so with great detail. For example, here is the contents just for one of its chapters describing what has and is being used in such a technology:
CONTENTS
7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 126
7.2 Comprehensive Timeline Chronicles of Viral Pandemics............................ 126
7.3 Antimicrobials: Tools to Tackle Infectious Diseases ................................... 127
7.4 Delineation of Antivirals .............................................................................. 127
7.5 Classifcation of Antivirals: Sequelae of the Mode of Action ...................... 129
7.6 Nanoparticles as Antiviral Agents and as a Drug Delivery System ............. 129
7.6.1 Inorganic Nanoparticles.................................................................... 131
7.6.1.1 Silver Nanoparticles (AgNPs) ............................................ 131
7.6.1.2 Gold Nanoparticles (AuNPs) ............................................. 131
7.6.1.3 Zinc Oxide ......................................................................... 132
7.6.2 Carbon-Based Nanoparticles ............................................................ 132
7.6.2.1 Quantum Dots (QDs) ......................................................... 132
7.6.2.2 Fullerenes ........................................................................... 133
7.6.2.3 Graphene Oxide ................................................................. 133
7.6.3 Organic Nanoparticles ...................................................................... 133
7.6.3.1 Polymeric Nanoparticles .................................................... 133
7.6.3.2 Dendrimers ........................................................................ 134
7.6.3.3 Lipid Polymers ................................................................... 134
7.6.3.4 Micelles and Microemulsions ............................................ 134
7.6.3.5 Nanoemulsions ................................................................... 135
7.7 Combinational Antiviral Therapy ................................................................ 135
7.8 Nanoparticles to Tackle COVID-19.............................................................. 135
7.9 Nanoparticle-Conjugated Antivirals: Advantages and Disadvantages......... 136
7.10 Advancements in Nanomedicine .................................................................. 136
7.11 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 137
References .............................................................................................................. 137
Perhaps there is reliable discrediting information somewhere to indicate this? …if anyone can post this, please add. Many people are following them (LaQuintaC), they have much literature out online, publications for several years now ~ would appreciate seeing more of why/how they are not reliable. It is discouraging not to know. And to see someone like Ryan Cole act as he does does not help this. I have great respect for you Dr. Nass, thank you for all you do!
I was just considering your remark on Dr. Cole and the gap between what he sees and what others have seen. In particular I am thinking of Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea and her associates. I believe that we do not have the luxury to even hint at purging anyone from this loyal opposition. The field is vast and each brings unique tools and perspectives. And that certainly includes La quinta columna, who fearlessly jumped into this early on.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/fifth-column-promoting-graphene-fantasies
Those 'crystal arms' in the above link don't in the least resemble the images I have seen elsewhere. Nor does the response in growth and complexity (as well as an opposite process when the energy source is removed) to varying energy sources abundantly noted by other researchers jibe with cholesterol or sugar crystal appearances. More importantly, perhaps, is that we do know that there is an immense variability in the contents of these vials, so much so that any generalization that attempts to put the jab contents under an all-inclusive umbrella is likely doomed.
Also, scientists from many fields, 'German working group' (as they call themselves and they explain that they want to remain anonymous) have analysed the vaccine vials and published their results. I cannot find it now.
It's very detailed and very well done.
All of the vials they analysed are full of different metals that are not on the list of ingredients and should not be in injectables at all.
Thank you!
You might be interested in this http://lifeoftheblood.com/
Thank you for this. It mirrors the work of the Quinta Columna as well as what Doug Taylor, David NIxon, Shimon Yanowitz and Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea have seen in their microscopy. Here is a recent (1 month old) presentation by Dr. Ricardo Delgado, with English on-screen translation:
https://rumble.com/v1pnrvz-breaking-news-shocking-here-is-what-really-is-in-the-vaccines.html
Excellent, thank you!
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/covid-19-vaccines-contents-prelim-summary-rob-verkerk/
Thank you Jennifer for the link, quoting from it, “So I just want to conclude by saying that, it’s pretty clear that graphite composite forms as undeclared ingredients are very common in the vials.”—Dr. Rob Verkerk
And this (same source), “…from Lao…saying being deeply loved by someone gives you strength while loving someone deeply gives you courage. And right now we all need loads of courage.”
I keep waiting for a follow up from that group on further exploration into the topic but it's been crickets... maybe I will reach to Lawrie or Verkerk to see why they dropped the lead
There is a Highwire where Bigtree is at the Dr. Cole's lab, and he shows it all, and explains. I apologize that I do not have the link at hand.
Yes, I saw it, too. I would simply say that Dr. Cole, like all the doctors will necessarily be informed and also limited by his experience. It's the old "a man sees what he wants to see" paradigm. Actually, a better example would be what different beings see in a tree: The carpenter sees boards and buildings; the book maker sees a source of pulp; the conservationist an organism that can heal destroyed landscapes; the bird a place to make a nest; caterpillars a food source; etc., etc. There are many researchers who quite disagree with Dr.Cole's assessments, at least in part. That is how it should be. We are all learning. It seems that the recognition of an evil source for this deceitful operation is the one thing that unites us.
What is actually in the jabs.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/relative-lethality-of-covid-19-vaccines
Here is a second perspective of the contents:
https://rumble.com/v1pnrvz-breaking-news-shocking-here-is-what-really-is-in-the-vaccines.html
Do you consider Tess Lawrie to be unreliable? She commissioned a lab study that found graphene compounds in Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca vials. https://pennybutler.com/uk-lab-vial-contents/
See my comment of July 14 for two more findings of graphene besides La Quinta Columna's.
Besides, the Establishment says without evidence that you are not reliable. (I think you are reliable but can be mistaken.) I'd like to know why you think La Quinta Columna is not reliable.
You might like my extended comment of July 14. A Midwestern Doctor wrote that Ryan Cole used mass spectrometry, but published papers on finding graphene generally use Raman spectroscopy. La Quinta Columan used micro-Raman spectroscopy. That alone puts them in the more-reliable camp.
Thanks for the two links you supplied.