Independent researchers find no mRNA in COVID jabs
*This may or may not be so, but there is a lot of well researched info here,
| Valentine9 hr ago Just a layman here with questions. Do you know if all the researchers tested vials that were kept at the recommended very low temperature until the contents were tested? I ask because it seems that the temperature has an effect on the viability of mRNA. Also, we have all seen many reports on social media from people who claim to have been victims of a shedding syndrome, most notably the effects on women’s periods. This has been attributed to the spike protein spreading from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated and of course not graphene. Effects on the immune system are also not mentioned – another feature supposedly of the mRNA content. I am probably not being fair as your article just addresses what the researches found and is very thorough in that regard. Nonetheless, it left me with those questions (and more but I will stop here). |
===============================================================================
**Posted by “Pseudonym” – Who has a background in biomedical studies, political history, journalism, & the world’s traditional medical systems, Ayurveda, Chinese medicine & herbalism.
https://pseudoscience.substack.com/p/independent-researchers-find-no-mrna
Please subscribe and stay tuned. I am a new Substacker and I would like to share the latest independent data and common sense scientific arguments here.
I am completely independent. My background is in biomedical studies, political history, journalism and the world’s traditional medical systems including Ayurveda, Chinese medicine and herbalism.
If you find errors or wish to contribute, please let me know in comments.
Best wishes to all of you. Thank you for remaining open.
Those who can remain open are the hope of the world.
Thanks for reading Pseudoscience and Its Discontents! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
*See bottom of the above link.
================================================================================
Vials subjected to a variety of independent microscopic and spectroscopic observations and analyses have shown little nucleic acid material and lots of graphene oxide.
There exists a certain COVID vaccine harm theory that mRNA and its attendant spike protein are the means of vaccine delivery, as well as vaccine injury and harm.
However, independent scientists from a variety of countries across the Americas and Europe have examined all or nearly all varieties of COVID vaccine brands and all of them independently found no evidence of mRNA in the vials.
FIRST, it is important to point out that the “mRNA” alleged to be in the vials is not messenger RNA but rather modified synthetic polynucleotide strands, ie, modRNA. They are not real human biologics, but genetically modified synthetic molecules, ie, a work of chemistry and not strictly biology.
So was modRNA found in the COVID vaccine vials examined by independent researchers in the past year and a half? No, it was not.
This writer has reviewed nearly all of the publicly available micrographs and spectroscopy studies of the contents of these vials, and will keep reviewing more.
What researchers found instead of modRNA or mRNA was mostly graphene oxide with metal contaminant, including heavy metals such as aluminum and cadmium (constituents of “quantum dots”). Synthetic lipid material was not much remarked upon but found in only a very small amount. One researcher found the Trypanosoma cruzi parasite in the Pfizer vaccine.
Graphene, a relatively new nanomaterial derived from the mineral graphite, was observed in various forms, such as “nanosheets” and “nanotubes” (tubules), suggesting its self-assembling capability as described in the scientific literature.
However, researchers also found lots of graphene “schrapnel” that had not assembled into any form, but was found in bits and chunks. This graphene schrapnel had otherwise conjoined with heavy metals and other toxic adjuvants to form graphene symplasts (chunks or aggregates of organic and inorganic material).
Unfortunately, graphene oxide is toxic to humans. Its nano size allows it to enter cells and wreak havoc on red blood cells in particular, as it is naturally magnetically drawn to the iron content in blood and to the body’s major fields: the heart and brain. Red blood cells clump around graphene and cannot flow through the bloodstream and take up oxygen. Graphene causes major blood stagnation, which leads to clots.
Graphene oxide is, as noted, strongly electromagnetically, thermally and acoustically conductive. This means graphene will react to these types of stimuli, because it is capable of absorbing and transmitting energy.
Graphene is also oxidative, acidic, strongly inflammatory, and physically razor-sharp – one-atom-thick razor sharp. It can not only slice through blood vessels and endothelia (tissue linings), but it can also strongly interact with cell membranes and DNA.
Graphene oxide thus employs many mechanisms of harm in the body, resulting in hemorrhage and clotting, as well as necrosis and apoptosis (cell death).
It is also thought that graphene oxide is genotoxic.
So this and future blog posts are meant to share the facts as they are known to only too few: The actual scientific evidence shows the COVID injections are not gene therapy shots, but graphene shots.
And, the actual scientific evidence also shows that the graphene shots can explain the severe clotting damage seen by embalmers of vaccinated persons better than current popular theories.
You will notice that most alt media outlets will downplay the graphene if it is mentioned at all. Graphene is not just an adjuvant or another heavy metal. Want to have a look at those characteristics again?
Certainly we continue to investigate.
Upshot: There is no evidence of mRNA in the jab! There is evidence of graphene!
The independent Spanish-language scientific research group La Quinta Columna first identified graphene oxide in the vaccine vials via micro-Raman spectroscopy studies done by Dr. Jose Campra in summer of 2021.
(Independent media watchers should be sure to remember that Whitney Webb and Ryan Cristian of The Last American Vagabond poo-pooed these findings and tried to debunk them out of the gate. Certainly they are not science reporters, so how were they so sure as to what was in the vial, as it had never before been independently investigated?)
Quinta Columna’s research was confirmed by South American and European researchers as well as researchers in New Zealand and the US.
PhD and founder of a graphene nanomaterials company, the German Andreas Noack, who also wrote his PhD thesis about graphene oxide, further confirmed that the studies had correctly identified graphene oxide but that it was in its more harmful reduced form.
After he spoke about this in a public video last summer, his girlfriend reported that he died shortly thereafter.
Veteran American lab researcher and virologist Dr. Poornima Wagh, whose father was an industry lab researcher and in whose lab she began her longtime career, confirmed that she and her research group of 20 have found no mRNA in any of the vials. Her group has tested over 2,000 vials of vaccines of nearly every brand in existence using Raman spectroscopy, she says.
Significantly, Wagh’s group found that the ingredients of all of the vaccines were the same across brands, which is surprising given the fact that different “delivery platforms” and ingredients are said to have been used in the vaccines.
Yet, despite the fact that the researchers found the jabs all contained the same ingredients, Wagh also said her group found 35 different levels of toxicity amidst this similarity.
Wagh’s group also claimed to find hydrogel-type materials that are alleged to turn into crystalline antennae. Indeed, the vaccines’ gelatinous character has been observed by Quinta Columna researcher Ricardo Delgado, a bioinformatician, who observed samples over time, among others.
(More on the work of Dr. Wagh’s lab in the next post, because they also tried to isolate the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus and were unsuccessful. Wagh’s researchers found only human material, and no viral material.)
I also highly highly recommend her interview with Dr. Lee Merritt.
Neuroscientist Dr. Kevin McCairn says he found no mRNA in his Pfizer and Moderna samples using scanning electron microscopy X-ray detection analysis. McCairn says he did not find the elemental signatures of nitrogen or phosphorus, key components of nucleic acid material, when he tested Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. He also reported small amounts of lipid via Raman spectroscopy.
McCairn is also soliciting donations for further research.
Quinta Columna–affiliated Dr. Monteverde from Argentina has reported evidence produced by veteran Spanish biologist Juan Garberi that no RNA replication occurred in either of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and therefore no “messenger RNA” could have been present.
The most comprehensive studies offered to the public so far (Wagh’s are not available), done by American naturopath Dr. Robert O. Young, also support the findings of the scientists affiliated with Spanish research group La Quinta Columna, Drs. Wagh, McCairn and others.
Young found mostly graphene-based nano-forms, as well as micron-size aggregates, or symplasts, of mostly organic elements, C and O mostly, which is constitutive of graphene, as well as Na and Cl (salt), and smaller amounts of metals including aluminum, silicon, cadmium and mercury.
He also identified the trypanosoma parasite in the Pfizer vaccine — if it is truly that and not some novel synthetic graphene-based micro-”organism”, which was also observed as researchers observed the material over time.
However, there may be some truth to this finding, as Dr. Mark Bailey’s excellent but flawed paper, “The Covid-19 Fraud War on Humanity”, showed a similar parasite in the blood of an unfortunate injected. Is Figure 4 not similar to the syncytium Dr. Young says is associated with this parasite? It appears so.
(Bailey’s paper was unfortunately rejected by the New Zealand court system, but I recommend it to everyone to share with the caveat of: there is no proof the jab is a gene editor.)
Young also performed one conventional RNA quantification of the Pfizer sample, via a spectrophotometer, to obtain the frequency of UV bands correlated to RNA.
Here is a key section of Young’s paper:
“The Quantification of mRNA in the Pfizer Vaccine
The quantification of RNA in the Pfizer sample was carried out with conventional protocols (Fisher).
According to NanoDropTM 2000 spectrophotometer calibration check specific software (Thermofisher), the UV absorption spectrum of total aqueous fraction was correlated to 747 ng/ml of unknown absorbing substances.
However, after RNA extraction with commercial kit (Thermofisher), quantification with RNA specific Qbit fluorescence probe (Thermofisher) showed that only 6 ng/ml could be related to the presence of RNA. The spectrum was compatible with the peak of rGO at 270nm.
According to microscopic images presented here, most of this absorbance might be due to graphene-like sheets, abundant in the fluids suspension in the sample.
The conclusions are further supported by high fluorescence from the sample with maximum at 340 nm, in accordance with peak values for rGO. It must be reminded that RNA does not show spontaneous fluorescence under UV exposure.” (bold added)
This result indicates that both UV absorbance and fluorescence data showed consistency with reduced graphene oxide, which is the form Noack indicated is in the injection.
Young found only absorbance data corresponding to RNA for a small portion of the sample.
His spectroscopic data showed a little nitrogen and phosphorus for Pfizer and Moderna, a little nitrogen for Astra Zeneca and neither for Janssen. RNA or “viral vector” vaccines should have some nitrogen and phosphorus there.
The FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) letter for the Pfizer-BionTech vaccine approved a dose of .3 ml containing 30 mcg mRNA for up to six doses totaling 1.8 ml, to be diluted with sodium chloride at a roughly 1:1 ratio. The FDA approved five or six doses per vial, with Pfizer offering six doses per vial. Moderna offers seven doses per vial, two above the FDA’s approval.
As per the Pfizer EUA letter, the Product Description states:
“The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is supplied as a frozen suspension in multiple dose vials; each vial must be diluted with 1.8 mL of sterile 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP prior to use to form the vaccine. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine does not contain a preservative.
Each 0.3 mL dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine contains 30 mcg of a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2.”
Dr. Young found a mere 6 nanograms/ml of RNA. Yet there should be 180 mcg in an 1.8 ml vial, which is 100 mcg/ml. That’s 0.006% of the stated amount of RNA in the vial.
This is a trace amount.
Certainly what Young found does not match the product description and contains little to none of the stated active ingredient.
Thermofisher, the manufacturer of the Nanodrop RNA extraction kit used by Young, reports, “The NanoDrop instrument’s… detection limit for total RNA concentration is 1.5 μg/mL, affecting its accuracy and precision at low concentration levels.”
These facts taken together indicate that this is a miniscule concentration of RNA. It’s basically none.
In fact, Dr. Young has shown in many videos that graphene is the primary destructive agent in the injection, and not an mRNA-based process that produces a spike protein. He and others have explained the ubiquitous appearance of spikes on dying or damaged cells as the result of some toxin or stressor or deficiency condition.
The Quinta Columna researchers and others have also found evidence of digital device identifiers called Mac addresses emanating from the COVID-vaccinated, and certainly the magnetic phenomena displayed by jab victims has been widely observed across social media.
In order to entertain a theory of gene editing, you have to have some genetic material that could persist and cause changes. The gene editing theory looks unlikely when you have little to no genetic material.
And there is much more evidence against the gene editing theory of the COVID jab, which will be covered here.
However, in the conclusion of his important paper, Dr. Young unfortunately belies his own and others’ results. He states:
“The Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazeneca and Janssen drugs are NOT “vaccines” but complexed Reduced Graphene Oxide or Graphene Hydoxide nano particulate aggregates of varying nano elements attached to genetically modified nucleic acids of mRNA from animal or vero cells and aborted human fetal cells as viewed and described above.” (bold added)
First, as noted above, AstraZeneca and Janssen were not RNA-based injections. But there was only found a little nitrogen in the AstraZeneca and neither nitrogen nor phosphorus in the Janssen. Still if they were supposed to be synthetic or modified “viral vectors”, there should be some nitrogen and phosphorus.
So Dr. Young’s statement as to those jabs cannot be true.
Second, Dr. Young only quantified RNA in one of the vials, which was Pfizer, which was the best choice as it is most deadly and most widely administered in the US. He reported a trace concentration of RNA, 6 nanograms/ml vs. the officially stated 180 mcg per 1.8 ml vial expected per the FDA’s Emergency Use Approval for the Pfizer vaccine. That is a difference on an order of more than 10,000!
He did not perform RNA quantification with the Moderna, but he is raising money for his research and this might be something he could do.
Dr. Young’s conclusion as stated above does not note the micron sizes of symplasts and objects although his imagery does as shown in his published paper.
He also provides a rather specific description of mRNA nucleic acids being attached to the nano-aggregates. However, Dr. Young cannot say he observed an attachment, because he could not have observed an attachment. He didn’t show a micrograph of an attachment if he saw one.
Was there enough there to observe an attachment? Not likely.
Also this specific description also suggests something like a bunch of RNA was observed. It does not appear that there could have been at those concentrations, and there was much greater presence of graphene and heavy metals than any presence of RNA.
Also he spends a bit of time on the derivation of the RNA, giving it extra importance, when the results did not show that.
Dr. Young showed mainly the same initial imagery as the other researchers: graphene nanoforms and schrapnel.
Dr. Young basically took the last half of his concluding statement from the literature, referring to how “viruses” / RNA are produced in the lab, generally.
This writer does not know the exact alleged source of the alleged modified RNA as of yet, and this “RNA technology” is now the subject of a Moderna lawsuit against Pfizer.
However, whatever the source is said to be, it’s not in the vial.
What Young and the other researchers found is extremely significant and should not be dismissed without review.
Young shared his evidence in his first and all-important Corona Investigative Committee interview with lawyers Rainer Fuellmich and Viviana Fischer.
Yet, during this interview Dr. Young played along with a narrative that he does not espouse and that his results contradict, by claiming he found mRNA and implying that it works as suggested and even like Royal Lee’s protomorphogens, which are nuclear components purified — nucleic acids being much among them as well as proteins — and used therapeutically in natural medicine.
So, Dr. Young did by way of this comparison, endorse this mRNA theory.
But he did not find evidence of this theory.
There is forming an alternative view of graphene, that it is an adjuvant. Even Dr. Wagh downplayed graphene in her public presentations, and did not educate people as to its novelty and importance.
Perhaps she is unaware, or simply did not wish to speak on something outside her expertise, if it is, but the only “novel” pathogen in the whole COVID scenario is graphene. All others are known.
Evidence suggests graphene oxide is a primary ingredient of the COVID mass injections and no mere adjuvant.
In fact, Dr. Young demonstrated evidence and stated in his many videos with Ramola D, the Everyday Concerned Citizen reporter, that graphene is the mechanism of harm and that the harm is done directly to our blood, and specifically to our red blood cells.
Unfortunately, Dr. Young is a friend and colleague of former government employee Dr. Judy Mikovits, whom he speaks of so highly despite the fact that their work is totally conflicting. In fact, Dr. Young essentially espouses Otto Warburg’s cancer theory (acidosis) while Mikovits thinks cancer — and everything else — can be caused by viruses.
Mikovits is in touch with most of the top alt media reporters.
All evidence from independent researchers shows no one found mRNA in the COVID injections. Young reported a small quantity in Pfizer, but at orders-of-magnitude lesser concentration than that stated in Pfizer’s EUA letter so as to be negligible. He did not quantify any RNA in Moderna.
As noted, all researchers found graphene oxide as well as metal contaminants.
The results of multiple independent researchers show that graphene, and not RNA, is likely a primary active ingredient in the COVID injections.
Blood analysis findings, autopsists’ as well as morgue and embalmers’ findings also show that graphene is very probably responsible for the types of damages we see, but this will have to be shown.
Such findings of graphene oxide and other toxicants provide powerful evidence against the spike protein / gene editing theory of jab harm and evidence for graphene as the primary toxicant with other adjuvant toxicants.
Moreover, researchers who observed the vials over time observed lots of micron-sized and also square objects. These square, micron-sized objects sometimes evolved to show networked patterns akin to circuitry, suggesting graphene-based technology.
No mere salt crystals these.
And, as noted, electronically animated nano-objects began to form as vials were observed over time, as graphene is electromagnetic in nature.
Also consider:
It would be very expensive for pharma companies to really pack these vials full of modified RNA as described and then maintain the 70 degrees below zero temperatures to maintain it across a supply chain. Former Ventavia employee and whistleblower Brook Jackson reported that the temperature was not maintained at what passed for Pfizer’s clinical trials.
Labor-intensive lab processes such as creating RNA are neither cost-effective nor mass-reproducible. UMass-Amherst lab researchers admitted as recently as last year that “RNA therapeutics” were not cost-effective due to the lengthy and expensive process of RNA purification and again, only in August of 2021, created a process to remedy this.
That is to say, RNA production had not achieved scale at least commercially, as of August 2021.
A process that demands multiple rounds of cell culturing (serial passaging) as is supposed in the idea of a synthetic viral “bioweapon” is certainly not mass reproducible at the levels suggested by a global vaccination program.
Big Pharma is essentially now subsidized by government and has merged with it. Whitney Webb now reports Moderna’s booster RNA is being made by a CIA-linked company called National Resilience, or Resilience. One of its primary products is said to be “RNA modalities”.
Yet, these companies who are closely connected to the US deep state, some of whom like Moderna have never made a product before, who claim RNA is their business — despite such business not even being at scale in the industry as of exactly one year ago — have produced RNA vaccines with no RNA in the vials? This is what it seems.
Is it pseudoscience or pseudoreality? Probably both.
