Between July 2021 and August 2022, evidence of undisclosed ingredients in the COVID-19 “vaccines” was published by at least 26 researchers/research teams in 16 different countries across five continents using spectroscopic and microscopic analysis. Despite operating largely independently of one another, their findings are remarkably similar and highlight the clear and present danger that the world’s population has been lied to regarding the contents of the COVID-19 “vaccines”. This raises grave questions about the true purpose of the dangerous experimental injections that have so far been shot into 5.33 billion people (over two thirds of the human race), including children, apparently without their informed consent regarding the contents. Surprise findings include sharp-edged geometric structures, fibrous or tube-like structures, crystalline formations, “microbubbles”, and possible self-assembling nanotechnology. The blood of people who have received one or more COVID-19 “vaccines” appears, in case after case, to contain foreign bodies and to be seriously degraded, with red blood cells typically in Rouleaux formation. Taken together, these 26 studies make a powerful case for the full force of scientific investigation to be brought to bear on the COVID-19 “vaccine” contents. If the findings of these 26 studies are confirmed, then the political implications are nothing short of revolutionary: a global crime against humanity has been committed, in which every government, every regulator, every establishment media organization, and all the professions have been complicit.

1 2 3 4 Source: Life of the Blood (4,000× magnification) Source: Life of the Blood (4,000× magnification) Source: La Quinta Columna (1,200× magnification) Source: La Quinta Columna (1,200× magnification)

Within the space of 13 months (July 2021–August 2022), material evidence of undisclosed ingredients in the COVID-19 “vaccines”was made public by independent researchers in Spain (Pablo Campra, reports here and here; La Quinta Columna, reports here, here, here, and here), the United States (Carrie Madej, Robert O. Young, his report here, “Andy Vie”, and an anonymous researcher), South Africa (Zandre Botha), Poland (Franc Zalewski), Austria (here), Australia (anonymous scientists, doctors, and researchers), Israel (Shimon Yanowitz), New Zealand (Robin Wakeling, follow-up here, and anonymous group Life of the Blood), Germany (Bärbel Ghitalla, Andreas Noack, Holger Reissner, and the Vaccines Education Working Group), Argentina (Martin Monteverde and colleagues), Chile (report here), the UK (Philippe van Welbergen, Richard D. Hall, and Robert Verkerk), Canada (Daniel Nagase), France, South Korea (here and here), and Italy.

This is more than enough evidence, from at least 26 separate researchers/research teams in 16 different countries across five continents, to highlight the clear and present danger that the world’s population has been lied to regarding the contents of the COVID-19 “vaccines”. What is the true purpose of the dangerous experimental injections that have so far been shot into 5.33 billion people (70 percent of the human race), including childrenand infants?Examined under powerful magnification, the contents of the vials appear to contain a variety of unusual objects and structures for which the declared “vaccine” ingredients do not account. These include sharp-edged geometric structures, fibrous or tube-like structures, crystalline formations, and “microbubbles”. The blood of people who have received one or more COVID-19 “vaccines” appears, in case after case (94 percent of cases according to Giovannini et al. 2022), to contain foreign bodies and to be seriously degraded, with red blood cells typically in Rouleaux formation. The effects on blood are so pronounced that one study finds that artificial intelligence can be trained to detect the difference between “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” blood with an accuracy rate of over 98 percent. Some researchers claim that the undisclosed artefacts contained in the COVID-19 “vaccines” self-assemble into nanotechnology. Although this sounds preposterous at first, consider some of the highest magnification imagery we are about see: Source: Life of the Blood (4,000× magnification) Source: La Quinta Columna (1,200× magnification)

It is unclear what we are looking at here, but prima facie it does look like some kind of circuitry. Such imagery demands explanation.

The findings presented in this paper shift the debate about COVID-19 “vaccines” into new territory. The dangers of the injections lie not only in the declared ingredients—the toxic PEG of lipid nanoparticles, mRNA that programmes the human body to produce harmful spike proteins, etc. (cf. Seneff & Nigh, 2021)—but also, and perhaps to a far greater extent, in the undisclosed ingredients. In what follows, over 100 pages of microscopic imagery will demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the COVID-19 “vaccines” are not what we were told they are, i.e. safe and effective means of preventing disease. On the contrary, they appear to be heavily loaded with foreign bodies, as well as instructions for human cells to manufacture foreign bodies, that prove profoundly harmful to human health.

Those foreign bodies are present in all the major brands: BioNTech-Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and others. It therefore appears, from what we know so far, that all the manufacturers, all regulators, and all governments, with the support of establishment media, are complicit in, and must actively have conspired to commit, what would amount to the gravest crime against humanity of all time, i.e. the attempted injection of the entire human race (apart from the perpetrators) with undisclosed toxic substances/technologies without anyone’s informed consent. There can be no more urgent investigation in our time than of the COVID-19 “vaccines”.

Who will undertake such an investigation, however? Certainly the regulators cannot be trusted to do so, since they all appear to have deliberately ignored evidence that can, in some cases, be detected by even an optical microscope. Universities would be the obvious candidates, yet many, particularly in North America, have mandated COVID-19 “vaccines”, so cannot be expected to meet their obligation to society by investigating what is actually in those shots which they have coerced staff and students to take. Other universities,especially in Europe, are too dependent on government funding to jeopardize their relations with the state by doing the right thing. As a result, there is a dearth of peer-reviewed research in this field: universities are compromised. It seems unlikely that the medical profession will step up, as it has been at the forefront of administering the injections; it also removes the licences to practice of any member who speaks out against them. Meanwhile, military-grade propaganda, rampant censorship, nastiness and aggression from those deceived by the official narrative, and a political climate of fear and intimidation intentionally stoked to dissuade dissidents all act as powerful disincentives for anyone to ask the questions that matter most. Indeed, several of the researchers and research teams below have chosen to remain anonymous for precisely such reasons.

Yet, beyond the technocratic totalitarianism that is now seeking to eclipse liberal democracy, beyond the incessant fear propagation and the rampant corruption, the question of what is really in the COVID-19 “vaccines” is ultimately an empirical one. It can be solved by scientists of integrity who possess the right equipment and who are willing to adhere rigorously to the correct methods. In principle, any self-respecting laboratory with the right equipment, expertise, and motivation should be able to contribute to solving the problem. There is no need for idle speculation or unsubstantiated claims and rumours. The problem is solvable if people are brave, honest, and truthful enough to address it, like the researchers presented in this paper.

In the other corner, the perpetrators of this apparent global crime against humanity have gone to great lengths to conceal their tracks. If undisclosed nanotechnology is indeed present in the COVID-19 “vaccines”, then it is invisible to the naked eye and will not show up under conventional toxicology tests. Who would even think to look for it in the first place given the relentless propaganda about a virus and spike proteins? The very idea of undisclosed self-assembling nanotechnologies in the “vaccines” seems, on the face of it, so far-fetched that most people will refuse to entertain it in the first place. Even critical bodies, such as Doctors 4 COVIDEthics, refuse to address that possibility, instead preferring to stick to their relevant areas of medical expertise. The Vaccines Education Working Group does address, rigorously, the issue of undisclosed ingredients in the COVID-19 “vaccines”, yet even it does not entertain the possibility of the presence of nanotechnology. It would seem that if the lie is big enough, it becomes incomprehensible to all but the very worst people in society, as Hitler realized a century ago (Hughes, 2022b).

Even for those who are willing to conduct a proper investigation of the COVID-19 “vaccine” contents, further major obstacles present themselves. For a start, because we may be dealing with nanotechnology here, specialist high-power microscopes are needed. Life of the Blood was able to procure a dark field microscope with 4,000× magnification to produce the incredible images above, yet no other researcher or research team discussed in this paper was able to achieve anywhere close to the same level of magnification. Most images shown are between 400× and 1,000× magnification. The required equipment may be prohibitively expensive for individuals. For example, a new scanning electron microscope can cost $70,000 to $1,000,000. Given that different types of microscopic and spectroscopic equipment are needed, this is work that really needs to be done at an institutional level, returning us to problems of reputational risk, loss of funding, being forced to close, having careers and reputations trashed, or worse.

Even where adequate equipment and procedures are in place, the next problem is how to obtain a vial for analysis, demonstrating a secure chain of custody, and keeping it maintained at the required temperatures until it is opened. The vials themselves are strictly guarded. According to a pharmacologist working for the NHS,

I’ve been working with the NHS on [mass vaccination] since January 2021 in a lot of roles. […] Every mass vaccine centre in the UK and other sites e.g. Boots [the retail pharmacy equivalent of Walgreens in the US] has a National Vaccine protocol to destroy every vial with two different senior staff at the end of each day. The systems are also in place for counting in and out every single vial that arrives and leaves every site. All vials are disposed daily into a locked coded clinical incinerator waste system or stored again coded locks for an NHS contractor to pick up daily the clinical waste! […] If you want to get hold of vials your best bet is to seek out independent pharmacies doing COVID jabs.

It is hard to see how it is possible to obtain a COVID-19 “vaccine” vial legally given the state’s tight control over them. It was never possible to buy a COVID-19 “vaccine” privately in the UK, for instance: “vaccinations” were only available through the NHS. Thus, it becomes very difficult to establish a secure chain of custody without exposing illicit means of acquisition. Researchers who claim to have obtained unopened vials never seem to indicate where they got them from; at best, they were “sent” or “given” them. Alternatively, some researchers claim to have obtained used vials; after all, only a small droplet is required for analysis. However, this then introduces problems of potential contamination and samples no longer being at the required storage temperatures. So,we are left in a catch-22, whereby a full and transparent investigation requires vials being made freely available by the manufacturers or the state for that purpose, yet the terms of the investigation imply that those very entities cannot be trusted.

There are also high personal risks involved in doing this kind of work in a climate of mounting authoritarianism. State propagandists (including networks of academics and journalists), intelligence agencies, “fact checkers” (flak machines), and other organizations such as the Cabinet Office Rapid Response Unit and 77th Brigade in the UK, will move to close down any such investigation, resorting to thought-terminating clichés such as “misinformation”, “disinformation”,and “conspiracy theory”, as well as censorship, hit pieces in the establishment media, ad hominem attacks, allegations of anti-semitism, calls for the investigators to be fired, etc. This has all been seen before, and it testifies to the desperation of a power structure so premised on lies that it cannot defend itself honestly and truthfully. It may not be long until dissent itself is criminalized, with so-called “anti-vaxxers” (a propaganda term used to demonize political opponents) already being branded as terroristsin readiness for new legislation apparently intended to turn liberal democracies into dictatorships (Davis, 2022).

Investigators may even be murdered. Andreas Noackin November 2021 died within days of claiming that graphene hydroxide in the “vaccines” acts like tiny, non-biodegradable razor blades that cut up blood vessels; the circumstances of his death are disputed. In September 2021, Carrie Madej went public with her findings regarding COVID-19 “vaccine” contents; in June 2022 she was involved in a suspicious plane crash that nearly killed her. Perhaps there is no connection, but the pharmaceutical industry has a known history of persecuting and allegedly murdering whistleblowers, as cases such as Andrew Wakefield, Judy Mikovits, and the late Brandy Vaughan show. “With this type of research,”Daniel Nagase warns, “it has to be kind of clandestine, because there’s a lot of money behind not letting anyone know what’s in these injections. ”Thus, fear, intimidation, and a range of dirty tactics are used to cow researchers into silence.

The Establishment’s attack dogs, as well as certain victims of the propaganda, will almost certainly resort to the usual smears to dismiss the evidence presented inthis paper without doing the work needed to engage with the research seriously. There will doubtless be disingenuous claims that the images shown below could mean anything, that we have no way of verifying their authenticity, that they may have been photoshopped for sensationalist or fraudulent purposes, that the samples were not properly prepared, allowing for contamination (a sleight on the professionalism of the researchers, some of whom have decades of experience), etc. Such intellectually lightweight claims founder on the fact that at least 26 different investigations of the “vaccine” contents (almost entirely unrelated to one another) from 16 different countries on five continents converge on remarkably similar findings. The investigations are mutually reinforcing, mitigating against possible fraud or human error. Researcher after researcher claims to have never seen anything like this before in their career.

Given that 5.33 billion peoplehave received the injection, and given the apparent evidence of foul play involved, no amount of bullying, coercion, and threats of violence seems likely to stop the investigation that must now take place. As we are already seeing, scientists from across the world are doing the necessary work anyway, and once the scale of their effort is understood, more and more research teams will be spurred into action, networking with one another rather than producing isolated, yet strikingly similar, findings of the type shown below. It is no exaggeration to claim that the fate of humanity is on the line now that more than two thirds of it has taken one or more of these shots. Because the stakes are sky high, the truth will come out sooner rather than later. If suspicions regarding undisclosed ingredients in the “vaccines” are confirmed, especially those regarding nanotechnology and degraded blood, there will be hell to pay for everyone involved in the COVID-19 “vaccination” programme. It is the authorities who should fear the people, not the other way around.

5 6 7 Moderna Moderna Moderna

I have seen claims that we are looking at nothing more than salt crystals (which can appear spectacular beneath the microscope), calcium pyrophosphate (which causes pseudogout), rod-shaped bacilli, ammonium biurate crystals (found in acidic urine), etc. in the COVID-19 “vaccines”—in other words, that there is nothing special or unusual about these images. There is partial truth to such claims: the Vaccines Education Working Group, for instance, finds that certain crystals formed from a dried out sample of Moderna are likely sodium chloride based on spectroscopic analysis. However, alternative spectroscopic analysis suggests that something very strange is going on. Daniel Nagase, an Alberta ER doctor disgracefully put on involuntary leave for treating “COVID-19” patients with Ivermectin, discovered the following structures in the Moderna and Pfizer “vaccines”:

8 9 10 Pfizer Pfizer Pfizer

The reason that these structures are significant, according to Nagase’s spectroscopy, is that they contain neither nitrogen nor phosphorus, two of the six “building blocks of life” along with carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulphur. Nitrogen is a component of all proteins. The absence of nitrogen and phosphorus, in Nagase’s view, means that these structures cannot be biological. This leaves open the possibility that they are synthetic biology, i.e. non-living structures designed to imitate natural biology. If so, what are they doing in the COVID-19 “vaccines”?

Nagase claims that the above artefacts are predominantly made of carbon and oxygen; and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy cannot test for hydrogen, which could therefore also be present. The molecular structure of graphene oxide consists of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. Nagase acknowledges the possibility that these artefacts could be graphene oxide, but claims that this lies outside his field of expertise. He does make the interesting suggestion, however, that because there is plenty of carbon and oxygen in the human body, perhaps this is being used to aid self-assembly of structures post-injection. This is only a hypothesis, but in light of the evidence we are about to see, scientists need to address it.

Robert Young, in contrast, does find traces of nitrogen in the Pfizer “vaccine” when analysing suspected particles of reduced graphene oxide/hydroxide using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, but he does not find phosphorous or sulphur (see his Figures 7 and 7a). One sample reveals high levels of carbon, oxygen, sodium, and chloride, while another sample lacks the sodium but includes carbon, oxygen, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, chloride and calcium. A further sample (his Figure 15), reveals the presence (in order of quantity) of bismuth, carbon, oxygen, aluminium, sodium, copper and nitrogen. Another sample (his Figure 18) shows “an organic (Carbon-Oxygen-Nitrogen) aggregate with embedded nanoparticles of bismuth, titanium, vanadium, iron, copper, silicon, aluminum”. Young infers that graphene oxide/hydroxide is present because of the high carbon and oxygen levels in these samples, but the unexpected presence of a range of metallic elements also requires explanation.

The reason why graphene oxide is so important is that this revolutionary new material is being used in nanotechnology, e.g. in neural interfaces. Proof of graphene oxide in the COVID-19 “vaccines” would be the smoking gun that confirms the presence of nanotechnology. At present, this matter is contested. The Vaccines Education Working Group, in a single sentence of an 81-page report, denies the presence of graphene or graphene oxide in the “vaccines”, allegedly based on infrared and Raman spectroscopy, though no details are provided. In contrast, in perhaps the most thorough spectroscopic analysis of the COVID-19 “vaccines” (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen) published to date, Pablo Campra claims that for eight of 110 objects suspected of being graphene oxide based on visual inspection, their spectral correspondence to reduced graphene oxide is “unambiguous”, “unequivocal”, and “conclusive”. For a further 20 objects, the presence of graphene oxide can be asserted “with a high level of confidence” because of “signals compatible with the presence of graphitic or graphene structures”. For “translucent sheets with a graphene appearance”, it was not possible to obtain well-defined Raman signals owing to “fluorescence noise”; in those objects, “the presence of graphene structures can neither be affirmed nor ruled out”. Robert Verkerk, using Raman spectroscopy, claims: “It is pretty clear that graphite composite forms as undeclared ingredients are very common in the vials” (Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca). José Luis Sevillano claims that spectroscopy signals coming from certain objects in the “vaccines” are “99 percent” compatible with graphene.

Conducting further spectroscopic analysis of the COVID-19 “vaccines” should be a top priority for scientists. The above studies are the only ones I know of where this has been done—a sample too small to draw any firm conclusions from, yet presenting sufficient evidence to warrant urgent investigation.

The rest of this paper compiles evidence from microscopic analyses of COVID-19 “vaccines” from as many studies as I have been able to find. In the era of COVID censorship, the sample will probably be incomplete, for the simple reason that it is difficult to track down such information.¹

Nevertheless, the list is far more extensive than I imagined it would be when I began this project. It came as a great surprise to me —as I am sure it will to many readers, including those aware of some of these studies—to discover just how many independent investigations of the COVID-19 “vaccines” have already taken place. Nowhere is all this information centrally compiled (an obvious job for someone to do online, in a format as censorship-proof as possible). Therefore, one original contribution of this article is simply to bring it all together for the first time. Seen as a whole, the picture is compelling.

When I say “studies”, I do not mean peer-reviewed academic journal articles. As far as I am aware, only three peer-reviewed journal articles involving microscopic analysis of the COVID-19 “vaccine” contents exist, two of them published in this journal (Jeon, 2022; Lee et al. 2022; Giovannini et al. 2022). This is despite abundant evidence of serious injury and death caused by those “vaccines” (Seneff & Nigh, 2021; Broudy, 2021, p. 102; Blaylock, 2022; Oller & Santiago 2022; Fraiman et al. 2022; Exposé, 2022a). One source, from February 2022, compiles over 1,000 peer-reviewed articles on the harms arising from the “vaccines”. Data leaked from the US Defense Medical Epidemiology Database reveal shockingly high figures regarding the surge in a range of illnesses post-injection. The more “vaccines” taken, the higher the chance of death (Exposé, 2022b). Particularly troubling are the risks to otherwise fit and healthy young people, including athletes and children (Hughes, 2022a). Despite all this, for some indefensible reason, academia has shown very little interest in what is actually in the injections based on independent analysis of their contents. The current paper seeks to address that situation and promote more research in this area.

Even when academics such as Camprado produce research in this area, they and their universities are quick to distance themselves from one another, and the research remains non-peer-reviewed, presumably because it is more important to the researchers to get their findings out to the public than to wait for a corrupt scientific journal community to refuse to publish it on non-scientific grounds. How corrupt is that community? Even its own editors have long admitted that “journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry” (Horton, 2004); that “medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies” (Smith, 2005); that “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines” (Angell, 2009); and “the case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue” (Horton, 2015). Indeed, one of the most widely read scientific papers of all time is titled, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” (Ioannidis, 2005). According to Mikovits (2020): “The journals are part of the plague of corruption. In fact, they drive it. It is propaganda masquerading as science.” Once the “pandemic” hit, the journals’ information-laundering role became stunningly obvious. “Until this pandemic event,” notes Blaylock (2022), “I have never seen so many journal papers being retracted—the vast majority promoting alternatives to official dogma, especially if the papers question vaccine safety.”

Because academia has failed to perform basic due diligence regarding COVID-19 “vaccine” contents, the quality of research that does exist on those contents varies. At one end of the spectrum, Campra and the Vaccines Education Working Group produce carefully documented, methodological research that one suspects probably would pass peer-review in an honest system, albeit with a few tweaks. At the other end of the spectrum, important findings by, for instance, Bärbel Ghitalla are packaged in a quasi-documentary short video format that provides no scientific detail at all regarding level of magnification, size of objects detected, length of time after opening the vial, etc. Indeed, many of the researchers who have conducted this type of research appear to be so shocked by what they have seen that they feel an urgency to publicize their findings without always providing the level of detail that would be helpful to make the most sense of it.

Some researchers provide just a few images; others provide many dozens. I have therefore had to be selective in which images to show. In addition, I have cropped numerous images to focus on what I deem to be their most important features and to save space. These elements of subjective judgment mean that the reader should refer to the original sources for a fuller picture. In addition, I have resized certain images (without altering their proportions) to make them fit the page better. The scale of these images was not always evident in the original research, so it is not always clear how big certain artefacts are. It is possible that some artefacts placed side by side that appear to be roughly the same size are in fact different sizes. This is precisely why more rigorous lab research is needed—to eliminate possible sources of confusion and help clear up what it is that we are looking at.

A further methodological problem is the technical quality of the imagery. The large majority of this imagery originates from online videos from which I have taken screen grabs using the snipping tool on Windows. Really, repositories of high quality imagery taken directly from the microscope need to be made available online, but I have done my best with what is currently available. I think itis more than enough to merit further investigations of the COVID-19 “vaccines”.

For the novice reader, there will be problems with knowing how to interpret different types of microscopy. For example, there are different branches of microscopy: optical, electron, scanning probe, and X-ray. Within optical microscopy alone, there are different techniques for improving the quality and usefulness of the image: bright-field, dark-field, phase contrast, and cross-polarized light illumination. Each works in a different way and produces different kinds of imagery, meaning that it is possible for the same object to appear differently depending on the technique used (each has its own advantages and drawbacks). Different approaches also generate different color imagery, sometimes to generate better contrasts. The colors of the images shown in this article should therefore be ignored, as they do not represent the true colors of the objects seen. For example, the La Quinta Columna imagery above does not really show objects “lighting up” dark green surroundings; rather, the light/dark contrasts are generated to enhance the sharpness of the image in key places. The imagery presented in this article is a hodgepodge of different microscopy types and techniques. Better scientific analysis would be systematic and thorough in its application of different microscopic types and techniques, labelling each one clearly.

Because the primary purpose of this article is to present evidence for specialists in such fields as biochemistry and nanotechnology to analyze and build upon, I have elected to present that evidence in the chronological order in which it appeared, rather than structurally imposing my own interpretation. This will also, hopefully, help the reader to understand the way in which findings have developed over time and to establish a counter-narrative of genuine scientific discovery, juxtaposed to the anti-scientific cult mentality embodied in The Science.™ The running order is, therefore, as follows: van Welbergen (July 2021), Ghitalla (August 2021), anonymous US researcher (August 2021), Madej (September 2021), Austrian researchers (September 2021), Botha (October 2021), Campra 1 (October 2021), “Andy Vie” (October 2021), Young (ongoing), Noack (November 2021), Campra 2 (November 2021), Reissner (December 2021), Jeon (January 2022), Life of the Blood (January 2022), Monteverde et al. (Feburary 2022); Hall (February 2022), La Quinta Columna (December 2021–March 2022), Lee et al. (March 2022), Australian scientists (April 2022), Yanowitz (April 2022), Wakeling (May 2022), the Vaccines Education Working Group (July 2022), and Giovannini et al. (August 2022).

Working study by study helps to address copyright issues. All the researchers cited in this paper want their work to be shared and spread widely in the public domain in order to raise awareness. At the same time, there should be correct attribution of images to give credit where credit is due. Rather than labelling every single image with the name of the researcher or research team that took it (a laborious exercise for the hundreds of images shown, and one which distracts from the imagery itself), I have made explicit where each image comes from by grouping images according to their source and providing one or more hyperlinks to the original work. I trust that this will satisfy the original content creators, as it is intended in the spirit of transparency and fairness. However, I would remind readers who wish to republish any of these images that they, too, should give credit to the creators of those images and provide links to the original work.

Most of what follows consists of visual imagery. I think that readers will agree that imagery speaks far more powerfully than words in the case of what they are about to see.

Continue reading: COVID-19 “VACCINES” CONTENTS: A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

¹ Indeed, just before this article went to press, I found another such study from the UK, which was submitted to police in early 2022 as charges of corporate manslaughter and gross criminal manslaughter were laid against AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, the NHS, the JCVI, the MHRA, and Her Majesty’s Government. Two vials of Moderna, one of AstraZeneca, and one of Pfizer were found to contain undeclared inclusions, “with a focus on graphene and carbon related nano structures in form of carbon or graphene composites, graphene in association with polyethylene glycol, graphene oxide, iron oxide compounds, and calcite”. These appeared as “ribbon forms,” “sheet forms,” “tubular forms,” “nano dots,” and “nano scrolls” (p. 42).

I am part of the International Interdisciplinary Research Group, which is comprised of doctors, scientists, journalists, engineers, or unemployed people like myself with a shared interest in finding the truth about the global biowarfare advertised as “covid pandemic” and related psychological operations unleashed on humanity.

Daniel Broudy put together a series of amazing interviews. I am sharing a link to Part 1 where Daniel is talking to Dr. David Hughes and discusses his paper that summarized all existing at the time independent studies of the vials of biowarfare agents and effects of their deployment on people’s blood. The video interview covers broader topics, including mass psychology and societal issues.

The link to the video is here.

The link to David’s paper is here.