When Doctors, Scientists, Professors, Notable Influencers, and Lawyers all Sh1t the bed of Science with their Nano Talk
Even if we just set aside the notion of nanostructures, no nanostructures could be seen here.
That person also delivers babies for a living. Would not know zeta potential if zeta sat on the baby doctor. Most people do not understand zeta potential and what is the potential of kinetic interactions.
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/102
We will cover real science in a moment. Anyone claiming the title of scientist, doctor, teacher, professor, nurse, and others should be ashamed and embarrassed for taking part in promoting any of this as plausible.
All “structures” aside, the nanoparticles inside of the COVID injections have been tracked for size. NANO size. Nanoscale. Lipid nanoparticles contain four types of lipids, RNA, and DNA plasmid contamination, depending on batch and type. They may contain other contaminants (probably).
This is not in dispute. People have died. People have been harmed. This is true. There are a few mechanisms. I am about to submit a paper on several, including one I have kept in my back pocket that will put a major dent in AstraZeneca too, no plasmid needed.
I am on the side of those saying these things are bad, and we have not seen the full totality of the damage yet by these things, especially on the cancer side.
But when you have major influencers sharing this stuff, you must realize we have free speech, but there are responsibilities and consequences to free speech.
During the last day, I have seen doctors, scientists, lawyers, and influencers share what has been shared here. These people were supposed to be witnesses and subject matter experts in trials for people who have been harmed and lost loved ones. These people are connected to notable politicians in multiple countries speaking out. They have now lost all credibility. I would certainly think a judge in a court of law would now find them all to be buffoons. Useless buffoons. Merry Andrews fell for a narrative. Do you realize the extent of the damage here?
In this study (see the screenshot, I have the whole study, which should not even be called a study, it is nonsense), we can see the writers (we use the word writers here), and state they used a device called an Olympus stereomicroscope.
A typical Olympus stereomicroscope offers low to medium magnification, ranging from 6.7x to around 90x (depending on the model and accessories like additional objective lenses). The maximum achievable resolution with a stereomicroscope is 10 micrometers, meaning it can resolve details down to this size.
Objects visible through an Olympus stereomicroscope are within the millimeter to micrometer range, not the nanoscale.
Nanostructures are nano size. The DNA plasmid pieces are nano i size. The charged lipids, the other lipids, are nanoscale. The whole LNP itself is barely 200 nm at best. That means those circular blobs that have all the lipids, the RNA, and DNA plasmid inside of it–total average possible size–200 nm.
Examples of objects that can be viewed
Millimeter scale (1 mm = 1,000 µm):
Small insects (e.g., ants, beetles)
Plant leaves and flowers
Coins or jewelry
Larger crystals
Micrometer scale (1 µm = 1/1,000 mm):
Hair strands (~100 µm diameter)
Bacteria (roughly 1-10 µm in size)
Human cells (~10-30 µm in diameter)
Pollen grains (10-100 µm)
Nanoscale structures (1-100 nm), such as viruses, DNA strands, or nanoparticles, cannot be seen with an Olympus stereomicroscope, as their size is well below the resolving power (10 µm) of the stereomicroscope.
For nanoscale imaging (below 200 nm), instruments like electron microscopes or atomic force microscopes are required.
To view nanoscale structures, specialized techniques are needed, such as:
Electron Microscopy: Uses electrons instead of light. The short wavelength of electrons allows for high-resolution imaging.
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) provides detailed internal structure views.
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) gives surface topography images.
Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM): Measures the forces between a sharp probe and the surface of a sample to create high-resolution images of the surface.
Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM): Uses the quantum tunneling effect to map the surface of materials at the atomic level.
These methods allow for imaging and analyzing nanoscale structures effectively.
These people sh1t the bed of science. Not credible people.
Thank you for this. When people that had been considered reputable were posting about self-assembling nano particles I had to wonder: is this possible? Thanks for the debunking!
Is it possible that what the entire industry actually calls nanoparticles or really much bigger than that... something is not adding up if your stack is to be even considered at face value. See video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4lgotKZ1Dc
I definitely can't believe that the plethora of researchers walking in this field all have access to this high tech equipment you lavishly quote here considering how expensive the equipments are. Are hey all lying abt working in the nano field??? See below
https://www.youtube.com/@NNINanoTube/videos
I took great pains to read your substack so i can understand where you're coming from and the basis of your refutal. It will help greatly if you directed your questions to the authors of the paper Lee and her co author so like an average human will do you at least give them the right of response.
Secondly, your points abt nano size and the capability of the equipments used are very well understood. May i suggest you at least do a similar study using the same tool or perhaps the ones capable of detecting nano to at least refute or confirm their investigations. The scientific literature is full of the presence of these nanotech even Israel's Ido Batchelet talks very freely abt the presense of these things in injections that can be injected into humans. Perhaps this will help you, it's way back since 2003 - https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2001/11/liquid-computing-html
Thirdly, am all for challenging established dogma and the science. This is exactly what science needs so it can mature and be developed to its fullest potential.
One thing is almost irrefutable, there are plentiful nanotech in the vials as shown by various papers and even pfizer itself -
https://ianakyildiz.com/bwn/surveys/nanothings.pdf
https://www.pfizer.com/news/behind-the-science/unlocking-power-our-bodys-protein-factory
https://rumble.com/v38ylix-nanotechnology-nano-enabled-sensors-and-nanoparticles-intr-body.html
So perhaps maybe the industry has simply gotten the term incorrectly and it shld be called something other than nano given the insanely small size of nano. Lastly, i'll take the liberty to send your substack to the authors assuming you have't done that already. Perhaps that would have helped us all clear this impasse. I want to believe you're an honest individual and not some plant by the very people we're trying to fight.
Blessings.