ArticlePDF Available

Syllogistic Reasoning Demystifies Evidence of COVID-19 Vaccine Constituents

  • Okinawa Christian University


Incontrovertible evidence has now made clear that much of what has been perceived publicly about the story of SARS-CoV-2 and the pharmaceutical remedies offered (then mandated) was/is part of a sophisticated international fabrication of unprecedented proportion, depth, and deception. The origins of the virus, the approved testing regime, the flawed predictive models of spread and mortality, associated social-distancing mandates, and so-called vaccines and their claimed efficacy and safety, all point to a coordinated effort to manufacture public fear and hysteria so as to propagate and normalize transhumanist interventions in healthcare and human biology. This article begins with the simple question of how adjuvants in traditional vaccines are theorized to work and proceeds to analyze how the new injectable mRNA platforms deploy nanomaterials as delivery vehicles for genetic interventions with a range of other potential actions inside the human body, both intended and unintended. The authors draw upon the chronological and logical development of adjuvants and their use across disciplines in materials science, genetic engineering, and programming. The authors aim to disentangle the known, unknown, possible and likely contents and objectives of COVID-19 injections, in the context of the surrounding corporate, political, and ideological landscape. They conclude that the social disruptions created by COVID-19 have served as a means of instigating rapid transition to what unelected policymakers have called a Bio-Nano Age.
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 149
Syllogistic Reasoning Demystifies Evidence of COVID-19
Vaccine Constituents
Daniel Broudy1 and Valerie Kyrie2
1Professor of Applied Linguistics, Okinawa Christian University, Nishihara-cho, Okinawa 903-0207, Japan, ORCID:
2PhD in Experimental Psychology, Masters in Clinical Psychology
Incontrovertible evidence has now made clear that much of what has been perceived publicly about the story of SARS-
CoV-2 and the pharmaceutical remedies offered (then mandated) was/is part of a sophisticated international fabrication
of unprecedented proportion, depth, and deception. The origins of the virus, the approved testing regime, the flawed
predictive models of spread and mortality, associated social-distancing mandates, and so-called vaccines and their
claimed efficacy and safety, all point to a coordinated effort to manufacture public fear and hysteria so as to propagate
and normalize transhumanist interventions in healthcare and human biology. This article begins with the simple question
of how adjuvants in traditional vaccines are theorized to work and proceeds to analyze how the new injectable mRNA
platforms deploy nanomaterials as delivery vehicles for genetic interventions with a range of other potential actions
inside the human body, both intended and unintended. The authors draw upon the chronological and logical
development of adjuvants and their use across disciplines in materials science, genetic engineering, and programming.
The authors aim to disentangle the known, unknown, possible and likely contents and objectives of COVID-19
injections, in the context of the surrounding corporate, political, and ideological landscape. They conclude that the social
disruptions created by COVID-19 have served as a means of instigating rapid transition to what unelected policymakers
have called a Bio-Nano Age.
Keywords: adjuvant, bio-nano age COVID-19, graphene, SARS-CoV-2, vaccine, mRNA platform, nano-technology, magnetism, toxicity
1. Introduction
Like the blitzkrieg bombing of Iraqi forces along the Kuwaiti border in 1990, the story of a “novel”
coronavirus exploded on the international media scene in late 2019. Who can forget the sounds and images
coming out of Wuhan of pedestrians suddenly collapsing in the streets, men in powder blue HAZMAT suits
armed with high-tech thermometers and disinfectants for public spaces, the general mayhem of citizens
cursing from their balconies in crowded sections of the city? In hindsight, just over a year and a half later, it
has become much easier to see how the manufactured fear and hysteria (Bagus, 2021) in mainstream media
fed the false urgencies of unquestioning mass compliance around the world with calls for lockdowns of
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 150
undisclosed duration (Miltimore, 2020), social-distancing mandates (Alexander, 2021; Gant, 2020),
mandatory masks (bin-Reza et al., 2012), continued use of the inappropriate PCR technique (Engelbrecht &
Demeter, 2020; Mahese, 2020; Surkova, et al., 2020, Cassels, 2020; Jaafar et al., 2020; Chossudovsky, 2021),
and the introduction of contact tracing apps and so-called green (vaccine) passports that would make the
leading social engineers of the Chinese Communist Party flush with pride (Kobie, 2019).
As documented by Richard M. Fleming (2021), SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon designed with us in mind.
Furthermore, as Li-Meng Yan et al. (2020a, 2020b, 2020c; also see her transcribed conversation with
Fleming and Karladine Graves in Fleming, 2021, pp. 105-131) have reported, the virus created by the
Chinese Government and others to produce COVID-19, was meticulously designed over a period, not of
months, nor years, but decades in a series of “gain of function” research projects published in prestigious
journals, paid for mostly with US dollars, and leading to a stream of lucrative patents enriching certain
individuals including Tony Fauci, Director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
(NIAID) and Bill Gates. In his best-selling book Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. points out that the “CDC owns 57
vaccine patents” (p. xv) and in 2019 was spending “$4.9 of its $12.0 billion-dollar annual budget” promoting
their distribution. He notes that
Figure 1. As cited by Kennedy (2021, p. 371) credited to Conor Skelding (June 5, 2021), “Fauci email dump includes
‘sick’ March Madness-style virus bracket.” New York Post.
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 151
NIH owns hundreds of vaccine patents and often profits from the sale of products it supposedly regulates. High level
officials, including Dr. Fauci, receive yearly emoluments of up to $150,000 in royalty payments on products that they
help develop and then usher through the approval process. The FDA receives 45 percent of its budget from the
pharmaceutical industry, through what are euphemistically called user fees (p. xv).
Each of the key facts in the material quoted from Kennedy (2021, p. xv) is extensively documented (see
Endnotes 1-5, p. xxiv). Leading up to his final chapter, entitled “Germ Games” (2021, pp. 378-445),
Kennedy writes:
. . . putting aside Dr. Fauci’s involvement with Wuhan [the site of the main Chinese bioweapons laboratory where SARS-
CoV-2 was tweaked before its release to the public] and his decades of fashioning flop contagions, we must acknowledge
that in 2020, he finally hit the jackpot with COVID-19. Among the more revealing documents in Dr. Fauci’s June 2021
email dump is a rough schematic . . . [shown here as Figure 1] that Dr. Fauci signed ‘Tony F.’ depicting a March
Madness-style tournament bracket scoring the pestilential contestants during two decades of mostly phony contagions.
COVID-19 [SARS-CoV-2] finally emerges as champion (p. 372).
Fauci’s list of contestants contains a litany of ‘gain-of-function’ potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs; as
documented by Oller, 2021a) along with several vaccine targeted disease agents. The undisputable published
record shows that the notorious Event 201 (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health et al., 2019)
was merely the most recent in a series of meetings taking place over several decades where planning for the
manufactured world-wide pandemic now known as COVID-19 took place. That “champion” of pandemic
plans (Skelding, 2021) has enabled “sock puppet agencies of the pharmaceutical industry, such as the FDA
and WHO (Kennedy, 2021), to procure billions for their backers. News of the Omicron variant alone
generated $10 billion for the eight top shareholders in Pfizer and Moderna (Global Justice Now, 2021).
In this present article, however, we address not the profit motives behind COVID-19, but one of the more
puzzling aspects of the COVID-19 narrative namely, the apparent magnetic properties of the vaccines
pushed, without ceasing, on populations around the globe. We will not address the surprising 99.86% (Joffe,
2021; Merrick, 2021) survival rate of the illness; its probable origins in the laboratory (Hilton, 2021; Schorr,
2021; Yan et al., 2020a; Yan et al., 2020b; Palmer, 2020; Latham & Wilson, 2020); the deceptive data
collection and analysis practices and the systematic marginalization of already existing, inexpensive and
efficacious treatments (Ealy et al., 2020; Santin et al., 2021; Bryant et al., 2021; Popp et al., 2021; Pfeiffer &
Bonvie, 2021); nor the mountains of evidence of widespread harms and deaths attributed to the injections
(Open, 2021; Yellow, 2021). We will, instead, focus closely on what appears to be the apparent
transhumanist features of the vaccine contents.
Transhumanism, as a concept, has an ancient history rooted in the universal desire to live forever to
transcend the physical limitations of mortality. It is believed that in order to achieve this goal, the human
body must be “upgraded” (Sahota, 2018) using science and technology. Transhumanism can be understood
today as a global scientific and social movement devoted to research and development of technologies
claiming to enhance the human condition. Advocates around the world cooperate and work to integrate
new technologies into human beings to “upgrade” sensory perception, emotive ability, cognitive capacity,
and to increase constant connectivity to the internet, the “global central nervous system” (Broudy &
Arakaki, 2020). Transhuman interventions seek not merely to remediate biological impairment but to
achieve artificially what would remain biologically impossible without the enhancements provided (or aimed
at) by the interventions. Also understood as the Fourth Industrial Revolution, among the primary objectives
is to realize the permanent convergence of biological life, synthetic technologies, and digital currencies, in
order to achieve a post-human condition in which intelligent life has evolved beyond its natural human
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 152
In this essay, the authors use a syllogistic form of reasoning to build the case that the injections meet at least
one transhumanist aim and do more harm to the human body than advertised (Seneff & Nigh, 2021). To
help readers see more easily the flow of the discussion, the logic in our paper can be reduced to the
following premises.
MAJOR PREMISE: Developments in new tools, techniques, and technologies will advance in spite of the
problems they can create for people.
MINOR PREMISE: Technological advances in genetic engineering and materials science have invaded
medical research and the development of new vaccines.
CONCLUSION: People are, thus, exhibiting serious problems arising from the technology of COVID-19
The central goal is to uncover, document, and bring clarity to the convoluted details in the story of
transhumanism buried in a convergence of the cross-disciplinary areas of materials science, nano-
technology, and human genomics (2045). It is, in part, an effort to contextualize and make sense of the
bizarre sentiments expressed by Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland,
who observed in 2015 that the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution, “doesn’t change what you are doing,
it changes you. If you take genetic editing … it’s you [emphasis added] who are changed, and of course this
will have a big impact on your identity” (Schwab, 2015). Indeed, Schwab has recently clarified what he had
meant by pointing out that the present pandemic represents a key moment in human history when, “our
physical, ... digital ... and biological identities can merge” (2020). Who knew human beings were born with a
digital identity? Schwab’s declarations may sound suspiciously sinister, even sci-fi or too fantastic to be taken
Adjuvants: the Major Premise
Nevertheless, incremental steps often prove to be the mothers of invention bearing the eventual basic
changes that appear over time in organisms. So, how are we supposed to see ourselves if our identities are
being changed before our very eyes? Willing accomplices? Willfully blind? Or, unassuming victims of an elite
predator class of “giants” (Phillips, 2018) obsessively focused on marketizing all bodies and bodily
movements (Abramson, 2020; Oller, 2021b)? A brief survey of colonialism in history will show that the
most tyrannical impositions (e.g. unjust laws, serfdom, slavery) were pushed onto people. Today, they are
being pushed into people confronting the demands of an emerging bio-secure global medical apartheid.
In light of Schwab’s contention about the new bio-secure global economy, we begin with the fallacious
belief that the human immune system needs routine intervention and tampering with an artificial shock
intended to trigger the system to mount an effective cellular and molecular defense against invading
microbes. The dominant media narrative today seeks to normalize the total systematic erasure of all
memories of the power of natural immunity to protect the body. Traditionally, the shock has been provided
by adjuvants, the technological development of which has progressed immensely beyond the use of
aluminum salts in vaccine manufacturing (Shaw, 2021 p. xv; p. 15). Originally conceived as a “helper”
(Shaw, 2021 p. xv; p. 15) or “aid,” adjuvants were first used to produce an immune response that would
offer, “specific protection from infection or disease, and where the risk of acquiring the disease from
vaccination has either been reduced or removed” (di Pasquale et al., 2015). However, there is nothing
traditional about the COVID-19 “vaccines” (Shaw, 2021, p. 430). These platforms, as they are called,
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 153
belong, in fact, to an entirely new category of therapy: “they are not protein antigens but the genetic
blueprint for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antigen” (Doctors, 2021; Fleming, 2021, p. 4).
Gene-based vaccine technology has attracted keen interest for decades based on its ability to deliver
“continued growth in the vaccine business” by “shorten[ing] time to licensure, and respond[ing] quicker [sic]
to disease outbreaks. … Within weeks, clinical batches can be generated after the availability of a sequence
encoding the immunogen. The process is cell-free and scalable” (Jackson et al., 2020). According to
government officials and representatives at Moderna, “COVID vaccines reprogrammed to aim at emerging
new strains of the virus could reach the market quickly, without going through large clinical trials”
(Regalado, 2021). Besides the obvious implications in flouting the ethical necessity of clinical trials (i.e.
human beings as lab rats), the statement presupposes that the so-called vaccine is a molecular software
program packaged in a glass vial and uploaded by syringe to the biological system, the guinea pigs, via
hypodermic needle, all of which can be understood, ultimately, in terms of huge short-term profits.
This view of the injection as both a product and agent of change makes perfect sense in light of Moderna’s
own public relations messaging.
Recognizing the broad potential of mRNA science, we set out to create an mRNA technology platform that functions
very much like an operating system on a computer. It is designed so that it can plug and play interchangeably with
different programs. In our case, the program or app is our mRNA drug the unique mRNA sequence that codes
for a protein. (Moderna, 2020)
It is easy enough to see that the leading software engineers perceive the human genome to be little more
than computer code that can and should be manipulated (re-written) when the right economic conditions
are present in the social world. What isn’t so easy to see is the erroneous logic over-simplifying the complex
biological system itself whose cellular functions, according to biophysicist Mae-Wan Ho, “carry out millions
of catalytic reactions at the rate of thousands to hundreds of thousands of cycles per second” (Ho, 2003, p.
158). Infused in the arrogant belief that man can predict and control all aspects of genetic manipulation and
their effects on future generations defies at least one tenet of physics: the Second Law of Thermodynamics
(Trevors & Saier, 2011). At the microscopic level, for example, any natural process in that system moves
toward disorder, or entropy, of the system. So, the question remains, what is the unnatural adjuvant
intended to trigger the natural immune system?
Foreign Bodies: Minor Premise A
Concerned about safety and suspicious of the potential presence of foreign bodies in vaccines, Gatti and
Montanari tested childhood vaccines under electron microscopy. In their article “New Quality-Control
Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination” (2017), the researchers found a wide range of
toxic contaminants, among which were lead, stainless steel, tungsten, iron, and chromium. Their findings,
incidentally, reflect more recent studies of popular brands of pre-packaged baby foods found to contain
dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury (House, 2021). Gatti and Montanari submit that
discovery of these inorganic particles in vaccines was baffling, that their substance was neither
biocompatible nor biodegradable, which suggests that they persist in the body and are able to “induce
effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from
administration” (2017). Should metallic adjuvants be present in COVID-19 vaccines as anecdotal
observations have suggested, this detail, in particular, may explain the behavior of magnets reported to
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 154
adhere immediately, and sometimes fail to adhere, to people injected with the experimental mRNA
It is important to note that adjuvants are themselves foreign bodies, and while they can produce an immune
response, they also induce inflammatory reactions whose secondary and remote effects are not always
understood or predictable. In particular, Gatti and Montanari point out that the toxicity of the foreign
bodies they found is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them,
enhancing that toxicity. Since these particles do not degrade, they produce chronic inflammation.
“Furthermore,” they observe that, “the protein-corona effect (due to a nano-bio-interaction) can produce
organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way”
(2017). That is to say, the interaction of organic systems with foreign bodies composed of synthetic material
can create hybrid materials that precipitate harmful immune responses. Significantly, Gatti and Montanari
stress that the size of the nanoparticles appearing in vaccines allows them to breach the walls of a cell, to
enter the nucleus, and to interact with the cell’s DNA (2017).
Curious about the integrity and durability of nanoparticles, such as graphene and carbon nanotubes, Ganz et
al. (2017) sought to discover the melting point of free standing graphene and found that, “the system
appears to be in a quasi-2D liquid state when subjected to temperatures approaching 4,500 degrees Kelvin”
(7,640 degrees Fahrenheit or 4,226 Centigrade). While these tests help researchers in materials science to
determine the suitability of nanomaterials in applications designed for space exploration, the appearance of
these indestructible structures in biological systems gives us pause. Why are synthetic nanomaterials
capable of surviving close encounters with the Sun seen as useful components in vaccine development?
Electrical-Electronic Conductivity: Minor Premise B
Vastly stronger than titanium and virtually indestructible, consisting of a single layer of carbon atoms and
possessing unusual electrical properties, graphene was characterized and isolated in 2004 and is the thinnest
compound known to exist (Vranic, 2016). This astonishing substance has triggered both fascination among
scientists and remarkable growth in new industries. In its oxidized form, graphene oxide (GO) has been
described as, “the most studied 2D nanomaterial in biomedical applications” (Unal et al., 2021, p. 1).
According to Cordaro et al. (2020), “although nanotechnology based on graphene has been poorly applied
for the rapid diagnosis of viral diseases, the extraordinary properties of graphene (i.e. high electronic
conductivity, large specific area, and surface functionalization) can be also exploited for the diagnosis of
emerging viral diseases, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)”. The negative charge of
graphene oxide, for instance, has attracted research interest for its ability to drive an affinity for positively
charged viruses (Raghav & Mohanty, 2020).
The latest research suggests that graphene is some sort of miraculous material, appearing not just in
applications for the development of diagnostic tools, but also in therapeutics. For example, much like gene-
based mRNA technology touted by big pharmaceutical manufacturers, graphene oxide began attracting the
interest of the biotech industry as a potential vaccine innovation. Despite its “poor bio-solubility and
biocompatibility”, given surface modifications, Cao et al. noted in August 2020 that graphene oxide was
“expected to be introduced into vaccine research to improve the efficacy of vaccines” (2020). Similarly,
Raghav and Mohanty (2020) argue that, owing to its electroconductive properties, graphene oxide should be
incorporated into a gamut of COVID-19 products, from wipes, PPE and filtration devices to
nanomedicines, including vaccines. Injectable graphene-based magnetic nanoparticle formulations are also
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 155
being proposed as theranostics, or diagnosis and treatment combined, with the functionality of MRI, CT,
radio-chemotherapy, SPECT, and more (Lage et al., 2021).
Academic conferences feature experts keen to share experimental data on the observed behavior of
graphene in its interactions with cells. At a 2016 conference hosted by the European Foundation for Clinical
Nanomedicine, Sandra Vranic, Lecturer in Nano-Cell Biology, discussed the potential for GO to serve the
purposes of new therapeutic applications, such as bio-devices, biosensors, tissue scaffolds, drug delivery,
and gene therapy vectors. She admits that exposure to this material in vitro and in vivo as well as potential
adverse health effects are unknown. Serving, also, as a principal investigator (PI) in the EU-funded Horizon
2020 project BIORIMA, Vranic notes that it is, nevertheless, important to “understand aspects of
interactions of this material with cells in order to be able to exploit to the maximum the potential that these
materials give” (2016). Interest in graphene’s applied potential, moreover, is not purely academic.
The public-private partnerships that have emerged in recent years are proof that the prospect of long-term
profits electrify the pursuit of all things graphene. In 2018, for example, the European Union launched its
Horizon 2020 Graphene Flagship project. The initiative integrates the expertise of 170 academic and
industry partners and seeks to, “bring graphene innovation out of the lab and into commercial applications,
… accelerating the timeline for industry acceptance of graphene technologies.” The project’s website notes
that, “the Graphene Flagship is part of the European Union’s biggest scientific research initiative. With a
budget of €1 billion, the project represents a new form of joint, coordinated research initiative on an
unprecedented scale” (European Union, 2021).
Genetics & Nano-materials: Minor Premise C
Just over a year after the first human case of SARS-CoV-2, two nanomedicine-based mRNA platforms have
been fast-tracked, developed, and have received emergency use authorization (EUA) throughout the globe
with more vaccine approvals on the heels of these first two. Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccine compositions use
nanotechnology-enabled formulations. A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic for industry is that the
fast-tracked vaccine development for SARS-CoV-2 has advanced the clinical translation pathway for
nanomedicine drug delivery systems. The laboratory science of lipid-based nanoparticles was evidently ready
and rose to the clinical challenge of rapid vaccine development (Seneff & Nigh, 2021).
The successful development and fast-tracking of SARS-CoV-2 nanomedicine vaccines has exciting
implications for the future of nanotechnology-enabled drug delivery and gene therapy, and, by many
accounts, was ushered in right on time. The past two decades, however, have shown that development of
this industry has been long in the making. In a July 2001 lecture and 2011 presentation, NASA Langley
Chief Scientist Dennis Bushnell provided, somewhat prophetically, what he termed a “heads up” that 2020
would see the commencement of a Bio-Nano era. The Bio-Nano Age, he said, was to be marked by social
disruption which would pave the way for the following: genetic modification of human beings, synthetic
biology, brain chips, smart dust, human-level machine intelligence, designer life forms including
humanoids and “surreptitious nano tagging of everything/everyone,” among other bio-nano and
transhumanist innovations (Bushnell, 2001; 2011). Meanwhile, biophysicist and geneticist Mae-Wan Ho
famously warned for many years about the dangers inherent in modifying the genetic codes of biological
systems (2003, p. 24).
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 156
Perhaps the bewildering pronouncements that have appeared in the public discourse in the years that
followed Bushnell’s claims did not strike many observers as significant enough to cause much concern,
especially in terms of social and genetic disruption. After all, the ingenious devices created by Big Tech and
Big Data tend to serve as objects of adoration for the masses. Public displays of exuberance for the latest
tools testify to the social pathology driving obsessive desires in habits of mass consumption. The Business
Edition of CNN, for instance, reported Ray Kurzweil’s audacious prediction that “humans will become
hybrids in the 2030s” (Kurzweil, 2015a). For most people, Kurzweil’s observation likely sounded
preposterous and unworthy of broader public attention. They were likely unaware that, according to NASA
Langley’s Chief Scientist, Kurzweil is “right on it” (Bushnell, 2011)
From the stage of the Exponential Finance conference in New York City, his claims must have sounded
somewhat outlandish too. Man and machine, he noted, will “gradually merge, and [we’ll] enhance ourselves”
(2015b). Clearly, the ideology of transhumanism is baked into global finance. Klaus Schwab seemed to echo
Kurzweil’s sentiments, pointing to the inevitable “fusion of technologies ... blurring the line between the
physical, digital and biological spheres” (2016). Is the clever rhetoric simply code for a transhumanist future
when people have their movements tracked and thoughts monitored by an implantable microchip? It is “the
nature of being human,” as Kurzweil notes, “[to] transcend our limitations” (2015).
Such perspectives may seem reasonable, at first glance, given our many inventions to increase knowledge
exponentially and, thus, our comfort and safety in a wild and unstable world. Their real-world implications
found in the designs of the tech titans, however, may also appear rather ominous. Readers may wonder, are
the mRNA platforms developed by Big Pharma and Big Tech serving multiple purposes? Graphene, for
example, is particularly suited to genetic engineering in a bio-nano age. Lage et al. (2021) note that graphene
derivatives “offer large room to load and deliver drugs, genes, and proteins towards specific cells, tissues,
and organs,” given that they offer “higher drug/gene payloads and serve as super-efficient nanocarriers” (p.
3). It may be clear, by now, to the casual observer that speed and efficiency, at the cost of ethical
imperatives, are central aims in the industry move to deliver profitable solutions, at all costs, to humankind’s
most vexing problems.
A New Nano-World Order: Minor Premise D
If 2020 was to deliver on Bushnell’s prediction of social disruption enabling the dawn of the Bio-Nano Age,
a viral pandemic has long been in the cards. Viral diseases nowadays offer vast fertile fields of possibility in
financing, investing, and trading in the wares of an emergent bio-nano-based world. Deeper studies of the
United Nations’ long obsession with mankind’s so-called carbon footprint, the cancerous scourge he is
claimed to be (Hern, 1993), combined with the commodification of bodies (McDowell, 2020; Stem, 2021),
increasing Big-Tech control over (fe)male fertility (Dockterman, 2014; Feinberg, 2014), and the convoluted
schemes of international carbon trading (Davies et al., 2019) may provide rich insights into the latest kinds
of master-slave relationships now unfolding.
According to Chakravarty and Vora, “nanotechnology has emerged as one of the most promising
technologies on account of its ability to deal with viral diseases in an effective manner, addressing the
limitations of traditional antiviral medicines. It has not only helped us to overcome problems related to
solubility and toxicity of drugs, but also imparted unique properties to drugs, which in turn has increased
their potency and selectivity toward viral cells against the host cells” (2021). While the authors initially focus
on the key proteins of influenza, Ebola, HIV, herpes, Zika, dengue, and coronavirus, they follow with a
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 157
discussion of various nanomaterials which have served as delivery vehicles for the antiviral drugs. These
include lipid-based, polymer-based, lipidpolymer hybridbased, carbon-based, inorganic metalbased,
surface-modified, and stimuli-sensitive nanomaterials and their application in antiviral therapeutics.
Chakravarty and Vora also highlight newer more promising treatment approaches such as nanotraps,
nanorobots, nanobubbles, nanofibers, nanodiamonds, nanovaccines, and mathematical modeling for the
future” (2021), not to mention “nanocubes” (Alkhayal, 2021).
The brave new nano-world now pushing its synthetic bots and assorted nano building materials into organic
chemistry, into natural organisms, tissues, and bloodstreams needs a new lexicon to normalize the old ideals
of transhumanism reconstituted in COVID-19 medicine. It is, of course, paramount that language must
betray the objective reality of what is happening in the social world, as “biosensors,” “bioelectronics,” and
other clever euphemisms serve to cover the apparent push for widespread “brain-chip implants” and
“human-machine interfaces” all of which complete the lockstep march to a new technocratic global order
(FIAN, 2019). In 1995, Pierre Gilbert, Professor of Theology, gave a lecture on biotechnology and what he
foresaw as inevitable abuses on the horizon. Among the apparently preposterous claims made in the lecture,
Gilbert observed that one day, “vaccines will have liquid crystals that will become hosted in the brain cells,
which will become micro-receivers of electromagnetic fields where waves of very low frequencies will be
sent” (1995). How bizarre his words must have sounded to an audience unaware of how far advanced the
world would be in just a couple of decades.
COVID-19 Injections: Minor Premise E
COVID-19 has served not only to disrupt the social, economic, medical and political worlds, it has opened
the door wide to bio-nano medicine. According to Contera et al.,
New powers to reach the nanoscale brought us the unprecedented possibility to directly target at the scale of
biomolecular interactions, and the motivation to create smart nanostructures that could circumvent the hurdles
hindering the success of traditional pharmacological approaches. With the increasingly likely prospect of ending the
COVID-19 pandemic with the aid of a nanomedicine-based vaccine (both Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer vaccines are
based on lipid nanoparticle formulations), we are witnessing the coming of age of nanomedicine (2020).
Nanotoxicologist Antoinetta Gatti, Associate Professor of Science and Technology at the National Council
of Research of Italy, notes that in addition to the lipid nanoparticles encasing the mRNA in COVID 19
vaccines, graphene and/or carbon are likely additions, as nano-drivers, to optimise vaccine entry into cells
(Gatti, 2021). Indeed, relevant literatures have found the integration of graphene oxide into polyethylene-
glycolated (PEG) carriers, such as those used in COVID-19 vaccines, to comprise effective drug delivery
mechanisms (Shen et al., 2012; Tian et al., 2011; Xiong et al., 2014; Yang et al. 2013) and a “promising gene
delivery tool” (Baek et al., 2018).
Sing et al. (2021) write that graphene and its derivatives, “have a lot to offer against COVID-19, attributing
to their unique properties like thermomechanical durability, piezoelectricity, large-surface area, strong
antiviral potency, and so on” (p. 3). Specifically, the application of graphene nanotechnology to COVID-19
has been investigated with respect to: magnetic extraction of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid from infected patient
samples (Sing, Batoo & Sing, 2021); disrupting the infectivity of SARS-Cov-2 by binding with surface
structures on the virus and/or host cells (Unal et al., 2021); inhibiting virus replication by disrupting the viral
envelope (Donskyi et al., 2021); and exerting antiviral effects through electromechanical and hydrophilic
activity (Kumar Raghav & Mohanty, 2020) and effects on gene-production (Srivastava et al., 2020).
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 158
Gatti (2021), however, stresses that nanomaterials such as graphene pose particular dangers to human health
by virtue of their nano-scale. Nanotoxicology, she explains, is a specialised field, with issues and implications
outside traditional toxicologists’ areas of expertise. The same nano-graphene and PEG composites (PEG-
nGO) that form promising gene delivery tools (Baek et al., 2018) have been found to cause elevated levels
of reactive oxygen species, or free radicals (Ain et al., 2019). Capable of inducing tissue destruction and
promoting atherosclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer and neurodegenerative disease, free radicals caused
by PEG-nGO administration have been found to induce high oxidative stress to the brain, heart, and
kidneys in animal models (Ain et al., 2019). Graphene oxide has also been found to cause cell death and
damage through a variety of other mechanisms, and to perforate human lung cells (Duan et al., 2017).
COVID-19 Injections and Transhumanism: Minor Premise F
Nevertheless, given the intense research interest in graphene’s antiviral and gene-based applications,
including for COVID-19, and given the €1 billion in EU “Horizon 2020 funding to “bring graphene
innovation out of the lab,” it should come as no surprise if graphene were present in COVID-19 vaccines.
In addition to its biomedical utility, graphene possesses remarkable potential to facilitate transhumanist
interventions. The same structural and electromagnetic properties slated to revolutionize medicine are
revolutionizing robotics, computing and electronics, and their potential interactions with human beings. In
one example, Albert et al. began testing the peculiar aspects of graphene and discovered
“superparamagnetism,” — a magnetic property appearing in ferrimagnetic nanoparticles that can randomly
flip direction when exposed to certain temperatures. According to Albert et al., “Graphene oxide has ...
excellent chemical and physical characteristics while magnetite nanoparticles have superparamagnetic
properties which enable it to be controlled by external magnetic field” (2018). These observed phenomena
are, perhaps, why so much speculation has surrounded the simultaneous push for 5G communications
networks, the pulsed microwave radiation and its obvious and well-documented effects on biological
Graphene can easily enter biological systems and interact with them physically and electromagnetically.
Accordingly, it has attracted interest as a nanotag (Tian et al., 2019), with which NASA-Langley foresaw
tagging “everything/everyone” by 2020 (Bushnell, 2001). Graphene nanostructures are also being developed
as bioelectronic devices for use in “biosensing, electrophysiological recordings, and stimulation,” so as to
“enable real-time monitoring or control of physiological processes” (San Roman et al., 2020). Graphene
even lends itself to self-assembling semiconductors. Small enough to be injected, the nano-struuctrures can
“morph from conductor to semiconductor and back again” simply by changing shape, according to the
Kavli Foundation, a leading endowment for nanoscience research institutes around the world (Brown &
Crommie, 2021). Graphene’s versatility could foreseeably enable “high-performance computing and
nanoscale quantum devices” able to “interact with electrons, light, and even magnetism” notes the
Were self-assembling semiconductors what Zandre Bothe reported seeing under the microscope from
COVID-19 vaccine vials? In an October 2021 interview, Bothe shared images of nano-scaled mechanical
moving structures she had observed in vaccine samples, noting, “I’ve never seen this before … I don’t
know what I’m looking at” (Bothe, 2021). Resemblances to diagrams of 2D nano-semiconductors in various
states of self-assembly (Chui, 2021) raise serious questions about the possibility of a clandestine
transhumanist intervention, at least to the untrained eye. As Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA-
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 159
Langley, told his audience of environmental technicians in the context of discussing brain chips, cyborgs and
super-soldiers, “there’s a lot more out there on the frontiers than maybe you think about in your
philosophies, people” (Bushnell, 2011).
Kavli, an investor in graphene innovations, wrote on its website in February 2021 that “mRNA vaccines are
only the beginning for bionanoscience” (Brown 2021). The future, according to Kavli, holds advances in
synthetic biology, genetic engineering and Artificial Intelligence, thanks to the nanoscience revolution led by
COVID-19 vaccines. The Kavli Foundation has partnered with key agencies in the global network of
public private partnerships pushing gene-based COVID-19 nanotechnology around the world, including
the US Military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Rockefeller Foundation.
In addition to their interest in COVID-19 vaccines, all three organizations are part of a White House funded
Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, including projects
in nanoscience, brain-machine interfaces, and bioengineering (Kavli Foundation, 2013; 2014).
DARPA, for instance, is investigating technology that can read and write to brain cells in 50 milliseconds,
including the use of “technology that is swallowed, sniffed, injected or absorbed into the human body”
(Scudellari, 2019). The BBC reported in July 2021 that a DARPA-funded laboratory at the UC Santa Cruz
(Stephens 2020) has developed an injectable nanosensor the size of a single viral particle, able to travel
“through the bloodstream and cross the blood-brain barrier… act[ing] like a kind of antenna, turning neural
activity into optical signals that could be wirelessly sent to an external device” (Taylor, 2021). With its
unusual electromagnetic, superparamagnetic and structural properties, graphene is a leading candidate as a
bio-antenna of injectable scale. It has been found to successfully interface with neurons in research funded
by the EU’s Horizon 2020 Graphene Flagship program (Fabro et al., 2016), leading one of the study’s
authors to remark, “hopefully this will pave the way for better deep brain implants to both harness and
control the brain” (University of Cambridge, 2016).
As a key driver and financier of such brain-machine innovations, DARPA is the premier research and
development arm of the US Department of Defense. Its role is to act as a “catalyst” for “radical innovation”
by bringing “revolutionary technology” to the civilian sector (Adler, 2021). With an Accelerated
Manufacture of Pharmaceuticals (AMP) program and a Biological Technologies Office, DARPA was among
the agencies listed by NASA Langley as working towards a 2020 Bio-Nano Age (Bushnell, 2001).
According to the journal American Affairs, in the lead-up to 2020, it was DARPA, not the pharmaceutical
industry, that spearheaded the development of mRNA vaccines (Adler, 2021; Fleming, 2021; and Kennedy,
2021). By 2020, DARPA’s efforts had culminated in Operation Warp Speed, a clandestine $6 billion
collaboration between the US military, intelligence contractors and pharmaceutical companies (Webb, 2020),
aimed at bringing gene-based nanotech COVID vaccines to market within months, as opposed to the usual
10 years (Adler, 2021).
American Affairs Journal cites Dan Wattendorf, a colonel, MD and scientist who has cycled through revolving
doors between the NIH, DARPA, and now the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as saying that, “it took a
Warp Speed and COVID-19 to lead to widespread deployment of the [mRNA] technology.” Now
that that technology has been adopted thanks to the social disruption of COVID-19, the Kavli Foundation
writes, “mRNA has the potential to do far more than protect against COVID-19 …. We want to understand
the genetic code at its most fundamental level and then learn to use those mechanisms to make the cell do
new and useful things.” The bionano science rising from the wreckage of coronavirus interventions will,
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 160
according to the Kavli Foundation, be marked by innovations such as “new methods for genetic
engineering” and designer biology, including the fabrication of synthetic cells, whereby researchers can
expect “to find themselves more involved with private companies” (Brown, 2021). All of which raises the
specter of a technocratic, medico-military corporatized discipline in which eugenics and transhumanism
Another entity with involvement in both transhumanism and gene-based COVID-19 vaccines is the
Rockefeller Foundation. Rockefeller hosts the Kavli Neural Systems Institute at Rockefeller University, as
an arm of the White House BRAIN initiative. One of the first projects to receive funding under BRAIN
was a Rockefeller effort to remotely control brain cells with nanoparticle-based radiogenetics (Rockefeller
University, 2014). The technology uses radio waves, or magnetic fields with nanoparticles, to turn neurons
on and off. This development led to a protocol published in Nature, which the Rockefeller University
described as “magnetic mind control” (Rockefeller University, 2016; Stanley et al., 2016). Around the same
time a research group at the University of Virginia, which has received over $76 million from the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, developed a technique that involves genetically engineering brain cells, such that
brain activity can be remotely controlled by magnetic fields (Wheeler et al., 2016).
The researchers called the invention “magneto”, and published their findings in Nature Neuroscience. Magneto
enabled stimulation of reward centers associated with drug and food intake in mice, and represented a new
tool for “remotely controlling circuits associated with complex animal behaviors” (Wheeler et a., p. 756). As
regards the broader implications of this research, one author foresaw a future in which gene therapy would
introduce desired genes into neurons, enabling magnets to control specific neural circuits in the brain. He
said, “There are many researchers who are fine-tuning these things so that one day we can use viral gene
therapy safely in humans” (Choi, 2016).
As of this writing, five years later, with viral gene therapy underway worldwide, magnetic fields and magnetic
nanoparticles are proposed as a source of brain-cloud interface, in which injectable neural-nanorobotics
could enable connectivity between human brain activity and the web. In the journal Frontiers in Neuroscience,
authors from universities across the United States, Russia and Australia write:
Subsequent to navigating the human vasculature, three species of neural-nanorobots (endoneurobots, gliabots, and
synaptobots) could traverse the blood–brain barrier (BBB) … [and] wirelessly transmit up to 6 × 1016 bits per second
to a cloud-based supercomputer for real-time brain-state monitoring and data extraction (Martins et al., 2019).
While all eyes are on coronavirus, the rapid ascent of nanorobotic technology has taken place largely
unimpeded by safety concerns. In a review of environmental and health risks of nanorobotics, Arvidsson
and Hanson (2020) note that although “nanorobots are currently being extensively researched and
developed, especially for medical applications”, research into potential dangers for human health is lacking,
despite numerous grounds for concern. Moreover, the authors caution that no regulatory frameworks exist
to govern the application of nanobots to human beings.
Inside this regulation-free environment, and having advanced the science of magnetic mind control, the
Rockefeller Foundation, like DARPA, is working to push COVID-19 vaccines around the world.
Rockefeller is a partner of GAVI The Vaccine Alliance, which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation and aimed at creating and maintaining “vaccine markets” (GAVI, 2020). Rockefeller is also
behind an action plan to increase COVID vaccine uptake (Rockefeller Foundation, 2021), and, along with
the Gates Foundation, has funded the WHO guidelines on digital certification of COVID-19 vaccines
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 161
(WHO, 2021). The Rockefeller group also presaged much of the social disruption imposed in response to
COVID-19 as part of their Lockstep scenario, in a 2010 pandemic planning report (Rockefeller
Foundation, 2010). In short, entities with interests in transhumanist innovations hold key roles shaping
responses to COVID-19.
The Rockefeller foundation also has a long history of collaboration with China, dating back over a century.
From the establishment of the China Medical Board in 1914, “one of the first operating divisions of the
Rockefeller Foundation” (Rockefeller Foundation), to orchestrating the Westernization of Chinese
medicine, to financial investments and the establishment of the financial architecture that brought China
into the world of global finance (Webb & Corbett, 2021), Rockefeller leads the transhumanist trail all the
way through COVID-19 right back to the birthplace of SARS-CoV-2.
Conclusions and New Directions for Further Research
The most plausible conclusion to our extended syllogism would follow, therefore, that developments in
nanoparticle adjuvants, such as graphene oxide, have been incorporated into innovative vaccine technology
despite the problems they create for human beings. Our deductions trace the chronological and logical
progression of technological innovations imposed on people and the various dangers these new tools can
pose. Our conclusion, we argue, should engender critical questions that motivate further studies of the
effects these injections have on human health, especially over the long-term because nanobots do not decay
or evidently go away. A couple of hypotheses that can be tested empirically, and promptly, are the following:
Why do members of the public who have already submitted to the experiment exhibit magnetic properties
typical of heavy metals? What other signs or symptoms, besides magnetism, point to synthetic vaccine
materials meant to generate unnatural electrical fields and/or conductivity at the cellular level?
Furthermore, while it is now common knowledge that lipid nanoparticle technology has served as the
primary vehicle to deliver the mRNA payload into recipients, our analysis of the larger government-funded
technological landscape within which vaccine rollouts and mandates proceed reveals ambitious
transhumanist plans presently unfolding. The direct involvement of public-private partnerships,
philanthropies, the WEF, UN, EU, and various government agencies tasked to research and develop
cutting-edge tools and techniques for the Bio-Nano Age testifies to the global scale and effort involved in
fusing man and machine (Goetrzel, 2012) and integrating human beings, without their awareness or consent,
into the global neural network. The story of the new injectable mRNA platforms can be understood only
partially if public attention remains tightly focused on vaccine harms done to human health. Other
research questions about the larger societal picture will likely generate fruitful results: To what extent does
transhumanist ideology inform and guide official government policies ostensibly crafted for medical care
and economic development? To what extent do tax-paying citizens fund violations of their own human
rights and sovereignty? Why? All of which begs the disquieting question: to what extent are the harmful
ingredients in COVID-19 vaccines a design feature rather than a bug?
In his 2011 speech, NASA Langley Chief scientist Dennis Bushnell foresaw “population control” alongside
synthetic biology, intelligent robots, and designer humanoids in coming years (Bushnell, 2011). Global
COVID Czar Bill Gates’ fellow member of the so-called Good Club, Ted Turner, is reported to have called
for a 95% population reduction in the magazine Audubon in 1996, and has since said on camera that a
global population of around 2 billion, or a 75% reduction in today’s terms, is “about right” (Barclay, 2015;
Frank, 2009; Harris, 2009; Harlow & Chossudovsky, 2021). If designer humanoids and intelligent robots are
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 162
to be the jewels in the crown of the Bio-Nano Age, will survival of the human fittest be the order of the
Bio-Nano day?
When it isn’t undermined by corporate interests oriented toward the acquisition of monetary profit at all
costs, pure scholarly activity, whose only aim is disinterested truth, can verify some of the most vital claims
made about the world, about human activity, or about the most serious threats facing humankind. In
claiming the unquestionable pre-eminence of the global EUA vaccine experiment, governments around the
world continue pushing these platforms on their populations, when countless questions about the efficacy
and ethics of the “jabs” aimed at addressing COVID-19 remain unanswered. As we have noted throughout
this essay, the scholarly literature suggests that the new gene-based platforms likely make use of graphene
oxide. Nanomaterials such as GO, however, are not listed as ingredients in vaccine inserts, and so evidence,
questions, and whistleblowers are fact-checked away. Additional research questions can tease out vitally
important answers. What does the apparent misrepresentation of ingredients say about international laws of
informed consent? What does it mean that so many governments are now openly ignoring laws of informed
consent? What are the long-term implications for human health from these experiments? Once inside the
human body, to what other ends might nanomaterials and nanotechnologies such as graphene oxide be
Over the past two decades, the incredible technological breakthroughs made in materials science, genetic
engineering, and human genomics have motivated, understandably, much excitement and boasting on the
part of developers and investors. The media buzz over these new nano-medicine platforms, however, must
be tempered by the many troubling reports from industry insiders and whistleblowers who understand not
just the business of vaccine research and development, but also the often hidden hazards of their products.
We close with brief references to just a few among a growing body of evidence.
Significantly, in late May of 2021 when news broke in Canada that the spike protein appeared to be
damaging vital organs in vaccine recipients (Bridle, 2021), a team of researchers in Spain in early July began
reporting on their own studies of the contents of a Pfizer vial that had been delivered to their laboratory in
Madrid. La Quinta Columna researchers Ricardo Delgado Martin and Josè Louis Sevillano (2021a)
published their tentative discoveries which, when observed under TEM electron microscopy, appeared to be
graphene oxide (2021b). Since publication of the results, numerous other laboratories have conducted
similar studies to replicate the work of Delgado and Sevillano. Pablo Campra, in studies not yet peer-
reviewed, conducted micro-RAMAN infrared spectroscopy on graphene-like nanoparticles that were visible
in COVID mRNA vaccines under optical microscopy, finding that 8 out of 28 could be conclusively
identified as graphene, while 20 showed spectroscopy signals compatible with the presence of graphene
(Campra, 2021a). Campra has subsequently reported findings of crystalline formations containing markings
that appeared to be circuits, viewed under optic microscopy, in Pfizer and Janssen vials (Campra, 2021b;
Playne, 2021). He hypothesizes the structures to be elements of a wireless nanosensors network, whether
nano-sensors, nano-routers, or nano-antennae.
In the wake of La Quinta Columna study, Karen Kingston, a former analyst with Pfizer, notes in an
interview with Stew Peters that many disciplines in the hard sciences publish so-called rags that serve as
propaganda for bragging about exciting advances. Kingston discussed the propaganda and noted that,
“Graphene can be a conductor of electricity. If it has a positive charge, it annihilates anything it comes into
contact with” (2021). She further pointed out that the nanoparticles in the vaccines presently have a neutral
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 163
charge, but should they encounter an “electromagnetic field that activates a positive charge, there will
potentially be damage ... and death wherever these nanoparticles end up in the body” (2021).
In September, 2021, Carrie Madej reported the results of her own study of the contents of Moderna and
Johnson & Johnson vaccine vials. She admitted that she was shocked to discover compounds she had never
seen before: the appearance of luminescent materials that responded to light with the expression of blue,
purple, green, and bright yellow, which became increasingly luminous. Genetic and Nanotech engineers later
confirmed for her that the luminous responses were typical of “superconducting materials ... an injectable
computing system” (Madej, 2021). She further observed that when the material was exposed to white light
“morgellon-like fibers” (Middleveen et al., 2018) appeared as well as a “tentacle-like spider” that seemed
“self-aware” (Madej, 2021). She and her colleague conducting the study later learned that the material
resembled “Hydra Vulgaris” — an apparently immortal organism coveted in transhumanist circles and
currently the subject of study in human genomics (Altincicek, 2009; Evangelista et al., 2016; Pan et al., 2014;
Davis, 2021; White, 2021).
As of this writing, Zandre Botha reported in early October, 2021 the results of her own study of blood
samples taken from her patients who had been recently vaccinated. To her horror, she described malformed
red blood cells so distorted they were no longer capable of carrying oxygen to tissues through capillaries
(2021). Botha’s analysis suggests an apparent cause-and-effect relationship between exposure to vaccine
ingredients and cellular damage, but as with the La Quinta Columna study, her work should motivate many
more researchers seeking to understand these interactions.
In their 2006 editorial, “Mass Media and Medicine: When the Most Trusted Media Mislead,” Jessica
Fishman and David Casarett point out that for the sake of public health “it is important to raise awareness
of actual risks [of medicines] and make them salient enough to potentially influence individual behavior and
community policy decision making.” Because mainstream media is pervasive and so easily accessible,
beholden to its corporate owners, shareholders, and sponsors, and driven foremost by market demands, it
fails consistently apparently deliberately to address the very serious issues we have broached
throughout this essay. We are, at this point, unsure whether the hazardous ingredients in the new mRNA-
nano-platforms represented to the public as vaccines are as dangerous as the mainstream narratives
that push them.
2045: A New Era for Humanity. (2012). 2045 Initiative.
Abramson, D., Fu, D., and Johnson, Jr. J.E. (2020). WO2020060606 - CRYPTOCURRENCY SYSTEM USING BODY
ACTIVITY DATA. WIPO IP Portal. Patentscope.
Adler, D. (2021). Inside Operation Warp Speed: A new model for industrial policy. American Affairs V(2).
Ain, Q. T., Haq, S. H., Alshammari, A., Al-Mutlaq, M. A., & Anjum, M. N. (2019). The systemic effect of PEG-nGO-induced
oxidative stress in vivo in a rodent model. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology, 10:901911.
Albert, E.L., Sajiman, M.B., and Abdullah, C.A.C. (2018). Incorporation of magnetic nanoparticle to graphene oxide via simple
emulsion method and their cytotoxicity. Applied Nanoscience. 9:43-49.
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 164
Alexander, P. E., 2021. Masking Children: Tragic, Unscientific and Damaging. American Institute for Economic Research.
Alkhayal, A., Fathima, A., Alhasan, A.H., and Alsharaeh, E.H. (2021). PEG Coated Fe<sub>3</sub>O<sub>4</sub>/RGO
Nano-Cube-Like Structures for Cancer Therapy via Magnetic Hyperthermia. Nanomaterials. 11(9):2398
Altincicek, B. (2009). The innate immunity in the cnidarian Hydra vulgaris. Isj-Invertebrate Survival Journal, 6(2), 106113.
Ahangaran, F., Hassanzadeh, A., Nouri, S. (2013). Surface modification of Fe3O4@SiO2microsphere by silane coupling agent.
International Nano Letters 3(1):23.
Aliabadi, M., Shagholani, H., Yunessnia, lehi A. (2017). Synthesis of a novel biocompatible nanocomposite of graphene oxide and
magnetic nanoparticles for drug delivery. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 98:287291.
Arvidsson, R., & Hansen, S. F. (2020). Environmental and health risks of Nanorobots: An early review. Environmental Science: Nano,
7(10), 28752886.
Barclay, R. (2015). CNN Founder Ted Turner supports population reduction to 2 billion.
Baek, A., Baek, Y. M., Kim, H.M., Jun, B.H., & Kim, D.E. (2018). Polyethylene glycol-engrafted graphene oxide as biocompatible
materials for peptide nucleic acid delivery into cells. Bioconjugate Chemistry, 29(2):528537.
Bagus, P., Peña-Ramos, J.A., and Sanchez-Bayon, A. (2020). Covid-19 and the Political Economy of Mass Hysteria. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 18(4).
bin-Reza, F., Chavarrias, V. L., Nicoll, A., and Chamberland, M. E. (2012). The Use of Masks and Respirators to Prevent
Transmission of Influenza: A Systematic Review of the Scientific Evidence. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses.
Botha, Z. (2021). Interview with Stew Peters.
Bridle, B. (2021). New peer reviewed study on COVID-19 vaccines suggests why heart inflammation, blood clots and other
dangerous side effects occur. On Point with Alex Pierson.
Broudy, D. and Arakaki, M. (2020). Who Wants to be a Slave? The Technocratic Convergence of Humans and Data. Frontiers in
Brown, A.S. (2021). The language of the cell. Kavli Foundation.
Bryant, A., Lawrie, T.A., Dowswell, T., Fordham, E.J., Mitchell, S., Hill, S.R. and Tham, T.C. (2021). Ivermectin for Prevention
and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform
Clinical Guidelines. American Journal of Therapeutics.
Brown, A.S., & Crommie, M. (2021). Reshaping Graphenes Future. Kavli Foundation.
Bushnell, D. (2001). Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare.
Bushnell, D. (2011). Keynote presentation. BlueTech Forum.
Campra, P. (2021a). Detection of graphene in Covid 19 vaccines. Counteranalysis of Covid Vaccines.
Campra, P. (2021b). Microstructures in Covid vaccines: Inorganic crystals or Wireless Nanosensors Network? Counteranalysis of
Covid Vaccines.
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 165
Cao, W., He, L., Cao, W., Huang, X., Jia, K., & Dai, J. (2020). Recent progress of graphene oxide as a potential vaccine carr ier and
adjuvant. Acta biomaterialia, 112, 14-28.
Cassels, A. (2020). With the COVID-19 test, positivity doesn’t mean infectious. Focus on Victoria. Retrieved from FOCUS.
Chakravarty, M., and Vora, A. (2021). Nanotechnology-based antiviral therapeutics. Drug Delivery and Translational Research.
Choi, C. Q. (2016). Magneto protein could help magnets control brain circuitry. Inside Science.
Chossudovsky, M. (2021). The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are
Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis. Global Research.
Chui, G. (2021). A simple way to get complex semiconductors to assemble themselves. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford
Contera, S., de la Serna, J.B., Tetley, T.D. (2020). Biotechnology, nanotechnology and medicine. Emerging Topics in Life Science.
Cordaro, A., Neri, G., Sciortino, M.T., Scala, A., and Piperno, A. (2020). Graphene-Based Strategies in Liquid Biopsy and in Viral
Diseases Diagnosis. Nanomaterials. 10(6):1014.
Cross, R. (2021). Without these lipid shells, there would be no mRNA vaccines for COVID-19. Chemical & Engineering News.
Davies, M., Stockton, B., and Moeck, F. (2019). How major banks turned a blind eye to the theft of billions of pounds of public
money. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Davis. (2021). Model Organism: Hydra (Hydra vulgaris). College of Biological Sciences. University of California at Davis.
Delgado Martin, R. and Sevillano, J.L. (2021a). Official interim report of Pfizer’s vaccination vial analysis explained by La Quinta
Columna. La Quinta Columna.
Delgado Martin, R. (2021b). Interview with Michel Chossuodovsky.
Di Pasquale, A., Priess, S., Da Silva, F.T., and Garçon, N. (2015). Vaccine adjuvants: From 1920 to 2015 and Beyond. Vaccines.
Doctors. (2021). The Dangers of Covid-19 Booster Shots and Vaccines: Boosting Blood Clots and Leaky Vessels. Doctors for
Covid Ethics.
Dockterman, E. (2014). The Future of Birth Control: Remote Control Fertility. Time.
Donskyi, I. S., Nie, C., Ludwig, K., Trimpert, J., Ahmed, R., Quaas, E., Achazi, K., Radnik, J., Adeli, M., Haag, R., & Osterrie der,
K. (2021). SARSCOV2 inhibitors: Graphene sheets with defined dual functionalities for the strong SARSCOV2
interactions (small 11/2021). Nano, Micro Small, 17(11), 2170046.
Duan, G., Zhang, Y., Luan, B., Weber, J. K., Zhou, R.W., Yang, Z., Zhao, L., Xu, J., Luo, J., & Zhou, R. (2017). Graphene-
induced pore formation on cell membranes. Scientific Reports, 7(1).
Ealy, H., McEvoy, M., Chong, D., Nowicki, J., Sava, M., Gupta, S., White, D., Jordan, J., Simon, D., and Anderson, P. (2020).
Covid-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective. Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law.
Engelbrecht, T., and Demeter, K., (2020). Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to ‘diagnose’ Sar-Cov-2 infection, the
science is clear; they are not fit for purpose. Bulgarian Pathology Association.
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 166
Evangelista, D., Tripathi, K. P., & Guarracino, M. R. (2016). An Atlas of annotations of Hydra vulgaris transcriptome. BMC
Bioinformatics, 17, 360.
Fabbro, A., Scaini, D., León, V., Vázquez, E., Cellot, G., Privitera, G., Lombardi, L., Torrisi, F., Tomarchio, F., Bonaccorso, F.,
Bosi, S., Ferrari, A. C., Ballerini, L., & Prato, M. (2016). Graphene-based interfaces do not alter target nerve cells. ACS Nano,
Feinberg, A. (2014). Bill Gates wants to turn your birth control with a remote. Gizmodo.
FIAN (2019). Hundreds of civil society organizations worldwide denounce World Economic Forum’s takeover of the UN. F IAN
Fleming, R.M. (2021). Is COVID-19 a Bioweapon? A Scientific and Forensic investigation. New York: Skyhorse.
Fishman, J.M. and Casarett, D. (2006). Mass media and medicine: when the most trusted media mislead. Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
Frank. R. (2009). Billionaires Try to Shrink World's Population, Report Says. The Wall Street Journal.
Gant, J. (2020). Is there any science behind the two-metre social distancing rule…? Government adviser says guidelines on
keeping apart were ‘conjured out of nowhere’. Mail Online.
Ganz, E., Ganz, A.B., Yang, L.M. and Dornfield, M. (2017). The Initial Stages of Melting of Graphene Between 4000 K and 6 000
K. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 19(5):3756-3762.
Gatti, A.M., Montanari, S. (2016). New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination. International
Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination. 4(1):00072.
vaccines-micro--and-nanocontamination.html DOI: 10.15406/ijvv.2017.04.00072
Gatti, A.M. (2021). Nano-technology and nano-pathology. Planet Lockdown.
GAVI. Board members: The Rockefeller Foundation.
GAVI (2020). Taking the long view on vaccine markets.
Gilbert, P. (1995). Globalist Tyranny, Freemasons and Zombies. Public lecture.
Global Justice Now. (2021), Omicron variant made $10 billion in a week for Top Moderna and Pfizer shareholders.
Goertzel, B. (2012). The Singularity is coming. Issues Magazine.
Harris, P., (2009). They’re Called the ‘Good Club’ and They Want to Save the World. The Guardian.
Harlow, J. and Chossudovsky, M. (2021). Secret May 2009 Meeting of the ‘The Good Club’ Billionaire Club to Curb
Overpopulation. Lew Rockwell.
He, F., Fan J., Ma, D., Zhang L., Leung C., Chan, H.L. (2010). The attachment of Fe3O4 nanoparticles to graphene oxide by
covalent bonding. Carbon.
Hern, W.M. (1993). Has the human species become a cancer on the planet? A theoretical view of population growth as a sign of
pathology. Current World Leaders. 36(6):1,089-124.
Hilton, S. (2021). Coronavirus Origins Special Investigation. The Next Revolution. Fox News.
Ho, M. W. (2003). Living with the Fluid Genome. London: Institute of Science in Society.
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 167
House. (2021). Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury. Subcommittee on
Economic and Consumer Policy Committee on Oversight and Reform U.S. House of Representatives.
Jackson, N. A., Kester, K. E., Casimiro, D., Gurunathan, S., & DeRosa, F. (2020). The promise of mRNA vaccines: a biotech and
industrial perspective. NPJ Vaccines, 5(1), 1-6.
Jaafar, R., Aherfi, S., Wurtz, N., Grimaldier, C., Hoang, V. T., Colson, P., Raoult, D., and La Scola, B. (2020). Correlation between
3790 qPCR positive samples and positive cell cultures including 1941 SARS-CoV-2 isolates. Clinical Infectious Diseases.
Joffe, A.R. (2021). COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink. Frontiers in Public Health.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, World Economic Forum, & Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2019,
October 18). Event 201, a pandemic exercise to illustrate preparedness efforts.
Kavli Foundation (2013). The Kavli Foundation and University Partners commit $100 million to Brain Research. Kavli Institute
for Brain Science.
Kavli foundation (2014). Brain Initiative Press Conference.
Kennedy, R. F., Jr. (2021). The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public
Health. Skyhorse Publishing.
Kingston, K. (2021). Interview. Stew Peters.
Kobie, N. (2019). The complicated truth about China's social credit system. Wired.
Kumar Raghav, P., & Mohanty, S. (2020). Are graphene and graphene-derived products capable of preventing COVID-19
infection? Medical Hypotheses, 144, 110031.
Kurzweil, R. (2015a). Humans will be hybrids by 2030. CNN Business.
Kurzweil, R. (2015b). Attendees React to Singularity University’s Exponential Finance in 2015 in New York City. Singularity
University Summits.
Lage, T., Rodrigues, R. O., Catarino, S., Gallo, J., Bañobre-López, M., & Minas, G. (2021). Graphene-based magnetic
nanoparticles for theranostics: an overview for their potential in clinical application. Nanomaterials, 11(5):1073-1089.
Latham, J. & Wilson, A. (2020). A Proposed Origin for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Pandemic. Science Writings.
Madej, C. (2021). Critically Thinking with Dr. T and Dr. P Episode 64 - Spec Guests Dr. M and Dr. N Sept 30 2021.
Mahese, E. (2020). Covid-19: Mass testing is inaccurate and gives false sense of security, minister admits. The British Medical Journal.
Martins, N. R., Angelica, A., Chakravarthy, K., Svidinenko, Y., Boehm, F. J., Opris, I., Lebedev, M. A., Swan, M., Garan, S. A.,
Rosenfeld, J. V., Hogg, T., & Freitas, R. A. (2019). Human brain/cloud interface. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13.
McDowell, A.H. (2020). Human Capital Markets, Digital Identity, & the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Wrench
in the Gears.
Middleveen, M.J., Fessler, M.C., and Stricker, R.B. (2018). History of Morgellons disease: from delusion to definition. Clinical,
Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology. 11:71-90.
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 168
Milane, L., and Amiji, M. (2021). Clinical approval of nanotechnology-based SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines: impact on
translational nanomedicine. Drug Delivery and Translational Research. 11(4):1309-1315.
Miltimore, J. (2020). Sweden’s Top Infectious Disease Expert Says COVID-19 Lockdowns Are Not Based on Science. History
Shows He Could Be Right. Foundation for Economic Education.
Merrick, J. (2021). NB Covid-19 Stats.
Moderna. (2021). Moderna Announces First Participants Dosed in Phase 2/3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate in Pediatric
Oller, J. W. (2021a). Weaponized Pathogens and the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and
Research, 1(2), 172208.
Oller, J. W. (2021b). Buying and selling with the Mark of the Beast’, International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research.
Open VAERS. (2021). VAERS COVID Vaccine Adverse Event Reports.
Palmer, M. (2020). The Dismal Science of COVID-19. Internet Archive.
Pan, H.-C., Fang, H.-Y., Li, S.-W., Liu, J.-H., Wang, Y., & Wang, A.-T. (2014). The complete mitochondrial genome of Hydra
vulgaris (Hydroida: Hydridae). Mitochondrial DNA, 25(6):418-419.
Pfeiffer, M.B. and Bonvie, L. (2021). Horse-Bleep: How 4 Calls on Animal Ivermectin Launched a False FDA-Media Attack on a
Life-Saving Human Medicine. Rescue.
Playne, M. (2021). Have the jabbed been chipped? Shocking new evidence. Not on the Beeb.
Popp, M., Stegemann, M., Metzendorf, M., Gould, S., Kranke, P., Meybohm, P., Skoetz, N., and Weibel, S. (2021). Ivermectin for
preventing and treating COVID-19. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Raghav, P.K. and Mohanty, S. (2020). Are graphene and graphene-derived products capable of preventing COVID-19 infection?
Medical Hypotheses.
Regalado, A. (2021). Moderna believes it could update its coronavirus vaccine without a big new trial. MIT Review.
Rockefeller Foundation. Medicine in China. The Rockefeller Foundation: A Digital History.
Rockefeller Foundation (2010). Scenarios for the future of technology and international development. Rockefeller Foundation and
Global Business Network.
Rockefeller University. (2014). Rockefeller Neurobiology Lab is awarded first-round brain initiative grant.
Rockefeller University. (2016). Using magnetic forces to control neurons, study finds the brain plays key role in glucose
Rockefeller Foundation (2021). The Rockefeller Foundation launches action plan for increasing global Covid-19 vaccination
Sahota, N. (2018). Human 2.0 Is Coming Faster Than You Think. Will You Evolve With The Times? Forbes.
Santin, A.D., Scheim, D.E., McCullough, P.A., Yagisawa, M. and Borody, T.J. (2021).Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel
prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19. New Microbes New Infections.
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 169
Schwab, K. (2015). Klaus Schwab interview. Charlie Rose.
Schorr, I. (2021). Remembering Those Journalists Who Helped Cover for Anthony Fauci’s ‘Gain-of-Function’ Misdirection.
National Review.
Schwab, K. (2020). Revolution will lead to a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity. Il Teatro della Politica.
Scudellari, M. (2021). DARPA funds ambitious brain-machine interface program. IEEE Spectrum.
Seneff, S., and Nigh, G. (2021). Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA
Vaccines Against COVID-19. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.
Shaw, C. (2021). Dispatches from the Vaccine Wars: Fighting for Human Freedom During the Great Reset. 2021. New York:
Shen, H., Liu, M., He, H., Zhang, L., Huang, J., Chong, Y., Dai, J., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Pegylated graphene oxide-mediated
protein delivery for cell function regulation. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 4(11):63176323.
Singh, V., Batoo, K. M., & Singh, M. (2021). Fabrication of chitosan-coated mixed spinel ferrite integrated with graphene oxide
(GO) for magnetic extraction of viral RNA for potential detection of SARS-COV-2.
Skelding, C. (2021, June 5). Fauci email dump includes ‘sick’ March Madness-style virus bracket. New York Post.
Srivastava, A. K., Dwivedi, N., Dhand, C., Khan, R., Sathish, N., Gupta, M. K., Kumar, R., & Kumar, S. (2020). Potential of
graphene-based materials to combat COVID-19: properties, perspectives, and prospects. Materials today. Chemistry, 18,
Stanley, S. A., Kelly, L., Latcha, K. N., Schmidt, S. F., Yu, X., Nectow, A. R., Sauer, J., Dyke, J. P., Dordick, J. S., & Friedman, J.
M. (2016). Bidirectional electromagnetic control of the hypothalamus regulates feeding and metabolism. Nature, 531(7596):
Stephens, T. (2020). UC Santa Cruz leads collaboration to speed wound healing with a novel smart bandage. UC Santa Cruz News.
Surkova, E., Nikolayevskyy, V., and Drobniewski, F. (2020). False-positive COVID-19 results: Hidden problems and costs. The
Stem (2021). StemExpress. Online:, I. (2021). The injectable nanosensor that
will one day read your thoughts. BBC Science Focus Magazine.
Tian, B., Wang, C., Zhang, S., Feng, L., & Liu, Z. (2011). Photothermally enhanced photodynamic therapy delivered by nano-
graphene oxide. ACS Nano, 5(9):7000-7009.
Tian, B., Han, Y., Fock, J., Strömberg, M., Leifer, K., & Hansen, M. F. (2019). Self-assembled magnetic nanoparticlegraphene
oxide Nanotag for optomagnetic detection of DNA. ACS Applied Nano Materials, 2(3):16831690.
Trevors, J.T. and Saier Jr., M.H. (2011). Thermodynamic perspectives on genetic instructions, the laws of biology, diseased states
and human population control. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 334(1):1-5.
Unal, M. A., Bayrakdar, F., Nazir, H., Besbinar, O., Gurcan, C., Lozano, N., ... & Yilmazer, A. (2021). Graphene Oxide
Nanosheets Interact and Interfere with SARSCoV2 Surface Proteins and Cell Receptors to Inhibit Infectivity. Small,
University of Cambridge. (2016). Graphene shown to safely interact with neurons in the brain.
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 170
Webb, W. (2020). Operation warp speed is using a CIA-linked contractor to keep covid-19 vaccine contracts secret. Unlimited
Webb, W., & Corbett, J. (2021). China, wall street and the new global economy with James Corbett. Unlimited Hangout.
WEF (2021). The Global Risks Report 16th Edition. World Economic Forum.
Wheeler, M. A., Smith, C. J., Ottolini, M., Barker, N. S., Purohit, A.M., Grippo, R. M., Gaykema, R. P., Spano, A. J., Beenhakker,
M. P., Kucenas, S., Patel, M. K., Deppmann, C. D., and Güler, A. D. (2016. Genetically targeted magnetic control of the nervous
system. Nature Neuroscience 19:756761
White, E. (2021, June 30). Model Organism: Hydra (Hydra vulgaris). College of Biological Sciences.
World Health Organization (2021). Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: Vaccination status - technical specifications
and implementation guidance.
Xiong, H., Guo, Z., Zhang, W., Zhong, H., Liu, S., & Ji, Y. (2014). Redox-responsive biodegradable pegylated nanographene
oxide for efficient chemo-photothermal therapy: A comparative study with non-biodegradable pegylated nanographene
oxide. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 138:191201.
Yang X, Zhang X, Ma Y, Huang Y, Wang Y, Chen Y (2009). Superparamagnetic graphene oxideFe3O4 nanoparticles hybrid for
controlled targeted drug carriers. Journal of Material Chemistry 19(18):27102714.
Yang, K., Feng, L., Shi, X., & Liu, Z. (2013). Nano-graphene in biomedicine: Theranostic Applications. Chem. Soc. Rev., 42(2),
Yellow Card. (2021). Covid-19 Vaccine Analysis Overview. UK Column News.
Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Hu, Shanchang (2020a). Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated
Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route. Zenodo.
Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Hu, Shanchang (2020b). SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through
Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud. Zenodo.
Yan, L.-M., Kang, S., Guan, J., & Hu, S. (2020c). Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated
Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route 26. 10.5281/zenodo.4028829
Yan, L.-M., Kang, S., & Hu, S. (2021). The Wuhan Laboratory Origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the Validity of the Yan Reports Are
Further Proved by the Failure of Two Uninvited “Peer Reviews” Opening Statement. 70.
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), December 11, 2021 Page | 171
Legal Disclaimer
The information on the website and in the
is not intended as a diagnosis, recommended treatment, prevention, or cure
for any human condition or medical procedure that may be referred to in any way. Users and readers who may be parents,
guardians, caregivers, clinicians, or relatives of persons impacted by any of the morbid conditions, procedures, or protocols that
may be referred to, must use their own judgment concerning specific applications. The contributing authors, editors, and persons
associated in any capacity with the website and/or with the journal disclaim any liability or responsibility to any person or entity
for any harm, financial loss, physical injury, or other penalty that may stem from any use or application in any context of
information, conclusions, research findings, opinions, errors, or any statements found on the website or in the
. The
material presented is freely offered to all users who may take an interest in examining it, but how they may choose to apply any
part of it, is the sole responsibility of the viewer/user. If material is quoted or reprinted, users are asked to give credit to the
source/author and to conform to the non-commercial, no derivatives, requirements of the Creative Commons License 4.0 NC
... That inevitable merger is assured by the accidental or intentional release of these new forms of aggressive agents capable with the assistance of biological (viral) vectoring, or physical assistance using graphene nanobots (see Broudy & Kyrie, 2021 and their references) and similar devices, to enter the nucleolus inside our cells where our functional DNA, the nucleosome, resides (Oller & Shaw, 2019). In addition to injuries from such toxicants now including disease agents that have been spiked (so-to-speak) by the notorious "gain-of-function" research (Genuis et al., 2013;Kennedy et al., 2016;Shaw et al., 2014;Landrigan & Belpoggi, 2018;Fleming, 2021;Broudy & Kyrie, 2021) there is another, related class of new threats impacting humans across the planet. ...
... 6.16 Current governmental policies being pushed on the citizens of many countries of the world today, oppose all rational moral judgment and the God of creation seeking to remove free will and reduce human beings to robots under the control of a new technocracy (Broudy & Arakaki, 2020;Children's Health Defense, 2020Grapevine News, 2020;Broudy & Hoop, 2021;Broudy & Kyrie, 2021;Oller, 2021). The power to exert such control must, it seems, involve certain kinds of computing devices along the lines of the lipid nanoparticles currently being injected as carriers for systems that can penetrate the natural barriers of human bodily systems right down to the level of the nucleosome containing our DNA regulatory systems (Reichmuth et al., 2016;Kulkarni et al., 2018;McHugh et al., 2019;Kulakowski et al., 2020;Rossnerova et al., 2020;Kim et al., 2021;Wang et al., 2021). ...
... 6.19 Although it is not yet known whether the self-assembling entitites observed in the vaccines in question are living parasites, nanobots, or some kind of hybrid, Madej has speculated that they are part of the Gates plan to push vaccines on every living person and to control their buying and selling Page 199 with an injectable computerized monitoring system. It is hardly unlikely that the undeclared foreign matter being discovered in the COVID-19 vaccines (Broudy & Kyrie, 2021;Campra, 2021;Wilson, 2021;R. O. Young, 2021) is connected with the Microsoft patent application for a system of biomonitoring that has been referred to as the "Mark of the Beast" (Grapevine News, 2020; Oller, 2021a). ...
Full-text available
The human language capacity stands at the very top of the intellectual abilities of us human beings, and it ranks incommensurably higher than the intellectual powers of any other organism or any robot. It vastly exceeds the touted capacities of "artificial intelligence" with respect to creativity, freedom of will (control of thoughts and words), and moral responsibility. These are traits that robots cannot possess and that can only be understood by human beings. They are no part of the worlds of robots and artificial intelligences, but those entities, and all imaginable fictions, etc., are part of our real world... True narrative representations (TNRs) can express and can faithfully interpret every kind of meaning or form in fictions, errors, lies, or nonsensical strings seeming in any way to be representations. None of the latter, however, can represent even the simplest TNR ever created by an intelligent person. It has been proved logically, in the strictest forms of mathematical logic, that all TNRs that seem to have been produced by mechanisms, robots, or artificial intelligence, must be contained within a larger and much more far-reaching TNR that cannot be explained mechanistically by any stretch of imagination. These unique constructions of real intelligence, that is, genuine TNRs, (1) have the power to determine actual facts; (2) are connected to each other in non-contradictory ways, and (3) are generalizable to all contexts of experience to the extent of the similarities of those contexts up to a limit of complete identity. What the logicomathematical theory of TNRs has proved to a fare-thee-well is that only TNRs have the three logical properties just iterated. No fictions, errors, lies, or any string of nonsense has any of those unique formal perfections. The book is about how the human language capacity is developed over time by human beings beginning with TNRs known to us implicitly and actually even before we are born. All scientific endeavors, all the creations of the sciences, arts, and humanities, all the religions of the world, and all the discoveries of experience utterly depend on the prior existence of the human language capacity and our power to comprehend and produce TNRs. Without it we could not enjoy any of the fruits of human experience. Nor could we appreciate how things go wrong when less perfect representations are mistaken, whether accidentally or on purpose, for TNRs. In biology, when DNA, RNA, and protein languages are corrupted, the proximate outcome is disorder, followed by disease if not corrected, and, in the catastrophic systems failures known as death in the long run. The book is about life and death. Both are dependent on TNRs in what comes out to be an absolute dependency from the logicomathematical perspective. Corrupt the TNRs on which life depends, and death will follow. Retain and respect TNRs and life can be preserved. However, ultimate truth does not reside in material entities or the facts represented by TNRs. It resides exclusively in the TNRs themselves and they do not originate from material entities. They are from God Almighty and do not depend at all on any material thing or body. TNRs outrank the material facts they incorporate and represent. It may seem strange, but the result is more certain, I believe, than the most recent findings of quantum physics. Representations are connected instantaneously. Symbol speed is infinitely faster than the speed of light. In the larger perspective of history, when TNRs are deliberately corrupted, the chaos of wars, pestilence, and destruction follows as surely as night follows day. The human language capacity makes us responsible in a unique manner for our thoughts, words, and actions. While it is true that no one ever asked us if we wanted to have free will or not, the fact that we have it can be disputed only by individuals who engage in a form of self-deception that borders on pathological lying, the kind that results when the deceiver can no longer distinguish between the actions he or she actually performed in his or her past experience and the sequences of events that he or she invented to avoid taking responsibility for those events, or to take credit for actions he or she never performed. On the global scale such misrepresentations lead to the sort of destruction witnessed at Sodom in the day of Abraham. That historical destruction has recently been scientifically revealed at the site of Tall el-Hammam in Jordan. More about that and all of the foregoing in the book. If you encounter errors, please point them out to the author at Thank you.
... April 4, 2023 | Page 865 the horizon (see, for instance, Bostrom, 2003Bostrom, , 2005Broudy & Kyrie, 2021;Kyrie & Broudy, 2022a, 2022b; and their references). ...
Full-text available
Nyström and Hammarström (2022) found 7 segments in the bio-active SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that can produce abnormal proteinaceous (fibrinaloid) clots according to the Waltz algorithm. In vitro results confirmed the Waltz predictions. If the spike coding sequence was captured in the BNT162b2, Moderna, and other injectables, as claimed by the manufacturers, the clot producing segments are present in them too. Mainstream medical publications claim that SARS-CoV-2 infection can cause abnormal clotting, especially in “long COVID”. Telling evidence from Medicare data shows a decreasing life expectancy with each dose of COVID-19 “vaccine” — 1 dose is worse than 0, and 2 worse than 1, etc. In Connecticut, 26,091 Medicare participants who died before December 31, 2022, but never took a COVID injection, on the average, survived 428 days after the middle of the pandemic period (July 27, 2020). By then nearly all of them must have been exposed to and/or infected by some SARS-CoV-2 variant — hence, the CDC urging to take the “vaccines”. By contrast, 108,156 Medicare patients across the US who died before January 1, 2023, after just 1 dose of COVID-19 “vaccine”, survived only 308 days — a loss of 119.9 days on the average. Connecticut participants, 23,248 of them, who received 2 to 5 doses, on the average, lost an additional 62 days of life-expectancy with each booster. It follows that 5 boosters times 62 days reduces the average remaining 308 days left-to-live after dose 1 by 310 days. So, nearly all the Medicare participants will have been dead for 2 days by booster 4 (dose 5). The upshot is that 5 doses, on the average, will kill all the Medicare participants who accept the advice of the CDC.[1] For 157,495 of the 65 and older Medicare population studied here — people supposedly most apt to benefit from COVID-19 injectables — days-left-to-live shrinks by 74 days, on the average, with each dose. It is also likely that the COVID-19 injectables are partly, maybe wholly, responsible for the unnatural clots found by treating physicians, pathologists, and embalmers in living and dead recipients of the experimental injectables. It is certain is that the injectables are increasing all-cause mortality across the globe. [1] In the dataset from Connecticut, only 7 of 57,261 Medicare participants (7/57261 = 0.000122), or about 1.22 persons in 10,000 survived 5 doses during the experimental pandemic in order to take a 6th dose. Those who did so died, on the average, in 34 days. Only 1 participant survived 6 doses to receive a 7th and died within 69 days at the age of 68.
... For example, Pujol et al. (2021) report on three cases of thyroiditis which they diagnose as adjuvant induced acute inflammation (ASIA) caused "by the mRNAbased SARS-CoV-2 vaccination" (in their abstract). (Sangaletti, et al. (2022) Recently, however, there have been reports (Broudy & Kyrie, 2021;Wilson, 2021) that some of the denied contents (see our Figure 2 of the statement by the US CDC) are actually included in the COVID-19 vaccines: La Quinta Columna reported poisonous graphene oxide (GO) nanoparticles in COVID-19 vaccines (Campra, 2021), and Robert O. Young, MD, PhD, reported a vade mecum of evidence of toxic nanometallic particles, graphene oxide structures, and parasites in the COVID-19 vaccines (Young, 2021). Moreover, the KoVeDocs also found foreign materials and, as the vaccines were warmed to room temperature, moving and living micro-organisms and parasites could be detected in the Pfizer and Modern mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Jeon, 2022). ...
Full-text available
The Korea Veritas Doctors (KoVeDocs) for COVID-19 previously found certain foreign materials and moving parasite-like entities in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines as those vaccines were warmed to near room temperature (Jeon, 2022). Here we report on similar foreign materials found in samples of centrifuged blood from 8 COVID-19 vaccine recipients as contrasted with 2 individuals who did not receive any COVID-19 vaccine and who had none of the foreign materials in their blood plasma. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the foreign materials found in the COVID-19 vaccine recipients in the study reported here were injected into their bodies when they received one or more doses of the COVID-19 vaccines. Blood samples were prepared and observed under a stereomicroscope after being centrifuged at 2,200 rpm for 30 minutes. From the 8 COVID-19 vaccine recipients: 6 plasma samples contained a multilayered disc of unidentified composition; 3 samples contained beaded coil-like materials; 1 plasma sample contained a fibrous bundle of similar appearing beaded foreign material; and a different group of 3 samples had crystal-like formations of foreign material. The various shapes and sizes of foreign materials in the centrifuged plasmas of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals closely resembled the shapes and sizes of foreign materials previously observed directly in the vaccines themselves. These findings are the basis for our recommendation that (a) a collaborative worldwide evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine contents, and of the blood and plasma samples of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals, be undertaken immediately with all due diligence; (b) that there should be an immediate cessation of COVID-19 vaccinations worldwide and the abandonment of any COVID-19 “Vaccine Pass Policy” and any other form of mandate for COVID-19 vaccinations; and, (c) that emergency collaborative studies of detoxification protocols for COVID-19 vaccine sequelae be undertaken.
... This also includes protein impurities that contribute to the strong clinical reactions with flu-like symptoms that are often observed following vaccination . For compositional analysis of mRNA and vector therapies represented as "vaccines", see Seneff and Nigh (2021) and also Broudy and Kyrie (2021). ...
Full-text available
The engineered spike protein of SARS-COV-2, and the corresponding infectious disease COVID-19 attributed to it, hold in their grip a large portion of humanity. The global race for a counter strategy quickly turned into a search for a vaccine as the preferred means to contain the virus. An unusually rapid development of different and completely new classes of experimental therapies that would widely be referred to as “vaccines” raised questions about safety, especially with regard to emergency use approval (EUA) being granted with unprecedented urgency and hardly any critical scrutiny. At present, independent researchers, even some former proponents and insiders, of the currently ongoing global experiment represented as a “vaccination” campaign point primarily to the lack of public safety studies based on empirical datasets that should be obtainable for the tens of millions, even hundreds of millions, of doses of mRNA and DNA vector therapeutics being distributed as “vaccines”. Studies regarding efficacy and “side effects” (sometimes fatalities or permanent iatrogenic injuries) of these experimental therapies have been by-passed in favor of short-term field data from real patients which inevitably raises scientific and ethical questions particularly in view of the fact that the persons and entities responsible for public safety hold deep financial and other vested interests in speeding along the distribution of the experimental pharmaceutical products. The lack of an open discussion about the experimental therapies for COVID-19 now being applied across all age groups, even children hardly impacted by COVID-19, is worrying. The core principle of open debate without pre-conceptions or vested interests in outcomes has been and continues to be utterly ignored. We hope to engage scientific discussion that will help decision-makers, the general public, and the media alike to consider the subject-matter of what is at stake in a context of reason rather than panic.
Full-text available
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.
Full-text available
Are the promoters of the COVID-19 injections leading, pushing, and even forcing the people of the world to play a global game of Russian Roulette? The actuarial statistics and clinical facts are revealing harmful and deadly consequences on a global scale. For the sake of those still able to choose whether to spin the cylinder and pull the trigger one more time, I am conducting a guided tour. I will show why there are exponentially many more ways for the experimental injections to cause disease and death than health and well-being. Briefly put, valid transcription of mRNA from our own DNA leads to well-formed proteins that work as designed for cytoplasm, organelles, cells, tissues, and functional organ systems of the body. By contrast, the foreign (xeno) nucleic acid sequences, the mXNAs, in the “modified mRNA” in the COVID-19 injectables are more likely to harm the body’s systems than to benefit them. The relevant research shows why the mXNAs are incompetent to communicate effectively with the complex native context in vivo — the human biosignaling systems that are not mechanical but are articulated in multiple layers, interconnected, and for practical purposes, infinitely varied systems of information processing. Survival and longevity depend on valid communications among nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, their RNAs, and the protein language systems specified before a person’s birth. When these complex biosignaling systems fail, disorders and diseases follow. In catastrophic failures, death occurs. The story is not simple and the tour I am conducting is challenging with more than a few twists, turns, and digressions. However, I believe, persons experimented on — almost all of them unknowingly, some with partial knowledge who were unwilling recipients — account for more than half the world population. The stakes are high, even life or death, so I think many of the recipients of one or more injections will take the guided tour.
Full-text available
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.
Full-text available
According to data collected in the UK for weeks 34-52 in 2021 (excluding week 51 which was not covered) and in weeks 1-12 of 2022 — a period of 28 weeks during which the genetic “vaccines” from Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca were being pressed upon the public — deaths reported to Public Health England (PHE) from their hospital “trusts” were being tabulated in a series of vaccine surveillance reports. Each source for the data analyzed here covered a four-week period. Deaths were reported to PHE from under age 18, progressing in increments of 10 years to 80 or older. In addition to deaths, the UK National Immunization Management System also recorded the date of a positive COVID-19 test result, and dates of any vaccinations. To obtain non-overlapping records, the 7 surveillance reports relied on here appeared in weeks 38, 42, 47, and 51 in 2021 and 4, 9, and 13 in 2022. Assuming that dying was not reported more than once for any individual, and, that dates of positive COVID-19 tests and COVID-19 vaccinations were reasonably reliable, we believe there is no good reason to doubt the data or the analyses we are reporting. During the 28 weeks we are referring to, we found an almost perfect correlation between the total deaths within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test, across the various age groups (a) from any cause whatever and (b) deaths after the persons who died had received one, two, or three doses of at least one of the COVID-19 vaccines. We simply collated the data from the various UK Health Security Agency vaccine surveillance reports to discover a correlation of 0.99881, coefficient of determination at 0.99762, between (a) and (b). The shots account for almost exactly 100% of the variance in death-from-all-causes in the UK data set.
Full-text available
La proteina ingegnerizzata spike della SARS-COV-2 e la corrispondente malattia infettiva COVID-19 attribuita ad essa tengono in pugno una gran parte dell'umanità. La corsa globale per una strategia di contrasto si è rapidamente trasformata nella ricerca di un vaccino come mezzo preferenziale per contenere il virus. Uno sviluppo insolitamente rapido di diverse classi completamente nuove di terapie sperimentali diffuse come "vaccini", ha sollevato interrogativi sulla sicurezza, in particolare per quanto riguarda l'approvazione dell'uso di emergenza (EUA) che è stata concessa con un'urgenza senza precedenti e priva di qualsiasi esame critico contrario. Attualmente, ricercatori indipendenti, come anche alcuni ex proponenti e addetti ai lavori dell'esperimento globale attualmente in corso e rappresentato come una campagna di "vaccinazione", sottolineano soprattutto la mancanza di studi sulla sicurezza della campagna vaccinale che ha finito invece per strutturarsi su set di dati empirici che verranno ottenuti attraverso decine di milioni, anche centinaia di milioni, di dosi di mRNA e terapie vettoriali del DNA distribuite col nome di "vaccini". Gli studi riguardanti l'efficacia e gli "effetti collaterali" (talvolta fatalità o lesioni iatrogene permanenti) di queste terapie sperimentali sono stati omessi a favore di dati a breve termine presi sul campo su pazienti reali. Questa evidenza solleva inevitabilmente questioni scientifiche ed etiche, in particolare in considerazione del fatto che le persone e gli enti responsabili per la sicurezza pubblica hanno vasti interessi finanziari e di altro tipo che li portano ad accelerare la distribuzione di questi prodotti farmaceutici sperimentali. La mancanza di una discussione aperta sulle terapie sperimentali per il COVID-19 ora applicate su tutte le fasce di età, anche i bambini, che difficilmente sono colpiti dal COVID-19, è preoccupante. Il principio fondamentale del dibattito aperto senza preconcetti o sugli interessi nei risultati è stato e continua ad essere completamente ignorato. Speriamo di impegnare una discussione scientifica al fine di aiutare chi deve decidere, l'opinione pubblica e i media a considerare l'oggetto di ciò che è in gioco in un contesto di ragione piuttosto che di panico.
Full-text available
The document appended here — an “International Application Published Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)” — falls among the many “unprecedented” events witnessed during COVID-19. It was filed June 20, 2019 with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the PCT and its international publication date was March 26, 2020. Some have already scorned the idea that the document appended as the final entry to IJVTPR 1(2) is at least a partial fulfillment of an apocalyptic prophecy concerning the age-old conflict between good and evil. But it is as real and as relevant to COVID-19 as the vaccines that were envisioned and practically in production before SARS-CoV-2 infected the first human in Wuhan. Now, with the burden of the economic shut-down settling upon the people of the planet, the prospect of pandemics more deadly than COVID-19, has made many fearful enough to forfeit their free will to technocrats ready to manage them like robots. The patent applied for is about the buying and selling of “human necessities”. It would authorize the patent holder to use every manner of surveillance of an individual’s bodily states, actions, and thoughts to make the buying and selling of necessary products and services, contingent upon certain “work”, such as receiving or refusing to receive certain vaccines or meeting other requirements set by the patent holder.
Full-text available
This review zeros in on the aspect of vaccine theory, practice, and research that is the most dangerous, the most controversial, and that is at the epicenter of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 “pandemic”. Regardless whether the “pandemic” itself is real or an illusion manufactured out of fear by vested interests, it is central to ethics and policy discussions seeking to understand bioweapons research in general. The official involvement of the USA in civilian bioweapons research dates at least from World War II under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The historical records, cloaked in secrecy until after the Anthrax mailing of 2001, reveal an intimate connection to vaccine research and development, its governmental protection from public scrutiny, and from citizen initiated lawsuits. It is an industry that has released dangerous weaponized pathogens by accident and by sinister designs supposedly compensated in the peace-loving nations by unrealistic hopes in non-existent counter-measures for outbreaks, including epidemiological tracking after the fact, vaccines being researched to counter the weaponization of pathogens being studied, immunity enhancing drugs, and downstream hoped for blood sera containing antibodies. Critical questions concern the ratio of real-risks to hoped-for-benefits, the “mitigating” measures “governments” (especially in the USA) have supposedly established to prevent pandemic outbreaks from bioweapons research, and how all that has played out in the instance of SARS-CoV-2.
Full-text available
Operation Warp Speed brought to market in the United States two mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna. Interim data suggested high efficacy for both of these vaccines, which helped legitimize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA. However, the exceptionally rapid movement of these vaccines through controlled trials and into mass deployment raises multiple safety concerns. In this review we first describe the technology underlying these vaccines in detail. We then review both components of and the intended biological response to these vaccines, including production of the spike protein itself, and their potential relationship to a wide range of both acute and long-term induced pathologies, such as blood disorders, neurodegenerative diseases and autoimmune diseases. Among these potential induced pathologies, we discuss the relevance of prion-protein-related amino acid sequences within the spike protein. We also present a brief review of studies supporting the potential for spike protein "shedding", transmission of the protein from a vaccinated to an unvaccinated person, resulting in symptoms induced in the latter. We finish by addressing a common point of debate, namely, whether or not these vaccines could modify the DNA of those receiving the vaccination. While there are no studies demonstrating definitively that this is happening, we provide a plausible scenario, supported by previously established pathways for transformation and transport of genetic material, whereby injected mRNA could ultimately be incorporated into germ cell DNA for transgenerational transmission. We conclude with our recommendations regarding surveillance that will help to clarify the long-term effects of these experimental drugs and allow us to better assess the true risk/benefit ratio of these novel technologies.
Full-text available
In this entry, trust in science is defined as the reliance, confidence, and dependence on science to understand scientific information. With the outbreak of, and the uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, turning towards science and trusting the specialized knowledge of experts is of particular importance during this period.
Full-text available
Here we show some objects of frequent geometries that could be observed in sealed vials from different random samples of COVID19 mRNA vaccines, using optic microscopy with bright or dark field, using low magnifications between 100x y 600X. AS A WORKING HYPOTHESIS, some of these objects have been proposed as possible elements of a WIRELESS NANOSENSORS NETWORK (WNSN), whether as nano-sensors, as nano-routers, or as nano-antennae: Most of these object appear after room temperature drying of samples, staying embedded in the remaining hydrogel. As far as we know, neither the identity of these objects, whether mineral crystals or nanotechnological devices, has not been stated by the manufacturers, nor they hay been properly characterized by independent labs. - The characterization of these objects is out of the scope of this report. Our intention is just making these images of public use for technical discussion by experts in the field of crystallography or nano-communications engineering.
Full-text available
Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) have high saturation magnetization and are promising candidates for hyperthermia. They may act as magnetic heating agents when subjected to magnetic field in nano-based hyperthermia. In this work, cube-like Fe3O4 nanoparticles (labelled as cubic SPIONs) with reduced graphene oxide (RGO) nanocomposites were prepared by a microwave hydrothermal method. The shape and size of magnetic nanoparticles were controlled by varying synthesis parameters, including reaction time, pressure and microwave power. This study successfully synthesized cubic SPIONs nanocomposites with an average particle size between 24–34 nm. Poly-(ethylene) glycol (PEG) was used as a coating material on SPIONs to enhance biocompatibility. The RGO sheets provided a high surface area-to-volume ratio for SPIONs to be dispersed on their surface, and hence, they prevented aggregation of the SPIONs in the nanocomposites. Magnetically induced heating studies on the optimized nanocomposite (Fe3O4/RGO/PEG) demonstrated heating capabilities for magnetic hyperthermia application with a promising specific absorption rate (SAR) value of 58.33 W/g in acidic solution. Cytotoxicity tests were also performed to ensure low nanoparticle toxicity before incorporation into the human body. The results of the standard assay for the toxicity determination of the nanocomposites revealed over 70% cell survival after 48 h, suggesting the feasibility of using the synthesized nanocomposites for magnetic hyperthermia.
Full-text available
Genetic variants of the COVID-19 causative virus have been arising and circulating globally. In many countries especially in developing ones with a huge population, vaccination has become one of the major challenges. SARS-CoV-2 variants’ fast transmission rate has upsurge the COVID cases, leading to more stress on health systems. In the current COVID-19 scenario, there is the requirement of more adequate diagnostic approaches to check the COVID-19 spread. Out of many diagnostic approaches, a magnetic nanoparticle-based reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction could be nontrivial. The use of magnetic nanoparticles to separate nucleic acid of SARS-CoV-2 from the patient samples and applied for detection is an easy and more effective way for COVID-19 patient detection. Herein, the magnetic nanoparticles are synthesized using the sol-gel autocombustion methods and then, successfully coated with biopolymer (chitosan) using ultra-sonication. Chitosan-coated nanoparticles are successfully integrated into the graphene oxide sheets to introduce carboxyl groups. Crystallite size calculation, morphological and magnetic studies of synthesized magnetic nanoparticles, and multifunctional magnetic nanoparticles are done using XRD, SEM, TEM, and VSM respectively. Besides the potentiality of the fabricated nanocomposites in RNA extraction protocol is also discussed with schematic representation.
Full-text available
In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious diseases since six decades prior, honored the discovery of ivermectin (IVM), a multifaceted drug deployed against some of the world’s most devastating tropical diseases. Since March 2020, when IVM was first used against a new global scourge, COVID-19, more than 20 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tracked such inpatient and outpatient treatments. Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities, with a mean 31% relative risk of mortality vs. controls. The RCT using the highest IVM dose achieved a 92% reduction in mortality vs. controls (400 total subjects, p<0.001). During mass IVM treatments in Peru, excess deaths fell by a mean of 74% over 30 days in its ten states with the most extensive treatments. Reductions in deaths correlated with extent of IVM distributions in all 25 states with p<0.002. Sharp reductions in morbidity using IVM were also observed in two animal models, of SARS-CoV-2 and a related betacoronavirus. The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.
Full-text available
Background: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in the early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting. Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis). Search methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), medRxiv, and Research Square, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 26 May 2021. Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity, treated in inpatient or outpatient settings, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing ivermectin to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. Data collection and analysis: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. The primary analysis excluded studies with high risk of bias. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes 1. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, adverse events, quality of life, duration of hospitalization, and viral clearance; 2. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, admission to hospital, adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance; (3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, adverse events, mortality, admission to hospital, and quality of life. Main results: We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID-19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eight studies had an open-label design, six were double-blind and placebo-controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias. Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies. We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for inpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to day 28 assessed as need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.59; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or need for supplemental oxygen (0 participants required supplemental oxygen; 1 study, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence), adverse events within 28 days (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.97; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and viral clearance at day seven (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 6.48; 2 studies, 159 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on clinical improvement up to 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 study; 73 participants; low-certainty evidence) and duration of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) -0.10 days, 95% CI -2.43 to 2.23; 1 study; 45 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for outpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality up to 28 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to 14 days assessed as need for IMV (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.47; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or non-IMV or high flow oxygen requirement (0 participants required non-IMV or high flow; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo reduces or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; 1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on the number of participants with symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 1 study, 398 participants; low-certainty evidence) and adverse events within 28 days (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for primary analysis. No study reported hospital admission or quality of life up to 14 days. Ivermectin compared to no treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection We found one study. Mortality up to 28 days was the only outcome eligible for primary analysis. We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases mortality compared to no treatment (0 participants died; 1 study, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported results for development of COVID-19 symptoms and adverse events up to 14 days that were included in a secondary analysis due to high risk of bias. No study reported SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospital admission, and quality of life up to 14 days. Authors' conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.
Full-text available
Background: Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials. Areas of uncertainty: We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection. Data sources: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion. Therapeutic advances: Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%-91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for "need for mechanical ventilation," whereas effect estimates for "improvement" and "deterioration" clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty. Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.