In a new interview with German attorneys Reiner Fuellmich and Viviane Fischer microbiologist and nutritionist Dr. Robert O. Young explains how he’s discovered graphene oxide in up to 50% of the COVID-19 “vaccine” vials he’s tested.
Although there has been scant evidence that the COVID-19 “vaccines” contain graphene oxide—the oxidized form of graphene, which itself is a one-atom-thick layer of carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal lattice—there are some experts in the field of biology and pharmaceutical practices who believe the cutting-edge material is indeed present. In a new interview with German attorneys Reiner Fuellmich and Viviane Fischer, one such expert, Dr. Robert O. Young, a microbiologist and nutritionist, pitches his take on the issue—showing direct energy spectroscopy (DES) images to support his claim that, in some batches, up to 75% of the COVID-19 “vaccines” have graphene oxide present.
“Nanotechnology… begins at 100 nanometers and goes down [and when] we’re looking at graphene we’re talking about the thickness of one atom,” O. Young tells Fuellmich and Fischer in the interview immediately below. “The graphene sheets are below the 35 nanometer range; which [means] we’re talking one billionth of a meter when we’re speaking about this [material].”
Indeed, it turns out that graphene is actually a wonder material. Genuinely. As the BRIGHT SIDE edutainment video at bottom explains, graphene is mathematically two 2-dimensional, even harder than diamonds, and, despite its minuscule size, is still visible to the naked eye. Perhaps most critically, graphene literally “carries electricity more quickly, more precisely, and more efficiently than any other known material.” (This is the case because the density of graphene is many million times that of copper.)
Graphene is equally miraculous—or potentially disastrous—in the context of biology. Graphene has “the ability to cross any sort of barrier,” O. Young tells the German lawyers. “So there’s no restriction. Blood-brain barrier, uterine, ovarian barriers—any barriers that are placed as the protection to that particular gland or organ” can be bypassed by graphene.
O. Young goes on to outline how graphene is the “perfect material to literally target specific organs and glands.” This is the case because pieces of graphene are able to carry and deliver “attachments” (O. Young’s word) such as titanium dioxide, aluminum, copper, etc. O. Young adds that graphene is “the best material because of its lightness and its [construction] to be able to deliver other types of elements or drugs to specific areas.”
Graphene is unable to deliver these attachments on its own, however. As the microbiologist notes, the graphene structures require a driver—that is, a vector of genetic material that can be either an RNA or DNA composite, according to O. Young. “A lot of people don’t realize that this material that they’re using is driven by a driver. And that driver is the multi or modified genetic material—RNA if they’re driving it specifically… to the reproductive organs or the heart,” O. Young tells Fuellmich. He adds that “that driver is the multi or modified genetic material—RNA if they’re driving it specifically… to the reproductive organs or the heart.”
O. Young goes on to say that those who deploy these drivers “can be very specific [as] it relates to driving that material.” The “material” being anything attached to a piece of graphene.
Although it isn’t 100% clear, O. Young seems to be referring to gene drives—which, as Nature describes, are “genetic modification[s] designed to spread through a population at higher-than-normal rates of inheritance.” More specifically, gene drives are a way for scientists to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR—which itself uses a gene-editing technique derived from a bacterium’s defense system against bacteriophages—as well as other “bits of RNA,” to alter or silence a specific gene, or insert a new one. As Nature notes, in the next generation of the altered organism “the whole drive copies itself onto its partner chromosome so that the genome no longer has the natural version of the chosen gene, and instead has two copies of the gene drive.” (In effect, this means genetic changes made with gene drives are passed down to 100% of an affected individual’s offspring.)
Unfortunately, it’s not exactly clear that O. Young refers to gene drives specifically in his talk. Presumably, that is the case. O. Young also says that “having been involved with using RNA and DNA as an anatomical element to drive specific vitamins, minerals, and cell salts, [he can say] that’s science that’s been around for many, many years.” Indeed, the Nature article outlining gene drives notes they have “rapidly become a routine technology in some laboratories; scientists can now whip up a drive in months.”
As for evidence of graphene oxide in the COVID-19 “vaccines,” O. Young presents studies centering on the aforementioned direct energy spectroscopy (DES). The microbiologist references multiple papers he authored—including one in Acta Scientific Medical Sciences—that show spectroscopic images of the blood of those who have been “vaccinated” against COVID-19; featuring “cluster bombs” (O. Young’s term) of graphene. Although he does note that he’s seeing these cluster bombs “in everyone” and says they could’ve entered their bodies through air, food, water, etc. O. Young notes, however, that when he looked into one of the Pfizer COVID-19 “vaccine” vials with an X-ray diffractometer, he was able to see “crystalline carbon-based nanoparticles.”
O. Young goes on to discuss how he also observed Trypanosoma cruzi parasites in his subject “vaccine” vials. The parasites, which bore into organisms’ tissues in order to feed on their blood and lymph, are associated with Chagas disease—an ailment that can result in heart disease 10–30 years after the initial illness, as well as digestive complications (including an enlarged esophagus or colon), and nerve damage.
The microbiologist even speculates that “all of the vials Pfizer was producing for the novel coronavirus… [were designed] to preserve the integrity of the parasites by keeping the temperature at a negative level so at body temperature they [would] basically wake up.” O. Young adds that these “parasites [are] part of the anatomical, biological concoction of these vaccines.”
Based on his observations O. Young speculates the purpose of the COVID “vaccines” is ultimately “to determine the lethal dose of graphene for the purposes of seeing what the tolerance is of the human body to be able to… let’s say, withstand this highly toxic material. And also how it interacts in the human body and can there be some sort of connection with electromagnetic frequencies.”
O. Young also speculates—based on Pfizer’s ongoing document dump over its clinical trials—that the “vaccines” have been “aimed specifically at women”; particularly their “reproductive organs” where O. Young says 50% of the contents of the lipid nanoparticles are being directed.
The microbiologist also notes that he, somehow, has come to the conclusion that 5% of the COVID-19 “vaccine” vials contain graphene oxide. Although he notes that 25% of the “vaccine” boosters have graphene oxide, and the 4th shot doses have 50%.
It isn’t clear—at all—how O. Young came to these percentage conclusions, however. He says he was able to test vials from the large COVID-19 “vaccine” manufacturers, but it’s unclear how many he was able to test in total. Or how he was able to get his hands on the vials, which has been an impossible task for most people outside of those working for the “vaccine” manufacturers themselves.
O. Young then—apparently—goes way out on a limb and says people who’ve been “vaccinated” against COVID-19 are detectable via Find my iPhone because of the injected graphene oxide. He also notes this tech is being coopted by Microsoft, a claim for which he doesn’t seem to provide any evidence. A cursory look through the internet, however, reveals a patent for “Methods and systems of prioritizing treatments, vaccination, testing and/or activities while protecting the privacy of individuals.” In the patent (US11107588B2), applicants Gal Ehrlich and Maier Fenster outline a system comprising “a plurality of electronic devices comprising instructions to generate an ID and, when in proximity of another such electronic device, one or both electronic devices transmit/receive the ID to/from the other electronic device.” The patent holders go on to note that “a score is generated based on a plurality of such received IDs… [and that] based on information received from a server, relevant treatment instructions are displayed to the subjects based on the received information and the score.”
The website Pandemic Timeline also notes that “Among the clients working with Ehrlich & Fenster (E&F) are major international corporations including Microsoft, IBM, Samsung, Huawei, Monsanto, Plasson, Playtech Software, as well as world renowned universities, medical and research institutes, such as Yeda Research and Development at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Yissum at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Technion Research & Development Foundation, and joint ventures formed by international and Israeli major players, countless startups, top researchers, developers and inventors in Israel and abroad, some of which are Nobel Prize and Wolf Prize laureates.
Potentially bolstering O. Young’s claims is the fact that scientists have been researching the use of graphene oxide (GO) in the context of lipid nanoparticles for years. A cursory glance at Google Scholar, for example, reveals more than 67,000 hits for the phrase “graphene oxide lipid nanoparticles.” Specifically, there are studies like this one in the journal Pharmaceuticals, authored by Erica Quagliarini, et al. noting that “Coating graphene oxide nanoflakes with cationic lipids leads to highly homogeneous nanoparticles (GOCL NPs) with optimized physicochemical properties for gene delivery applications.”
Overall, however, O. Young’s presented evidence for there being graphene oxide in the COVID-19 “vaccines” is still highly debatable. As mentioned, he tells Fuellmich the graphene oxide “cluster bombs” have been found in “everyone”; meaning, as he says, that it’s an environmental toxin, not necessarily from the “vaccines.” (Although perhaps the presence of “crystalline carbon-based nanoparticles” is only present in the “vaccinated”; that’s not clear.) It’s also been difficult to find his DES studies published in Acta Scientific Medical Sciences, although they’re still readily available on his personal site. (I have not gone through the—lengthy—papers and am therefore uncertain if they answer some of my questions raised here.)
To build a compelling argument, something needs to happen that is outside of O. Young’s control: The public needs to be given access to the vials of COVID-19 “vaccine” directly—so that it may look, with its own eyes and experts, at what exactly is floating around in these novel, dangerous, gene-altering injections.
Feature image: Corona Committee / Dr. Robert O. Young
Related News
