5G and graphene in the bio-weapon: Fraudsters, useful helpers and pseudo-scientists

Piotr Bein, 9.8.2021

Amidst the plandemic, LaQuintaColumna (LQC) has been publishing on graphene in humans. Here is an example article and a video, via OrwellCity, dated 25.6.2021. It announces a discovery of a large proportion of graphene in a Pfizers covid-19 “vaccine” vial. Graphene, according to LQC, is important in the observed post-vax magnetism and in 5G’s alleged role in the spread of “covid”.

The sensation is a scam. The public were deceived, while a ticking bomb of discreditation was planted into the movements opposing the plandemic and 5G. The spin confuses the public — shall we protect ourselves from spike protein or from graphene?

Activists are guessing. Is it about undermining our counter-measures? Which of the possible threats associated with the “covid vax” are of concern — spike protein, graphene, maybe both, or something else?

The first concrete LQC breaking news on the subject announced that a research report had proven graphene presence in a Pfizer vial. Subsequent LQC material reinforced this message. LQC also promised more of confirmatory research.

The question arises about possible Pharmafia cointelpro. Why did the LQC “group” (two permanent persons) monopolize the subject? Is their information suitable for scientific publication and review by independents? Or are they planted/manipulated by plandemists to disinform?

Stink of a scam

Whitney Webb exposes the scam in an interview with Ryan Cristi of TheLastAmericanVagabond. Webb has experience in editing and analysis of publications in biology and medicine, and is fluent in Spanish. LQC’s Delgado Martin has commissioned a study (Detection of graphene in aqueous suspension sample) from University of Almaria’s professor Madrida. Educated well in the bio-medical field, Martin has no excuse to misinterpret prof. Madrid’s report that concludes:

1. Microscopic study of the sample provides strong evidence for the probable presence of graphene derivatives, although microscopy does not provide conclusive evidence. The definitive identification of graphene, oxidized graphene (GO) or reduced oxidized graphene (rGO) in the RD1 sample requires the STRUCTURAL CHARACTERIZATION through the analysis of specific spectral standard sample […]

2. The analyzes in this report correspond to ONE SINGLE SAMPLE, limited in total volume available for processing. It is therefore necessary to carry out a significant sampling of similar vials to draw conclusions that can be generalized to comparable samples, recording origin, traceability and quality control during storage and transport prior to analysis.

“Possible presence” is not presence for certain, while the microscopic method “does not provide conclusive evidence”, so further research is needed by another method. In conclusion 1, Madrid names several spectroscopic techniques for the continuation of the research.

According to Webb, Madrid confused graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide, interchanged thier microscopy pictures, and made comparisons in different scales. Nevertheless, he admitted his analysis is not conclusive and other methods are needed with ample quantity of the substance. He noted that the origin of the vial and its custody and care since manufacture are unknown; for example, nothing is known about its storage and shipments (this “vax” must be kept frozen).

Despite this, Martin and his LQC colleague dr. Sevillano claim they have found definitive evidence, and only verifications and replications by other independents are needed. Then dr. Kalcker pops up, agreeing with LQC’s assertions and stating that all vaccines contain graphene oxide. Without documentation, he extends LQC false claims to all brands and batches. Instead, he should have checked them in Madrid’s report.

Batch for each test

One vial is not enough to draw sweeping conclusions. Where is a mass testing of vials of all brands, delivered to various countries, from the beginning of the “covid vaccination” campaign? There may be plenty of “vaccine” batches for testing different technologies: nano-medical treatment, nano-sensors and -transmitters, nano-neurostructures for brain and body control, injectable microchips — in material variants and tech combinations.

There are probably lots of vials with placebo for comparison groups in randomised testing. Some speculate that the placebos were administered widely in the “covid vaccinations” to dilute and thereby camouflage severe and fatal effects. Otherwise, a general rebellion would break out.

Similarity of “covid” symptoms due to mRNA, graphene and 5G factors does not prove exclusive causality of any of them. The biological-physical-chemical mechanisms need to be proven. The plandemists might be testing combinations of technologies that are optimal for their genocidal goals.

LQC junk, bunk and spin

Other LQC material on graphene in “covid vax” is also junk, bunk and spin. The video and article on perception of reality following Moderna jab is guesswork devoid of credibility. It doesn’t show any test results foir graphene presence in both persons filmed. Neither it documents the alleged neurological effects as being caused by graphene. There is more of this “quality” in LQC meretricious publications.

Another article speculates that a “D test” for new blood clots may uncover the presence of graphene. Spike protein could give the same test result, as it leads to clot formation, too.

On 5G, stimulation of graphene by 5.59 GHz raises brows. This band is not present in 5G nor in 4G LTE, unless the specs lie, which should be proven first.

On the LQC website, Martin appears as the founder of the “group”; no list of members and board. The account number for donations is placed on top, then his photo and CV: bio-medical education, diplomas in child psychology, banking and personal trainingr. His website recommends a “scientific” article by Spanish professor Payeras i Cifre. I debunked it in January 2020.

LQC broadcasts its trash through befriended and ignorant media. Among the victims of LQC’s bunk are Prof. Chossudovsky (GlobalResearch), Mike Adams (NaturalNews), Stew Peters and Judy Mikovits. Not for the first time the first two publicists are fooled – out of a sense of obligation to publish, or to fatten their ego? The last two names also enjoy confidence and trust of millions of Internet users. Given the LQC scam, their (and many others publicists’) reputation plummets, while the public goes yumpy on the roller-coaster of truth, fanatic propaganda and pharmafia deception.

Pharmafia’s fact-“checkers”

Pharmafia’s scribes easily “debunk” such bunk&junk. One from AFP mowed down Ruby for talking about magnetiosm in the vaxed, and targeted Ruby and Chossudovsky for graphene in the bio-weapon, while polit-correctly spinning about Kremlin and the “vax” bio-weapon:

Clips from the segment can also be found on FacebookInstagram, and the video-sharing platform BitChute. It is part of a torrent of inaccurate claims about vaccines that have proliferated across the internet as countries around the world seek to immunize their populations against Covid-19. The same claim was amplified by GlobalResearch.ca, a Canadian website that the US State Department has described as deeply enmeshed in Russia’s broader disinformation and propaganda ecosystem.

The professor, systems modeller, digital health expert etc. free-lances for Forbes when not munching on avocados. He brainwashes the sheeple that “covid” bio-waepon is kosher:

The Covid-19 vaccines are not like those Monday morning surprise dishes at your local restaurant. They aren’t like some of those less regulated dietary supplements that may secretly contain Viagra or steroids either. No, Covid-19 vaccines should not have unexpected ingredients. To make sure people know what they are getting, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has posted an ingredient list for the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine on its website. So, has the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

FDA and CDC don’t conceal the polyethylene glycol (PEG) lipid ball around mRNA parericle in the bio-weapon list of ingredients. The smartass prof is too dumb or too corrupted by sheqalim to tell us that graphene oxide dwells in the PEG lipid surround of the mRNA. Beliitling the concern over possible graphene health effects, the professor mocks food supplements sold outside of Pharmafia’s empire:

it may be best to strengthen the FDA. Rather than speculating wildly about what may be in products, how about pushing for more funding for the FDA and further extending it’s oversight over a broader range of products? Wouldn’t this make sense for those making anti-vaccination claims? Unless, of course, they are trying to get you to use dietary supplements instead of getting vaccinated.

Revolving door at FDA or CDC does not figure in his bio-note, but the prof’s experience includes professorship in International Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (isn’t int’l health about plandemics?) and co-founding a biotechnology/bioinformatics company — a set of buzz words worthy of support by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the NIH, AHRQ, CDC, UNICEF, USAID and the Global Fund. LOL LOL LOL

Chossudovsky confuses, Adams confabulates

Chossudovsky approved of prof. Madrid’s report, even though Martin distorted Madrid’s conclusions. In the 17.7.2021 interview: Chossudovsky is excited about the Spanish discovery. This first version of GlobalResearch article was captured on TattyJournal’s re-publication on 18.7.2021. Chossudovsky ended up saving his face when the first version (17.7.2021) was revised on 28.7.2021 with this footnote:

This is a controversial study. There are scientists and medical doctors who disagree with the results of the Spanish study. The evidence has to be either ascertained or refuted. What is required is that independent scientists and health professionals conduct their own lab analysis of the contents of the vaccine vial. Similarly, we call upon the national health authorities of the 193 member states of the UN which are currently vaccinating their people, to conduct their own study and analysis of the vaccine vial. And if graphene-oxide is detected, the vaccination program should immediately be discontinued.

Chossudovsky writes in the plural, i.e. on behalf of co-author Martin. So it is strange to state “confirm or reject the results of the Spanish study”, bacause in the interview they both falsify Madrid’s conclusions that did not find graphene definitively and called for further tests.

There is no controversy, the conclusion stands as there is no evidence without a doubt that the “vaccine” in the vial contains graphene. Even so, the unknown source and custody of the vial does not allow to single out Pfizer.

Has Chossudovsky published Madrid’s report unaware that Martin mirepresents the professor’s conclusion? Did he not read the original report or its English translation? Maybe he shouldn’t have published what he can’t understand. He damaged his reputation. With his authority, he has helped confuse millions of people. If it was a provocation calculated to discredit the anti-vax and anti-5G movements, publicists and publishers, he helped to implement it, to the detriment of the groups and individuals involved, while confusing the public.

Mike Adams misleadingly calls prof. Madrid “University of Almeria, Department of Engineering team”. In fact, a disclaimer in Madrid’s document states that the university has nothing to do with his investigation for LQC.

Adams confabulates: the Spanish researchers found that each dose of the Pfizer vaccine they examined contained around 747 nanograms of graphene oxide. This meant that more than 99 percent of the Pfizer vaccine was made up entirely of graphene oxide. The link eventually leads to a re-publication (by Alexandra Bruce) in GlobalResearch (7.7.2021) of Stew Peters interview with dr. Jane Ruby who claims over 99.99% of the Pfizer sample is graphene oxide.

Concentration is not percent content in the vax

Using a UV light absorption spectral analysis, not chemical spectroscopy that could detect graphene presence, prof. Madrid’s study found per microlitre of the sample:

  • 6 nanogram of RNA material. I estimate mass concentration at 0.0006% in the dose sample.
  • An uncalibrated estimate of 747 nanogram of substances other than RNA. I estimate mass concentration at 0.0747%.

The concentration numbers might be subject to adjustment to test conditions I am not familiar with. Still, they are a far cry from Ruby’s (and LQC’s and ignorants’) alarmist numbers, even if graphene material was confirmed in the sample for sure, but it was not, pending further probing with other methods. Ruby’s alarmist figure looks like a mass ratio of the above substances in the vax sample: 747 / (747 + 6 for mRNA) = 99.2%, not her 99.99%.

She regards this ratio as the graphene oxide contents of a dose (minute 2:55):

Here is the ratio of what they found in those vials, in each dose — each dose Stew — the RNA, there was RNA material in there and it was at the amount of … and don’t worry about the metrics, the measure units, because it’s the ratio that’s important — Out of each dose there were 6 nanograms per millilitre of RNA. Do you know how much graphene oxide was in there? 747 nanograms! Do the math my friends — that is a percentage of 99.99103%, it’s virtually 99.99% graphene oxide.

Dr. Jane Ruby is the source of the disinfo, and only she knows why she misleads. As a professional she had a duty to scrutinize Martin’s claims.

Enigmatic comment

In a commentary to Peters’ interview of Ruby, as posted in GlobalResearch by Alexandra Bruce, Chossudovsky (?) postulates:

This is a controversial report [by prof. Madrid — PB] based on the findings of Spanish researchers. It remains to be fully ascertained. What is required is to have precise details on the composition of the mRNA vaccine, from one or more samples of the drug, also including the identification of the so-called digital microchip. […] the Spanish study must be acknowledged and taken seriously.

Reference to the “microchip” is unclear, as we don’t know if and how it would be delivered into human bodies — piece-wise by nano-particles in the vax, set in the vax needle, smart dust apart from vax, or in a different vax campaign.

The last quoted sentence proves that Chossudovsky (if he wrote it) was excited about the “Spanish study” already in early July, as he did not disprove Bruce nor Ruby. Normally he does not hesitate to comment on re-published material. In an interview with Chossudovsky, Martin assets that prof. Madrid gave “clear evidence” and performed spectroscopy on the alleged Pfizer sample. Chossudovsky did not correct the inaccuracies, and above the video he writes: results of their analysis by electron microscopy and spectroscopy are far-reaching. Madrid has not done spectroscopy on the sample. Period.

Adams committed another flop: In their report, the Spanish researchers also discovered significant amounts of graphene oxide in the swabs used in polymerase chain reaction and antigen tests. In whose “report”? Madrid’s report does not contain any such information, and Martin’s requisition to do testing only involved a Pfizer vial.

Adams refers to NaturalHealth365, where imagination runs wild:

A team of researchers from Spain recently used spectroscopy and electron microscope analysis to assess the contents of the COVID shot vials.  Inside, they found “enormous doses” of this nanoparticle.  Graphene oxide was identified in samples from all the major Big Pharma players, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, Sinovac, Janssen, and Johnson & Johnson.  Certain COVID shot vials contained as much as 99% graphene oxide and not much else.

From one single Pfizer vial, the author multiplied the samples into “all major” brands. From the situation of Janssen, the “vax” maker for J&J “brand”, the article made up two makers.

Freak fodder

Freaks in grassroot movements get excited about LQC spin, e.g. anti-5G Claire Edwards. Disseminated uncritically, Martin’s deception and similar material may distract the vaxed from suppressing their own spike protein production, should they focus on anti-oxidants against undocumented graphene in the “vax’. Graphene might be found in nano-tubes containing mRNA gel, as in PCR test swabs examined in Slovakia. Other independents should evaluate, verify and replicate such studies. Until then, it is unwise to treat mere speculation and guesswork as if they were proofs.

Pseudo-science freaks feed on ignorance: 5G = gigahertz. Some people do not even know that the 5G system includes sub-systems working on frequencies below 1 GHz.

Edwards is famous for pseudo-scientific nonsense on “covid” – 5G relationship. She translated an article by prof. Payeras and Cifre which together with one by Magda Havas “proves” the 5G causality, in Edwards’ opinion. Both articles assume that covid tests, cases and deaths are reliable data. One could think so in 2020, but today?! Edwards invokes the junk to prop up her new article, where she writes:

The canaries in the coalmine at the present time are pilots who have been vaccinated. Pilots and air crew are exposed occupationally to very high levels of radiation.

The deaths among health care personnel could also serve as an anecdote, except that these people are not routinely exposed to satellite wi-fi or increased nuclear radiation at flight elevations. The army and the police also see post-“vax” deaths, but in such autocracies one mustn’t divulge secrets.

Edwards posits, after top “scholars”, that various epidemics and plandemics have followed on the heels of new wireless tech. For swine flu, this would be the installation of 3G in Sweden. Well, 3G appeared there in December 2009, when the swine flu plandemic was raging like “covid” today. Soon after, the plandemic fell apart.

Other flus acted out in fall-winter each year, until killer corona broke out of Wuhan, wiping out flu statistics, perhaps forever. Flu morphed into “covid” as seen in the statistics of diagnostic tests, cases, hospitalisations, and deaths. In the coming season, flu data will “prove” the Terrible Variant, when in fact the vaxed will succumb to the bio-weapon.

Given the herding to graphene oxide theme, perhaps huge psyop that Edwards writes about, while distracting attention from mRNA bio-weapon, serves to …distract us from the mRNA bio-weapon.

Pseudo rescuer of Humanity

On her blog, Edwards is sure she is right and that she is saving the lives of masses of graphene sufferers:

The article […] is THE most important article I have written and could save millions of lives if people understand this message. As you know, I never say or write anything unless I have the evidence, and this article is fully referenced, as usual. Please help to get this message understood by posting the following innocent-looking link on social media and telling people that this article could save millions of lives […]

Edwards extends her mental state onto alleged censorship:

It is not just the “Disinformation Dozen” who are heavily censored on the Internet.  So am I.  People around the world are telling me that they cannot access my website and cannot post links to my articles on social media – yes, even social media that you thought were okay!

What hasbara coordinator would stem the voluntary disinformation by a useful agent of influence?

Edwards seems to be taking anecdotes and circumstances for objective “evidence”, again. Since 30.7.2021, I had no problem clicking numerous links to her republished article, and to her blog. I do not know what was there in the Jew-tech controlled social media. I am a consistent opponent of the wireless folly and of the global Judeobankster cabal. I’ve never acquired a smartphone, expecting health and freedom problems that become obvious only now.

Edwards does not measure up to the “Dozen”, Doctors and Professors with capital P and D: Mike Yeadon, David Martin, Sucharit Bhakdi, Charles Hoffe, Peter McCullough, Carrie Madej, Dolores Cahill, Sherri Tenpenny, Andrew Kaufman, Larry Palevsky , Roman Zieliński and many others. Her knowledge and objectivity amaze. But for the nonsense of useful zealots, a good deal of flak is taken by the Dozen and the multitudes at the bottom of the opposition to global psychos.


Let useful distributors and re-publishers of trash posing for science master their emotions and the urge to publish. I understand this because sometimes I sin so myself, trying to expose the plandemic fraud and help those who have gone astray by taking the “covid” bio-weapon shot in their arm.

As long as the narratives — “vax bio-weapon mRNA” and “injectable graphene oxide” — do not agree, we have an obstacle in the battle with psychos for the Future of Humanity, e.g. uncertainty whether to treat bio-weapon victims, de facto factories of spike protein, or to rescue graphene victims. Perhaps we must intervene on both factors, or look for something else in a camouflaged, top secret “covid” bio-weapon?

By piotrbein