By Susan Safi
20 April 2023 (updated 27 June 2023)
* Science advice from Iman Safi (M.Sc.)
Hybrid Warfare, a military strategy that blends conventional warfare and irregular warfare across the full spectrum of conflict, is a vast arena to explore. In these dangerous times it is crucial that we acquaint ourselves with aspects of this warfare relevant to our activism.
The social media strategy, one of the tools within the suite of Hybrid Warfare tactics, was developed to wield and control various popular movements which rely on social media/alternative media as a platform to oppose globalist and other nefarious agenda. In 2016 NATO produced a research paper [1] on the use of media and social media as a form/tool of warfare and in that research used Ukraine as the war theater. It was used with great effect in the war on Syria. We now see how it has been rolled out to deal with dissent and information exposing the COVID-19 narrative and all that comes with it. This pernicious strategy has now been perfected to the extent where even the most astute observer can be fooled.
The key tactic to "handle" any exposure and opposition to schemes against humanity is to insert actors, or “activists” and their “entourage” into these movements, posing as supporters, experts, citizen journalists and the like. These actors typically appear suddenly and from "nowhere" on the activist platforms, i.e., social media/alternative media. They commence harvesting information or details of concerns from activists, information still slightly relevant but rather obscure and of a fascinating and/or terrifying nature. No one suspects that anything is amiss. The actors continue expanding their chosen topic to colossal, overwhelming proportions, speaking/writing endlessly of it, effectively drowning out the most pertinent and important narratives in that activist movement with their "white noise". The result of this strategy is that it dominates every interaction in that movement, including its media and social media forums and causing diversion.
These actors/infiltrators hijack and divert the narrative, become the front and centre of the people’s movement and as local or peer support is gained, incrementally validate themselves as important representatives of the cause. In one movement, these kind of actors even managed to shift the movement's communications platform to twitter, a forum at the time hardly used by that people's movement. Non-compliant/cooperative [2] indigenous activists, leaders and intellectuals of that movement were disabled and silenced by the actors via defaming and attacking them, completing the key step of effectively re-directing the narrative.
The Current “War of Wars” that's Played out in the West:
Graphene in Vaccines and the Environment:
In the vast "freedom movement" challenging "Globalist Agenda" an endless array of diversions can be and perhaps are employed in order to redirect attention away from key issues and priorities in pursuing this battle. One of these garnering much attention is that of alleged graphene oxide in Covid-19 “vaccines” and other stories flowing on from that. There are reasons to believe that this topic has the hallmarks of a hybrid warfare ploy; rapid gaining of momentum of the narrative despite a lack of validation, the generation of great fear, anxiety, hysteria and even fixation on the subject, the co-opting of some medical and scientific allied professionals identified as part of the "freedom movement", giving validation to the narrative. Often there is strong condemnation, even from traumatised "victims" of anyone questioning the lack of science or validation. Consistent with such a warfare strategy, a topic of some relevance or concern in the "freedom movement" is introduced, in this case indications of experiments involving graphene oxide in bio-medical settings, with the proponents of these experiments, research and the narratives, offering alarming and terrifying "facts" or suspicions, but so far, always falling short of presenting public verifiable and conclusive research results, including information about equipment and procedures used to identify such findings and how it was substantiated.
When a media piece presents someone as providing facts and that person doesn't clarify that they are not facts, they then are in effect endorsing the bold, alarmist, traumatising statements and contributing to shameless "click bait" media and the degradation of the integrity of the "freedom movement". Such silence can be interpreted as acquiescence to the false narrative, even worse when that as-yet unsubstantiated claim morphs into further claims of graphene oxide spreading into every sphere of human existence; in the non-jabbed people’s blood, in the water, in the sky and so on and with each day bringing a new existential threat to people’s psyche in the “freedom movement".
A number of allied health/natural health practitioners have established diagnosis and treatment centres for "non-vaccinated" and "vaccinated" patients where they are told they are riddled with graphene oxide and invariably prescribed expensive, ongoing remedies to supposedly rid their bodies of the substance. In all cases investigated, it appears diagnosis is undertaken with completely inappropriate equipment and protocols for diagnostics. Among others, hundreds of “un-jabbed” people are walking around believing they are mortally ill, parting with the few dollars remaining after losing their jobs to the mandates, and hoping they will feel better. When enquiring how these modest practitioners identify these nano-particles, the answer is that the local practitioner has the correct microscope and protocols for such diagnosis in their actual office. No one is ever willing to identify any laboratory used (if it is) by these allied health practitioners and a Medical Doctor involved deeply in the subject, was also unable to name any despite presenting as a proponent of the theory that Covid-19 "vaccinations" contain graphene oxide and that it is also presenting in the blood of "unvaccinated" people.
To highlight the curious phenomenon of making such unsubstantiated claims, in a meeting in front of all present, a GP driving the graphene oxide in jabs and blood narrative, admitted having no conclusive results to prove such claims. That same admission was made earlier in a phone call with a scientist and yet the claims continued. One meeting participant asked about the “problem” of “graphene in water”. Expecting the GP to state that there was no verification of this, surprisingly the GP launched into an immediate explanation of how this "problem" should be dealt with, hence endorsing this as a fact and adding to the growing hysteria about the topic in general. Even more surprising was the GP's terribly flawed suggestion as to how to deal with the "problem" by way of the use of EDTA as a chelating agent. EDTA can only "grab" much smaller particles such as sodium and calcium ions. However, the graphene oxide molecule is much larger than the EDTA itself. This would be akin to expecting to "grab" an elephant with a mouse trap. EDTA can only pick up cations: nothing else.
Just where did this graphene-oxide-in-the-jabs claim come from?
Prior to the “Covid-19 Crisis”, research on using the substance in bio-medicine was prevalent. Chinese scientists in 2020 submitted an application for a patent [3] for “Nano coronavirus recombinant vaccine taking graphene oxide as carrier”. It is still pending. Hence, it was a topic that had relevancy to the interests of the "freedom movement" but was not centre-stage to the struggle for freedom.
Very much around the same period, several scientists, including a PhD in Psychology and others of various not-so-relevant disciplines began making claims of finding graphene oxide in the “vaccinations”. It is commonly believed that the “graphene-in-vaccines” narrative originated in Spain from Professor Campra and others from his university. However, according to the protocols used, their research apparently, like all the others, was not conclusive, yet it forms the basis for others making these claims [4] and [5].
One such scientist, whatever the status is about his claimed or real credentials as a scientist, Dr Robert Young, introduced the notion of “graphene-in-vaccines” in an academic paper [6] with it quickly progressing to claims of graphene being in the water and air. Young listed an impressive collection of equipment used to reach this conclusion, in particular Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). On the surface, his alleged conclusions reached sounded convincing and it was assumed he truly had access to millions of dollars’ worth of sophisticated analytical equipment and laboratory time, facilities which would have been located at multiple sites across the US, such as universities and research organisations [7]. An example of the unsubstantiated fear mongering and sensationalism from Young and his host can be found at 35 minutes of the attached video [8].
The highly acclaimed Dr Mike Yeadon stated [9] that such findings as so far presented could only be conclusive if one was able to see the hexagonal pattern of single carbon atoms in a single graphene sheet, otherwise it would be like looking at a fishnet in a bucket without taking it out and identifying what shape the holes were. That assessment was relevant in the case of what Young and others did. Yeadon had more to say about this throughout this interview [10]. It appears that this evidence has not been presented.
The root of the narrative originated from the same information from a set of researchers who made interesting observations but provided no conclusive results. Their incomplete research was presented over and over again to the public as proof.
The question that needs to be answered is why no one has supplied the conclusive evidence? Is this not in everyone’s interest, or is that a naïve assumption? Another interesting observation is that it appears that “fact checkers” on social media leave such articles or posts alone.
Any further experiments need to be examined as to the equipment and protocols used and how conclusive results were achieved if they indeed were. To do anything else and to not be open about it or let alternative media run with the hysteria of it is irresponsible.
In April 2023 another story circulated stating there was “proof” of graphene oxide in the "vaccines" via confirmation by the FDA. The “proof” was provided on page 7 of a study by Pfizer, but what was presented was a spec sheet of the actual vaccine. The study was titled “Structural and Biophysical Characterization of SARS-coV-2 Spike Glycoprotein (P2 S) as a Vaccine Antigen.” The reference on page 7 to graphene oxide has been taken out of context [11]. It was used in the protocol of undertaking the test on the product; but it was reported as a constituent of the product. The contents of page 7 discussed the protocol for setting up imaging and how to image the spike protein with a cryo-electron microscope. Below are links to some articles presenting this “proof” which was presented as bolstering the claims [12] of all the unsubstantiated claims [13]made earlier [14].
Scientist Sasha Latypova responded to this sensational claim, explaining what happened [15]. She has 25 years of experience in clinical trials for multiple pharmacological companies worldwide and countless interactions with the FDA in her part in the scientific industry, particularly in the area of improving cardiac safety assessment in clinical trials. Sasha, after addressing the issue writes, "Can graphene oxide still be present in the injection? YES it can be. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence for it".
Note: "Circumstantial evidence"
It appears that there still is no substantiated and conclusive proof of graphene oxide in any "vaccine" and the case for listing the narrative as a potential divergent or trauma-based strategy has merit. Certainly, there is research on its use in drug delivery and the research below discusses in detail the dangers of introducing graphene oxide to the human body [16], but so far there appears to be no substantiated proof that this has occurred with Covid-19 "vaccinations".
Vigilance in ensuring this never happens (graphene oxide in "vaccines" or entering human bodies) is paramount, but proper processes for inquiry need to be followed in order to substantiate any claims.
UPDATE 13 May 2023:
There are many examples of massive flaws in scientific discourse around graphene oxide in blood, all the while continuing to infer the presence of graphene oxide in the absence of any proper scientific substantiation of this. Around this topic, swift business is being conducted in advocating and marketing "cures", in this case EDTA. The EDTA will chelate individual metallic ions such as calcium and sodium etc. This is dictated by their molecular size and their electrostatic properties. Graphene molecules however are tens of times, if not hundreds of times bigger than those metallic ions and much bigger than the EDTA molecule itself. In other words, to expect an EDTA molecule to chelate graphene would be comparable to using a mouse trap to catch an elephant as described earlier. EDTA can only pick up cations: nothing else. When someone makes such a flaw, it puts a question mark on every other piece of scientific discussion they have presented. If this basic fact is something the researcher is not aware of then, how are they in a position to make bolder statements about more complex scientific issues? [17] One needs to know the alphabet before one can read and write.
- https://www.stratcomcoe.org/social-media-tool-hybrid-warfare
- http://thesaker.is/social-media-as-a-tool-of-hybrid-warfare-the-case-of-syria/
- https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112220919A/en
- https://imagenes.diario16.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/MICROSCOPIA_DE_VIAL_CORMINATY_DR_CAMPRA_FIRMA_E_1_HORIZONTAL.pdf
- https://twitter.com/ualmeria/status/1410884237377560579
- https://www.europereloaded.com/dr-robert-young-finds-graphene-oxide-in-all-four-vaccines-and-other-nasties/
- Young claims to have accessed a vast array of the best equipment and facilities in the US. This is about millions of dollars of equipment and is in an environment where budgets for scientific research are never adequate and access to "outsiders" for use, particularly if they have a “history” or credentials that are questioned, and not seen as part of the scientific “establishment” makes the claims to such access questionable. Additionally, these incredibly expensive instruments are not found altogether in any one laboratory because they are very specific. Research laboratories normally have the equipment they specifically need for their line of research. Young would have needed to find a way to access all of this from different universities and research centres, far and wide. Looking at his background it could be said that it is unlikely he would have the connections and kudos to access such special and rare equipment.
- From 35 minutes. https://rumble.com/v28ygrm-situation-update-2923- natousrussian-war-to-escalate.html
- https://www.notonthebeeb.co.uk/post/yeadon-on-graphene-and-our-comment
- https://www.bitchute.com/video/kI7Kd3WYNu9K/
- https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/125742_S1_M4_4.2.1-vr-vtr-10741.pdf
- https://expose-news.com/2023/04/15/graphene-covid-vaccines-manufacturing-process/
- https://www.europereloaded.com/fda-confirms-graphene-oxide-is-in-the-mrna-covid-19-vaccines/
- https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/health-healing/breaking-fda-confirms-graphene-oxide-is-in-the-mrna-covid-19-vaccines/
- https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/pfizer-evidence-of-graphene-oxide
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213470/
- https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/p/there-is-hope-edta-chelation-works
