Graphene meets RNA technology, for cancer vaccines

Double trouble

by Jon Rappoport

July 13, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

As soon as Operation Warp Speed was announced, I made it clear that one of the prime goals was: winning approval for experimental RNA technology.

RNA tech had never gotten a green light prior to the COVID vaccine. Why? Because it was highly dangerous. Generally speaking, massive inflammatory response was the issue: the body attacks itself.

But RNA tech allows new vaccines to be developed faster, easier, and cheaper. Therefore, researchers could claim to discover new viruses at the drop of a hat (without authentic proof), and pharma companies could develop new vaccines (aka genetic RNA treatments) overnight.

It became Bill Gates’ and Tony Fauci’s mission to drag an RNA COVID vaccine across the finish line to emergency-use approval, come hell or high water. They were determined to crack open the marketplace for a flood of RNA medical products.

In yesterday’s, article, I highlighted the arrival of a “miracle” substance, graphene, trumpeted as the core of a whole new frontier in medicine.

For example, Merck is using it to research the creation of IMPOSED nerve responses in the body, in order to knock out a whole host of “disease conditions.”

Of course, the acknowledged toxicity of graphene nanoparticles is underplayed; in particular, their tendency to cause lung infections.

And now graphene and RNA tech meet, in new research into cancer vaccines. As they say, what could possible go wrong?

The reference is “In Situ Transforming RNA Nanovaccines from Polyethylenimine Functionalized Graphene Oxide Hydrogel for Durable Cancer Immunotherapy,” 2/17/21, ACS Publications.

Here is an excerpt from the optimistic abstract: “Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine is a promising candidate in cancer immunotherapy…Here, we report an injectable hydrogel formed with graphene oxide (GO) and polyethylenimine (PEI). The released nanovaccines can protect the mRNA from degradation and confer targeted delivering capacity to lymph nodes…”

The scramble is now underway to deploy both RNA genetic tech and graphene in all sorts of medical “innovations.”

You don’t get just one danger; you get two.

And here is a third wrinkle. According to conventional vaccine theory, the injected RNA would cause cells of the body to produce a protein unique to cancer tumors. The immune system would attack this protein and, up the road, be prepared to destroy cancer before it could gain a foothold.

It’s possible that researchers from the old failed US viral cancer project of the 1960s and 70s could now rewrite history, get in line, and say, “We never failed. Robert Gallo DID discover two cancer viruses, which also have unique proteins. Let’s develop an RNA-graphene injection that empowers the immune system to attack these viruses…”

I mention this because those failed cancer researchers went on to claim a new virus called HIV caused a condition called AIDS. And like COVID, the “causative virus” was never isolated, never proved to exist.

HIV and SARS-CoV-2 are both phantom fantasies. And in both cases, the drug/vaccine treatments are massively destructive.

The medical cartel at work.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Study: Long-Term Mask Use May Contribute to Advanced Stage Lung Cancer

by Phillip Schneider A recent study in the journal Cancer Discovery found that inhalation of harmful microbes can contribute to advanced stage lung cancer in adults. Long-term use of face masks may help breed these dangerous pathogens. Microbiologists agree that frequent mask wearing creates a moist environment in which microbes are allowed to grow and […]

Does the New York Times use “SPIN” ?

I recently had a conversation with a very intelligent and discerning person regarding “alternative” narratives. In today’s terms we could say that he hadn’t been “red-pilled” yet. I don’t care for the term because it over simplifies a very delicate and personal process of dismantling and rebuilding a conceptual framework to support a new interpretation of the world. The “red pill” offered to Neo in “The Matrix” wasn’t appropriate for everyone. Moreover, “red pills” come in all shapes, sizes and, well…. colors.

This person had the presence of mind to get right down to the essence of the divide between our perspectives. “Look”, he said, “I trust the New York Times. If it doesn’t appear there, I don’t have any reason to believe what you are telling me.”

I was grateful that he had spared me the need to explain contexts, alternative historical accounts and all the other background required to usher him into a new paradigm. This is invariably where open exchanges (when they occur) lead and end up. We may begin with an exploration into logic and science, but ultimately we find ourselves retreating to the reassuring news sources we have trusted our whole life. This person, like many other educated and curious people, believed that the integrity of venerated publications like the New York Times was unassailable. Is it possible to demonstrate that this assumption is unfounded?

Are we too distracted by COVID-19?

Right now most of the world is in one form of a “lockdown” or another. There may be a very real existential threat to our species in the form of a highly transmissible and potent virus. This possibility is perfectly aligned with hypothetical scenarios that our scientific institutions have formulated in the past. At the same time there has been growing public concern over the deployment of 5G technology which seems to be moving forward at breakneck pace despite the unprecedented slow down of human activity around the planet. Those who are voicing concern about this are often being vilified as purveyors of yet another “Conspiracy Theory” that will undermine the ability of our authorities to manage the very real crisis at hand. How are we to decide what to believe?

Many educated and informed people in this country rely on the New York Times for its research and perspective on all important topics, especially those that are nuanced and controversial. Here I will explore an article that ran in the SCIENCE section of The New York Times in May, 2019 entitled “Your 5G phone won’t hurt you, but Russia wants you to think otherwise”. The article is particularly interesting, not so much for its validity as a counter argument to the concern around the safety of 5G transmissions but as a clear demonstration of how even a venerated and iconic institution is not beyond the use of “spin” to influence the reader. Some of it is astonishingly overt.

All 5G dissenters are generalized as having dubious intentions

First and foremost the article cites “RT America” (formerly known as Russia Today) as the voice of concern around 5G. It is true that this platform of dubious credibility has published content that challenges the safety of 5G. By doing this, the Times article is indirectly insinuating that the content must be inaccurate or misleading. There has been a plethora of scientific opinion that casts doubt upon the safety of 5G (see below), but by directing our attention only to RT America we are led to believe concern over 5G safety is unfounded or based in some sort of Russian initiative.

This opinion piece in Scientific American summarizes the strident voices of hundreds of physicians and scientists that are calling for a moratorium on 5G technology until further studies are conducted. These are not politically motivated individuals with an agenda. They are talking about science and safety. The Times piece however, refers to Russia, RT, Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin over a dozen times in an article that is ostensibly about the safety of a band of electromagnetic radiation on our health. What is the purpose behind this association?

The medical benefits of 5G are said to be numerous but not referenced

The Times article suggests that 5G is the foundation for “innovative industries” including medical advances. It references another article that, when examined, describes medical technologies that do not actually need or use the kind of broadband communications that 5G offers. Interestingly, the article referenced describes a rather disturbing initiative to implant devices in pills so that health care providers will know that their patients are actually taking their medications. When implemented, the signal from the pill gets picked up when the pill begins to be absorbed in the stomach! Nonetheless, the casual reader will likely assume that a moratorium on 5G will be bad for innovation and for us.

Basic scientific principles are labeled as “Scare Tactics”

The article implies that when RT calls radio waves “radiation” they are using a scare tactic. Radio waves ARE radiation. All electromagnetic waves are radiation. The energy of the radiation is a function of its frequency. Energy, like matter, exists in minute, indivisible portions, or quanta. A single quantum of electromagnetic energy is called a photon. The energy of the photon is directly proportional to its frequency. We cannot escape the fact that 5G will bombard our planet with photons of higher energy. This is not a scare tactic. It could be very real threat to our cellular health.

The Times admits that X Rays and Ultraviolet radiation is dangerous but at “the opposite end” of the spectrum. The point here is that we are talking about a continuum of frequency. 5G carrier frequencies are not so far away from those that are considered “ionizing”, or powerful enough to break chemical bonds, or disrupt biological molecules. The idea that there is a frequency beyond which everything becomes unsafe is an absurd proposition in nature or in any examination of a large group of individuals that can have varying responses to stimuli. It is more useful (and accurate) to understand that a continuum of frequencies will generate a continuum of effects. 

The Times offers a graphic to help us understand. Conspicuously absent is the mention of microwaves, a frequency we are all familiar with. Microwaves are longer (and less powerful) than those of 5G. Note that the graphic demonstrates that the radiation that Airport Scanners use are in the 5G band. We readily subject ourselves to TSA scanning, so why should we be afraid of 5G? On the other hand, would you want to be in an airport scanner for more than a few seconds a couple times of year? How does the omission and inclusion of certain data affect how one interprets the big picture?

Information from The World Health Organization supports further investigation but we are told otherwise

The Times author then sources an article from The W.H.O. which they claim puts this all to rest. The article was written in 2014 and does not report anything definitive about cellular phone transmissions and safety. In fact, in the article, the W.H.O. refers to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s opinion on the safety of radio frequency transmissions on our health: “Based largely on these data, IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.” In other words, in the very article the Times offers as evidence of “careful science” and “data that contradicts dire alarms” is an open admission that radio frequency electromagnetic fields are a credible risk to our health. The “further ongoing studies” mentioned are notably not referenced.

Furthermore the W.H.O. had the audacity to suggest that “…tissue heating is the principle mechanism between radio frequency energy and the human body …”. This is an absurd position to take if one has a basic understanding of physiology. They are treating an incredibly complex and intricately balanced system that is the living human body and considering it as something that can only be harmed by radiation if it gets warmer. Perhaps this simplistic model would be appropriate if we were assessing the effects of radiation on a brick or bowl of water. A single living human cell is a symphony of trillions of complex molecules engaged in billions of energetic reactions every second resulting in electrical potentials and currents which are highly dependent upon a complex milieu of ions and proteins held in a tight range of concentration and pH. As a physician myself, I find this simplistic perspective an insult to the intelligence of all my colleagues and to the body of knowledge that our predecessors have built over the centuries.

The list above is by no means comprehensive. Other liberties are taken by the author to mislead the reader to unfounded conclusions, however those mentioned here should be enough to point out that the integrity of trusted institutions like the New York Times are not necessarily beyond reproach. The possibility that no source can be trusted absolutely will be unsettling to many of us who have grown accustomed to deferring to others for the “truth”. We are arriving at the inescapable reality that we may have to rely on our own wits to negotiate the endless narratives and partial truths rampant in our information-rich world. How do we hear the signal in the noise? Perhaps that is the lesson 5G is here to teach us. 

Video – How Joe Tippens Beat Terminal Cancer with $7 Dog Medicine

Diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, Joe was told he had about 3 months to live. A veterinarian friend of his in western Oklahoma called him and told him about a cancer research experiment he had learned about in which a dog-deworming medicine had cured cancer in the experimental mice… and when the researcher developed cancer, she used the same medicine on herself and her glioblastoma was gone in about 12 weeks.

With nothing to lose and everything to gain, Joe ordered the veterinary product, Fenbendazole, and began taking it. He added a few other things to his regimen such as curcumin and Vitamin E, now known as the “Joe Tippens Protocol”. Three and a half months later, he went in for a scan and he was totally clear!

Joe’s Website: https://www.mycancerstory.rocks/

Joe’s Facebook Group for cancer patients and caregivers https://www.facebook.com/groups/mycancerstoryrocks/

Templeton Wellness Foundation YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0IvNk89zD-frYPdI3tvUjQ
Watch on YouTube https://youtu.be/fCOODjrJhRQ

Shocking Discovery: Hundreds of Cancer Genes Are Deliberately Engineered into the MMR Vaccine to Promote Cancer for Generations to Come

A shocking new gene sequencing investigation has found that MMR vaccines are deliberately engineered to cause cancer as a repeat business model for Big Pharma, which manufactures vaccines and cancer treatment drugs for profit.

MMR vaccines were found to contain the complete gene sequence of a specific human (aborted) baby whose genes were modified to express cancer. In all, over 500 genes were altered to heighten the expression of cancer.

The CDC openly admits that these aborted human fetal cells are known ingredients in vaccines. The altered genes are found in ingredients called “MRC-5” or “WI-38,” both of which are openly acknowledged by the CDC as ingredients in vaccines. (See the CDC’s excipient table document here – PDF).

Read Entire Article »

Eating Organic Cuts Cancer Risk by up to 25%

Everyone knows that organic is the healthier choice. Now, new evidence sheds even more light on just how important it is to eat organic food. A groundbreaking study suggests that you can significantly cut down your risk of cancer just by eating organic.

While organic food tends to be more expensive, this landmark study may just change your mind if you’re on the fence about spending the extra money.

Cancer statistics are scary, to say the least. The chance that you will develop cancer at some point in your life is almost 40% if you’re a male and 37% if you’re a female (1). This new study suggests you can shave off quite a few digits from those risk percentages.

The organic food and reduced cancer risk connection

Read Entire Article »