Covid-19 vaccines like the ones that surprise you on Monday mornings at your local restaurant or those supplements that could secretly contain Viagra or steroids. No, the list of ingredients for the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine can be found on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) online page and the Centers for Control online page and Disease Prevention (CDC). However, claims are now circulating on social media that the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine contains approximately 99% graphene oxide, even though graphene oxide is neither listed by the FDA nor in the from the CDC.
An example of such a claim was an Instagram post that said: “99% graphene oxide in Pfizer V4X? Spanish scientists download a vial of Pfizer v4xin3 and see a rate of 98 to 99%. In this case, “V4X” is probably an abbreviation for “vaccine” and not “vagina for your ex. ” As described on PolitiFact. com, a nonprofit organization run by the Poynter Institute, the post claimed that graphene oxide “is toxic to the human body and causes a number of problems. ” A video accompanying the post featured someone named “Dr. Jane Rutherford. Ruthrough argued that more than 99% of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is graphene oxide and that “there is no other explanation for that other than killing people. ”
To kill people? Is the Covid-19 vaccine used to kill people? You cannot simply insert the word “homicide” without providing further explanation or evidence. Imagine telling someone, “I had a great dinner with you when you tried to murder me,” or “My boss is fine about this outright murder thing. ”
IT IS OK. Let’s break down this Instagram and the claims that come with it. First of all, who exactly is Ruby? Well, here’s a thread on Tweet that featured it:
As you can see, @PunchyMr pointed out that Ruby has a PhD in psychology and medicine. However, Ruby introduces herself as a “medical expert” in the biographical component of her Twitter profile:
From Twitter
The word “expert doctor” is not something that can be simply said. It’s not like saying you’re an expert at “stroking asparagus” or “long walks on the beach. ” If you position yourself as a medical expert, what do you express qualifications, education, and experience does Ruby have? Well, Ruby’s online page has the following description: “Dr. Jane Ruby is a health economist in Washington DC and a New Right politician with desirable skills. Conservative concepts and the latest news in the world of new media! Does this sound like a “medical expert”?
Second, the publication spoke of Spanish “scientists” without specifying their qualifications or presenting their genuine knowledge to the clinical network for review. Be wary of anyone who mentions the word “scientists” without further details about why anyone deserves to believe them. Let’s say you have a basketball game that you have to win. Would you then expect a stranger to tell you that he has assembled a group of “players” without any real guarantee of his ability to truly play basketball? In fact, the word “players” could simply refer to other people interested in monogamy, which of course wouldn’t help you win the basketball game. Similarly, terms such as “clinical” alone are quite general and indistinct and are not sufficient to lend credibility to clinical claims. The same goes for the term “Spanish lab,” which has also been used in social media posts reporting on graphene oxide:
“Spanish Laboratory” may seem official, but on its own it is meaningless without further main points and clarifications. The word “laboratory” is confusing and can also simply refer to many other things, adding a dog. A Labrador Retriever in Spain testing vaccines would have very different implications.
Thirdly, these alleged effects of the Spanish laboratories have not been published in any respectable peer-reviewed clinical journal. According to Health Feedback, a member of the Vaccine Safety Net (VSN) project led by the World Health Organization (WHO), some claim that this Spanish laboratory is at the University of Almería in Almería, Spain, however this university has been “unequivocally distanced from the analysis”, as shown in the following tweet:
Keep in mind that vaccines are much more regulated than things like nutritional supplements, foods, and underwear. Imagine what could have happened if Pfizer had not included a key element, particularly the one that made up 99% of the vaccine, in the Covid-19 vaccine element lists submitted to the FDA and CDC. Such an omission could have exposed Pfizer to a primary legal threat and jeopardized its entire business. The FDA also conducts periodic evaluations of the production processes involved in vaccine production. Therefore, it would not have been so undeniable to introduce an undeclared element. Furthermore, what would have been the purpose of such an omission? Murder, yes, it is bad business practice to murder consumers because you have to be alive to buy things.
Here’s a question. Instead of selling unfounded graphene oxide or any other similar anti-vaccine claims, why not add to the FDA?Why not advocate for greater investments and resources for the FDA?After all, everyone deserves to be interested in an FDA that can better protect the FDA. public of fake fitness products. . . Unless, of course, you’re looking to advertise products with unknown ingredients yourself, such as a nutritional supplement fortified with an erectile disorder drug that’s hard to see, so to speak.