Discover more from The Forgotten Side of Medicine
What Can Graphene Oxide Teach Us About Facts and Fictions?
Tips for navigating uncertainty in a world filled with lies
Note: an abridged version of this article (short enough to share on Twitter) can be viewed here.
Since I was young, I’ve craved information, and looking down every avenue for it soon brought me into the world of conspiracy theories and alternative sciences. From that world, I assembled a relatively wide lattice of beliefs and relative probabilities I attached to each (e.g., I think there is a 20% chance one conspiracy theory is true, whereas I believe there is a 90% another one is true). Then, as I came across more information, I gradually revised and updated those probabilities.
Since I spent a lot of time in this conspiracy realm, I feel I should share that one of the biggest things I took from exploring it was how often a corporation would commit a crime against the American people to keep a profitable product on the market. Then once people tried to expose the crime, the corporation would put out fake science and biased news coverage claiming the idea the crime was happening was a conspiracy, resulting in the conspiracy realm being the only place you could learn about the crime. It really bothered me how often I saw this happen.
Eventually, I drifted away from that field because I hit the point where most of it was repetitive, it didn’t seem like an efficient way for me to gain more knowledge and I started looking in other areas instead. As time went on, I realized that my experience with the conspiracy literature significantly differed from almost everyone else I talked to for two key reasons:
•I was at peace with holding contradictory beliefs or theories in mind. I never viewed any of them as a tangible reality and instead saw each as a relative probability that composed part of a larger probability field. I, in turn, assumed I would eventually gain insights into how to address these contradictions, and their contradictory existence didn’t bother me since none of them existed as solid entities my mind had latched onto.
•My foremost desire was to learn as much as possible, so I was not particularly attached to any specific idea or concept I came across. I was specifically drawn to the joy of realizing I had uncovered a deeper truth and the expansion I experienced in my mind when my reality was broadened rather than the specific idea that made this experience happen.
The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Don’t Covet Rare Objects
My time on Substack often makes me think of a verse from one of the Chinese spiritual classics:
Do not glorify the talented
So people will not become contentious
Do not covet rare objects
So that people will not become thieves
Do not flaunt what is desirable
So that people’s hearts will not be amiss
Per my understanding, the essential meaning of this passage is that "people" also refers to the individual who does the glorifying, treasuring (coveting), or flaunting. This passage is thus meant to teach what one does to themselves by engaging in this behavior by illustrating how it mirrors what one can see it does to others.
I've specifically thought about this passage because I've realized the rare objects many covet and treasure are simply pieces of information or ideas. Put differently, the underlying motivation I see in many is not a desire to understand the world we live in but rather the desire to know a truth no one else knows and to hoard it in the same manner someone else would hoard a physical treasure or a collection of rare objects they had assembled (which I likewise believe is never in the soul's best interest).
In the conspiracy field, this tendency to covet rare objects shows itself by people latching onto a specific conspiracy that allows them to feel superior for possessing what no one else knows. This behavior becomes a problem because once they covet the idea, they will both try to push it onto others (so they can affirm the value of their idea) and lash out at anyone who challenges the value of the idea they covet.
To some extent, I believe this is a reflection of our society's historically unique decision to glorify intellectual intelligence (which I must emphasize is only one type of intelligence, and that I regularly see "smart" individuals suffer and lead miserable lives because they are deficient in the other critical forms of intelligence our society seldom emphasizes). Because of this emphasis, one of the most common ways I see people being manipulated by society is by it telling them to be "smart," they need to do something like parrot the ideas of "smart" experts (this sadly describes much of the current left). I mention this because it continually astounds me how effective this form of manipulation is.
In the previous article, I discussed "empowering vs. disempowering belief systems." I did this because people's subconscious choices to adopt disempowering belief systems (many of which are fed to them by the media) are one of the most common causes of the wide range of issues (e.g., unhappiness or lack of success in life) they experience throughout their lives.
The great challenge I've found more and more as I ponder the essence of being a conspiracy theorist is that, even though I greatly value seeking out the truth, many of the belief systems being a conspiracy theorist requires you to hold are fundamentally disempowering. For example, it does not empower you to be black-pilled about how bad everything is, even if doing so makes you feel superior over the fact everyone besides you does not realize just how bad things are.
COVID Thought Experiments
I often entertain numerous ideas and potential theories in my mind (some of which are very dark) to try and find explanations and models for what I observe occurring around me. One of the things that took me a while to realize is that my experience in this regard greatly differs from almost anyone else I've met who does this because I do not get attached to all the ideas that come to my mind in those thought experiments, whereas people typically do.
Once COVID-19 began in China in 2019, it was clear to me that the pandemic had the potential to turn into a global disaster (something that I had never felt at any previous time in my lifetime). More importantly, how it was handled was very unusual (e.g., the entire media denied any issue existed and gaslighted anyone who believed one did). This led me to conclude a decision had been made to allow it to become a global disaster.
At that point, I began trying to figure out what was actually going on and, through my thought experiments, settled on a few theories that essentially predicted what would happen over the next three years.
My next thought experiment sought to answer my biggest question when I observed the pandemic. Why was it really bad in some specific regions (e.g., Wuhan, Lombardy, New York City) but relatively minor in many others, and why did it appear so suddenly in the areas where it was so devastating? This one still bothers me because I could never find an answer that I felt confident in. Instead, the ones I found that could potentially explain what happened (e.g., it was deliberately triggered by weaponized 5G systems in those cities or harmful variants of the virus were intentionally seeded in the area) were all explanations relying upon highly speculative evidence I could simultaneously provide evidence to disprove.
Note: I consider certain EMFs to be dangerous (it's very clear if you review all of the existing literature on them), I have met countless people who are highly sensitive to them (to the point they can't function in their presence—and sometimes don't realize EMFs are the source of their health problems until you point it out) and I am somewhat sensitive to them. Because of this, I will not live in houses with Wifi, I only use low EMF phones (which are very difficult to find), on calls, I use air-gapped headphones, and I only live in rural areas that do not have cell phone towers nearby.
With 5G I have studied the science behind it, and I am aware of many reasons why it has the potential to be quite dangerous. However, I still do not know if it is, as I have not yet come across anything validating my theoretical concerns about the technology.
My next thought experiment sought to answer why the vaccines were being pushed so aggressively on the population because a lot of what was being done simply did not make sense, given how dangerous they were. The potential explanations I considered were:
•Pharmaceutical companies (and people like Bill Gates) are just that greedy, and the government is so corrupt now that it gave these predators their way.
•The mRNA therapeutic market needed to be opened up because the pharmaceutical industry had a critical need to develop new drugs that could be brought to the market, and mRNA technology made this possible.
•The alleged harm of the vaccines was used as a cover for the actual harms resulting from the deployment of 5G so that the population would eventually become normalized to the degree of sickness 5G caused across the planet.
•It was just an advertising-enabled mass formation everyone was caught up in and nothing more.
•Those in charge realized they had made a colossal mistake and hence needed to get most of the population vaccinated. This was so a large unvaccinated control group would not exist to show how dangerous the vaccines were and thus the crimes that were committed by those who mandated them.
•Someone or something with a lot of influence wanted to change the DNA of the human species. There are so many versions of this theory I cannot even begin to list all of them. One of the ones people are the most familiar with was the idea Bryan Ardis put forward in Watch the Water, where he argued that Satanic forces wanted to put snake DNA into the human genome as doing that was a direct affront to God and his temple that is inside each of us.
•Someone with a lot of influence wanted to do a trans-humanist thing to modify the species with nanotechnology.
•The vaccines were a bioweapon deployed against the Western nations by China to weaken them as they knew the design we used would be the most likely countermeasure adopted to COVID-19 (China for reference never used the mRNA vaccines).
•Mandatory vaccines were viewed as a way to track and control the species and were promoted to support that goal.
•There was an urgent need to reduce the human population, and the vaccines were designed to do that by impairing the fertility of both the current generation and their children.
The whole problem was that while I identified evidence that supported many of these contentions, and I also found evidence that cast doubt on many of them.
For example, there has been a longstanding belief amongst the ruling elite that they had a duty to keep the human population from growing too quickly, and one of my first articles here (written over a year ago) documented numerous unethical population control campaigns that it has been proven were conducted on the population (one of which was actually done by Bill Gates). Similarly, I concluded that a vaccine that could sterilize its recipients was the most feasible way to accomplish this goal. So the next article I published was one documenting all the attempts to develop a sterilizing vaccine and the known instances where sterilizing vaccines were forcefully deployed on unwilling subjects.
One of my key motivations for writing these articles was many early signs suggesting the COVID-19 vaccines would impair fertility, something we subsequently saw they are doing on an unprecedented scale worldwide.
However, despite everything I just stated, I do not believe any of it proves the COVID-19 vaccines were designed to sterilize the population. It is also entirely possible this was a consequence of a poor vaccine design that was rushed to market (which required covering up every potential issue with the vaccines). Put differently, I believe those who pushed the vaccines on the market are criminally responsible for the fertility impacts of the vaccines, but I have no idea if those actions were intentional, and I think it is impossible to prove they were based on the existing evidence.
This is a critical distinction to make because everyone else I've talked to who is aware of a significant amount of the information I used to draft those two articles covets that knowledge, is certain the population reduction effects were intentional, and often will attack people who claim it was not.
The primary conclusion I reached from looking everything over was the large number of deaths that resulted from the vaccines was not the reason for their deployment. Instead, it indicated that whatever was motivating pushing on the population was "important" enough for all the vaccine deaths to be viewed as acceptable collateral damage to accomplish that goal.
At this point, I still have no idea what that goal was. Because of this, I always watch for anything that appears to increase or decrease the probability of one of the potential explanations I put forward. Similarly, I still cannot endorse any of the potential theories I put forward earlier in this section because the evidence necessary to make that assessment simply is not there. Were it not central to the broader point I am seeking to make in this essay, I would not have shared most of them as I believe it is incredibly irresponsible to put forward speculative ideas you cannot prove because some will latch onto them and treat them as being the truth.
One of the biggest reasons ideas like the ones I listed above caught on for many was because what we saw with the COVID-19 vaccines was unprecedented, immensely confusing, and there was no coherent explanation to explain why it was being done to us. This naturally invited people to seriously consider many extremely out-there theories to explain what was happening.
Another central question I needed to answer was why the vaccines were so deadly and why they seemed to affect some much more than others. From the limited data available, I concluded the most likely explanation was that hot vaccine lots existed (e.g., in addition to the clusters of severe injuries). Colleagues and I also observed many cases where it seemed like a patient had received a saline placebo). As time progressed, evidence of these hot lots increased until it became clear to me they existed.
This then left me with a new question. Why did the hot lots exist?
The theories I came up with were as follows:
•Nanotech was being tested out in the vaccines, and when present, it made the vaccine "hot."
•The vaccine deployment was done as part of a large trial to determine what dosage of mRNA was high enough to get the intended effect but low enough not to cause unacceptable toxicity. Since a variety of doses needed to be tested, this meant those who received the higher dose effectively received "hot" lots.
•Hot lots were being deliberately released to specific areas so that individuals in those areas could be eliminated (e.g., conservative areas).
•There were significant production issues with the vaccines; as a result, some lots were much hotter than others.
Like the items in the previous section, I saw compelling evidence for each (to the point I wrote articles on some of that evidence). Similarly, as you might expect, people who came across one of the explanations frequently began to covet it and become very invested in stating it was true.
Note: At this time I believe many of the highly unusual observations people have made with the vaccines under the microscope and in the blood of vaccinated individuals are a result of the spike protein being highly effective at impairing the physiologic zeta potential of the body and it causing misfolded proteins to form.
One of the most important things I learned from formal logic was to consider the relative likelihood of each possible event when considering which explanation to stand behind.
I spent months thinking over which of the above explanations was the most likely. As time moved forward and more evidence became available, it became increasingly evident by far the most likelt explanation was that there were major production issues with the vaccines. A significant portion of the data that cemented this explanation came from the work of Craig Pardekooper's team and Ryan Cole.
•It is challenging to produce new pharmaceuticals, especially biological products, in large quantities, and being able to scale up production is often a multi-year process and often one of the most difficult parts of bringing a pharmaceutical to market. Anyone familiar with the pharmaceutical production process knew that with the currently existing technology, it was impossible for the mRNA vaccines to be produced in the quantity needed when deployed.
•To bridge the gap, countless quality control steps were skipped to speed up the production of the vaccines (all of which both the FDA and Europe's FDA, the EMA, turned a blind eye to). Because of this lack of quality control, many contaminants, such as metal fragments and dangerous bacterial DNA, ended up in the final vaccine product.
•There was immense variability in the amount of mRNA that entered the final vaccine product. This was due to the inconsistent production process, and there simply not being enough mRNA to fulfill the orders, so many vials were instead filled with saline. This was suspected for a while and was finally proven by Ryan Cole on the Highwire.
•Because the mRNA rapidly degraded, individuals who received the vaccines closer to production plants were likelier to have adverse events. Similarly, as time went on, the vaccines became less deadly. Additionally, there were almost certainly variations in the storage of the vaccine product, which caused some individuals to receive vaccines with less active mRNA.
I still think some of the other theories I've put forward are "possible," but unless new evidence emerges to support them, none are "probable." At this point, I can list thousands of compelling and revolutionary ideas I think "possible," but I feel it is irresponsible to list most of them because there is a very low threshold that needs to be met for an idea to be possible (if you arrange things correctly, you can quite literally argue anything—which was another one of the issues I often observed in the conspiracy realm).
I try to be fair on this subject and consider evidence presented for improbable ideas (whereas most people will refuse to even look at that type of evidence), but I simultaneously think if people listen to what you say, it is unethical to go any further than that (e.g., publicly endorsing for theories you cannot prove).
Note: While I still think the hot lots are a contributing factor (particularly for the severe injuries and deaths that immediately follow vaccination), I presently believe the most likely explanation for why individuals have such a variable response to the vaccines is that some people cannot form antibodies that are sufficient to neutralize the vaccine's spike protein (this was recently found to be the case in a study evaluating subjects with vaccine myocarditis).
This is particularly interesting because over a hundred years ago, many physicians with no knowledge of immunology (the discipline had not yet been created), with sound basis, concluded the exact same thing about the smallpox vaccine (one of the deadliest vaccines in history—and that a good case be made did nothing to end smallpox). They, in turn, argued that the smallpox vaccine only "worked" on individuals who could already mount an immune response to either cowpox (the vaccine) or smallpox, so the notion the vaccine worked was due not to it working but instead, it simply illustrating the vaccinated individual had a functional immune system. Conversely, the individuals who had severe reactions to the vaccine could not mount that response, and most doctors at the time interpreted it as a need for the individuals to receive more vaccines (which often had disastrous consequences).
One of the more divisive issues in our movement is if graphene oxide was deliberately added to the vaccines so that they could have nanotech applications within the human body. This has been so divisive because many people covet the knowledge they know this rare truth (that the vaccines are a secret nano-tech experiment). So, when individuals threaten this rare object by debunking the coveted knowledge, they are attacked by those who covet it.
I fully admit I was intrigued by the nanotech hypothesis. This was because it potentially answered two major questions I’d had about the vaccines.
First, it explained why so much effort was being made to push the vaccines on the population.
Secondly, it provided a means by which the vaccines could be used to kill many people (another potential reason for them being pushed on the population). The reason this was not possible to do with traditional means was that if the vaccines killed a large number of people (the number of deaths we’ve seen, while tragic, is nowhere near the amount required to significantly reduce the population), most of the population would not take them due to too many of the initial recipients dying and it being impossible to cover up. Graphene oxide provided a way to get around this issue since it could be remotely activated and become lethal once everyone had been injected.
Because of my interest in this theory, beyond researching it as much as was possible and drove long distances to meet people who allegedly became magnetic after vaccination to meet them. Additionally, after a friend told me they had seen this, I tested a lot of people to see if they emitted a Bluetooth code to see if it could be detected (I was never able to find someone who did, including in areas where no Bluetooth devices should have been present that would have masked this effect).
At the same time, I never mentioned any of this here because I could never find any substantial evidence to support the nanotech hypothesis. More importantly, it was so unscientific that mentioning it would have seriously strained my credibility for something that was not worth straining it over.
At the same time, there were also a lot of things that led me to doubt the graphene oxide hypothesis was valid. These included:
•It is very easy to misinterpret what one sees under a microscope, and I often saw people getting very upset over normal microscopic findings that were being misinterpreted.
•Despite the fact many people were certain they were seeing graphene oxide under a microscope, graphene oxide is too small to see on an optical microscope. There was a point where I seriously considered getting an electron microscope so I could verify if graphene oxide was present myself, but I never followed through with this because those microscopes are expensive and I did not feel confident I could properly use it.
•I did not think there was any possible way enough graphene oxide could be produced to get it into all the vaccines.
•The technology does not exist to do the nanotech applications (e.g., tracking us or controlling your mind) allegedly being attributed to graphene oxide. If, for some reason, it actually did, there was no way it could have been produced at the scale that would be needed for all the vaccines.
•If it was being added to the vaccines, there is no possible way someone working at a plant would not have noticed it and leaked it (especially since workers at plants leaked far less concerning observations they had).
•One of the prominent people who put forward the graphene oxide hypothesis was allegedly murdered right after he revealed this in a police raid. That is a compelling story, so that clip has gone viral and is repeatedly shared with me by readers who covet knowing the story. The problem is that when I looked into it when it first came out, I found out the police murder in question never happened, and it was a completely unrelated event being spliced onto the video.
Note: as many of the readers here feel very strongly about the subject, for those wishing to evaluate the evidence suggesting graphene oxide is indeed in the vaccines, it can be found throughout their comments on this article.
I was thus very relieved when Ryan Cole shared the definitive testing (mass spectrometry) that established graphene oxide was not in the vaccines and settled the question for me. When I later learned (from a source I have absolute confidence in) Ryan Cole has received numerous death threats for doing this, I decided I needed to write an article on this topic, even if I had to make myself look bad by sharing my entire (somewhat unscientific) thought process on this subject.
Note: in full disclosure, I have to acknowledge that I have had two patients with bizarre side effects from the COVID-19 vaccines (which I have also seen others on the corners of the internet report). I still do not have a good explanation for their experiences and they have made me open to the idea of something else being in some of the vaccines, but given just how rare cases like these are, if that is indeed the case, it only applies to a very small number of the vaccines.
Throughout my lifetime, I have seen more movements than I can count that were advancing a critical message be fractured apart, and its message fade into obscurity. Sometimes this happens because of things that naturally emerges from members of the group who care more about their own agendas than the goal of the movement, and other times it comes from bad actors who were put there to fracture the movement by taking advantage of the natural human tendencies that break movements apart.
Because of this, since a lot of people listen to what I say, one of my main goals on here has been to do everything I can to prevent that fracturing from happening in our movement (which I believe is one of the most important things for humanity at this point in time).
This is why I always compliment people who are making a positive contribution to fixing this disaster. More importantly, even when people do their best to push me to, I never attack anyone who I know is trying to help fix the mess we are in, and I do my best to encourage readers in the comments not to make those attacks either.
One of the common issues I observe is individuals coveting a piece of “rare” knowledge which casts our movement in a terrible light. Because they covet this object however, those individuals attack anyone who points out it is not good for our movement to promote it. For example, many people have accused of me of being brainwashed by my medical training, working for Pfizer, or being a deep state plant because I’ve been very adamant that while it was exaggerated in many cases, I firmly believe COVID-19 exists and that, in some cases, the virus was highly deadly.
Because of how commonly this came up by those who wanted to possess this rare truth rather than attack anyone, I made an effort to settle this diplomatically (here and here), and for the most part it worked (which may have been partly due to the fact I actually agreed with some of the arguments they were using to make their case).
The reason I took so much time to do this was not because I cared if people disagreed with me but rather because I was really worried about how endorsing that message would make those opposed to vaccines look to the general public. This was because not believing viruses like COVID-19 existed was equivalent in many people’s eyes to believing the earth was flat, and therefore meant that everything we said should be dismissed and not taken seriously.
Note: Igor Chudov later discovered the idea COVID-19 did not exist was a psy-op that was deliberately injected into our movement to fracture it.
This is the same situation with the graphene oxide issue. Throughout the pandemic, rather than listening to the legitimate objections we put forward, those opposed to the vaccines were often viewed as lunatics who thought Bill Gates was trying to use the vaccines to microchip the world (which was not technologically feasible). For example, this exchange was revealed in leaked WhatsApp messages with England’s Secretary of Health (who decided much of England’s vaccine policy), Matt Hancock:
When Mr Hancock confirmed that he had spoken to him, Mr Poole said: "No promises but I’m trying to land a Bill Gates endorsement of the platform"
In response, the Health Secretary joked: "Tell him that considering how many people I’m getting his chips injected into, he owes me one!"
All of this is so frustrating because we already have a very strong case against the COVID vaccines, which we can provide the science to support and frame in a way most of the public (and those in positions of authority) can grasp and agree with. Similarly, I know many prominent figures in the movement (e.g., Ryan Cole) are fully aware of this and are trying to do everything they can to direct our talking points toward strong arguments that can be scientifically proven, all the while being attacked by many within our movement for doing this.
Because of how strong the case we already have is, it is continuing to make headway and be heard by more and more people (e.g., recently, many of the prominent figures in our movement spoke before Europe’s parliament and shared many of the messages we have been working for the last three years to expose). However, because of the division in our movement and the fact that we’ve been associated with numerous beliefs the general public will only find ridiculous, this has taken a lot longer than it had to, and many have suffered as a result.
Throughout my life, I’ve felt very strongly about freedom of speech, and I make a point to do everything I can to avoid censoring people here. For example, recently, I shared the suffering my family experienced in the Holocaust because one of the ways the Nazis killed the Jews was by banning them from all medical care, and there were many eerie parallels between that and how the medical system treated the unvaccinated during COVID-19.
A few of the comments I received to that article essentially were: “I am surprised by your ignorance on this issue. The Holocaust was a hoax that didn’t happen, and you should know the Jews deserved what was done to them.” I freely admit, given that I’ve spoken to blood relatives who lived through that nightmare, this comment is one of the few I’ve received on here that got to me. Nonetheless, because of my commitment to free speech, I let them say what they wanted to without deleting any of it and just gently encouraged them to be a better person.
When I was younger, I always tried to help people (periodically over-investing myself in situations I should not have). I also was very liberal with speaking my mind and saying what I thought people needed to hear. Over time, I gradually learned this was not always a good idea because things I thought were good for people to hear (or they needed to hear) were not because it opened up scars inside them they were not yet ready to open, and that the ways they reacted to that opening ultimately harmed them.
Once I became a doctor, I realized I had to be much more careful with what I said to patients. They would often take innocuous things I said to heart and hold onto them for years, and I had to start really thinking about the long-term effects of things I initially assumed were relatively benign to state. Given my desire to be open and candid with people, this was quite difficult to navigate, and to this day, I deeply regret some of the things I told patients I thought at the time would help them to hear.
To some extent, I am happy I struggled through that process because suddenly gaining a voice many people listen to on here is the same situation I faced with my patients, but much more challenging and with much higher stakes. I have to spend a lot of time trying to catch anything erroneous in an article I put out (e.g., I am quite mad at myself for citing a source in the previous article which greatly overestimated how much money is spent globally on statins). I also spend a lot of time thinking about how messages I put out here will ripple out and affect those who read them (which is really challenging), because the stakes we are facing right now with this vaccine disaster are huge, and saying the wrong thing has real consequences.
At this point, I firmly believe many of the leading figures in this movement are in the exact position I am in; they want to do everything they can to support this movement, and they feel they have a responsibility not to censor others but also not to let bad ideas take root that will derail our movement. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen nasty allegations or threats (e.g., consider Ryan Cole’s experience) be thrown at them because they did not support an idea a segment of this community supported (or was commercially invested in). In that regard, it feels unfair to me that I can do what they are trying to do and not have to be subject to the blowback they receive for doing the right thing since I am in the somewhat unique position of being anonymous but listened to.
The point I am trying to get at is that it’s OK to have very out-there ideas; I’ve shared some of mine here today, and those only scratch the surface of my world. However, what’s important is to consider exactly what the effect of sharing those ideas with others and whether your desire to share them comes from a desire to promote good or a need to covet the rare idea you possess. If it is the latter, it is tough to not be blinded by that need and lose the clarity to see what is really in the greatest good for everyone.
For those wishing to learn more on this subject, a few of the other points I believe are very important for navigating the overwhelming amount of lies and half truths that now surround us are covered in part two of this series:
The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.