Forbes - Innovation

Graphene Oxide In Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccines? Here Are The Latest Unsupported Claims

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).

Yet, there are now claims circulating that the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine is around 99% graphene oxide. This despite the fact that graphene oxide does not appear on either the FDA or CDC list. For example, an Instagram post included the following statement: “99% Graphene Oxide in Pfizer V4X? Spanish scientists obtain vial of Pfizer v4xin3 and find that 98-99%.” In this case, “V4X” presumably is shorthand for “vaccine” rather than “vagina for your ex.”  

The post indicated 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 Ruby.” Ruby claimed that over 99% of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine consists of graphene oxide and that “There’s no other reason for this to be in here except to murder people.”

Murder people? The Covid-19 vaccine is being used to murder people? You can’t just slip in the word “murder” without offering more explanation or evidence. Imagine telling someone, “I had a great dinner with you, except for when you tried to murder me” or “my boss is OK, except for the whole murder thing.”

Here’s a Tweet thread that featured the aforementioned Ruby spouting such viewpoints:

MORE FOR YOU

As you can, @PunchyMr pointed out that Ruby has doctorate in psychology not medicine. That’s even though Ruby lists on her Twitter profile “Medical Expert”:

The word “medical expert” is not something that you can just throw out there. It’s not like saying that you are an “asparagus petting” expert. If you position yourself as a medical expert, what you say can really affect people’s health. What degrees, training, and experience does Ruby has? Well, Ruby’s website has the following description: “Dr. Jane Ruby is a Washington DC health economist and New Right political pundit with fascinating conservative insights and breaking news in the world of New Media!” Does that sound like a “medical expert”?

The post mentioned Spanish scientists without specifying their qualifications or presenting their data for the scientific community to review. Beware of anyone offering the word “scientists” without much more details on why anyone should believe them. If you had a basketball game that you had to win, would you rely on a stranger telling you that she has assembled a bunch of “players”? There would be no guarantee of how well they could actually play basketball. In fact, it could be just a bunch of people not interested in monogamy, which won’t help you win the basketball game.

Other social media posts have mentioned a “Spanish lab” too:

“Spanish lab” may sound official but is meaningless without more details and clarification. The word “lab” is vague and could refer to a lot of different things, including a dog. A Labrador Retriever in Spain testing vaccines would have very different implications.

Keep in mind that vaccines are a lot more highly regulated than things like dietary supplements and various foods and beverages. Imagine what would happen if Pfizer were to not include a key ingredient, especially one that comprised 99% of the vaccine, on the ingredient lists submitted to the FDA and CDC. Such an omission could put Pfizer at major legal risk and jeopardize their entire business. The FDA also conducts periodic evaluations of the manufacturing processes involved in producing the vaccines. So slipping in an undeclared ingredient wouldn’t be that easy? Besides, what would be the purpose? Murder?

If there is real concern about what is going into any products in general, 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.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button