The Science Analyst Offers an Alternative Explanation for the Nanotechnology EMF Assembly Hypothesis
The Science Analyst Offers an Alternative Explanation for the Nanotechnology EMF Assembly Hypothesis
Make Substack Great Again
The Science Analyst Offers an Alternative Explanation for the Nanotechnology EMF Assembly Hypothesis
Dr. Aseem Malhotra Statue Fund Executive Summary:
Enchiladas continue to be an underestimated and formidable force in the ongoing Mexican Food Rankings
The Mystery to Solve: Do the Experimental mRNA Herd Culling Injections contain Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles which assemble in the body in response to Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMF)?
It is a theory that I have heard espoused for a while now.
Recently, Maria Zee ran an interview with Dr. David Nixon unveiling some video footage of purported nanotechnology assembly under a microscope. Nixon suggests this assembly process appears to be reliant on, or related to, exposure to EMF.
My quick post and the source video in full are here:
I put it out there for discussion and rebuttal.
I got some.
Which is excellent.
I want to know what is real. I want to know what is real.
The Science Analyst graciously offered up some expertise and contradicting explanations, which I print now in full.
Thank you, Analyst!
The Science Analyst
Sorry for long answer, but here is my full description. This stuff is poison, but for far different reasons than what is said in the video. He is clearly a beginner in microscope analysis. Not meant as an insult, but as an encouragement to study more of what is really going on.
I see a short video of crystals moving around. According to Nixon this is nano-tech (because it moves?). And later he talks about 5G network. Something I know about. I designed chips and this needs a 1M-transistor chip, huge antenna and a battery system. Very easily to see, even with the naked eye, and very visible under a microscope. So technically there is no reason to think that a moving crystal can do that. Clearly something else is going on. But let me explain it even in more detail:
You can see movements like this in most microscope slides, because the heating of the lamps under the microscope cause movement of fluids. And can cause crystals to grow or dissolve. These reactions are very temperature dependent, and every chemist know this. Sometimes we even have biological life on the slides. Solution: Get real experts instead of beginners. You can even see videos on youtube about crystal growth and learn about it. There are many different crystals. Some really look very similar. Ever seen a snow-crystal grow? Looks like a circuit too.
Check out cholesterol crystals. They are square and circuit like. This is probably a variant of that chemical (Lipid from the LNPs?). You can find the crystals on google. There must be some experts in that can help with that. There are also experts in chemistry that know what crystals are formed under the microscope and can recognize what materials they are.
About nano-tech. -> I can guarantee you that there is absolutely no advanced nano-tech in the shown slides. None. For all of the following reasons: (1) Nano-tech can not self-assemble, but requires a machine that is as big as a house just to get the accuracy working. With sterile clean room, and 100% pure materials and careful quality controls. So not a living body in a polluted environment. (2) Nano-tech needs many wires and circuits to perform a simple function. And power. And a control system. There are none there. And for 5G (or Bluetooth) you even need millions and a huge antenna. (3) Nano-tech as promoted in lectures and patents are just science fiction, which are meant to collect funds. In practice they only get extreme simple tasks working with careful control in a lab. You can check that easily if you follow the link to the real-world demonstrations. They move a spiral around in the body using huge magnetic fields. It is like making a puppet move by having your hand inside it. Does this make the puppet smart or alive? No it is just the same stupid puppet. (4) Circuits need to be exactly 100% correct. And to perform functions they have millions of wires and transistors. One slight miss and it is completely broken.
They are injecting harmful artificial virus-like objects, causing long term havoc in the body. Combined with all kinds of other toxic ingredients to keep it stored (like anti-freeze). And chemicals that "activate" your immune system or actually damage it. There should not be any solid components in the injections either. It is all one toxic mixture, but there is no nano-tech in any of these videos (and I saw 90% of them).
Conclusion: There is absolutely no way something like that can self-assemble in the body. Big machines are necessary to project the circuits onto the chemical layers in 100s of 100% pure chemical processes. If something self-assembles it can only be a basic chemical or biological process.
On a positive note: I look forward to see exactly what chemical and biological processes are going on, but it is not "self-assembling nano-tech". And such theories make it far too easy for Pfizer and Gates.
Maybe we should all share videos and images of things that look similar. That might help a lot to understand what we are looking at.
see also:
Sage Postscript
So this was excellent and compelling. Thank you, Science Analyst.
I am interested in rebuttals to rebuttals and alternative theories and “Why Not Both?” paradigm busting explanations as well.
Yes, this is messy.
Yes, people get pissed off.
Yes, people go the Social Engineering Stop Looking under that Rock route.
*Note: I’m not going to stop looking under rocks. Take that to the bank.
So be it.
It’s not like The Science and The Experts don’t have wildly diverging views and seem to be largely incapable of admitting ever that they got something wrong.
(Or been co-opted, or gleefully trampled into the Operation, for…reasons.)
That’s a problem.
I want to know what is going on. That’s really it.
GPS was invented and used in Vietnam in the early 1960’s. The science was not introduced to the general public until the late 1990’s. DARPA technology is usually at least 40 years ahead of the accepted science at any given time. Annie Jacobsons book “The Pentagons Brain” documents DARPA’s history meticulously.
It was a damn good discussion. Wish I wasn’t late to the comments.
I learned a lot, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m throwing anything out, yet. Just rearranging my rankings spreadsheet.