The claim

A scientific paper is said to show that there were contaminants in the blood of 94 percent of the people examined after a COVID-19 vaccination.

Our conclusion

Not only is the examination method completely unsuitable, but the paper also has so many gaps that it was rightly never published in a medical journal.

Undoubtedly, if you look at the photos of the blood examined, there appear to be other objects between the blood cells. The only problem: Even the three Italian researchers, whose work did not appear in a scientific journal but as a supplement to a magazine, do not know and simply assume that it is graphene oxide from the COVID-19 vaccinations.

The claim

The article on the “Free Vaccination Decision” page (archived HERE ) is shared in relevant circles, in which it is said that the blood of 1006 symptomatic people was examined under a dark field microscope after vaccination and it was found that in the blood of 948 people (94 percent) there were abnormalities, such as clumps.

The article is also shared on Facebook
The article is also shared on Facebook

To be fair, the article also mentions one of the biggest shortcomings of the work: only 12 of the 1,006 people had their blood examined with a darkfield microscope before vaccination. Apparently the blood of these 12 people was “normal” before the vaccination.

The blood of a 33-year-old before and after a vaccination according to the work
The blood of a 33-year-old before and after a vaccination according to the work ( source )

The photos above should show that the red blood cells are no longer spherical and clump together after vaccination.

What is a darkfield microscope?

What you are probably all familiar with is brightfield microscopy: For example, a drop of blood is pressed between two microscope slides and illuminated from below using a mirror or a small lamp.

With dark field microscopy, the object is illuminated from the side rather than from below in order to be able to better see finer contours. This method is useful for opaque objects where only the outer contours would otherwise be visible.

Doubtful application of the method

However, this method is also used for other purposes, which is scientifically unproven: A simple Google search for “dark field microscopy” shows that alternative practitioners in particular like to promote this method in order to supposedly be able to detect all kinds of diseases, including cancer, from a fresh drop of blood .

The fact that darkfield analysis is unsuitable demonstrated in 2019, for example , when alternative practitioners were supposed to examine the blood of sick and healthy people with a darkfield microscope and diagnose their diseases - but despite the alternative practitioners' "years of experience", they diagnosed incorrectly in most cases, explained Healthy people are considered to have cancer and cancer patients are considered completely healthy.

For conventional blood tests, dried blood is required, which is colored and pressed between two microscope slides in order to be able to recognize transparent objects such as erythrocytes and leukocytes. Blood components can also be separated for individual analysis by prior centrifugation.

However, during live blood testing with a dark-field microscope, as was also used to examine vaccinated people, a drop of blood is taken directly, covered with a cover slip to prevent premature drying out, and the image from the microscope is then displayed on a television screen .

The problem of live blood testing with a darkfield microscope

Quackwatch site dealt in great detail with live blood testing using a darkfield microscope and the claims made about it by chiropractors and alternative practitioners. What’s interesting is that their article appeared in January 2019, long before COVID-19 and the first vaccinations.

Among other things, it was found that during live blood tests with a darkfield microscope by alternative practitioners, they often detect exactly the same apparent clumps of blood as the three Italian scientists found - and then, for example, high doses of expensive "food supplements" can be prescribed.

But other impurities were also often found during live blood tests, and quite often:

  • Often no measures were taken to prevent the blood from drying out or clotting
  • Microscope slides have often not been cleaned thoroughly beforehand so that no foreign bodies get into the drop of blood
  • Some apparent foreign bodies in the blood turned out to be normal blood components when the focus was corrected

In summary, the devastating result was that a live blood test with a darkfield microscope is not suitable for correctly detecting diseases or foreign bodies in the blood - even less if there is not even a recording, but only an image of it.

The further negligence of the work

We have now gone into detail about the fact that the test method used alone is absolutely inadequate to detect alleged graphene oxide in the blood of vaccinated people. This is the paper's biggest oversight, but not the only one :

  • It did not appear in any specialist journal, but as a supplement called “ Disinfechtion ” of the magazine “ Natural Doctet ,” a magazine about medicine, health, nutrition, wellness, tourism and culture
  • An English version appeared in the “ International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research (IJVTPR) ” – also not a recognized medical journal and not listed National Library of Medicine .
  • Two members of the IJVTPR are said to have peer-reviewed the paper and recognized it as correct, but Italian journalists discovered that it was a married couple who are close to the anti-vaccination scene
  • There was no double-blind study
  • Not all types of artifacts were excluded
  • The paper is very judgmental, for example the vaccines are repeatedly referred to as a “concoction”.
  • Only 12 people had their blood examined before vaccination, the paper only shows photos of the examination of 4 of the 12 - absolutely insufficient to draw conclusions about the total of 948 people with “abnormalities in the blood”.
  • The samples with the mysterious “Structure 7” in the photos, which are claimed to be iron oxide nanoparticles, have never been examined multiple times, no contamination has been ruled out, and the phases of the process are not traceable or traceable

Conclusion

The widespread results of the paper are not worth the paper on which it was written:
not only is the research method completely unsuitable, but the paper also has so many gaps that it was rightly never published in a medical journal.

Article image: Pixabay
Additional source: dpa , Open

Also interesting:

There is a persistent claim that the COVID-19 vaccines contain graphene oxide.
However, there is no evidence of this. – No, Covid-19 vaccines do not contain graphene oxide!


If you enjoyed this post and value the importance of well-founded information, become part of the exclusive Mimikama Club! Support our work and help us promote awareness and combat misinformation. As a club member you receive:

📬 Special Weekly Newsletter: Get exclusive content straight to your inbox.
🎥 Exclusive video* “Fact Checker Basic Course”: Learn from Andre Wolf how to recognize and combat misinformation.
📅 Early access to in-depth articles and fact checks: always be one step ahead.
📄 Bonus articles, just for you: Discover content you won't find anywhere else.
📝 Participation in webinars and workshops : Join us live or watch the recordings.
✔️ Quality exchange: Discuss safely in our comment function without trolls and bots.

Join us and become part of a community that stands for truth and clarity. Together we can make the world a little better!

* In this special course, Andre Wolf will teach you how to recognize and effectively combat misinformation. After completing the video, you have the opportunity to join our research team and actively participate in the education - an opportunity that is exclusively reserved for our club members!


Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )