Sorry but I can't see an actual lab report in that article, just that someone tweeted that an anonymous third-party "laboratory" alleged that a vial of Pfizer covid "vaccine" was 99% graphene oxide. It just doesn't rise to the level of facts.
The presence of trade secret ingredients would contradict the MHRA specifically saying "there are no trade secret ingredients". So now they must be lying about that, not just the ingredients.
If 99% of the product were graphene oxide it would literally be a different product, there wouldn't be room for what they claim should be in it and it would fail the chemical testing that some regulators do on the batches (unless they're using their top-secret internal ingredients list). But it wouldn't even pass a visual inspection (would it even still be in solution at that point?):
The EMA describes the Pfizer product as "the vaccine is a white to off-white frozen dispersion (pH: 6.9 - 7.9)."
Whereas "the graphene oxide aqueous solution is usually of yellowish to brown color. However, if the graphene oxide got somewhat reduced, its color will become black, always with degenerated solubility as well."
Maybe you could argue that a negligible amount might be there but it seems like kind of a big deal to lie about 99% of the substance. Wouldn't somebody notice? What's the point? More likely to just have no active ingredient.
There are enough problems with the vaccine and mandates that I don't know what is the point of random unprovable and undisprovable claims. If you're willing to believe that it's made of random other substances then there might never be a standard that you would accept for believing that anything is not adulterated. How can you prove that they haven't replaced all the cows with GMO cows that produce 99% graphene oxide milk?
The presence of trade secret ingredients would contradict the MHRA specifically saying "there are no trade secret ingredients". So now they must be lying about that, not just the ingredients.
If 99% of the product were graphene oxide it would literally be a different product, there wouldn't be room for what they claim should be in it and it would fail the chemical testing that some regulators do on the batches (unless they're using their top-secret internal ingredients list). But it wouldn't even pass a visual inspection (would it even still be in solution at that point?):
The EMA describes the Pfizer product as "the vaccine is a white to off-white frozen dispersion (pH: 6.9 - 7.9)."
Whereas "the graphene oxide aqueous solution is usually of yellowish to brown color. However, if the graphene oxide got somewhat reduced, its color will become black, always with degenerated solubility as well."
Maybe you could argue that a negligible amount might be there but it seems like kind of a big deal to lie about 99% of the substance. Wouldn't somebody notice? What's the point? More likely to just have no active ingredient.
There are enough problems with the vaccine and mandates that I don't know what is the point of random unprovable and undisprovable claims. If you're willing to believe that it's made of random other substances then there might never be a standard that you would accept for believing that anything is not adulterated. How can you prove that they haven't replaced all the cows with GMO cows that produce 99% graphene oxide milk?