It was the Helsinki thing that the oligarchy totally ignored, And yes they got away with it, just like big Pharma has gotten away with a lot of stuff, but as you know it's all coming to a head NOW. I BELIEVE IN OUR PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, AND WILL CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR MIRACLES SO THEY ARE ABLE TO SEE BOTH SIDES AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS FOR OUR FUTURE❤️
Wow, I'm glad you take good notes and you have a good background in sci-fi, literature and movies. Hope I can find a condensed version of this as I've got better things to read about , no offense. But I am glad that you addressed the issue and waited through the communications that were made during the interview? It's Galant that you took your time to decipher and to try and be fair about it🤗 we can always learn lessons from all situations❤️
We do not have to completely understand a thing to know that it is dangerous. I remember trying to figure out parallel processing errors on complex financial derivatives, but weird errors kept appearing. At the end, we discovered that certain machines generated the error. We labeled those with a big X. The admin staff thought we, their bosses, had lost our minds. Years later, this floating point error in specific computer chips was revealed.
If we had wasted time and energy fussing with the source of the error, instead of working around it and identifying the path around it, we never have finished. And we’d have lost tens of millions of dollars.
With so much massive damage to humanity being done by big pharma and the AMA, why fuss with people whose theories are not hurting anyone? Robots, nano bots, Bluetooth, whatever, it doesn’t matter.
When antibiotic resistant genes are tagged with fluorescence, the movement of the pathogens does resemble that of a weird robot, btw.
I think it very prudent to listen to those who have the gold and control large parts of society. Listening to him when he said he could use vaccines to lower the worlds population was very prudent.
Bluetooth only has a very short range. About ten metres. Bluetooth 5.0 will be up to 100 meters. So it’s actually quite easy to test if a person is emitting a Bluetooth signal. Just take that person into the middle of a deserted park with no one else in sight and you’ll get reliable results as long as you tell them to leave their Bluetooth devices at home. As the range is only 10 metres, direction of the signal is irrelevant. In this setup type of scenario, if you pick up a signal, you can be confident the Bluetooth signal is coming from that person. Same with graveyards. If there’s no one else in the graveyard, and you detect a Bluetooth signal, that signal is only ten metres away from you, however I doubt the ability to detect a Bluetooth signal that has 6 feet of dirt in the way.
It’s a psyop to you because Sasha told you it was. Farming out your thinking to others who have also never looked down a microscope to investigate the alleged nanobots. You are basing your speculation on avoiding research
No, some bluetooth signals can reach as far as 240m (5.3 for sure). Bluetooth 4 has a max range of 60m alone. It depends on the class and power of the device.
It is not easy to test if someone is emitting a signal especially with an omni-directional antenna, a potentially low duty cycle and the huge discrepancy of signal strengths.
People also have to realize that cell phones are not accurate measurement devices. There is a lot of software between the actual signal and what you're seeing on your screen. They were not designed for the purposes of detecting and accurately measuring radio signals even though they can be used (or misused) as a brute force measurement device.
So just go somewhere outside the range of other people. My Bluetooth on my phone certainly has a very short range. I can’t detect me neighbours phones or Bluetooth devices at all. None of them. Yet they are all within 50 feet of me.
If 240 metres is your benchmark then just isolate yourself with another person so that no one is within 240 metres of you. Crikey George, you’re an engineer, I thought you would have figured out that solution
That could have far more to do with the materials between you and their signal, or even the low strength of the signals being emitted.
240meter radius gives you 180,000 square meters. Certainly in my city it is impossible to find an EMF quiet place that large.
I also have proper meters with directional antennas, so I could do the experiment properly, and even then I would want to do it in a shielded place to rule out reflections etc. I would use remove all phones and devices, I would use a single computer with a good antenna to decode any bluetooth signal, and then I would use my 2.4GHz meters with directional antenna to measure the precise location of emission.
IMO that is the only credible way to do the experiment.
And yes, you would have to do a long study with controls meaning I would want to measure zero signals for at least an hour in my chosen location with me present.
Now, if someone in my city, has a good location, and they have a person they think is emitting a signal from a vaccine, then I'd be game to spend multiple hours setting it up and running the test properly.
I'm not making the claim of bluetooth. I also don't have anyone vaccinated in the household. I am claiming that of all of the evidence I've viewed (hours and hours), not one of the cases do people do the experiment properly nor do they seem to understand the basics about Bluetooth itself.
The Spanish folks allowed people to carry their phones around outside but well within bluetooth range while they were doing their "experiments"! (in that movie Bluetruth)
That doesn't even touch on the fact that there is no rational explanation for what the bluetooth signal is doing. A bluetooth beacon (which is what your phone is picking up) does nothing other than advertise. First, why would they advertise (with beacons) if they were trying to secretly do something?
Even worse, there is not a single plausible explanation for how a working microchip -- let alone battery power -- can be assembled out of a fluid. Even creating a bluetooth beacon requires complex signal processing, requiring a microchip with memory, and an antenna! There is not any published science, nor any demonstration that I've seen that comes even remotely close to accomplishing that. The smallest electronic devices I've seen are still visible to the eye (very small) but perform only the most basic of functions (RFIDs). They certainly can't talk bluetooth. I'll note that microchips are not even made from graphene though it can be used to make an antenna.
Lastly, as Sasha points out, there is no plausible explanation for what the bluetooth beacon's purpose is. Bluetooth can't talk to the internet on it's own. It can only pair with another bluetooth device that wants to pair with it. Only then can it communicate any information and it's not talking to the internet. The receiving device could talk to the internet, but how is this all working? And what information would these things be communicating?
Not one part of this theory makes any sense when you drill into the technology details.
People also seem to forget that a lot of people have 2-3 bluetooth devices on them: PHone, watch, and headphones. That doesn't even touch on the fact that most cars have it, and pacemakers.
Battery power is easy to come by in the human body. We are electrical beings and many have galvanic reactions happening on top of that. I’m going to keep watching this and see where it concludes. Because an answer will be forthcoming eventually. Just because someone may not see any plausible explanation, that may change further down the track. Information from the imagination of people is not always so reliable because of this
Dr Yoho - i wanted to express my appreciation for your forum, for what you provide and the way you provide it, also particularly the info about CDS and your post on eye therapies - so far i have only brushed the surface of your work. Thank you..
I'm glad you didn't trash the interview, it was interesting regarding the thought processes involved, though it does make me pretty cautious about his expertise in CD. I really enjoy and learn much from your posts.
Dear Yoho, the part of CD from this doctor is very good, the full interview would be interesting. I agree the discussiond on the robots sounds like too much, and I cant judge the microscope findings. However, on the MAC, I still now and then check in my phone and find all these unidentified MAC addresses, for example, during a flight, where everybody should be on flight mode, but in addition to the watches and earpods, etc, there are like 100 other MAC addresses, not one or two...still maybe there is an explanation to that? But what about the cemetery? I'm going to test that personally, just out of curiosity, just to discard or not this theory completely. It has to be a cemetery out of town and with no people (Alive😂), just you and your phone. Can you ask George if that is a valid test? In my view there should be no signals.
I think substack must be overwhelmed - replies to my comments no longer show up in my inbox, and their DM system has been VERY unreliable for at least 5 months (and unreliable is a charitable description). Don't count on any messages getting through their DM.
i don't - but sometimes someone DMs me with a private msg - i have discovered that a great proportion of my replies to them NEVER got through (and those are just the ones i know of!) and i can only guess how many of their responses back also never got through. Thus i do not consider it reliable at all. Users beware.
It still remains frightening, and I am not easily scared. Of course I did not get the shot, nor did any of my children or grandchildren. And I wouldn’t sleep with a vaccinated man or drink out of his glass. These are sensible solutions…. but we cannot control what they’re doing in our skies. We can’t stop them from releasing the GMO mosquitoes. And the GMO corn seeds and wheat seeds have polluted the ground for I don’t know how many hundreds of years. The graphine oxide when you go to the dentist. I’ve heard there’s some graphine oxide somehow in the air in airplanes. I have no proof of that. The mRNA shots that they inject in pigs and next into cattle. I do kno farmers who refuse those shots. I do buy everything organic or grow it myself. But the way they’ve taken over the entire earth and in the skies and everything else makes it extremely difficult to avoid this vaccine shedding. And whether or not these “robots” in the blood of vaccinated, people are growing and expanding, and can be controlled from one main central tower is true, I seriously don’t want to take the chance. There are millions of people who feel the same way as I do.
We had bizarre rain here on Friday. It wouldn't wipe off my windshield without using fluid. (No it wasn't dirt!) Saturday I woke up very sick. Could be a coincidence but I doubt it. You are correct. We are being targeted on multiple levels.
I side w/ nanobot technology is real, Dr. Sam is likely correct. If 3,000 years old acupuncture technology can not be explained today, then why should i believe in your Western Science de-bunking? Dr Yoho, get over yourself
Nanobot technology is something we created -- as compared to acupuncture on the human body -- and thus anyone having expertise in that sort of technology should be able to explain it.
All of the evidence is implication based on storytelling and even the, the story is full of holes.
In cases such as this, I would suggest that believing in that sort of narrative will likely lead one far from reality.
At last count there were 35 teams around the world looking into nanotech in the vaccines. Four of those in New Zealand. Bill Gates has confirmed publicly that there are self assembling nanotech in his moderna jabs. I cannot discount any claims until I get another explanation for it that makes more sense.
Remember too, your biologics testing showed you are currently having a hypersensitivity reaction to aluminium. Because it comes from your implants, there is no way of detoxifying it from the body as it will just keep pulling more aluminium ions from the implants. They are permanent antigen producers. Healing cannot begin until toxins are dealt with. If any of your symptoms are malfunctions of the autonomic system then you’re likely having a hypersensitivity reaction to titanium also.
I want to know precisely what he said, and in what context. Precision is really important in these matters since the language of technology is not nearly precise enough. For example the vaccines have "nanotechnology" which simply means small things -- i.e. lipid nanoparticles
Hi Dr Yoho, Mark sent me the video. There is an understandable confusion about the terminology.
Bill Gates absolutely talks about Nanotechnology. In this particular case, he's referring to the Lipid Nanoparticles. The self assembling refers to the following:
"When mixed in aqueous solutions, these lipid components spontaneously arrange themselves into spherical nanostructures due to their amphiphilic nature."
"Amphiphilic refers to chemical compounds that possess both hydrophilic (water-loving, polar) and lipophilic (fat-loving, nonpolar) properties."
So it's a chemical arrangement of small lipid particles. This is the patent which describes the (chemical) technology they used in the vaccines. Bill Gates is referring to the technology as easy to manufacture because of these properties. He never talks about nanobots -- which are a different kind of nanotechnology, as different as chemistry is to physics or electronics. He is definitely not talking about nanoelectronics which is what would be required in order to create a bluetooth transmitter.
(it is notable Trivia that Moderna and 5 other parties are disputing the patent in question)
I think there are a lot of people that are preying on folks who don't know a lot about technology, and aren't able to differentiate between the terms being used. People hear nanotechnology and because of all the movies assume it's self assembling mini-robots.
Nano only means a specific size but the term is used many different ways. For example, a nano router is pocket sized, and the nano being a marketing term, not a scientific one. This is common when companies make small versions of a popular product to call it nano, even though it's not really nano by the scientific definition (matter manipulated in one dimension from 1 - 100 nanometers). In other words extremely small.
I think the whole bluetooth/vaccine thing is all intentional deception.
And the moderna patent also mentions self assembling nanotech. I’m just pointing out evidence. If there is indeed nanotech in the modRNA jabs, then it would fit in rather conveniently with the internet of bodies plan.
Was it a patent for the existing vaccines or simply one of their many patents?
Can you provide a link to the one you're referring to?
I'm pretty sure the nanotechnology in the vaccines was actually patented by BionTEch, not moderna. That's why they all have to pay them licenses for every single vaccine.
Synchronistically, before reading this post, I spent the morning watching the Omniwar Symposium, with Patrick Wood, David A. Hughes and others, hosted by Catherine Austin Fitts. The speakers discussed decades of military research, a part of which is available online, developing the nano/bio revolution. I can't speak to the validity of Dr. Milhalcea's work, but it is clear from what I learned today that the government is very interested in injecting things into our bodies, much like what you've ridiculed. I think it unwise to underestimate their nefariousness. https://www.technocracy.news/omniwar/
I was sent a 5 hour video and I suspect it was the same thing you just described. I think Hughes was largely credible UNTIL he got into the technology portion. Unless they're engineers, most researchers are not technologists and I see a common pattern where they make gross errors in assumption as soon as they step out of their area of expertise.
There were some blatant errors in Hughes' slides about 5G and related technologies. If you listen carefully he even admits he knows little about it and that part was mostly speculation. The other speakers had no expertise in technology, including Fitts who I like. I find she also makes bad assumptions on the technology side.
These arguments are all based on the idea that the military has technology far more advanced than they let on. However, these folks probably find basic cell phone technology vastly more complex than they can understand, so their assumptions about what is possible is literally skewed by ignorance of technology. As a technologist, I find none of these assumptions remotely credible or plausible.
Patents and "interest in developing" do not mean current reality. CAF is a science fiction fan, and that gives me pause. I do not follow her; my time is reserved for people like Latypova, whose credibility is unquestioned. I spent my 50 plus hours on the good doctor Ana, and she came up short, to put the nicest possible spin on her.
It was the Helsinki thing that the oligarchy totally ignored, And yes they got away with it, just like big Pharma has gotten away with a lot of stuff, but as you know it's all coming to a head NOW. I BELIEVE IN OUR PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, AND WILL CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR MIRACLES SO THEY ARE ABLE TO SEE BOTH SIDES AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS FOR OUR FUTURE❤️
Wow, I'm glad you take good notes and you have a good background in sci-fi, literature and movies. Hope I can find a condensed version of this as I've got better things to read about , no offense. But I am glad that you addressed the issue and waited through the communications that were made during the interview? It's Galant that you took your time to decipher and to try and be fair about it🤗 we can always learn lessons from all situations❤️
If there are no nano- bots, then why is there so much information about them when you look up the word and the technology?
psyop like most of Wikipedia
We do not have to completely understand a thing to know that it is dangerous. I remember trying to figure out parallel processing errors on complex financial derivatives, but weird errors kept appearing. At the end, we discovered that certain machines generated the error. We labeled those with a big X. The admin staff thought we, their bosses, had lost our minds. Years later, this floating point error in specific computer chips was revealed.
If we had wasted time and energy fussing with the source of the error, instead of working around it and identifying the path around it, we never have finished. And we’d have lost tens of millions of dollars.
With so much massive damage to humanity being done by big pharma and the AMA, why fuss with people whose theories are not hurting anyone? Robots, nano bots, Bluetooth, whatever, it doesn’t matter.
When antibiotic resistant genes are tagged with fluorescence, the movement of the pathogens does resemble that of a weird robot, btw.
because these are psych ops designed to dishearten us. I'm trying to train people to discern them and cast them aside
Here is the link to the video of gates admitting they have self assembling nanotech in them.
https://open.substack.com/pub/gregreese/p/bill-gates-admits-the-shots-contain?r=1e6k8r&utm_medium=ios
Once you have been lied to by someone, never pay any attention to them again. Tattoo this on your forearm dude
I’ve lived my whole life under that motto. Probably a big reason I don’t have lots of friends lol
I think it very prudent to listen to those who have the gold and control large parts of society. Listening to him when he said he could use vaccines to lower the worlds population was very prudent.
this is exactly accurate
Bluetooth only has a very short range. About ten metres. Bluetooth 5.0 will be up to 100 meters. So it’s actually quite easy to test if a person is emitting a Bluetooth signal. Just take that person into the middle of a deserted park with no one else in sight and you’ll get reliable results as long as you tell them to leave their Bluetooth devices at home. As the range is only 10 metres, direction of the signal is irrelevant. In this setup type of scenario, if you pick up a signal, you can be confident the Bluetooth signal is coming from that person. Same with graveyards. If there’s no one else in the graveyard, and you detect a Bluetooth signal, that signal is only ten metres away from you, however I doubt the ability to detect a Bluetooth signal that has 6 feet of dirt in the way.
give it up Mark. You are a brilliant guy but not a specialist
Give up what? Science. You don’t seem to want an answer to this phenomenon.
it's a psyop thats the phenomenon
It’s a psyop to you because Sasha told you it was. Farming out your thinking to others who have also never looked down a microscope to investigate the alleged nanobots. You are basing your speculation on avoiding research
No, some bluetooth signals can reach as far as 240m (5.3 for sure). Bluetooth 4 has a max range of 60m alone. It depends on the class and power of the device.
It is not easy to test if someone is emitting a signal especially with an omni-directional antenna, a potentially low duty cycle and the huge discrepancy of signal strengths.
People also have to realize that cell phones are not accurate measurement devices. There is a lot of software between the actual signal and what you're seeing on your screen. They were not designed for the purposes of detecting and accurately measuring radio signals even though they can be used (or misused) as a brute force measurement device.
So just go somewhere outside the range of other people. My Bluetooth on my phone certainly has a very short range. I can’t detect me neighbours phones or Bluetooth devices at all. None of them. Yet they are all within 50 feet of me.
If 240 metres is your benchmark then just isolate yourself with another person so that no one is within 240 metres of you. Crikey George, you’re an engineer, I thought you would have figured out that solution
That could have far more to do with the materials between you and their signal, or even the low strength of the signals being emitted.
240meter radius gives you 180,000 square meters. Certainly in my city it is impossible to find an EMF quiet place that large.
I also have proper meters with directional antennas, so I could do the experiment properly, and even then I would want to do it in a shielded place to rule out reflections etc. I would use remove all phones and devices, I would use a single computer with a good antenna to decode any bluetooth signal, and then I would use my 2.4GHz meters with directional antenna to measure the precise location of emission.
IMO that is the only credible way to do the experiment.
Oh, and make sure they don't have a pacemaker.
Of course it does. Bluetooth is line of sight. So it’s the difference between theoretical and the reality of things.
Why don’t you go ahead and do it and video the whole thing?
I’d love an explanation for this claim.
But we also have to wonder whether they always transmit or only sometimes transmit, if it’s indeed true. Like a 24 hour study.
Transmission takes energy. Most devices have a low duty cycle to conserve power. That's the reason.
The answer will eventually appear George. It’s only a matter of time until it’s done properly and we are provided with an answer
And yes, you would have to do a long study with controls meaning I would want to measure zero signals for at least an hour in my chosen location with me present.
Now, if someone in my city, has a good location, and they have a person they think is emitting a signal from a vaccine, then I'd be game to spend multiple hours setting it up and running the test properly.
That’s what we need George, or this thing will never get settled.
I'm not making the claim of bluetooth. I also don't have anyone vaccinated in the household. I am claiming that of all of the evidence I've viewed (hours and hours), not one of the cases do people do the experiment properly nor do they seem to understand the basics about Bluetooth itself.
The Spanish folks allowed people to carry their phones around outside but well within bluetooth range while they were doing their "experiments"! (in that movie Bluetruth)
That doesn't even touch on the fact that there is no rational explanation for what the bluetooth signal is doing. A bluetooth beacon (which is what your phone is picking up) does nothing other than advertise. First, why would they advertise (with beacons) if they were trying to secretly do something?
Even worse, there is not a single plausible explanation for how a working microchip -- let alone battery power -- can be assembled out of a fluid. Even creating a bluetooth beacon requires complex signal processing, requiring a microchip with memory, and an antenna! There is not any published science, nor any demonstration that I've seen that comes even remotely close to accomplishing that. The smallest electronic devices I've seen are still visible to the eye (very small) but perform only the most basic of functions (RFIDs). They certainly can't talk bluetooth. I'll note that microchips are not even made from graphene though it can be used to make an antenna.
Lastly, as Sasha points out, there is no plausible explanation for what the bluetooth beacon's purpose is. Bluetooth can't talk to the internet on it's own. It can only pair with another bluetooth device that wants to pair with it. Only then can it communicate any information and it's not talking to the internet. The receiving device could talk to the internet, but how is this all working? And what information would these things be communicating?
Not one part of this theory makes any sense when you drill into the technology details.
People also seem to forget that a lot of people have 2-3 bluetooth devices on them: PHone, watch, and headphones. That doesn't even touch on the fact that most cars have it, and pacemakers.
I'm glad someone on here (you, George) has a much better understanding of wireless technology than most of us do.
Battery power is easy to come by in the human body. We are electrical beings and many have galvanic reactions happening on top of that. I’m going to keep watching this and see where it concludes. Because an answer will be forthcoming eventually. Just because someone may not see any plausible explanation, that may change further down the track. Information from the imagination of people is not always so reliable because of this
Dr Yoho - i wanted to express my appreciation for your forum, for what you provide and the way you provide it, also particularly the info about CDS and your post on eye therapies - so far i have only brushed the surface of your work. Thank you..
thanks yantra I am susceptible to flattery!
I'm glad you didn't trash the interview, it was interesting regarding the thought processes involved, though it does make me pretty cautious about his expertise in CD. I really enjoy and learn much from your posts.
all true and thanks
Dear Yoho, the part of CD from this doctor is very good, the full interview would be interesting. I agree the discussiond on the robots sounds like too much, and I cant judge the microscope findings. However, on the MAC, I still now and then check in my phone and find all these unidentified MAC addresses, for example, during a flight, where everybody should be on flight mode, but in addition to the watches and earpods, etc, there are like 100 other MAC addresses, not one or two...still maybe there is an explanation to that? But what about the cemetery? I'm going to test that personally, just out of curiosity, just to discard or not this theory completely. It has to be a cemetery out of town and with no people (Alive😂), just you and your phone. Can you ask George if that is a valid test? In my view there should be no signals.
your most rational path is to remain agnostic about this
all answered in previous posts that are referenced here in this one
We can't explain everything but know with some certainty when something is BS
I think substack must be overwhelmed - replies to my comments no longer show up in my inbox, and their DM system has been VERY unreliable for at least 5 months (and unreliable is a charitable description). Don't count on any messages getting through their DM.
please respond in the comments
? not sure what you mean
don't use PM use the comments
i don't - but sometimes someone DMs me with a private msg - i have discovered that a great proportion of my replies to them NEVER got through (and those are just the ones i know of!) and i can only guess how many of their responses back also never got through. Thus i do not consider it reliable at all. Users beware.
here's another look an AM & EDTA (june 2024)- https://drloveariyana.substack.com/p/edta-snakeoil-ana-maria-mihalceas
thanks I'll look
EDTA is problematic
Not always
It still remains frightening, and I am not easily scared. Of course I did not get the shot, nor did any of my children or grandchildren. And I wouldn’t sleep with a vaccinated man or drink out of his glass. These are sensible solutions…. but we cannot control what they’re doing in our skies. We can’t stop them from releasing the GMO mosquitoes. And the GMO corn seeds and wheat seeds have polluted the ground for I don’t know how many hundreds of years. The graphine oxide when you go to the dentist. I’ve heard there’s some graphine oxide somehow in the air in airplanes. I have no proof of that. The mRNA shots that they inject in pigs and next into cattle. I do kno farmers who refuse those shots. I do buy everything organic or grow it myself. But the way they’ve taken over the entire earth and in the skies and everything else makes it extremely difficult to avoid this vaccine shedding. And whether or not these “robots” in the blood of vaccinated, people are growing and expanding, and can be controlled from one main central tower is true, I seriously don’t want to take the chance. There are millions of people who feel the same way as I do.
fear not and live your good life
most of what you are afraid of are psyops or partly psychological ops
We had bizarre rain here on Friday. It wouldn't wipe off my windshield without using fluid. (No it wasn't dirt!) Saturday I woke up very sick. Could be a coincidence but I doubt it. You are correct. We are being targeted on multiple levels.
I don’t “like” what’s happening but I do appreciate your comment.
I side w/ nanobot technology is real, Dr. Sam is likely correct. If 3,000 years old acupuncture technology can not be explained today, then why should i believe in your Western Science de-bunking? Dr Yoho, get over yourself
Nanobot technology is something we created -- as compared to acupuncture on the human body -- and thus anyone having expertise in that sort of technology should be able to explain it.
All of the evidence is implication based on storytelling and even the, the story is full of holes.
In cases such as this, I would suggest that believing in that sort of narrative will likely lead one far from reality.
You can say whatever you want here, but your comment has no applicable content and is a personal attack on me. More like this could get you banned.
At last count there were 35 teams around the world looking into nanotech in the vaccines. Four of those in New Zealand. Bill Gates has confirmed publicly that there are self assembling nanotech in his moderna jabs. I cannot discount any claims until I get another explanation for it that makes more sense.
Remember too, your biologics testing showed you are currently having a hypersensitivity reaction to aluminium. Because it comes from your implants, there is no way of detoxifying it from the body as it will just keep pulling more aluminium ions from the implants. They are permanent antigen producers. Healing cannot begin until toxins are dealt with. If any of your symptoms are malfunctions of the autonomic system then you’re likely having a hypersensitivity reaction to titanium also.
Hi Mark!
Can you link where Gates said that?
I want to know precisely what he said, and in what context. Precision is really important in these matters since the language of technology is not nearly precise enough. For example the vaccines have "nanotechnology" which simply means small things -- i.e. lipid nanoparticles
Here it is. Someone put it on Substack
https://open.substack.com/pub/gregreese/p/bill-gates-admits-the-shots-contain?r=1e6k8r&utm_medium=ios
I sent it to Robert via email but he didn’t want to watch it. I’ll just forward that one on
You can't watch idiocy from people like Gates and get anything else done.
The video also shows the patent. I assume you already know about his statement that he can reduce the worlds population using vaccines many years ago.
I’ll look for the video
Jeez, Mark you wrote "Bill Gates has confirmed publicly"
come on
Hi Dr Yoho, Mark sent me the video. There is an understandable confusion about the terminology.
Bill Gates absolutely talks about Nanotechnology. In this particular case, he's referring to the Lipid Nanoparticles. The self assembling refers to the following:
"When mixed in aqueous solutions, these lipid components spontaneously arrange themselves into spherical nanostructures due to their amphiphilic nature."
"Amphiphilic refers to chemical compounds that possess both hydrophilic (water-loving, polar) and lipophilic (fat-loving, nonpolar) properties."
So it's a chemical arrangement of small lipid particles. This is the patent which describes the (chemical) technology they used in the vaccines. Bill Gates is referring to the technology as easy to manufacture because of these properties. He never talks about nanobots -- which are a different kind of nanotechnology, as different as chemistry is to physics or electronics. He is definitely not talking about nanoelectronics which is what would be required in order to create a bluetooth transmitter.
(it is notable Trivia that Moderna and 5 other parties are disputing the patent in question)
I think there are a lot of people that are preying on folks who don't know a lot about technology, and aren't able to differentiate between the terms being used. People hear nanotechnology and because of all the movies assume it's self assembling mini-robots.
Nano only means a specific size but the term is used many different ways. For example, a nano router is pocket sized, and the nano being a marketing term, not a scientific one. This is common when companies make small versions of a popular product to call it nano, even though it's not really nano by the scientific definition (matter manipulated in one dimension from 1 - 100 nanometers). In other words extremely small.
I think the whole bluetooth/vaccine thing is all intentional deception.
Yes, in an interview
thinking Gates tells anything but lies is foolishness
And the moderna patent also mentions self assembling nanotech. I’m just pointing out evidence. If there is indeed nanotech in the modRNA jabs, then it would fit in rather conveniently with the internet of bodies plan.
Was it a patent for the existing vaccines or simply one of their many patents?
Can you provide a link to the one you're referring to?
I'm pretty sure the nanotechnology in the vaccines was actually patented by BionTEch, not moderna. That's why they all have to pay them licenses for every single vaccine.
patents are no proof of anything you should know this dude
Synchronistically, before reading this post, I spent the morning watching the Omniwar Symposium, with Patrick Wood, David A. Hughes and others, hosted by Catherine Austin Fitts. The speakers discussed decades of military research, a part of which is available online, developing the nano/bio revolution. I can't speak to the validity of Dr. Milhalcea's work, but it is clear from what I learned today that the government is very interested in injecting things into our bodies, much like what you've ridiculed. I think it unwise to underestimate their nefariousness. https://www.technocracy.news/omniwar/
I was sent a 5 hour video and I suspect it was the same thing you just described. I think Hughes was largely credible UNTIL he got into the technology portion. Unless they're engineers, most researchers are not technologists and I see a common pattern where they make gross errors in assumption as soon as they step out of their area of expertise.
There were some blatant errors in Hughes' slides about 5G and related technologies. If you listen carefully he even admits he knows little about it and that part was mostly speculation. The other speakers had no expertise in technology, including Fitts who I like. I find she also makes bad assumptions on the technology side.
These arguments are all based on the idea that the military has technology far more advanced than they let on. However, these folks probably find basic cell phone technology vastly more complex than they can understand, so their assumptions about what is possible is literally skewed by ignorance of technology. As a technologist, I find none of these assumptions remotely credible or plausible.
Patents and "interest in developing" do not mean current reality. CAF is a science fiction fan, and that gives me pause. I do not follow her; my time is reserved for people like Latypova, whose credibility is unquestioned. I spent my 50 plus hours on the good doctor Ana, and she came up short, to put the nicest possible spin on her.