THE VACCINE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE. INTERVIEW WITH IGNACIO D. MARTIN CARO Translated by Kate Vredevoog
Actualizado: 29 ene
"What we saw, whatever it was, shouldn't be there."
In August 2021, Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid, doctor in Chemical Sciences and graduate in Biology, analyzed a vial of the Pfizer vaccine and concluded that "it shows solid evidence of the probable presence of graphene derivatives, although, however, microscopy does not provide conclusive proof.” Criticism of this report ruined its graphic and documentary interest.
A group of independent health workers based in Andalusia, Spain, wanted to replicate Dr. Campra's analysis. They found the results described below. Ignacio D. Martín Caro holds a degree in Chemistry and Biochemistry, is a Senior Medical Laboratory Technician, and is a member of the Scientific Society for Biomedical Research. He has twelve years of experience as a Biomedical Scientist in Cytology, Histopathology and Immunology laboratories in different London hospitals.
The purpose of this interview is to share this reality with our readers. Since the topic we are addressing can be controversial and may raise many questions, the interviewee offers to answer the readers' questions in future installments of the interview. So, sit down, read, rub your eyes and…read again!
Photomicrograph of possible graphene sheet in Pfizer vaccine
DFA: What motivated you to do an analysis of the vaccine?
IMC: To confirm the analyses of other experts. The only person to officially publish their results was Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid. He did it on his Researchgate page and with his digital signature. There were other researchers who leaked their analyses, but their identities could never be confirmed. There is a lot of fear and censorship when investigating this topic, but the information is still very relevant. Other professionals who made their results public were several German pathologists in a press conference that lasted over two and a half hours. It was recorded and can be watched entirely. The identity of these experts is acknowledged. They found very similar structures to what both Dr. Campra and I have found.
DFA: What did the Campra Report consist of and what conclusions did it suggest?
IMC: There are two observational analyses. In the first, the preliminary report, he compares the images obtained from a drop of a vial of a Pfizer vaccine by light and electron microscopy with standard samples taken from the scientific literature. The similarities are remarkable, but he himself indicated in his conclusions that more research was needed. In the second report, the technician, in addition to optical microscopy, used Micro-Raman spectroscopy, which makes the preliminary report even more reliable. He attached a PowerPoint file with twenty-five photomicrographs of the four vaccines. This report was published the same day that we took our photographs, and the structures that it illustrated were very similar to the ones we observed. The goal of this analysis was to confirm the presence of graphene derivatives in the vaccine, which was revealed.
DFA: So there was a suspicion...
IMC: Yes, there was a suspicion due to the strange magnetism detected at the point of inoculation of these vaccines in numerous people who had received the inoculation. This magnetism was quite pronounced and did not correspond exactly to the magnetism that we are used to observing, the one produced by magnetites or ferromagnetic materials. When this magnetism was discovered, many experts, after reviewing the scientific literature, hypothesized that this type of magnetism could only be produced by graphene and its nanomaterials. Keep in mind that due to their small size they can enter into our bodies in different ways, including inoculation. At this time it was just a hypothesis, but then Campra's analysis came out, and then ours. As you can see, the scientific method was followed—a phenomenon was observed, a hypothesis was formulated, tests and analyses were carried out and conclusions were drawn.
Photomicrograph of a heparin sample
DFA: Tell us what your research consisted of. What tests did you run?
IMC: The first thing we looked at was a fully sealed Pfizer vial taken from a public hospital in Andalusia. I have been preparing samples and examining them under a microscope for over twelve years, so I have a lot of experience. We used light and dark field microscopes, and what we saw was very shocking! I have all the photomicrographs to show any expert on the subject. It was later observed that this magnetism was also found in unvaccinated people, and had even been detected in the environment as well. In response to this, we took samples of the magnetic dirt particles found on the ground and also looked at them under a microscope. As the research progressed, these nanocomposites were also discovered in different hospital solutions. We analyzed a number of them and found graphene sheets and tubules in several. As you will understand, this has enormous repercussions for our health due to the proven toxicity of these nanocomposites. We are still testing different substances and solutions because the investigation remains open.
DFA: What did you observe in that Pfizer vial?
IMC: Sheets and structures compatible with microorganisms. Later it was confirmed by many experts that they were not microorganisms, but graphene nanotubes. Since we knew the magnetic properties of these nanomaterials, we exposed several drops of the vaccine to a 12,000 Gauss magnet over different intervals of time. The images obtained were very surprising, since all of those previously disintegrated materials grouped together forming perfect geometric figures. I had never seen anything like it in my twelve years of experience. One thing is clear: what we saw, whatever it was, should not be there. There is no ingredient in the vaccine that forms these structures.
DFA: I guess those of us who don't have a clue about chemistry might ask ourselves what's so special about the perfection of that geometry. I am definitely wondering.
IMC: It's not just the perfection of the figures but that they reacted to the magnetic field in the first place. In the list of ingredients of the vaccine there is no declared ingredient that reacts to the magnetic field. Regarding the geometry, it would indicate that it is not a biological substance of the vaccine at all.
DFA: Do you mean to say that they are materials that do not appear in the composition? So how did they get there?
IMC: No, they do not appear in the composition, so it is unknown how they got there. But there are hidden ingredients in these vaccines that are protected due to trade secrets, and their content will not be revealed until 2050. They are nanoparticles. This is known because it was officially published, after several questions from researchers to the European Medicines Agency. I think the ones who have to answer that question are the manufacturers of the vaccines. But the authorities continue to deny the presence of these graphene-derived nanomaterials in the vaccines.
DFA: You state that those nanocomposites that you have observed in the vial can be harmful to health. How?
IMC: There is extensive literature in this regard on the toxicity of these nanocomposites. They affect practically every organ and system. There are hundreds and hundreds of studies about it. The main damage caused by these nanomaterials is that they generate a coagulation factor in the blood—with all the implications that this has in all varieties of diseases that depend on the degree of blood coagulation. Heart attacks, ischemia, cerebrovascular accidents, strokes, and all kinds of inflammation in different organs and systems of our body. At the cellular level, they produce an imbalance in the endogenous level of cellular antioxidants due to the production of free radicals, affecting the mitochondria and decreasing glutathione levels. As a consequence, a series of inflammatory processes can occur within the cell, producing cell aging that can lead to cell death, apoptosis, autophagy, etc. They are also toxic to DNA.
DFA: If we compare the official versions with your research, the virus that affects global health is being fought with a vaccine that contains nanoparticles that are harmful to our health...
IMC: Yes, but we don't know if all the vaccines have the same composition. That's another important story too. In addition, the official version on a purely scientific level is not proven either, no matter how much the media affirms it. The official narrative when analyzed in detail does not make any sense.
Graphene nanotubes in Pfizer vaccine
DFA: What do you mean? What is that narrative?
IMC: It is assumed that this was a virus that only caused serious problems to people at risk or with comorbidities. And there is the official data that indicates its low mortality and lethality in healthy people. So, to prevent those people at risk from dying, the entire population is to be vaccinated? Including children, who do not even suffer from the disease, in order to protect adults who are vaccinated? On the other hand, it is the first infectious-contagious disease in history that is spread most by those who do not even suffer from it—the asymptomatic. The WHO itself states that infection from an asymptomatic person is extremely rare. Keep in mind that all the restriction measures and tests are based on the fact that asymptomatic people are contagious, which remains to be proven. Also, a PCR test coming out positive does not mean that you are likely to spread the disease if you do not have symptoms. You need to have the test result confirmed. Since when is an asymptomatic person considered sick?
DFA: We’ve run out of space, and yet, at the end of this interview I have more questions than answers. Shall we continue next week?
IMC: We can continue whenever you like.