I recently met with a functional medicine doctor. Among other things, functional medicine doctors have been known to use darkfield microscopes and live blood analysis which is shunned by the mainstream medical community as quackery.
OK, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s get to what the slides show.
First off, using a microscope to look at blood is not an unreasonable thing to do. Using a darkfield microscope just provides additional contrast.
In my case, the doctor took a blood sample from me, put it on a glass slide, and covered it with a glass cover. We weren’t in his office so the sample dried out before he looked at it, but he said what he saw was consistent with what he’s observed in every COVID vaccinated patient he’s looked at.
Here is the first image he sent.
What’s odd are what I’m calling the “land masses.”
Note the two large “land masses” in the photo. These “land masses” (my terminology not his) are what he says he only sees in vaccinated patients. The circles are red blood cells and the “spikes” are just because they are flattened and dehydrated (since hours passed from the time he took the sample).
Again, we see a strange “land mass” here just above the line and below the blood cells. That is the area of concern.
What’s troubling is that I was vaccinated 1 year ago and my blood is still easily distinguishable as “vaccinated” blood.
I talked to Ryan Cole and he’s not sure what it is either, but thinks that it is important to find out.
Does anyone think they know and can confirm it?
The last part is the most important.
The graphene oxide hypothesis
There are people who think the sheets are graphene oxide, but they haven’t proved it.
Some people think you can do the identification using mass spectroscopy, but other experts say that graphene oxide is just carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen so it isn’t going to be easily detectable.
However, there are clever ways we can look for graphene oxide in...
Read More HERE
What was it the dude said on his podcast...?
ReplyDeleteThere is clearly some fuckery afoot.
There are a few doctors that have been warning about these types of things for a long time (since almost the beginning). Here are a few video links that explain the effects observed in the blood. Warning!!! The content of these videos can be extremely emotionally traumatic if you or someone close to you has had the jab. I recommend you pray before and after if you do watch.
ReplyDeleteDr. Botha interview - before and after blood pictures
https://www.brighteon.com/88786d4e-59fc-440b-900c-921402553fb7
Maryam Henein with Andy Vie - Synthetic Virus
https://tv.gab.com/channel/ladybee/view/shocking-footage-of-vaxxed-hamburger-meat-looking-blood-617cb3160e077d140d5bae93
Dr. Ardis, DC and Dr. Carrie Madej learn from Karen Kingston, what's REALLY in the C19 vaccines!
https://rumble.com/vo8nth-dr.-ardis-and-dr.-carrie-madej-learn-from-karen-kingston-whats-really-in-th.html
Stew Peters regular interviews people (e.g. Dr. Sherry Tenpenny, Dr. Carrie Madej, Dr. Jane Ruby) that are investigating things about the jab and sharing the results.
https://www.redvoicemedia.com/category/pc-radio/
Dr. Zelenko (no affiliation) has stated he has had success in treating C-18+1 patients and those that have been jabbed.
https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/
Here's a good interview of Dr. Z by Stew Peters
https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/08/dr-zev-zelenko-slays-globalists-exposes-global-genocidal-event/
All "vaccines" (they are not vaccines) or just the mRNA based ones?
ReplyDeleteI'm a pathologist. I do diagnostic microscopy as a profession.
ReplyDeleteTwo things:
1) Darkfield microscopy is not considered "quackery." It is simply a specialized form of microscopy used for specific purposes, mostly to look at living tissue. Normal staining procedures kills the cells. When I was young, I did some research on cell movement, and I used it so I could watch white cells as they moved. However, it has limited utility, because it mostly only shows you the edges of things. It works because you see light that is bent (diffracted or refracted) as it moves through changes in media, so it mostly shows you edges of things.
The reason that it's not used as a standard for diagnosis is that it provides less information at lower resolution. The colors and staining in conventional light microscopy provide much more information -- it matters if something that normally stains blue ends up staining red, and it matters that you can stain for specific chemicals and antigens.
2) It's actually pretty obvious what those objects are. The big objects in the upper image are the classic appearance of shed skin cells on darkfield, though it could be any of a number of similar squamous-appearing debris. The object in the second image is also likely debris. The bottom line is that the microscopist didn't clean his slide very well. As an aside, you can tell the slide is filthy because of the second slide. The dark scalloped line running down and to the right in the second image is the air/fluid interface, with the red cells suspended in fluid in the upper right. That means that all the dots and faint lines in the lower left half of the image are all dirt and debris. If the fluid had been in that area (which would allow for more refraction), there's no telling what all you'd see.
I see this all the time in slides that are inadequately cleaned. I've seen skin cells, hairs, insect parts, etc. Note that this isn't all that a big criticism, since it's a pain to keep slides clean. As soon as you wash one off, stuff in the air stars settling on it, you shed skin cells when you pick it up, etc. But most people who do this professionally can tell the difference between artifact and real stuff -- and if there's a question, you redo the slide.
Please note that this is not medical advice and is not meant to be a medical diagnosis in any individual case. I would not make a "real" diagnosis without review of a patient's medical history, records, and consultation with his or her clinician. This is not medical advice.