Negative Synergies

An Essay on Where Injected Metal Meets Modern Life

The term “negative synergies” came to me from Scott, a reader. It captured what I had been circling, and became the title. Thank you.

The cerium-iron-titanium-nickel particle photographed by Gatti and Montanari in a drop of Agrippal S1, batch 147302A, is a few micrometers across.¹ It has a metallic core and a coat of the recipient’s own serum proteins, bound on contact, unfolded by the binding, presented in a configuration the body has no template for. It was injected into someone in the 2014-2015 flu season. It was not on the package insert. Cerium is a rare earth metal with industrial applications in catalytic converters and glass polishing compounds. It has no biological role and no medical use. The four-element combination matches no recognized alloy in any materials engineering handbook.¹

That particle is somewhere in a person now. It cannot be broken down. The lymph and the blood will have carried it somewhere. The body has responded to it the way it responds to any persistent injury it cannot resolve, with inflammation that does not end because the cause cannot be removed.

The particle is the anchor. What happens to that particle when the body carrying it holds a phone, walks past a router, receives a CT scan, lies down for an MRI, or takes gadolinium contrast is the essay.

This work stays free because paid subscribers make it possible. They get the full book library, the Deep Dive Audio Library, and the Questions for Your Doctor, Before You Consent, and Package Insert series. No grants, no gatekeepers — your subscription is what keeps it that way.

Audio Overview

Two Hundred Years of Dirt in a Syringe

The historical record of injection contamination begins with Jenner’s lymph and has not been interrupted since. Dr. Beddow Bayly, writing in 1952, described the raw material of the smallpox vaccine in words the manufacturers never contested because they were accurate:

When we recall that vaccine lymph is derived, in the first place, either from a smallpox corpse, the ulcerated udder of a cow, or the running sores of a sick horse’s heels, the choice depending upon the country of its origin and the firm which manufactures it, it is hardly to be wondered at that it has far-reaching ill effects on the human constitution.²

Bayly cited the Lancet’s admission that “no practitioner knows whether the lymph he employs is derived from smallpox, rabbit-pox, ass-pox, or mule-pox,” and noted that the British Ministry of Health “has long confessed to complete ignorance of the ultimate source of its own supply of lymph.”² The British Medical Journal reported in 1950 that even with best manufacturing practice, heavy bacterial contamination of vaccine lymph was “inevitable during its preparation, and as many as 500 million organisms per ml. may be present, particularly in the tropics.”³ Under the Therapeutic Substances Act (1943), a lymph could be marketed as “pure” provided it contained no more than 20,000 extraneous microorganisms per cubic centimeter.² Pure was a regulatory word. It was not a description of the product.

The 1902 United States foot-and-mouth epidemic infected 244 herds and 4,712 cattle. Investigation traced it to the New England Vaccine Company, which had rented calves for smallpox vaccine production and returned them to circulation after the pus was harvested from their scarified bellies.² The 1908 epidemic was traced to a manufacturer’s contaminated Japanese vaccine strain. Arm-to-arm vaccination, in use for roughly a century until England outlawed it in 1898, moved whatever was in one child’s blistered arm into the next child’s incisions. Syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy were documented consequences.²,⁴ Dr. Ricord addressed the Academy at Paris in 1863: “First I rejected the idea that syphilis could be transplanted by vaccination. But facts accumulated more and more, and now I must concede.”² The vaccine had been dirty from the start. That was the acknowledged fact of the product.

By 2017 the instruments had improved and the answer had not. Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari, materials scientists at the Italian National Council of Research, examined forty-four vaccines under a Field Emission Gun Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope with X-ray spectroscopy. They identified the elemental composition of every particle they found in a twenty-microliter drop of each product. Forty-three of the forty-four contained undeclared metallic contamination. The catalog included lead in Typhim Vi, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, and Gardasil; tungsten across eight products from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Wyeth, and Novartis; stainless steel in twenty-five of the forty-four samples; and bismuth, gold, silver, platinum, cerium, zirconium, hafnium, antimony, strontium, barium, copper, tin, and zinc in various alloy combinations. None of it was on any package insert.¹ Varilrix returned 2,723 particles per twenty-microliter drop. Infanrix hexa returned 1,821. Cervarix returned 1,569.¹ The forty-fourth sample was Feligen CRP by Virbac, a veterinary vaccine for cats. It contained no heavy metals, no rare earths, no industrial alloys.¹ The veterinary production line was clean. The human production lines were not.

By December 2024 the resolution had improved again and so had the catalog. Davidson, Broudy, Yanowitz, Santiago, and Oller, defending and confirming Diblasi et al. published in the same issue, reported that inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry with the Agilent 7500cx had detected at least 55 undeclared chemical elements across products from Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Cansino, Sinopharm, and Sputnik V. The 55 included all 11 heavy metals and 12 of the 15 lanthanides.⁵ Only sodium and phosphorus were declared across all products. Everything else was there without disclosure. The Davidson team noted that the lanthanides in particular were “central to ongoing optogenetic biological research” and had known applications in “self-assembling magnetic and electronic devices.”⁵ When critics argued the Agilent 7500cx could not detect quantities as small as those reported, the Davidson team responded in detail, tabulating instrument and method detection limits against every measured value and confirming that every reported quantity sat above the applicable detection floor, often by orders of magnitude.⁵ The available defense that trace metals appear in any industrial fluid at background levels does not survive contact with the numbers: the particle counts and elemental concentrations Gatti-Montanari and Davidson documented sit far above any credible background. Gatti and Montanari, staying within the limits of their instruments, had hypothesized that the contamination they documented was unintentional.

Seven years on, the same categories of contamination were still there in newer products, from the same industry, at a higher resolution, and without any published record of an investigation, a cleanup, or a regulatory action. The Davidson team declined to extend the unintentional hypothesis. Their reasoning was that accidental contamination does not produce this pattern. Random industrial debris would produce random contaminants: different batches would contain different metals in different concentrations from different sources. What the two catalogs document is the opposite. The same heavy metals appear across manufacturers. The same lanthanide signatures appear across products. The same categories of rare-earth alloys appear in Italian and French batches, in Pfizer and Moderna, in 2014 and 2024. Consistency at that scale is not what accidents look like. It is what specifications look like. The question of whether the specifications are intentional is a question of intent, which neither team asserted. What both teams established is that the capability to detect the contamination has existed for the entire period, and the parties with that capability have neither published the detection results nor cleaned the products. When a party can see and can clean and does neither, the failure to act is the position.

The Gatti and Montanari finding was published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination. The Davidson team’s confirmation was published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. Neither has been refuted. Both have been ignored.

What the Debris Meets

The debris is settled. What matters is not that it is there but what it does once it is there.

The particles are biopersistent. The body has no mechanism for breaking down rare earth metal alloys or industrial stainless steel. Once injected, the particle stays where the injection put it, or the lymph and the blood carry it somewhere else, and the somewhere else is where it stays. The body’s response to a foreign body it cannot remove is inflammation that does not resolve. That is the tissue-level baseline.

The rest of what happens depends on what environment the tissue-with-particle now lives in. That environment has changed. Modern medicine and modern life have installed around every recipient a set of fields, waves, and radiological exposures that were not part of any exposure model when the debris entered the body. The interactions between the particle and the environment are the subject of the rest of the essay. They are not additive. They multiply. Toxicology has a name for this dynamic when two agents combine to produce a harm larger than either would produce alone: synergy. This essay is about the negative form of it, the injuries that emerge only at the intersection.

Radiofrequency Fields

Metals in tissue behave as antennas. This is not a controversial claim. It is the operating principle of every wireless device. Radiofrequency energy propagates through the environment and deposits preferentially into conductive material. When the conductive material sits inside soft tissue, the deposition is localized at the tissue-metal interface. The industry that sells the wireless devices knows this. It publishes exposure limits for handset users based on the “specific absorption rate” of RF energy into homogeneous body models. The models assume no embedded metal.⁶

The Davidson team was specific about why the lanthanide finding mattered. The 12 lanthanides catalogued in the COVID injectables are the same elements that materials scientists deploy in “self-assembling magnetic and electronic devices that can be programed and activated remotely.”⁵ Neodymium is in every wind turbine and every high-end earphone driver because of its magnetic response. Europium and terbium are in every color phosphor because of their luminescent response to electromagnetic input. Gadolinium is used as a neutron absorber and as an MRI contrast agent because of its electromagnetic properties. Cerium, the element in the Agrippal particle, is used in glass polishing and catalytic converters because of its electron transfer chemistry. The industry did not choose these elements for injection because they were inert. Whatever the reason for their presence, inertness is not the property they bring.

The exposure levels are not what they were. Between 2019 and 2023, the deployment of 5G small-cell infrastructure meant that microwave-frequency transmitters were installed on light poles, building facades, and residential streets in numbers no prior generation of population had ever inhabited. Deruelle’s 2024 review in Surgical Neurology International documented the neurological effects of chronic microwave radiofrequency exposure and identified injected metallic and graphene-based materials as amplifiers of that exposure.⁷ The mechanism is not exotic. RF energy at the frequencies now saturating populated environments deposits into any conductive particle at the boundary between two media of different dielectric constant. A stainless steel particle in muscle tissue is exactly that boundary. The deposition produces localized heating and localized ionic disturbance at the site where the particle sits. The site where the particle sits is inside a person.

There is no epidemiology of this. There will not be. The exposure is universal, the outcome variables are ill-defined, and no institution has any incentive to define them. What exists is the physics, which is not in dispute, and the material presence, which the Gatti-Montanari and Davidson findings have established. The rest is a mechanism operating below the resolution at which anyone is looking.

X-ray and CT

The photoelectric effect is not a mechanism medicine has to guess at. It is a mechanism medicine sells.

When X-ray photons pass through tissue, the probability of absorption scales with the atomic number Z of the absorbing element to roughly the fourth or fifth power. Soft tissue is composed mostly of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, with Z values from 1 to 8. Lead is Z=82. Gold is Z=79. Bismuth is Z=83. Tungsten is Z=74. The lanthanides run from Z=57 (lanthanum) to Z=71 (lutetium).⁸ Every high-Z element the Davidson team catalogued in the injectables absorbs X-ray energy at rates one to two orders of magnitude higher than the surrounding tissue, and re-emits secondary electrons that damage adjacent cellular structures over a range of a few nanometers to a few micrometers.⁸,⁹

This mechanism is called dose amplification. It has an entire subfield of medical research devoted to it. Radiation oncologists deliberately inject gold nanoparticles into tumors to concentrate the radiation dose at the tumor site while sparing surrounding tissue.⁹ The physics is not disputed. The clinical value is that a smaller external radiation dose becomes a larger internal one at the site where the high-Z particles have accumulated. The mechanism is sold as a therapy.

The mechanism does not stop working when the high-Z particles are undeclared. A person who has received COVID injections has, on the Davidson findings, some quantity of platinum, gold, hafnium, tungsten, mercury, thallium, lead, bismuth, thorium, and uranium distributed through their tissues.⁵ A person who has received the vaccines Gatti and Montanari catalogued has some quantity of tungsten, lead, stainless steel, and lanthanide contamination in the same tissues.¹ When any such person goes for a chest CT, a dental X-ray, a mammogram, a fluoroscopic procedure, or an airport backscatter scan, the external radiation dose is calibrated against a body model that assumes no dose amplifiers are present. The amplifiers are present. The local dose at the sites where the particles have accumulated is higher than the calibration accounts for, and neither the radiologist nor the patient has any way to know by how much.

The frequency of medical imaging in the United States has approximately tripled since 1980, driven mostly by CT.¹⁰ A person aged 60 has, on average, received a lifetime medical radiation dose several times larger than any prior generation of adult ever received. The population overlap between “has received multiple vaccines with metallic contamination” and “has received multiple medical imaging procedures” is nearly complete. The compounding exposure has not been studied because the exposure model does not admit the particles exist.

Ultrasound

Ultrasound propagates through tissue as mechanical waves at frequencies from 1 to 20 MHz for diagnostic imaging and higher for therapeutic applications. The waves are absorbed and reflected differently by different tissue densities, which is how images are formed. What is less discussed is that ultrasound generates cavitation. Cavitation is the formation and violent collapse of microscopic gas bubbles in liquid media under acoustic pressure. When a bubble collapses, temperatures at the collapse point briefly reach thousands of degrees Kelvin and pressures reach thousands of atmospheres, over a spatial scale of a few micrometers.¹¹

Cavitation nucleates preferentially at surfaces. A solid particle in fluid is a nucleation site. Metallic and rare-earth debris in muscle, blood, or amniotic fluid becomes a preferential site for cavitation events when ultrasound is applied. The drug delivery literature exploits this deliberately. Microbubble contrast agents seeded with metallic nanoparticles are used to enhance ultrasound imaging and to trigger localized drug release through cavitation-induced permeabilization of the blood-brain barrier.¹²

The obstetric application is where this becomes indefensible. Routine prenatal ultrasound has expanded from a single mid-pregnancy anatomy scan in the 1980s to serial scans across every trimester in most developed-world pregnancies, including first-trimester dating scans, nuchal translucency scans, and 3D “keepsake” scans marketed directly to parents.¹³ The mother in that pregnancy has received, on the current schedule, multiple vaccines with documented metallic contamination before conceiving. Her tissues carry the particles. Her placenta carries her blood. The ultrasound beam passes through her tissue and her placenta into the fetal environment, seeding cavitation events at every particle boundary along the path.

The fetus has no vaccines yet. The debris in the amniotic environment came from the mother. The cavitation events at the mother-fetus interface are events for which no obstetric consent form was ever written, because the consent form assumes ultrasound is inert. It is not inert. It is a mechanical wave that reacts with the particles the woman was not told were in her.

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging generates static magnetic fields of 1.5 to 7 Tesla, roughly 30,000 to 140,000 times the earth’s magnetic field.¹⁴ The field exerts force on ferromagnetic and paramagnetic materials in tissue. This is why every MRI facility screens patients before scanning for pacemakers, aneurysm clips, shrapnel, cochlear implants, and orthopedic hardware. The screening exists because the field will pull ferromagnetic material through tissue. The screening thresholds are set for objects visible on chest X-ray. They are not set for particles below 100 micrometers. They cannot detect what Gatti and Montanari catalogued, because the screening technology does not resolve at that scale.¹

The Gatti-Montanari catalog documented iron in dozens of vaccine products. Stainless steel, which is an iron-chromium-nickel alloy, appeared in twenty-five of the forty-four products they examined.¹ Iron and stainless steel are ferromagnetic. In an MRI field, they experience translational and rotational force. Submicron particles in the interstitial spaces of muscle, lymph node, or brain tissue are not immune to that force because they are small. They are more mobile in response to it, not less.

The engineering literature has a name for this mechanism: magnetic drug targeting. Researchers deliberately inject iron-oxide nanoparticles and use external magnetic fields to concentrate them at target sites.¹⁵ The MRI is not calibrated to do this, but it does not need to be calibrated to do it. The field is present. The particles are present. The force is applied whether the operator intends it or not.

MRI facilities also generate radiofrequency pulses at frequencies between roughly 10 and 300 MHz depending on field strength, and gradient magnetic fields that switch on and off during imaging with fast rise times. The RF pulses deposit into conductive particles by the same mechanism described in the preceding section on radiofrequency fields. The switching gradients induce eddy currents in conductive material. A single MRI examination is, in a person carrying metallic vaccine debris, simultaneously a static-field manipulation, an RF exposure, and a gradient-induced current exposure, at intensities calibrated for a body assumed to contain none of the material that is actually there.

The MRI screening form asks the patient about known metallic implants. It does not ask about vaccines. It could not usefully ask, because neither the patient nor the operator has any way to know what any given product contained. The screening protocol is designed around what medicine acknowledges is in the body. It has no protocol for what medicine put there and denies is there.

Gadolinium

Gadolinium is the lanthanide medicine injects on purpose. It is used as a contrast agent in tens of millions of MRI examinations per year worldwide.¹⁶ It is administered intravenously, chelated to organic ligands intended to keep it soluble and to promote renal excretion within 24 hours.

The excretion is not complete. The establishment’s own literature confirms this. Kanda et al. reported in Radiology in 2014 that gadolinium accumulates in the brain, specifically in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus, of patients who have received multiple gadolinium contrast studies. The accumulation is visible on subsequent unenhanced MRI scans as areas of increased signal intensity.¹⁷ The finding has been reproduced by multiple groups. Autopsy studies have confirmed gadolinium deposition in brain tissue years after the last contrast administration.¹⁸ The FDA issued a safety communication in 2017 acknowledging retained gadolinium in brain, bone, and other tissues.¹⁹

The establishment framework treats this as a contained problem. The framework holds that the linear-chelate gadolinium formulations release more free gadolinium than the macrocyclic formulations, that healthy renal function limits retention, and that the clinical significance of the retention is uncertain but probably minimal for most patients. The framework does not accommodate the possibility that the retained gadolinium is meeting other lanthanides already in the tissue from prior injections.

The Davidson team’s catalog identifies twelve lanthanides in the COVID-19 injectables: lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, and ytterbium.⁵ Gadolinium is one of them. When a patient who has received multiple COVID injections then receives gadolinium contrast for an MRI, the exogenous gadolinium dose is being added to a tissue burden that already includes gadolinium plus eleven of its chemical relatives. All of them behave similarly in tissue because the lanthanides share nearly identical chemical properties by their position in the periodic table.¹⁶ The clearance mechanisms the establishment relies on to justify gadolinium safety were characterized in populations whose baseline lanthanide burden was assumed to be zero. That assumption is no longer defensible after 2024.

Gadolinium is the case where the establishment’s own admission does the work. Medicine injects a lanthanide. Medicine documents its retention in brain and bone. Medicine denies that any other lanthanides are present. The Davidson findings say twelve of them are present. The synergy is not a hypothesis. It is arithmetic.

The expected objections write themselves. The metals are present but no epidemiological study links them to specific outcomes. The imaging exposures are real but no cohort has been followed through the intersection. The physics is undisputed but the tissue-level clinical consequence has not been demonstrated. Each objection is true. Each is also the shape the evidence takes when the studies that would answer the question were never funded. No agency has commissioned a cohort of vaccine recipients tracked through medical imaging and outcome. No manufacturer has published a biodistribution study of its own undeclared contaminants. No regulator has required either. The epidemiological silence is not evidence that the synergies do not exist. It is evidence of what the streetlight illuminates and what it does not. The physics operates whether the epidemiology is funded or not. The particle in muscle tissue absorbs the X-ray photon whether or not the outcome is coded in a registry. The absence of the study is the finding. The same discipline applies to the manufacturers' unintentional-contamination defense: parties with the instruments to detect their own contamination, who neither detect nor clean it, have expressed their position through inaction.

The Rest of the Environment

The five sections above cover the fields, waves, and radiological exposures medicine installs around the recipient. They do not cover the rest of the environment the debris lives in.

Dental amalgam releases mercury vapor into oral tissue and the digestive tract continuously across the life of the restoration. The Diblasi team documented mercury at 13 µg/L in one Moderna sample, a level 4,268 times greater than the instrument detection limit and 220 times the method detection limit for that run.⁵ The exogenous mercury from amalgam and the injected mercury from the product meet in the same organs: kidney, liver, brain. The exposure model that permits amalgam assumes no injected mercury baseline. The exposure model that permits the injection assumes no amalgam baseline. Neither model exists in the body of an actual patient.

Glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, chelates divalent cations. Stephanie Seneff and colleagues have argued that glyphosate binds aluminum and other metals, alters their tissue distribution, and delivers them across the blood-brain barrier by mechanisms the metals alone do not use.²⁰ Every recipient of every injection with aluminum adjuvant or aluminum contamination has that aluminum meeting a glyphosate exposure the establishment has classified as safe at population levels that were characterized without reference to the injection burden.

Fluoride in drinking water forms aluminum-fluoride complexes that cross the blood-brain barrier more readily than aluminum alone.²¹ The population injected with declared and undeclared aluminum is the same population drinking fluoridated water, and neither exposure has been assessed with reference to the other.

Repeat injection compounds each of the above. Charles Richet demonstrated in 1902 that injection of foreign material produces sensitization, with each subsequent exposure producing a more severe response. He received the Nobel Prize for the work in 1913.²² The current U.S. childhood schedule administers approximately 70 doses of vaccine material by age 18. The Davidson catalog and the Gatti-Montanari catalog document that every one of those doses carries undeclared metallic and lanthanide contamination. The sensitization Richet described is not to a single antigen. It is to the accumulated foreign-body burden that his mechanism was originally described against.

Every one of these exposures is characterized by its own regulatory framework, its own safety threshold, and its own defense of adequacy. Not one of the frameworks was constructed with reference to any of the others. The person who receives them all is not the subject of any of the safety models. The person is the intersection they do not admit exists.

The Particle

The cerium-iron-titanium-nickel particle from Agrippal batch 147302A is in someone now.

We do not know whose arm received the dose. We do not know whether that person carries a phone, though almost certainly they do. We do not know whether that person has had a CT scan since 2015, though statistically it is likely. We do not know whether that person has had an MRI, or received gadolinium contrast, or had ultrasound imaging of a subsequent pregnancy, or has dental amalgam, or drinks fluoridated water, or eats food carrying glyphosate residue. Each of these is a probability well above zero for any resident of a developed country in the years since that batch was administered.

The particle has been present for every RF exposure that person’s life has included. It has been present for every X-ray photon absorbed. It has been present for every ultrasound beam that seeded cavitation at its surface, every MRI field that pulled at its ferromagnetic components, every gadolinium dose that added lanthanide to its neighborhood in tissue. The interactions accumulate silently. The medical record has no field to enter them in.

When the person becomes ill, the illness is attributed to whatever category the treating clinician recognizes. The establishment calls it long COVID, or an autoimmune condition, or idiopathic, or functional, or unexplained. The particle is not on the differential because the framework that trained the clinician does not admit the particle exists.

The Davidson team wrote in December 2024 that “the likelihood that such elements are not involved in self-assembling entities in the fluids and in the unnatural clots in many recipients is zero.”⁵ The Gatti-Montanari team wrote in 2017 that the contamination “is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes not investigated and not detected by the Producers.”¹ Seven years separate those two statements. The elements are the same. The producers are largely the same. The regulators are the same. The instruments to detect the contamination have existed for the entire period. The examinations have not been performed by anyone with the authority to act on the results.

Two centuries ago the syringe carried horse-heel pus and smallpox scab material and the manufacturers acknowledged as much. Today the syringe carries an industrial catalog and the manufacturers deny it. The chemistry has changed. The pattern has not. What has changed is the environment the recipient lives in after the injection. The fields, the waves, the imaging beams, the chelating herbicides, the ambient exposures the debris now meets are the multiplier that did not exist in Bayly’s era or Ricord’s.

The particle is a few micrometers across. It is in someone. It is meeting all of it.

---

How to Explain It to a 6 Year Old

Some scientists looked very carefully at the shots that doctors give to children. They used a special microscope that can see things much smaller than a speck of dust. They found tiny pieces of metal inside the shots. The metal was too small for your eyes to see, but it was there.

Once a tiny piece of metal goes into your arm with a shot, your body cannot get rid of it. Your body knows how to clean up many things. It does not know how to clean up metal. So the metal stays. It sits where it landed, or the blood carries it to another part of your body, and it stays there instead.

That is the first part. Here is the second part.

The world around you has changed. When your grandparents were little, there were no phones you could carry in your pocket. There were no towers on every street sending invisible waves through the air. Doctors did not take as many pictures of the inside of your body with special machines. All of those things exist now, and they all send different kinds of energy through you.

The metal inside you notices all of that energy. Metal is like a little antenna. When invisible waves come by, the metal soaks them up. When a doctor takes a picture with an X-ray machine, the metal grabs more of the X-ray than the rest of your body does. When you have a special picture called an MRI, the big magnet pulls on the metal. When a doctor uses sound waves to look inside a mommy’s tummy at her baby, the sound waves bump into the metal and make tiny bubbles pop next to it.

None of those things would hurt you very much if the metal was not there. And the metal might not hurt you very much if all those other things were not there either. But both of them are there at the same time, and together they do more harm than either of them would do alone.

That is what “negative synergies” means. Two things that would each be small on their own, but when they meet inside your body, they get bigger together.

The people who make the shots have special microscopes too. They could look inside their own bottles. They do not. The people whose job is to keep the shots safe never told them to look. The cat company looked at the cat shots, and the cat shots are clean. The children’s shots are not.

That is what the essay is about.

---

References

1. Gatti AM, Montanari S. New quality-control investigations on vaccines: micro- and nanocontamination. International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination. 2017;4(1):7-14.

2. Humphries S, Bystrianyk R. Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History. 2013. Chapters 4-5, quoting Bayly JB (1952) and correspondence in the Lancet and British Medical Journal.

3. British Medical Journal editorial on smallpox vaccine bacterial contamination, 4 November 1950. Cited in Humphries S and Bystrianyk R, Dissolving Illusions.

4. Fraser H. The Peanut Allergy Epidemic: What’s Causing It and How to Stop It. Skyhorse Publishing; 2011.

5. Davidson RM, Broudy D, Yanowitz S, Santiago D, Oller JW Jr. True or False? At Least 55 Undeclared Chemical Elements Have Been Detected by ICP-MS in COVID-19 “Vaccines.” International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. 2024;3(2):1394.1-1394.27.

6. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Physics. 2020;118(5):483-524.

7. Deruelle F. Microwave radiofrequencies, 5G, 6G, graphene nanomaterials: Technologies used in neurological warfare. Surgical Neurology International. 2024;15:439.

8. Hubbell JH, Seltzer SM. Tables of X-Ray Mass Attenuation Coefficients and Mass Energy-Absorption Coefficients. National Institute of Standards and Technology; NISTIR 5632; 1995 (updated).

9. Hainfeld JF, Slatkin DN, Smilowitz HM. The use of gold nanoparticles to enhance radiotherapy in mice. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2004;49(18):N309-N315.

10. Smith-Bindman R, Kwan ML, Marlow EC, et al. Trends in use of medical imaging in US health care systems and in Ontario, Canada, 2000-2016. JAMA. 2019;322(9):843-856.

11. Leighton TG. The Acoustic Bubble. Academic Press; 1994.

12. Hynynen K, McDannold N, Vykhodtseva N, Jolesz FA. Noninvasive MR imaging-guided focal opening of the blood-brain barrier in rabbits. Radiology. 2001;220(3):640-646.

13. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Practice Bulletin No. 175: Ultrasound in Pregnancy. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;128(6):e241-e256.

14. Schenck JF. The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Medical Physics. 1996;23(6):815-850.

15. Lübbe AS, Alexiou C, Bergemann C. Clinical applications of magnetic drug targeting. Journal of Surgical Research. 2001;95(2):200-206.

16. Rogosnitzky M, Branch S. Gadolinium-based contrast agent toxicity: A review of known and proposed mechanisms. BioMetals. 2016;29(3):365-376.

17. Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D. High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: Relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology. 2014;270(3):834-841.

18. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;275(3):772-782.

19. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns that gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are retained in the body; requires new class warnings. Issued 19 December 2017.

20. Seneff S, Swanson N, Li C. Aluminum and glyphosate can synergistically induce pineal gland pathology: Connection to gut dysbiosis and neurological disease. Agricultural Sciences. 2015;6(1):42-70.

21. Strunecká A, Patocka J, Blaylock RL, Chinoy NJ. Fluoride interactions: From molecules to disease. Current Signal Transduction Therapy. 2007;2(3):190-213.

22. Richet C. Anaphylaxis. Nobel Lecture, 11 December 1913. Nobelprize.org, The Nobel Foundation.