The presence of graphene in the injections against Covid was systematically denied by the “fact-checkers” and the manufacturing laboratories (which did not include it in their package inserts). However, its presence was recently denounced by the Spanish scientist Pablo Campra.
Argentine lawyer Miguel Iannolfi submitted a document to the Argentine Agency for Medicines, Food and Medical Technology (ANMAT) confirming the presence of graphene as an ingredient in a batch of Covid-19 injections. In light of the scandal this caused, ANMAT publicly clarified that it was a “typo”.
ANMAT’s response had been made as part of a judicial presentation. The opinion bears the digital signature of Patricia Inés Aprea, Director of Evaluation and Control of Biologics and Radiopharmaceuticals of ANMAT.
The object of the ANMAT document is presented as belonging to the “Lot CTMAV534”, “Vaccine Covid 19 Vaccine AstraZeneca”, in the context of the “Case filed by POZZI, Liliana Graciela, for the investigation of the causes of death”, an investigation conducted “by Prosecutor Carlos Insaurralde”.
The document, which caused a stir on social networks and triggered numerous debates about its authenticity, was published by the lawyer Miguel Iannolfi of “Abogados por la Verdad” and Dr. Marcelo Martínez.
This stated that “ANMAT, in the said document related to the cause of death investigation, responds to inquiries and questions from the prosecution that graphene is one of the components of these compounds.”
Martinez added that “there are at least 67 scientific papers describing the toxicity of graphene to biological organisms and especially to humans, so what is the reason for the presence of this element in vaccines?”
The presence of graphene in the anti-covid injections is and has been systematically denied by self-proclaimed “fact-checkers” and the manufacturers’ laboratories (who did not include it in their package inserts). However, Spanish scientist Pablo Campra recently denounced the presence of graphene.
Given the scandal that has arisen and the seriousness of the matter, ANMAT has decided to make a public clarification, as the document could be downloaded from the official website of the agency through the GEDO system.
Finally, on Monday, January 17, ANMAT maintained that it was an involuntary “typo”.
The controversial document can be seen here:
With information from Kontralinfo