top of page


Last week, we published the latest lab report indicating that graphene compounds have been used in the C19 vaccines.

This time, the report was UK based and had been organised by a group called UNIT.

The people involved and the name of the lab remains anonymous, which on one hand is understandable to anyone who knows the history of those daring to publish information against the interests of the big Pharma companies, yet on the other hand, secrecy fuels doubts and suspicion.

The UK report is an attempt to replicate the original findings of Dr Campra that suggested Graphene Oxide, which has since been backed by several groups worldwide.

Dr Campra published two important works. The first was a visual match for Graphene Oxide under microscopy and the second report used the more conclusive Raman Spectroscopy.

From our point of view at NOTB, Graphene Oxide (GO) explains the vaccine-induced magnetism that we witnessed and documented within several short films.

Dr Andrew Goldsworthy, the retired biological safety officer from Imperial College London, a world-leading expert on cellular mechanisms, published his theory via NOTB explaining how the presence of GO could cause magnetism on the cellular level. To date, his theory stands the test of time with no competing hypothesis. 

Dr Mike Yeadon is the ex-vice president of Pfizer and has been a prominent critic of the current C19 Vaccine rollout.

His opinions have been heavily criticised and censored, backed by the usual slurs to demonise him via industry controlled media and sites like Wikipedia.

He is not only a loved and national treasure within the British freedom movement but has become an icon internationally as one of the very few ‘insiders’ who have dared to make a public stand.

Dr Mike Yeadon’s reply to the concept of graphene derivatives being present.

QUOTE: “…To be clear, to date I’ve not seen analytical evidence confirming graphene or derivatives in the injections. The claims that it’s present involve results that “are consistent with” it being present.
That isn’t good enough because there is a technique that’s able to give us an unequivocal answer: transmission electron microscopy (TEM). TEM will show the characteristic hexagonal pattern of dots, which reflect the arrangement of carbon atoms in the material. Why are no reports using the only technique capable of proving its present? 

Nothing changes if it is or isn’t present. If it’s absent, it doesn’t mean the “vaccine” makers are exonerated. If it’s present, they’re not “more guilty”. Their guilt isn’t in question. It’s definitely criminal. If Tess Lawrie says she’s got new data, I’m all ears. Tess is a straight arrow.

Meanwhile, I urge us all to be looking outward to what we will do to push these monsters into the sea.  Looking at every possible additional way in which crimes might be being committed is helping only the perpetrators.

Best wishes Mike…”


Our response is broken down to different points within Mike's message.

MIKE YEADON “…To be clear, to date I’ve not seen analytical evidence confirming graphene or derivatives in the injections…”

Many of us agree with Mike.

The evidence is strong, but is not 100% conclusive.

The UK paper according is missing some key information regarding the Raman spectroscopy.

The critical chain of custody for the obtained UK samples is claimed, yet not proven/published as yet.

Although Dr Campra’s Spanish reports are highly professional, he acknowledges legal chain of custody was not met and further investigation is needed.

Chain of custody is the legal requirement proving that the sample has not been tampered with prior to analysis. Without it, no court will take the results seriously.

Why is the ‘chain of custody’ even an issue?

‘Chain of custody’ is associated with crime scenes or the dope testing of high-level athletes. 

  • Why do the vaccine samples need to be ‘stolen’?

  • Why are the manufacturing companies not offering samples for open and public analysis by independent facilities? 

  • Concluding question: Why are the public being mass-injected with a concoction under near mandatory conditions, where such huge efforts are being made to keep the ingredients secret?

Back to Mike's reply on the independent reports.

MIKE YEADON: “…The claims that it’s present involve results that “are consistent with” it being present…”

We agree. But it's interesting to note that the vast majority of modern medicine operates under the guise of prescribing due to symptoms that “are consistent with” a disease/illness being present, and not actual absolute proof.

It's very tempting to talk about the presumptions of the plandemic as a whole at this point... but let's stick to replying to Mike's points :)

In a case of such international importance, we agree with Mike.

We need further testing that produces 100% conclusive and irrefutable results. 

MIKE YEADON:  “….there is a technique that’s able to give us an unequivocal answer: transmission electron microscopy (TEM). 
TEM will show the characteristic hexagonal pattern of dots which reflect the arrangement of carbon atoms in the material.
Why are no reports using the only technique capable of proving its present?.."

The two-dimensional honeycomb structure of carbon atoms in graphene along with the high-resolution transmission electron microscopic (TEM) image.

Dr Campra addressed this issue in his first report.

DR CAMPRA  “….Important NOTE: For a definitive IDENTIFICATION of GRAPHENE by TEM, it is necessary to complement the observation with the structural characterization by obtaining by EDS a characteristic ELECTRON DIFFRACTION STANDARD SAMPLE (as the figure b shown below).

The standard sample corresponding to graphite or graphene has a hexagonal symmetry and generally has several concentric hexagons. It has not been possible at the moment to obtain this standard sample due to the shortage of sample available for processing, and the chaotic arrangement and density of the folds...."

These images are from Dr Campra's first report

Matéria (Rio J.) 23 (1) • 2018 • Characterization of graphene nanosheets obtained by a modified Hummer's method. Renata Hack et al.

Graphene Oxide ‘flakes’ are just one atom thick - imagine wafer-thin paper sheets but of the smallest possible scale and no compound can be thinner than something an atom thick.

Dr Campra explains that in his sample, the sheets were stacked and folded. His challenge was equivalent to dropping a pile of patterned bed-sheets on the floor, and from the pile trying to deduce the fabric's pattern.  

A single sheet would need to be opbed sheetslat,  for in the case of the graphene oxide sheets to see the characteristic hexangular pattern arrangement of the atoms. 

Imagine how many times we'd need to throw the sheets in the air many times before one landed perfectly flat, enabling the fabric pattern to be observed correctly.

similar issue to deducing the pattern on fabric - or from a pile of fishing net

Within the reality of the vaccine analysis, many slides would need to be made until the singular flat sheet was chanced upon. Dr Campra had limited ‘stolen’ samples of the vaccine, meaning a limited number of attempts of analysis.

TEM microscopes cost in the region of seven figures though a second-hand one can be picked up for the price of a London house. 

1 -TEM Microscope - 2- Example of use - 3 - The classic hexangular structure carbon within Graphene

This puts the vital TEM analysis that Dr Mike Yeadon requests into the hands of a very few, of whom most are easily controlled via finance or fear.

This collection of images shows how various settings of the TEM microscope yields different results and clarity from a single atom thick sheet of graphene

Figure 2: (a) Calculated HRTEM images of graphene for different doses and samplings with a usable aperture of 50 mrad under an acceleration voltage of 80 kV. All images are displayed with the maximum contrast, namely the image intensities are mapped on the full grayscale values ranging between 0 and 255. (b) Sharp-cutoff low-pass filtered images of (a).

Overall, Dr Mikle Yeadon's message is simply requesting a full and convincing analysis and is asking why it has not been done yet.

He's not the only one, many of us have been calling for this.

Mike’s call for a full and proper analysis matches our call.

The difference is Mike wishes for independent scientists to provide those results, whereas our call has been for a full official investigation.