Dr.Ana Mihalcea rebuts Dr. Ryan Cole’s claims on nanotechnology

Dr.Ana Mihalcea rebuts Dr. Ryan Cole’s claims on nanotechnology


Here’s the whole program

The first thing I noticed is this is a detailed articles. There are no one-line dismissals or standing on authority here.

You Can’t Find What You Are Not Looking For: Analysis of Dr. Ryan Cole’s Claims on Del Bigtree: “There Is No Nanotech and No Graphene” in C19 vials

In this article I am addressing recent claims by Dr. Ryan Cole. There was a lot of information presented in the below interview as “proven scientific fact” that I find highly questionable.

Dr. Ryan Cole Addresses Covid-19 Jab Claims: Graphene Oxide, Nanotech, Parasites

He begins with J&J 2000x magnification. In the initial blurry image, we are told that those out of focus blotches are normal and nothing to look at. Cole points at something that is a wiggler and states: “That is just typical, that is just fluid flowing.” “When you develop something this fast, how much debris do you get? That looks like a glass chard to me” (circled in blue-violet).

My comment: This is typical for what? Vaccine contents? That is a lot of “debris” ( circled red). That makes it agreeable for Cole to be in a vial that he just analyzed- because of “bad manufacturing”. How does he know this is not intentional? We know that vial contents are produced by many subcontractors in China under DOD oversight. Cole has no idea what this “debris” is, because he has not done any testing, in particular no incubation to look at development of self assembly, that can only be done over time. Chards of glass? From where and how does he know that is glass? What analysis has he done to prove that? He dismisses 26 worldwide teams who analyzed vial contents, and yet his “gold standard methodology” is so contaminated that he is the first one in the world to find glass chards in a C19 vial?

Cole: He mentions European Medicine Agency and states their analysis only showed 50% -55% purity. “You are getting fragmented RNA.” He further states that his methodology with the laminar flow hood, then transporting the slide to his microscope, is a gold standard approach that still collected dust particles. He then states that people jump to conclusion that are “off the beaten track”.

My comment: If there is only fragmented RNA and purity less than 50% – how does Coles spike protein narrative for everyone hold up? How can fragmented RNA due to poor manufacturing create functional mRNA that reverse transcribes into DNA to create a full spike protein? That is not possible! Some people who analyzed the vials found no mRNA ( Steve Kirsch, Daniel Nagase, Kevin McCairn). In which case, the insistence of the mRNA spike protein theory also does not make sense for all injected people. In the recent discussion by Sasha Latypova, the batch sizes are so large, that it is impossible to create viable RNA in such quantities. If there is no mRNA, people are experiencing toxicities from other causes, like the toxic metals and lipid nanoparticle encapsulated Q dot hydrogel nanotechnology. Karen Kingston has extensively explained this technology. Dust particles on the coverslip look quite different than the self assembly nanotechnology we have seen.

Del Bigtree: Is this one of the Adeno virus? Cole: “This contains thousands or hundreds of particles of Adeno virus in that one little particle floating by, that’s the carrier.”

My comment: How can you with an optical microscope see thousands of particles of Adenovirus? Adenoviruses are 90-100 nanometers in size, requiring an electron microscope. How does Cole know that there are virus particles in there? What test has he performed? This is assumption here that has not been verified.

Cole: The elongated things should be the lipids containing thousands of mRNA sequences. He points to this longer rod and dismisses it again as a “debris like particle”.

My comment: The Lipid Nanoparticles are Nano size. They should not be seen with an optical microscope if they remain Nano particles without self assembly to microscopic size. To dismiss so much vial content as “debris”, makes no sense. If you are evaluating what is in the vials, you want to know everything that is in them – you do not label up front something as “debris” that you have not further evaluated. A comment like “they should contain copies of mRNA” is an assumption that has no relevance in scientific terms – did Cole check to see what they contain and verified his assumption on the presence of mRNA? No. Dr. Shimon Yanowitz incubated the vials at room and body temperature and showed that from its round lipid vehicles seen contents grow self assembly microstructures. Cole did not perform any of these tests, neither did his German colleagues.

Image courtesy: Dr. Shimon Yanowitz

Cole then shows a Pfizer vial. He ignores the huge conglomerates clearly visible but looks at moving rods. He asks the question if that could be a “Graphene sheet.

My comment: A Graphene Sheet has the thickness of a monoatomic layer. It cannot be seen with an optical microscope. These huge areas seen, (circled red by me), that Cole dismisses, have self assembled, when incubated, into microstructures. Please see our full extensive presentations on the topic on my previous posts.

Image Courtesy: Dr. Shimon Yanowitz

In the discussion Cole talks about colleagues who use their microscope and start conjecturing about vial contents. Interesting, since everything Cole just said was conjecture. Cole mentions his colleagues in Europe that he collaborated with, have analyzed 100 vials at a University. Also a very interesting claim, if one considers that around the world it is illegal to analyze vials. In the US, they are property of the DOD and it is a federal crime to analyze them. Rules in Germany are similarly harsh. Who would be able to get 100 vials, walk into a University in broad daylight and use the Electron Microscope and Mass Spectroscopy without any problems – while all other scientists around the world have to work underground so as to not get arrested? Isn’t it interesting that someone like this is a proponent of cholesterol theory?

Cole states: “We can look at it and suppose it is this and that and bless their hearts there are a lot of colleagues and scientists that take their medical school microscopes and are trying to be curious and then they add to the literature“.

My comment: We just watched Cole suppose “it is this or that.“ Cole knows nothing about our equipment. See discussion above.

Cole then proceeds to say that a Graphene sheet looks like this image below. Cole becomes even more unprofessional: “If you have a fantasy thinking mind – however guess what – these are cholesterol crystals.”

Again, Cole does not understand that Graphene sheets have the size of less then 10 nanometers ( a billionth of a meter). We have already discussed with qualified Engineers ( which Cole and Del Bigree are not), that the time lapsed self assembly micro circuitry does not look like cholesterol. Cholesterol does not self assemble. Cole has NO QUALIFICATION WHATSOEVER to give comments about micro circuitry, which is why he cannot distinguish between cholesterol and a self assembly micro chip. Cole also has done no research on the EMF effect on the microchip development which ends the cholesterol debate, since cholesterol does not disappear and reappear with WiFi exposure.

Image courtesy: Darkfield and Bright field images of the same microchip from Pfizer vial.

Next he shows EDX spectroscopy from his colleagues in Germany. Cole claims that the vials have “contaminants” of many metals and claims they come from the needle that the fluid was drawn up with. Then he says the people who are looking at the vials and are asking “ what is this thing and what is that thing – well a lot of that are the contaminants of the manufacturing process”. Cole says there is absolutely no Graphene in the vials.

My comment: Here is the EDX of Graphene, however all you need is Carbon because Graphene is a 0.34 nanometer one carbon atom thick layer. If you have Carbon, you cannot rule out Graphene. There was Carbon in the vials. Graphene Spectra

Patent regrading Graphene in C19 shots.

Vaccine metal “contamination” or – intentional undisclosed inclusion – have been documented around the world and in most vaccines on the market and in scientific literature have been linked to extensive side effects that overlap with C19 vax injury. These metals may not be seen with an optical microscope, because again, they are Nano size. Here is the study by the world expert in Nanopathology, Dr. Antoinetta Gatti, who evaluated 44 different vaccine types and found toxic metals in all of them:

New quality-control investigations on vaccines: micro- and nanocontamination

Cole mentioned the Hydra that Dr. Carrie Madej claimed was in the Pfizer vial. I have seen nobody in the world duplicate her findings, and nobody I work with has seen anything like she found. While many teams around the world have done investigations, to dismiss the full body of the work on the subject due to one outlying unverified result, does not make sense. However, self assembly Nano and micro technology and Graphene has been found by many teams around the world.


Some writers reported that Cole presented “real science.” I am asking – where? He gave us his opinions! He has not disproved self assembly nanotechnology because he failed to do experiments that look for it, requiring incubation, time lapsed bright and darkfield microscopy over long time, experiments with Wifi exposure and magnetic fields. His dangerous dismissal of the toxic heavy metal vial contents as “debris”, that people do not need to worry about, shows he knows not of the severe mitochondrial and cellular toxicity of Nano metals, nor of course their utility as military surveillance wetware or ingredients in self assembly hydrogel. His dismissal also does not allow for people to get treatment with therapies like EDTA that can bind those heavy metals. He falsely rules out the the presence of monoatomic layers of Graphene made from Carbon. He assumes that 100% of injected people are producing spike protein, when he himself has acknowledged that the mRNA manufacturing process cannot produce viable mRNA in these amounts. Hence not all who have the extreme clotting may be affected by spike protein. Self assembly Hydrogel, a carbon based polymer with metals that Mike Adams found in his analysis of cadaver clots, are an alternative explanation, that would warrant completely different treatment.

So, has Dr. Ryan Cole effectively debunked Nanotechnology and Graphene in the C19 shots?

No, he has not.

If we are to help humanity, we must continue our scientific investigations to uncover what all of the unknown factors are with these injections, so we can develop treatment plans accordingly. Dismissing any area of scientific inquiry is dangerous, if it denies the possibility of help to anyone affected. I encourage Ryan Cole to connect with interdisciplinary research experts – including engineers with expertise in the area of nanotechnology – and truly perform the due diligence experiments it takes to rule out what he claims is not there.

You cannot find what you are not looking for.

One thought on “Dr.Ana Mihalcea rebuts Dr. Ryan Cole’s claims on nanotechnology

  1. On balance I go with Dr Cole here. Just given conventional medical science the vaccines are dangerous enough. Right when they were rolled out there was a lot of stuff about magnetism and hydras etc. I’m not sure whether that was a disinformation effort to discredit anti-vaxxers. Cole has – unlike so amny others -s tuck his neck out in his practice and come up with a coherent argument. Who are these 26 other teams? Where are they? Maybe those few ho survive the jab will become limbs of the anti-Christ, I don’t know. Just on what Cole has found they are satanic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial