Outbreak II: Attack of the Nanobots

A review of Yanowitz's and Broudy's recent paper in IJVTPR

Most readers won’t need to be told that the gene-based vaccines against COVID-19 are ineffective and dangerous, and that governments the world over have lied and continue to lie on both of these accounts. The recent paper “From Synthetic DNA and RNA-Based Self-Assembling Nanotechnology to Sequalae [sic] of COVID-19 Shots” by Yanowitz and Broudy¹ concurs, but it asserts that the lies and the deception go beyond covering up the dangers of the vaccines and their lack of protective efficacy. According to these authors, the harm done by these vaccines is not caused by the production of spike protein in our body cells. Instead, so the story goes, the vaccines contain sophisticated synthetic devices that consist of nucleic acid (DNA), but function as tiny robots (“nanobots”) that act insidiously inside our bodies to destroy our blood vessels and organs. In their conclusions at the end of their paper, they sum up their hypothesis as follows:

• “Synthetic DNA/RNA nanotechnology has … [been] injected into a majority of the world’s people … triggered by electromagnetic logic gates,”

• “causing not only widespread post-injection malaise but also life-threatening and even fatal conditions, ranging from sudden cardiac failure and demyelinating neuropathies to explosive oncogenesis.”

• “All this is being driven by DNA ‘seeds’ that constitute, we believe, a horizontally transmissible synthetic contagion transmitted through the COVID-19 injections.”

• “Addressing the crisis … requires abandoning the fiction that the misnomer ‘mRNA technologies’ are mainly about the spike protein of the bioengineered SARS-CoV-2 bioweapon …”

Rather startling claims—but what do they have to offer in the way of supporting evidence?

Nanotechnology or microscopy artifacts?

The only original evidence shown in this paper consists of pictures obtained by conventional light microscopy. The first such picture appears as Figure 4, reproduced here as Figure 1. It shows a fiber-like object that was observed in a blood sample of, remarkably, an unvaccinated person. The authors refer to it as a “nanotechnology structure.” Since it is shown as relevant evidence in this paper on vaccines and their effects, the suggestion seems to be that this “nanotechnology structure” was somehow transferred to the unvaccinated test person from another party that had been vaccinated; and indeed, as we have seen, the authors do claim that the supposed vaccine nanomaterials constitute a “horizontally transmissible synthetic contagion.”

Figure 1: Figure 4 from Yanowitz and Broudy. Original caption: “Part of a nanotechnology structure in a blood sample taken from a finger-prick drop of blood of an unjabbed volunteer. The structure is a razor-sharp ribbon that is a few hundreds of micrometres long, folded over itself.”

In connection with their microscopic observation of fibrous structures in blood and vaccine samples, the authors cite two previous works. Among these, the study by Lee et al.² makes no claims as to the chemical composition of these structures, whereas Jeon et al.³ assert that structures of similar appearance are composed of graphene oxide. Daniel Broudy co-wrote both the latter study and the present one. Therefore, we should expect from him some explanation what evidence led him to substitute DNA for graphene oxide as the material in question. However, no such explanation is offered; and indeed the entire paper presents not a shred of evidence concerning the chemical composition of this or any other microscopically observed particles. All assertions in this regard are speculation, pure and simple.

Aside from the conspicuous large “nanotechnology” object, the picture also shows a large number of red blood cells, only the outlines of which are visible due to the illumination technique used. The size of red blood cells is such that they can pass through capillaries only in a single file. Accordingly, the much larger fiber could not possibly pass through intact capillaries. Thus, even if it had originally been contained in the the vaccine and somehow had entered into the bloodstream, it should have gotten stuck in the first capillary bed that it encountered—which is that of the lungs. It is not possible for objects of this size to stay in circulation and be recovered in blood samples. This points to sample contamination as the source of the fiber-like object. And indeed the aspect of this object, and of the others presented in the paper, resembles that of ordinary fibers found in dust samples. This is illustrated in Figure 2, which compares another of Yanowitz and Broudy’s fiber-like objects with a sample of household dust (source: E.R. Crutcher, Microlab Northwest). Of course, we can’t be sure that any two of the fibers shown in either image are composed of the same material, since light microscopy simply cannot decide such questions. Nevertheless, the similarity in their appearance should make it clear that contamination with dust must be considered as a possible source of error. Yanowitz and Broudy don’t seem to have considered and addressed this possibility.

Figure 2: Vaccine sample shown as figure 5 by Yanowitz and Broudy (left) and sample of household dust (right). The latter contains a single straight black carbon fiber and a number of fiber-like dust particles. The colors in both panels are artifacts of illumination.

But transmissible fibers consisting of synthetic DNA are not all that Yanowitz and Broudy have on offer. They show some other interesting objects, to which they attach even more interesting speculative interpretations. A round object that to my lying eyes looks very much like an air bubble (Figure 3, left) is described as a synthetic “protocell,” which furthermore is said to contain the complete machinery for cell-free protein synthesis. The squarish shape entrapped inside “potentially contains meta-DNA,” i.e. synthetic DNA fashioned into artificially designed shapes. Exactly how such protein-producing artificial cells fit into the story of self-replicating DNA nanobots is not explained. Nor is a very specific role assigned to another scary discovery—sharp-edged rectangular structures, which the authors interpret as electronic circuits (Figure 3, right). How these circuits would be powered once inside the body, or how they would relay any of the information they might generate to other nanostructures or perhaps to the outside world also remains unclear.

Figure 3: Figures 8 (left) and 10 (right) from Yanowitz and Broudy. See text for explanations.

In connection with this latest observation, the authors note that “a thick layer of liquid from a Pfizer vial was placed on the glass slide without a cover-slip to allow this electronic circuit to assemble to its full, unrestricted height.” Now, if a wet microscopic sample is examined without a cover-slip, then the heat of the microscope’s light beam will evaporate the fluid, and any salts contained in it will be induced to come out of solution. Like many other drug preparations for injection, the Pfizer vaccine contains sodium chloride, i.e. regular salt, in a fairly high concentration (similar to that of the blood plasma and the extracellular body fluids). Sodium chloride forms “orthorombic” crystals, i.e. ones with perfectly rectangular shapes—just as the one shown by Yanowitz and Broudy. An example is given here in Figure 4. One might argue that the imperfections in this crystal are even more suggestive of “circuitry” than those seen in Figure 3. On the other hand, it should be very difficult to force meta-DNA into such precisely rectangular shapes; and this should not be necessary anyway for their assumed function, since no law of nature stipulates that electronic circuits could only exist on rectangular surfaces.

Figure 4: A sodium chloride crystal under the microscope. Source: Wikimedia (Andrey73RUS).

How are the nanotechnology devices supposed to cause vaccine damage?

After the reader has been put on edge through the introduction of all kinds of advanced nano-gadgetry, the proposed mechanism of how these devices actually inflict harm comes as a bit of a let-down. The only damage mechanism that is spelled out explicitly is as follows: the sharp edges of those circulating fibers are assumed to scrape the linings of the blood vessels, which is in turn supposed to cause the formation of those interesting white blood clots of which many embalmers have spoken. Now, those clots are certainly relevant for understanding the damage done by the vaccines. However, it is not clear to me why a plain mechanical trauma should lead to the formation of clots of unusual aspect and structure. Nor is it clear how these clots should then lead to inflammatory damage in the cells and tissues that lie beyond those damaged blood vessels; the clots should simply hinder perfusion and cause hypoxia, leading primarily to necrotic damage. Of course, that manifest inflammation is easily explained as the consequence of spike protein expression and the immune response to it; and the detection of vaccine-induced spike in such inflammatory lesions—see for example the study by Michael Mörz⁴—strongly reinforces this interpretation. Immunological causation is further supported by the observation that inflammatory adverse effects such as myocarditis are much more frequent after the second injection than after the first.⁵ No such difference should be expected with a purely mechanical damage mechanism. But as noted in the beginning, Yanowitz and Broudy want to “abandon the fiction” that the modRNA contained in the vaccines, and the spike protein induced by it, have anything to do with the actual damage done by the vaccines; therefore, the question of inflammatory side effects simply falls by the wayside.

To account for vaccine-induced cancer, the authors likewise invoke mechanical damage through those fibers, citing asbestosis as a precedent. However, carcinogenesis due to asbestos fibers takes many years; it occurs after chronic occupational exposure, not after a small number of injections; and it is limited to the lungs and the pleura. It is too dissimilar in too many ways from vaccine-induced “turbo cancer” and cannot serve as a credible precedent.

These supposed “circuits” are further alleged to interfere with brain function. Of course, this assumption is again not supported by any data, but only by a few citations from the literature on the topic of “artificial brain interfaces.” The cited studies can indeed give the reader pause; they evoke the impression that the vigorously pursued research in this field has little to do with treating disease, but a lot more with control and manipulation. On the other hand, however, it is clear that the results achieved so far are far from being ready for widespread application. The study by Hong et al.,⁶ cited by Yanowitz and Broudy, may serve as an example. It reports on the successful long-term monitoring of a small number of brain cells. But the technique used in this study—which is certainly ingenious—first requires the injection of chemical “interface material” into the brain, followed by the insertion of a small wire that transmits the captured signals outward to the amplifying electronics. This is clearly a long way off from the hypothetical use of “meta-DNA chips” administered intramuscularly or intravenously, which would then independently make their way to the brain and start recording signals; or perhaps receiving signals and manipulating brain activity in some specific way. Moreover, the activity of a few brain cells obviously does not reflect the thoughts and intentions of the person concerned. To capture these, observing a person’s behavior and communication is surely far more suitable than the “fever curves” of individual cells; and it is precisely this comprehensive observation—enhanced and perfected by AI—that currently appears to be the highest priority for state and supranational surveillance agencies.

Conclusion

Yanowitz and Broudy present a sensational hypothesis of how the modRNA COVID shots maim and kill their victims. However, they present no robust supporting evidence, nor do they even fully develop their hypothesis as such. It remains vague how the supposed DNA nanobots are replicated in vivo, or how they might spread from vaccinated to unvaccinated people. Their relationship to the alleged protein-synthesizing protocells is not explained either. The external control of the DNA nanobots by external electromagnetic fields is posited, but it is not connected to any of the supposed toxic effects. Crucially, the study rides roughshod over the substantial existing evidence of immunological mechanisms of harm, which supports the conventional view of the vaccines’ mechanism of action and of damage.

I agree with Yanowitz and Broudy in their distrust of the scientific establishment, which remains subservient to political authority and refuses to speak the truth on the risks and benefits of the poisonous gene-based vaccines. However, in our protest against this establishment, we should not “throw out the baby with the bathwater” by discarding the scientific method itself. I believe that the study by Yanowitz and Broudy represents a mishap of this kind.

1. Yanowitz, S.D. and Broudy, D. (2026) From Synthetic DNA and RNA-Based Self-Assembling Nanotechnology to Sequalae [sic] of COVID-19 Shots. IJVTPR 4:1701-1753

2. Lee, Y.M. et al. (2022) Foreign Materials in Blood Samples of Recipients of COVID-19 Vaccines. IJVTPR 2:249-265

3. Jeon, K. et al. (2023) A Presentation of Analyses of COVID-19 Vaccine Samples, Blood Samples, Urine Samples, Foot Bath Samples, Sitz Bath Samples, and Skin-Extract Samples. J. Biomed. Res. Environ. Sci. 4:188-216

4. Mörz, M. (2022) A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against Covid-19. Vaccines 10:2022060308

5. Oster, M.E. et al. (2022) Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021. JAMA 327:331-340

6. Hong, G. et al. (2018) Mesh electronics: a new paradigm for tissue-like brain probes. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 50:33-41