The GIANT nanotech cover-up the press won’t reveal

(This is Part-1 in a series; for Part-2, click here.)

Just to remind you what we’re dealing with here: nanoparticles are VERY small.

Imagine a particle of dust. One particle. Let’s compare the weight of that particle to the weight of the RNA strand inserted into COVID vaccines.

The particle of dust is heavier. 580,000 times heavier than the RNA strand.

But don’t worry. Researchers have no problem dealing with the tiny, tiny, tiny bits of nanoparticles. They know exactly what they’re doing.

Really?

It turns out: NO. They don’t.

Within the mainstream community of nanotech researchers, there is a CONTINUING debate about…

…the composition and shape of nanostructures.

That’s right. The researchers have been debating the basic characteristics of the structures they themselves are creating.

BANG.

This means we, the public, have no reliable assurances that these nanostructures are what we’re told they are.

We have public relations statements, but no science.

For instance, take carbon nanotubes. Researchers will give DIFFERENT assessments of the SAME nanotubes’ purity and even their diameters, as well as their electrical and mechanical properties.

This is like arguing about whether a car runs on gas or electricity.

Same with quantum dots. Researchers looking at the same dots will offer different analyses of their optical and electronic properties. Oops.

Nano metal organic frameworks (MOFs) run into the same morass. One MOF can give rise to varying interpretations of its very composition.

And those coatings on nanoparticles? There are debates about their composition and uniformity.

Again, the researchers BUILD these tiny structures. THEN they argue about exactly what they built.

But everything is OK. It has to be. Because if it isn’t, the whole nanotech branch of science could, well, collapse.

Here’s a lovely capper: