That does provide a biochemical reason to be finding magnets inside of the vials: If they had been earlier utilized in order to sift out the mRNA from a larger pool of nucleic acid material.
I'm not privy to the process details like someone such as Dr. Malone, so I will have to take it as a "current best guess" as to why neodymium is found in the COVID shots.
It is an easy test that can be performed to estimate the number of shots a subject has received. Not sure if the neodymium was associated with a particular component of the vaccine, if it was it could be used to calculate the tissue vaccine uptake rate in a biopsy. Easy to find and count the neodymium particles.
— ask THE AI
Yes, you could use a non-toxic, easily detectable tracer like neodymium particles, or other rare earth elements, to estimate herbicide exposure in crops like soy. Neodymium, for example, can be detected through techniques like inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), which is sensitive and can identify even trace amounts.
In your scenario, a possible approach would be:
1. Tagging the Herbicide: Incorporate a stable, non-toxic neodymium-based compound into the herbicide. This way, the neodymium serves as a proxy for tracking the herbicide without altering its chemical properties or effectiveness.
2. Field Application: Apply the tagged herbicide to a test field of soy under typical agricultural conditions.
3. Sampling and Analysis: After harvesting, you could take soil and plant tissue samples to detect and quantify the neodymium particles using ICP-MS. This would help you estimate the level of herbicide that remains in the soil and has been absorbed by the soy.
Using a rare earth element like neodymium is a good option because they are not naturally abundant in significant concentrations in agricultural fields, making it easier to detect any introduced particles. Additionally, they are chemically inert and non-toxic, which aligns with the need to maintain the crop’s suitability for market and human consumption.
This type of testing method can provide accurate insights into herbicide residues while avoiding the health risks associated with radioactive tracers.
Yes, it's one way to track dose levels, but I'd have to look up the half-life to be sure it is feasible.
That AI answer is misleading -- as is so often the case with AI -- because the phrase "chemically inert and non-toxic" does not account for biophysical effects. When neodymium magnets were placed on rat backs, their blood vessels thinned. In other applications, bones grew. While a single small dose, if ingested orally, may not cause harm, repeated or injected doses could.
It is very misleading to say that neodymium is "inert" (can't change things), when it is so clear from the evidence that it can change things. Let's make a permanent note that, on this day, an AI program called the most powerful permanent magnet on Earth "inert."
I agree. What is ‘inert’ for a lab experiment on mice does not make it safe for humans. The advantage, unmentioned, is that by NOT being a radioactive tracer it is not as likely to be noticed by amateur medical personnel. Identifying Rare earths requires an expensive mass spectrometer, training, and getting somebody to give you lab time. Survey meters are everywhere. Mass spectrometers are more difficult to access for most people.
Easy to solve: Magnetic mRNA Isolation with Dynabeads in 15 minutes https://www.thermofisher.com/de/de/home/life-science/dna-rna-purification-analysis/napamisc/mrna-isolation-dynabeads.html
Contamination if RNA is purified by magnetic beads. The core of the beads might also be neodyne, I think.
Dr. Bines, thanks.
That does provide a biochemical reason to be finding magnets inside of the vials: If they had been earlier utilized in order to sift out the mRNA from a larger pool of nucleic acid material.
I'm not privy to the process details like someone such as Dr. Malone, so I will have to take it as a "current best guess" as to why neodymium is found in the COVID shots.
It was definitively used in process 1. It might still be used as a precleaning step before filtration. I think they used thermofisher beads.
Very interesting. Thank you. :)
It is an easy test that can be performed to estimate the number of shots a subject has received. Not sure if the neodymium was associated with a particular component of the vaccine, if it was it could be used to calculate the tissue vaccine uptake rate in a biopsy. Easy to find and count the neodymium particles.
— ask THE AI
Yes, you could use a non-toxic, easily detectable tracer like neodymium particles, or other rare earth elements, to estimate herbicide exposure in crops like soy. Neodymium, for example, can be detected through techniques like inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), which is sensitive and can identify even trace amounts.
In your scenario, a possible approach would be:
1. Tagging the Herbicide: Incorporate a stable, non-toxic neodymium-based compound into the herbicide. This way, the neodymium serves as a proxy for tracking the herbicide without altering its chemical properties or effectiveness.
2. Field Application: Apply the tagged herbicide to a test field of soy under typical agricultural conditions.
3. Sampling and Analysis: After harvesting, you could take soil and plant tissue samples to detect and quantify the neodymium particles using ICP-MS. This would help you estimate the level of herbicide that remains in the soil and has been absorbed by the soy.
Using a rare earth element like neodymium is a good option because they are not naturally abundant in significant concentrations in agricultural fields, making it easier to detect any introduced particles. Additionally, they are chemically inert and non-toxic, which aligns with the need to maintain the crop’s suitability for market and human consumption.
This type of testing method can provide accurate insights into herbicide residues while avoiding the health risks associated with radioactive tracers.
Yes, it's one way to track dose levels, but I'd have to look up the half-life to be sure it is feasible.
That AI answer is misleading -- as is so often the case with AI -- because the phrase "chemically inert and non-toxic" does not account for biophysical effects. When neodymium magnets were placed on rat backs, their blood vessels thinned. In other applications, bones grew. While a single small dose, if ingested orally, may not cause harm, repeated or injected doses could.
It is very misleading to say that neodymium is "inert" (can't change things), when it is so clear from the evidence that it can change things. Let's make a permanent note that, on this day, an AI program called the most powerful permanent magnet on Earth "inert."
I agree. What is ‘inert’ for a lab experiment on mice does not make it safe for humans. The advantage, unmentioned, is that by NOT being a radioactive tracer it is not as likely to be noticed by amateur medical personnel. Identifying Rare earths requires an expensive mass spectrometer, training, and getting somebody to give you lab time. Survey meters are everywhere. Mass spectrometers are more difficult to access for most people.