More microscope slides and analysis of strange crystalline structures allegedly from the blood of mRNA vaccinated subjects.
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research2(2), August 12, 2022 Page | 385
Riccardo Benzi Cipelli, MD, DDS1, Franco Giovannini, MD2, and Gianpaolo Pisano, MD, OHNS31Surgeon, Specialist in Odontostomatology, Periodontologist, Studio Benzi Dental Clinic, Vigevano(corresponding author Via P. Mascagni, 41, 27029 Vigevano –Pavia, Mantua, Italy,r.riccardo.benzi.cipelli@gmail.com)2Surgeon, Acupuncture Specialist, Oxygen-Ozone therapy, Diagnostics, Giovannini Biodiagnostic Center, AMBB Headquarters, Mantua, Italy 3Surgeon, Specialist in Otolaryngology, Masters in Cytology
ABSTRACT
The use of dark-field microscopic analysis of fresh peripheral blood on a slide was once widespread in medicine, allowing a first and immediate assessment of the state of health of the corpuscular components of the blood. In the present study we analyzed with a dark-field optical microscope the peripheral blood drop from 1,006 symptomatic subjects after inoculation with an mRNA injection (Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna), starting from March 2021. There were 948 subjects (94%of the total sample) whose blood showed aggregation of erythrocytes and the presence of particles of various shapes and sizes of unclear origin one month after the mRNA inoculation.
In 12 subjects, blood was examined with the same method before vaccination, showing a perfectly normal hematological distribution. The alterations found after the inoculation of the mRNA injections further reinforce the suspicion that the modifications were due to the so-called “vaccines” themselves. We report 4 clinical cases, chosen as representative of the entire case series. Further studies are needed to define the exact nature of the particles found in the blood and to identify possible solutions to the problems they are evidently causing.
Keywords: blood from COVID-19 vaccine recipients, dark-field microscopy, detoxification of COVID-19 inoculation recipients, experimental injections, foreign materials in COVID-19 injections.
FULL ARTICLE HERE: View of Dark -Field Microscopic Analysis on the Blood of 1,006 Symptomatic Persons After Anti-COVID mRNA Injections from Pfizer/BioNtech or Moderna (ijvtpr.com) (Contains many more perplexing images of “structures post-vaccination).
Martin comments. I hadn’t heard of IJVTPR before seeing this paper. Upon checking it appears they are recently formed and controversial to say the least. All I can say is keep an open mind and do your diligent research. Here’s their mission statement and a link to their site:
About the Journal
The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research is a peer-reviewed scholarly open access journal concerning the development, distribution, and monitoring of vaccines and their components. All content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose. Permission is not required from the publisher nor from the author, but inquiries and letters informing us of the lawful use of any of our published material are welcomed. All works are licensed under Creative Commons License 4.0 NC ND.
International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research (ijvtpr.com)
You may also wonder about Peer reviewal? They say:
ALL PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED ARTICLES ARE FAIR GAME FOR PEER-REVIEWED COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION. Comments on already published comments are also possible to any desired depth that passes our intensive peer-review.
Without compromising its peer-review standards which are more intensive that PubMed Central, its uncompromising no ad hominem policy, its no undisclosed conflict of interest policy, its higher ethical requirements than those promoted by the Committee on Publishing Ethics, with the publication of the comments of Tamara Tuunimen, MD, PhD on Benzi Cipelli et al. in Volume 2, Issue 2 of the IJVTPR, the journal enters a new phase of peer-reviewed scientific discussion and debate.
…so they claim they have higher Peer-review standards than PubMed and higher ethical standards than CPE, which still leaves me uncertain as to whether or not they are independently peer-reviewed or simply self-proclaiming a higher standard? Confusing. Again, I leave it in the reader’s hands to make of this what they will. Unlike other media outlets, although we will give opinion and analysis, we aren’t here to think for you. Think for yourself.
Get your copy from our Online Store or your local book and magazine retailer
Australian Retail Locations » Uncensored Publications Limited
New Zealand Retail Locations » Uncensored Publications Limited
As censorship heats up and free thought becomes an increasingly rare commodity, we appeal to our readers to support our efforts to reach people with information now being censored elsewhere. In the last few years, Uncensored has itself been censored, removed from the shelves of two of our biggest NZ retailers – Countdown Supermarkets and Whitcoulls Bookstores – accounting for 74% of our total NZ sales.
You can help keep the Free Press alive by subscribing and/or gifting a subscription to your friends and relatives.
