Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist

A reader who went over the Spanish scientist graphene topic carefully sent a message clarifying things.

I am going to add a clearer explanation than I posted earlier when I was mad because people are still not understanding this.

The shot was reported by someone to be 99 percent graphene oxide. This was caused by a lack of scientific knowledge on the part of those who quoted the Spanish scientists. The scientists claimed the shot was less than 1 percent graphene oxide. That would be injectible.

HERE IS WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG:

Whoever did the graphene story failed to understand this one simple item: The Spanish scientists separated the liq(u)id component of the shot from the solid component of the shot, and the solid components, at about 1 percent of total shot volume, were 99 percent graphene oxide (according to them) That makes a HUGE difference because it's like putting a spoon of sugar in a cup of coffee and then injecting that, rather than putting straight un-dissolved sugar in a syringe and trying to inject that

However, despite this correction that they actually claimed 1 percent and not 99 percent of total shot volume, the entire premise was flawed because the claim was that they put the solids from the shot in an electron microscope, and with that determined it was graphene oxide. And that's not how it would be done, chemical tests, mass spectroscopy or even an ordinary microscope would be able to tell if it was graphene oxide, I am still calling bunk on this story, even at 1 percent graphene concentration because no scientists would bother with an electron microscope for a test this simple, someone just said that because they figured it sounded good.

That is my FINAL ANSWER.

If there was graphene, it was at 1 percent total shot volume, represented 99 percent of actual solids in the shot, the shot itself was NOT 99 percent graphene, and I seriously doubt they'd have used an electron microscope for confirmation when even this web site's microscope would have done the trick just fine and a microscope is not what would be used for confirming graphene anyway.

Here is the error that made the topic a laughing stock: 99 percent of the non aqueous portion of the shot was graphene, NOT THE WHOLE SHOT.

Details matter. Getting them that wrong, as wrong as someone reported, did SERIOUS damage to everyone trying to protect us from this shot. It just blew credibility straight into the sewer.