All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 16, 2024 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
34:22
Widely-touted '55 undeclared chemical elements' VACCINE study is a clown show...
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Mike Adams with a laboratory analysis report of this breaking news from Children's Health Defense that cites a study that says there are 55 undeclared chemical elements including heavy metals found in COVID vaccines.
And it says, individually, these chemicals are known to cause neurological, cardiovascular, and immunological damage.
Together, their synergistic toxicity could exacerbate these risks far beyond what regulators and manufacturers have disclosed or studied.
And I'm here to tell you, as a published article, I'm a food scientist, laboratory owner.
I've been running ICP-MS analysis on foods, well over 10,000 samples, maybe tens of thousands, I don't know, for over a decade.
And I've frequently been disturbed by the fact that the public doesn't know much about how laboratory science works.
Or what is a chemical versus what is an element?
And I've seen many cases where people wildly overreact to things, and they don't understand what it really says.
So I'm here to try to help you understand what this is.
And right off the bat, the fact that this is being reported as 55 undeclared chemical elements And they say these chemicals are known to cause damage.
That's inaccurate.
They're not chemicals.
They are elements. So elements are the building blocks of chemicals.
Elements are like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, potassium, magnesium, whatever.
Gold is an element.
Lead is an element.
And there are different isotopes of lead, which are just different masses of the same element.
When you combine elements, you create then molecules or chemicals.
So I can create ascorbic acid or vitamin C by combining hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen.
But you could also create poisons or toxins out of the same elements.
So the fact that an element exists in something Often does not automatically mean that it's toxic.
Although there are certain elements that are widely considered to be just toxic elements, sometimes called heavy metals, lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury typically is the case.
And also, you know, aluminum is toxic, even though it's a lower mass than those metals.
Aluminum is toxic to the human body.
So, of course, you know, I'm concerned about aluminum in products, but out of the, I think there were three vaccines tested, two of the three had no aluminum detected, apparently.
And then the other one had what looks like 17 parts per million.
And if you look at this study, Which says, you know, 55 undeclared chemical elements.
The units that are being used to report this are micrograms per liter, which is parts per billion.
So micrograms per milliliter is considered parts per million, and micrograms per liter obviously would be parts per billion.
Now, some of the big numbers that are reported here, this was conducted via ICP-MS, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, which again, I've run those instruments for over a decade now.
And they're very accurate, by the way.
These instruments, when they are properly calibrated and you have the proper external standards, they produce very accurate numbers.
Sometimes plus or minus numbers.
3%, something like that.
I mean, the accuracy is really good compared to things like single quad mass spec chromatography, which can be plus or minus 40% or more.
Sometimes in other types of approaches to science, like plus or minus 40% is considered acceptable.
But with ICP-MS, you get a lot more accurate than that.
But when you run samples like this, like vaccines, okay?
Now, as you know, I'm no fan of these vaccines, and I believe that these COVID vaccines are depopulation bioweapons, in my opinion.
But that's not simply because of the elements they contain.
If you just analyze the elements, you understand you have to destroy all the molecules in order to count the elements.
So there's a plasma torch at the front of ICP-MS instruments.
The plasma torch, that's when you say inductively coupled plasma, well, the plasma refers to the plasma torch that blasts apart all molecules and all chemicals into their elemental composition, or frankly, ionized elements, which then continue on in an ionized stream through a Well, you've got a collision cell and some other things.
I'm not going to go into all of it.
You've got a quadrupole in there.
And then at the end you have a PMT, which is a photomultiplier tube that basically converts...
It counts the elements by converting it into an electric current and magnifying that current by many orders of magnitude.
Anyway, that's how they actually work.
But when you run samples of things that are going to be injected into the human body, you're always going to see high sodium, high phosphorus, high potassium.
So when I'm looking at these vaccines and it's saying, like, what is this, 47 million parts per billion Well, some people would look at that and say, oh my god, it's a big number!
That's nothing.
At a half a milliliter dose, typically multiplied by, what was that, 47 million parts per billion?
That's almost no sodium at all.
It's like a couple grains of salt or something.
I'd have to do the math, but it's inconsequential.
Your body has sodium in it.
Your blood has sodium in it.
So injecting essentially saline solution substances into the human body is not a depopulation weapon by itself.
So you inject somebody with potassium and phosphorus and sodium and magnesium or even smaller amounts of calcium and so on.
I'm not suggesting you do that, but if you did, that doesn't kill a person.
Or, you know, electrolytes, right?
You inject people with electrolytes, which, you know, sodium is one of them.
You're not hurting them.
So when it's being reported, oh, it's, you know, high magnesium or whatever, it's not even very high.
One of them is 170 parts per billion magnesium.
It's nothing. It's nothing.
So then you have to ask the question, well, what are the values that are being reported?
In these vaccines.
So let's take chromium, for example.
Well, 58 parts per billion, 23 parts per billion in another one, and then another Moderna vial.
What is it? 46 parts per billion.
Is that a concern?
Absolutely not. That's zero concern.
You have trace chromium in your blood right now.
If I tested your blood or if I tested your urine or if I tested your hair or your fingernails, I would find probably higher levels of chromium than that.
So that's not a concern.
Manganese, 3.6 parts per billion.
That's nothing. You know, iron, here it is at 270 parts per billion.
Well, that's nothing.
Again, because there's already iron in your blood, otherwise you wouldn't have red blood cells.
Nickel, well, that's a toxic element, but what are the levels we have here?
15 parts per billion?
Or 20 parts per billion.
You multiply that times 0.5 milliliters, which is the injection volume, and you're like, it's nothing.
It's nothing. You're injecting someone with a few, a very minuscule mass of nickel.
Not enough To even be noticeable, not enough to poison somebody.
It's not the nickel that's hurting people, is my point.
And there's cobalt and there's copper and there's zinc and gallium.
Let's look at arsenic.
Here it is, arsenic. 20 parts per billion in one of the vials.
Again, that's nothing.
You get way higher levels of arsenic eating seaweed, you know?
Way higher level.
You get higher arsenic eating, like, gluten-free rice crackers, you know?
It's nothing. So I see, sometimes I see headlines and news reports and studies, and people say, well, you know, we detected arsenic.
It tested positive for arsenic, and arsenic is known to do this and this and this.
Well, yeah, but not at 20 parts per billion.
It doesn't do that.
Now, if you drink arsenic-contaminated well water that has, let's say, Parts per thousand arsenic in the well water, you're going to get cancer.
Or even high parts per million over time, you're going to get cancer.
But to take an injection of like 20 parts per billion arsenic times 0.5 milliliters, what are you getting?
Like zero almost, very close to zero.
So to run headlines and say, oh, this is so toxic, but to not have a discussion about these levels, I just think it's irresponsible.
And again, I'm not defending these vaccines, obviously.
I've already said, in my opinion, they are bioweapons.
They are depopulation bioweapons, but it's not because of the elements they contain.
It's because of Well, in my view, the mRNA mechanism that causes your body to produce foreign proteins or alien proteins by taking over the ribosomes of your cells and churning out spike proteins, which are toxic at a much larger level than an atomic level.
You know, atomic elements are tiny.
Proteins are massive.
Proteins are huge.
And to say that, oh, the problem is these atomic elements, like they got a little bit of, you know, strontium or gallium or arsenic.
No, that's not the problem.
This analysis, this ICP-MS analysis of what's in vaccines, I've done it many times, and I've seen very tiny levels of things like lead.
The most concerning thing that I've seen is aluminum.
But This is not a smoking gun.
So don't get caught up blowing up this story and thinking, oh my God, this is proof.
It's 55 undeclared chemicals.
No, it isn't, actually.
It's not 55 undeclared chemicals.
It's elements. And there's no requirement to declare elements in anything.
When you go buy a box of cereal...
And there's a nutrition facts label on the cereal.
Does the FDA require the food company to do an elemental analysis and then have another panel that lists how many parts per billion of carbon and hydrogen and oxygen and sulfur and helium, you know, and everything else?
Is that a requirement for a food or a medicine or a product?
No. No, that's not a requirement because nobody would know what even they're looking at.
Like, why is there so much carbon in here?
Because we're carbon-based life forms?
Because all foods are based on carbon?
All organic molecules have carbon in them?
Like, why am I eating so much carbon?
I was told carbon is bad by the climate lunatics.
Well, if people start seeing big carbon numbers, they'll freak out.
They don't know that their Cheerios are made of carbon.
So that's why you don't put labels on like that to people who don't know what they're looking at.
Because they'll flip out.
And then, by the way, I see in this report some elements like terbium.
Okay? Atomic mass 159.
Terbium is here at 0.011 parts per billion.
So that's 11 parts per trillion, by the way.
11 parts per trillion of terbium.
Is that toxic?
No. No.
It's got nothing to do with anything.
It's practically zero.
Frankly, the fact that you're even seeing a number like that or holmium here is at 0.005 parts per billion.
Right? I'm willing to bet you that the instrument that ran this isn't even validated to that level of detection.
It's called the LOD, level of detection, or LOQ, level of quantitation.
And in order to be an ISO accredited laboratory, you have to be able to demonstrate that you know your instrument's limits.
And it comes down to a signal-to-noise ratio, by the way, in the data.
So if you want to have a limit of detection that's really, really low, you have to be able to prove that your instrument can discern the difference between a signal and a non-signal, despite the fact that there's background noise.
There's always background noise in all of these.
Hence the need for the turbine vacuum in these instruments, by the way, to clear out all other molecules and elements in the air and get all the oxygen out of the way, you know, get the carbon dioxide out of the way, get the, well, the argon.
Argon's used as a carrier gas in this, but you get the idea.
And that's just because argon doesn't react with hardly anything.
It's a noble gas, right?
So when I see 0.005 parts per billion of holmium, I'm like, are you kidding me?
You can't even, your instrument can't even do that.
You can't even show me that your instrument can discern that level, five parts per trillion of holmium?
Yeah, I doubt it. I very much doubt it.
I've been able to show much higher levels of parts per trillion of mercury on some of my instruments.
I actually have two ICP-MS instruments.
One of them is a relatively new model with very good sensitivity.
And I would not even...
I would not publish a number like that of 0.005 because...
Any experienced laboratory scientist is going to come along and say what I'm saying, which is like, that's nonsense.
Can you even prove that your instrument can see that?
Show me the peak.
Show me the peak in your software.
Show me that peak and then I'll believe it.
But I don't believe you have a peak there.
That looks like noise.
Why would you publish a number like that?
It doesn't even make any sense.
It's like, I don't know.
And then ruthenium, they publish 0.001 parts per billion.
So that's one part per trillion of ruthenium, which is not an especially toxic element anyway, and certainly not at one part per trillion.
But I guarantee you, the instrument that ran this Cannot discern the difference between one part per trillion and zero parts per trillion.
That's just noise.
That's just noise.
And yeah, noise can show up and it can look like elements.
That's not a signal.
So I don't know why anybody would publish this.
Now, you know, for the record, I have great respect for some of the people who in various ways contributed to this paper, you know, Stephanie Seneff, Brian Hooker with Children's Health Defense, Christopher Shaw, who I interviewed many years ago.
He's very well informed on toxic metals, certain toxic substances and so on.
And so I admire their work and I admire this effort, but I think it's important that When this kind of thing is published, there's meaningful context in it.
And they should explain that there are, for most of these elements at those concentrations, there is no government in the world that says that those are toxic levels of those elements.
Not even in the EU, which has very, very strict restrictions on toxic elements in foods, for example.
But you can search all the literature in the entire world, even in Japan, in Canada, in the EU, and you will not find that these levels of most of these elements, like the ones I mentioned, you'll not find anything that says those are toxic or that they produce any symptoms whatsoever.
So to say that, or to imply that this is really dangerous, you know, I'm sorry, that's...
That's not a substantiated conclusion.
And then on top of that, there are just really obvious errors in this paper.
I don't know how this could even be published.
For example, on...
What is this? Page 8 of the PDF, which is labeled page 1374, it says that each vial was vortexed with a circular motion to ensure homogeneity before drawing samples from any vial.
Samples were taken with a 5 microliter Hamilton syringe.
Really? Really?
A 5 microliter Hamilton syringe?
Okay, let me keep reading and you'll understand.
A puncture was made in each rubber septum, extracting a sample volume into a previously teared polypropylene tube, recording the mass of the extracted sample on analytical balance between 0.22 and 0.33 grams.
Okay, now... I've spent enough years in the lab to tell you that five microliters of liquid weighs nowhere near.22 grams.
I don't even have to do the math on it to tell you that.
Five microliters?
That's five millionths of a liter, which, by the way, is not even enough to inject into an ICP-MS instrument.
You use a five microliter injection for something like a triple-quad mass spec.
Or a gas chromatography injection.
Or a single quad mass.
You do not use 5 microliters for ICP-MS. You're going to use maybe like 500 times more than that.
You have to put milliliters into an ICP-MS instrument, by the way.
But let's say, okay, samples take 5 microliters, and then they recorded the mass on an analytical balance, And they say it's between 0.22 and 0.33 grams.
Well, guess how much 5 microliters of water weighs?
It weighs 0.005 grams.
That's for water.
Now, a vaccine may have slightly different density, so it might weigh more like possibly 0.006 grams.
But it doesn't weigh...
0.22 grams or 0.25 or 0.30 or 0.33 can't possibly weigh that.
So something's wrong with the numbers in this paper.
And by the way, the instrument that was used for this, it's mentioned Agilent 7500CX, which is an ICPMS instrument.
I'm very familiar with that instrument.
It's a solid instrument.
I think it has nine orders of magnitude of dynamic range.
But I can guarantee you, I say this from experience, that if you're using a five microliter sample diluted into the sample intake, there is no way whatsoever you're going to see one part per trillion of any of these elements.
It's not possible unless you have a magic wand and you can change the laws of physics.
Because it doesn't have that sensitivity.
Because with dilution, of course, you have to have greater raw sensitivity than the final reported number.
You know, for obvious reasons.
If you're diluting it into a carrier liquid of any kind, or if you're using just, you're using only 5 microliters, it even, I mean, do you realize?
They even say here, they For sample digestion, they use one milliliter of nitric acid.
So they're adding five microliters to one milliliter of acid.
That's a huge dilution ratio right there.
And then they say on top of that, they add nine mils of water.
I'm sorry, nine mils of nitric acid in ultra-pure water.
And then they say that it achieves an approximate dilution of 1 to 10.
That's not 1 to 10.
That's 5 microliters of a sample into 10 mils of nitric acid in water.
What's that dilution factor?
It's not 1 to 10, folks.
I think that's one to two thousand is what that would be because think about it if you put in five milliliters into ten well that would be one to two you put five microliters into ten milliliters that's one to two thousand so they have a dilution ratio of one to two thousand but they're reporting it as one to ten so right there all your math is off if you don't have the right dilution factor All your results are trash.
You're done. I'm barely looking at this paper and I'm finding two major errors right there.
Not good. Bottom line on this, folks, I went ahead and posted something about this online.
This so-called study is embarrassing and it needs to be retracted.
Whoever authored this Retract it.
Retract it while you still have any kind of career in science because you don't know what you're doing.
And you've made horrific juvenile mistakes.
And nobody will take you seriously until you retract it and fix it.
Do it right. Get your math right.
Get your dilutions right.
Get your sample weights and masses correct.
Get your instrument detection limits and sensitivity correct.
And then from that point, yeah, you can publish an analysis, but you need to put in also, you know, what is it in your opinion that makes these levels toxic to people?
One part per trillion of some rare element that has no known toxic profile at that level?
What are you trying to say?
That that's dangerous to somebody?
No. We have elements all over the place.
I mean, seawater has them all.
I mean, all the common elements.
Himalayan salt has most of these elements in it because it's, of course, ancient seawater.
I mean, if you did this analysis on salt from the ocean, Celtic sea salt would show many of these same numbers.
Are you saying that Celtic sea salt is killing everybody?
No, it's absurd. You need to retract this study.
You need to bring in, frankly, an expert who knows how to do ICP-MS I'm happy to look it over for you.
Obviously, I have a lot more experience than whoever did this study, and I'm happy to do that.
I'm sorry to publicly chide these people, but for God's sake, frankly, it makes the alternative media look like they don't know anything about science.
That's what it looks like.
So, you know, stop embarrassing alternative media with these horrific, just juvenile papers that, frankly, use the kind of words you might expect from a high school student who failed science class to call elements chemicals.
Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?
That's high school. High school level science.
You know, get it right.
I mean, read my studies.
The stuff I've published has been looked over by numerous highly competent people checking for errors over and over and over again.
We redid our math so many times in the studies I put out, like the quantitation of cannabinoids or just our in-lab processes that we've created for the quantitation of glyphosate using cannabinoids.
Non-post-column derivatization techniques, for example.
Our math is rigorously checked again and again and again.
And even then, nature will throw curveballs at you.
If you're not checking your math over and over and over again, you're going to get hammered on this.
So try again.
Retract the study and try again.
What an embarrassment. All right, this is Mike Adams here.
And yeah, you can, I don't care, you can complain if you don't like what I'm saying.
But I'm just here to tell you the truth about what this is.
Think about it. If I can look at this and find all these holes in it, what do you think, like a university ICPMS expert or an industry ICPMS expert, what do you think they would do?
Look at this study.
Rip it to shreds. This is an embarrassment.
That's all. Just retract it.
It's not even the elements that make the vaccines toxic, by the way.
It's not. These aren't lead delivery mechanisms.
They're genetic alteration systems.
And you're not going to find that by looking at elements via ICP-MS. You're using the wrong instrument, is my point.
You're using the wrong instrument.
I mean, you can't...
It would be like trying to understand how music works by breaking down a piano into its elements and saying, oh, the keys have, you know, carbon and oxygen and hydrogen.
Yeah, now we know how a piano works.
No, you don't. You're using the wrong instrument.
You're asking the wrong questions.
You need to look at protein synthesis, right?
And that is a completely different lab, a completely different analysis, and a totally different instrument.
And you can't use a plasma torch on that because you need the proteins to be intact.
Obviously, if you blast proteins with a plasma torch, you don't have proteins anymore.
You have elements.
And that doesn't tell you jack.
Unreal. All right.
Take care, everybody. Thank you for your support at HealthRangerStore.com where together we raise over half a million dollars in food aid for the storm victims.
Some loads have gone to North Carolina and others were preparing for Florida, but over half a million dollars in certified organic lab-tested food.
And now we've got back in stock at the Health Ranger Store turmeric.
Show what I've got on my desk here.
We've got turmeric powder. And this turmeric root powder, which is lab tested.
Normally, a lot of turmeric root powder has high lead in it.
Of course, we do the laboratory testing to make sure that it doesn't.
And so you've got super clean turmeric root powder, certified organic, available once again, brand new batch, very difficult to find.
Plus, we've got collagen peptides in stock.
Both plain and chocolate flavored collagen peptides.
All those formulations are available now at healthrangerstore.com.
We've got coconut chips coming in and all kinds of things.
Cocoa Love, Cocoa Energize, lots of superfoods, lots of personal care products, all meticulously formulated and laboratory tested items that are on sale this week.
And by the way, many categories here.
Supplements, preparedness, personal care, food and beverage, and home care.
Now let me show you too.
We've got tinctures of turmeric available right now.
You see the small two ounce tinctures there.
Really amazing formulas.
Delicious. They're in glycerin with a very strong turmeric potency.
They contain all of the constituents that are naturally found in turmeric, including curcumin, which is the critical ingredient that you want to get in.
So many benefits for turmeric.
I can't even mention them all right here, but you can do your research, learn about turmeric.
It can benefit people in so many ways, especially as we gain in years.
You'll find turmeric to be more and more useful in so many ways to help support your natural health.
I have turmeric in my smoothie here every day.
That's why it's a little bit orange. I have chocolate and turmeric and bananas and whey protein and coconut water.
I'm consuming turmeric every single day and I have done so for many, many years.
By the way, you can also, if you want to sprout your own broccoli, you can get some of the similar benefits that turmeric offers or you can grow your own turmeric root.
And then just harvest it and blend it up.
It's always great to make your own superfoods, or you could just get it from us, and we've gone through all the laboratory testing, including E. coli, salmonella, yeast and mold testing, total plate count testing, as well as all the other tests we do.
But for turmeric, lead is the number one contaminant that you typically find across the industry.
Very difficult for us to find clean batches of turmeric, but we have it now.
HealthRangerStore.com. And then finally, let me repeat, Thanks to your sales support, your purchasing of our products, we have been able to raise over half a million dollars in food donations for the storm victims.
Those trucks are in the process of rolling out.
We're going to be able to help probably tens of thousands of people with these food donations.
We couldn't do it without your support.
And I really want to thank you for that.
I thought maybe we would raise $100,000.
I was shocked when it exceeded $500,000.
And we've got videos from the warehouse and I'll show you more photos as this is all sent out and distributed to people.
It's an amazing thing to experience this level of support from you so that together we can help Americans in need and we can help provide clean food and superfoods and real nutrient density to people who need it.
One of the things about all the food rescue operations in North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida is that mostly what people get is processed junk food.
They get, like, soda and energy drinks and I don't know, like...
Snack chips and whatever.
I'm thinking, they need real food.
And that's what we specialize in.
So with your help, we're able to get them real food, real nutrition that can sustain them even through the coming winter.
It's going to get cold in North Carolina very soon.
But a lot of people there, thousands of people there are going to have our ranger buckets or our mega buckets of food.
They're going to have nutritious food to help them through the winters.
And God bless those people because they've been financially wiped out by the damage there, by the weaponized weather systems.
Farms are destroyed. Homes are lost.
You know how bad it is. So we're doing everything that we can to help.
But we can't do it without your help.
So help us and also help yourself.
Shop at healthrangerstore.com.
You'll get the cleanest superfoods, the most nutrient-dense, lab-tested, certified organic products.
For health, for storable food, for personal care, for home care, and you'll help us help those Americans in need who are suffering the devastating effects of weaponized weather systems.
These are very difficult times, but with your help and with God's blessings, we can make it through this together.
So thank you for your support.
▲
Export Selection