Update note 14th December 2021: It is being reported that it is graphine hydroxide (rather than graphine oxide) which is contained in some of the injection vials.

===

The presentation embedded below titled Graphene Oxide, 5G and COVID by Tivon and Hope from FTWProject.com is definitely worth a listen/watch because of the new information it provides about the (highly toxic substance) graphene oxide seemingly present in the main cv vaxes being administered in western countries.

Three very significant points which I gleaned from the presentation are:

1. The 'base' being utilized for all the different brands of cv19 vax appears to be being made in China - and the official published ingredient list for this 'base' includes graphene oxide (whereas in contrast, graphene oxide is not listed as an ingredient in the main western vax brands). Previously I've heard speculation, that all the vaxes are essentially the same (just with each brand adding its own 'bells and whistles' [sic] on top of the base) and it definitely seems a possibility, given the logistical sense it would make for the conspirators. Plus, at the risk of being flippant, what isn't made in China these days!?
2. The authors state that manufacturers and regulators outside of China are getting around the legal requirement to list graphene oxide (a known human toxin which produces almost identical symptoms to that of COVID syndrome) as an ingredient in cv vaxes via the sleight of hand/deceit of accepting western vax manufacturer's claims that graphene/graphene oxide is a patented trade secret (and thus doesn't have to be declared as an ingredient)... However, the authors of the presentation, document that graphene oxide was actually discovered in 1859. From wiki (and citing a Royal Society of London ref), 'Graphite oxide was first prepared by Oxford chemist Benjamin C. Brodie in 1859, by treating graphite with a mixture of potassium chlorate and fuming nitric acid.[7]'. However, if you are of a certain age, you might recall all the media excitement in 2004 as (per wiki): 'The material [graphene/graphite] was later rediscovered, isolated and investigated in 2004 by Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov at the University of Manchester,[13][14] who were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2010 for their "groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene".[15]'. The authors of the presentation point out that logically, if graphene oxide was discovered in 1859, it is impossible that graphite/graphene itself wasn't also discovered/known about at the same time (given that as above, it was the substance graphene oxide was originally produced from)  - thus rendering it not possible for graphene and related compounds to be patented in 2004 (and so be legally hidden as an ingredient via the claim that graphene oxide is a patented trade secret). [The euphoria and excitement over the discovery of graphene in 2004, did feel somewhat contrived and odd at the time imo - and around the same time, there was suddenly (and seemingly, out of the blue) a huge media blitz on nanoparticles being deployed into nature. For example, see these two 2003 articles covering Prince Charles' concerns about nanotechnology here and here.]
3. Following on from the 2004 'discovery', the authors explain that a Graphene Flagship agency was launched, which describes itself as follows:

Funded by the European Commission, the Graphene Flagship aims to secure a major role for Europe in the ongoing technological revolution, helping to bring graphene innovation out of the lab and into commercial applications. With €1 billion budget, the Graphene Flagship's Core 3 project gathers nearly 170 academic and industrial partners from 22 countries, all exploring different aspects of graphene and related materials.  With an additional €20 million investment, the European Commission has now funded the creation of an experimental pilot line for graphene-based electronics, optoelectronics and sensors. Bringing diverse competencies together, the Graphene Flagship facilitates cooperation between its partners, accelerating the timeline for industry acceptance of graphene technologies. 

Also about the Graphene Flagship, wiki states:

The Graphene Flagship is a European Union’ scientific research initiative.[1][citation needed] With a budget of €1 billion, it represents a new form of joint, coordinated research initiative on an unprecedented scale.[2] Through a combined academic-industrial consortium,[3] the research effort covers the entire value chain, from materials production to components and system integration, and targets a number of specific goals that exploit the unique properties of graphene.[4] There are some critics of this and similar initiatives, arguing that excessive funding of graphene-related research and innovation is disproportional to estimates of industrial potential.[5][6]

Of note, irony-beyond-belief wise, is reference [5] in the above quote, which links to an article published in Nature titled: Graphene booms in factories but lacks a killer app!

There's all sorts of other interesting info in the presentation, though I'm not sure how accurate the very last subject covered is (see topic bullet-point list below), especially given the authors have a related product to sell, (plus I noticed there are a couple of medical terms used/described incorrectly in the presentation). But regardless, the authors have moved layperson's knowledge of graphene oxide and its dangers, forward, with their presentation and it is well worth investing the time to watch and listen.

Of importance, (though also being discussed elsewhere at present), the authors point to how the compound NAC (N-acetyl cysteine) can potentially assist the body detox/eliminate graphene oxide. Thus the timing of the FDA's change in rules regarding NAC along with Amazon's associated withdrawal of the compound, listings wise, is surprising (or unsurprising, depending one's point of view ofc). [For ref, another compound being suggested for graphene oxide detox/elimination is suramin (from pine needles).]

A study titled, N-Acetylcysteine to Combat COVID-19: An Evidence Review concludes:

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is inexpensive, has very low toxicity, has been FDA approved for many years, and has the potential to improve therapeutic strategies for COVID-19. NAC administered intravenously, orally, or inhaled, may suppress SARS-CoV-2 replication and may improve outcomes if used timely. Potential therapeutic benefits of NAC include, extracellularly scavenging ROS radicals, replenishing intracellular GSH, suppression of cytokine storm, and T cell protection, thus mitigating inflammation and tissue injury. NAC administration in combination with other antiviral agents may dramatically reduce hospital admission rate, mechanical ventilation and mortality. (source)

[Also, as a side note, please see the note below here, about the darkfield microscope images contained in the presentation.]

A bullet-point point list of areas covered in the full presentation is below:

SUMMARY

PART 1
-Graphene Oxide Explained. They are trying to kill you with a 160 year old poison.
-Graphene vs. Graphene Oxide- why its important to know the difference
-How is Graphene Oxide made?
-What can Graphene Oxide Do? Its unique properties is why they put it in everything.
-Graphene Oxide is the main ingredient in DARPA Hydrogels
-What’s in the Covid shots? GO, Steel, Parasites and more: New Photos
-Graphene Flagship. The money and power behind the agenda.
-Before Covid, a study was done: How much GO can they put in a human before fatal?
-Graphene Oxide in the PCR tests, in the masks, in the water supply and in chemtrails.
-How Graphene Oxide works with 5G

PART 2
-Spike Proteins, Graphene Oxide, Covid Shots Explained
-Health concerns of Graphene Oxide
-Its the same symptoms! GO poisoning, EMF Radiation Sickness, Covid
-Magnetism in those who got the shots explained. It’s the graphene oxide and other nanotech.
-Connection between 5G rollouts and the Covid Variants
-How to get graphene oxide out of your body
-Orgone Energy, EMF protection and Graphene Oxide

The authors maintain a page about the presentation here - and a full set of the accompanying PowerPoint slides to the presentation can be downloaded from here.

The video presentation can be found here (and is also embedded below).

An archive of the presentation and powerpoint files can be downloaded from here.

[About darkfield microscope images: As a side note, there are a number of darkfield microscope live blood images doing the rounds at present (and included in this presentation too). In previous years I was fortunate to own a darkfield microscope and it is indeed incredibly fascinating to study in realtime, the 'hidden universe' which is live blood. For example, seeing certain types of white blood cells manifesting an impossibly unfathomable intelligence is an incredible and awe-inspiring sight as they 'crawl' over red blood cells one at a time, 'glistening' as they check RBCs for good health. However, as a reliable diagnostic tool, imo darkfield images (especially single images) while fascinating and often dramatic, are not trustworthy. For instance, typically, some areas of blood under the cover slip will show an oxidized/damaged state, whereas another area right by it, will be in a perfect state, i.e. it's very easy/common for blood to oxidize and/or become damaged during the process of getting a drop of blood from a finger-prick wound - to, on the slide and under the cover slip (even the weight/pressure of the cover slip can damage blood cells). Thus it is very easy for selection bias to creep in with the operator just find/select what they are looking for. Also, higher rates of blood cell clumping (i.e. rouleaux) typically happens after eating, even in healthy persons - so timing of when a blood sample is taken is extremely important. Further, dust and other contaminants appear very differently in darkfield compared to brightfield microscopy, i.e. under darkfield, a microscopic dust particle or other contaminate on the slide/cover slip can seem like a significant 'thing' of consequence. And further, even healthy blood tends to show the apparent presence of somatids and/or other pleomorphic organisms (in various life-cycle stages dependent on the 'health' of the blood) - although mainstream science disputes such claims and insists these mysterious moving, shimmering dots are 'dead' protein particles, illuminated by the unique lighting arrangement necessary for darkfield microscopy. Even after several years of looking at, considering and reading about the phenomenon of somatids, I honestly couldn't say which perspective is correct. My point however is not to devalue darkfield live blood microscopy in general, as the insight it provides is unique, astonishing and typically very motivating for individuals (health wise) - but rather that imo live blood darkfield images are not a solid and reliable enough foundation to definitively prove the vast criminality of what is taking place.]