I'm not totally dismissing the idea of 'stuff' being in our blood and I hate to be a nudge, but how exactly do you see NANOtech with a MICROscope?

Those are two different scales; I remember a talk given by Adam Bigelsen at Anarchapulco this year and he was specifically talking about the "stuff" people (namely Ana Mihalcea, with all due respect) are finding with a darkfield microscope are actually particles (foreign matter as benign as dust), air pockets (formed on the slides or in/on the media), and often times more than not are salts and, yes, metals, that are forming crystalline shapes, sometimes in a chain that looks like a filament, and others that look like irregular but often geometric shapes that resemble "microchips".

Supposedly, Bigelsen and his team have also tested blood for contaminants as well as performed controls with blood and water to show side-by-side comparisons of the alleged findings of aforementioned 'nanotech in the blood proponents' versus control photos that look identical using items as common as table salt in filtered water and showing the crystal formations as opposed to those that look alike in proposed contaminated blood.

I wish I knew who to believe, but again, I ask how one can see NANOtech with a MICROscope? If you say it's already gotten so big that it's now "microtech", then we're all fu**ed. Again, I'm not dismissing what the clot shots have done and are doing, but until I crack the code to infinite "money" it's a bit hard to afford an endless supply of high quality Vitamin C, disodium-EDTA and a Tzla machine working paycheck to paycheck... Anyway... Anyone know how to get a million Federal Reserve Note loan and immediately write it off? Hit me up, lol!