A high dose of GO (graphene oxide) that forms aggregations can block pulmonary blood vessels and result in dyspnea, and platelet thrombi were observed at high concentrations of 1 and 2 mg/kg body weight via intravenous injection.
Inflammatory response GFNs can cause a significant inflammatory response including inflammatory cell infiltration, pulmonary edema and granuloma formation at high doses via intratracheally instillation or intravenous administration. Platelets are the important components in clot formation to attack pathogens and particulate matter during the inflammatory response, and GO could directly activate platelet-rich thrombi formation to occlude lung vessels after intravenous injection.
Graphene and its derivatives (for example, nanoscale graphene oxide (NGO) have emerged as extremely attractive nanomaterials for a wide range of applications, including diagnostics and therapeutics. In this work, we present a systematic study on the in vivo distribution and pulmonary toxicity of NGO for up to 3 months after exposure. Radioisotope tracing and morphological observation demonstrated that intratracheally instilled NGO was mainly retained in the lung. NGO could result in acute lung injury (ALI) and chronic pulmonary fibrosis.
In addition, we found that the biodistribution of 125I-NGO varied greatly from that of 125I ions,
hence it is possible that nanoparticulates could deliver radioactive isotopes deep into the lung, which might settle in numerous ‘hot spots’ that could result in mutations and cancers, raising environmental concerns about the large-scale production of graphene oxide.
Given that NGO caused ALI at 24 h post exposure, we examined the time-dependent pulmonary responses induced by NGO. LDH and ALP activities were elevated at 24 h and then decreased, suggesting that NGO induces early severe cell damage. The peaks of BAL fluid total protein, lung wet/dry weight ratio and BAL fluid differential cell counts occurred at 48 h, suggesting that this is the time point of the most severe disruption of the alveolar–capillary interface, lung edema and neutrophil
Manufacturers have been using nanotechnology-derived graphene in face masks — now there are safety concerns
Warnings of potential “early pulmonary toxicity” associated with graphene-containing face masks raise serious questions over safety checks and balances.
How toxic is graphene?
Early concerns around graphene were sparked by previous research on another form of carbon — carbon nanotubes. It turns out that some forms of these fiber-like materials can cause serious harm if inhaled. And following on from research here, a natural next-question to ask is whether carbon nanotubes’ close cousin graphene comes with similar concerns.
Because graphene lacks many of the physical and chemical aspects of carbon nanotubes that make them harmful (such as being long, thin, and hard for the body to get rid of), the indications are that the material is safer than its nanotube cousins. But safer doesn’t mean safe. And current research indicates that this is not a material that should be used where it could potentially be inhaled, without a good amount of safety testing first.
In a study of Dash and coworkers, Swiss male mice of 2–3 months were intravenously (iv.) administered
with GO or RGO at the dose of 0.25 mg/kg for the study of GO-induced pulmonary thromboembolism. The authors found a large number of platelet rich thrombi in lung vessels; also, they conducted several in vitro assays to probe the mechanism of GO induced thrombus formation. According to the measurements of PAC-1 binding, F-actin content, LDH leakage, calcium and ROS generation, GO activating platelets was attributed to the release of intracellular free calcium from cytosolic stores and activation of nonreceptor protein tyrosine kinases of the Src family in platelets.
I'm not saying that there isn't other toxic crap in these injections, such as PEG. However, in the so-called Covid, PEG wasn't used, and carbon-based materials, especially CTNs (carbon nano tubes) were used (for example, in so-called PCR tests or masks). It can be concluded that these carbon compounds are the cause of free radicals in organisms, especially in people who already struggle with oxidative stress. It's all very simple (also, why certain treatment works), but for some reason the so-called academy doesn't talk about applied nanotechnology at all, even though billions have been spent in recent years on research by scientists related to nanotechnology - we're talking about more than $70 billion, so why should it be a taboo subject?
Each of my comments is different, there is no copy-paste. I am simply explaining the source of the adverse effects you write about. The reason is the toxicity of the nanotechnology used - in the masks, tests and these injections (etc.) - and the links are references to scientific studies that address this.
When you understand the mechanisms of toxicity of nanotechnology, you will understand that Covid is caused precisely by the oxidative stress caused by the toxicity of these substances. You will also recognize the cause of these adverse effects after these injections, including the time bomb factor of nanotechnology.
There is nothing new about these products, it is a cancer therapy nanotechnology that has been known for a long time, and it has exactly the same adverse reactions that we see from these injections.
A high dose of GO (graphene oxide) that forms aggregations can block pulmonary blood vessels and result in dyspnea, and platelet thrombi were observed at high concentrations of 1 and 2 mg/kg body weight via intravenous injection.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5088662/#CR98
Inflammatory response GFNs can cause a significant inflammatory response including inflammatory cell infiltration, pulmonary edema and granuloma formation at high doses via intratracheally instillation or intravenous administration. Platelets are the important components in clot formation to attack pathogens and particulate matter during the inflammatory response, and GO could directly activate platelet-rich thrombi formation to occlude lung vessels after intravenous injection.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5088662/#CR98
Graphene and its derivatives (for example, nanoscale graphene oxide (NGO) have emerged as extremely attractive nanomaterials for a wide range of applications, including diagnostics and therapeutics. In this work, we present a systematic study on the in vivo distribution and pulmonary toxicity of NGO for up to 3 months after exposure. Radioisotope tracing and morphological observation demonstrated that intratracheally instilled NGO was mainly retained in the lung. NGO could result in acute lung injury (ALI) and chronic pulmonary fibrosis.
In addition, we found that the biodistribution of 125I-NGO varied greatly from that of 125I ions,
hence it is possible that nanoparticulates could deliver radioactive isotopes deep into the lung, which might settle in numerous ‘hot spots’ that could result in mutations and cancers, raising environmental concerns about the large-scale production of graphene oxide.
https://www.nature.com/articles/am20137
Given that NGO caused ALI at 24 h post exposure, we examined the time-dependent pulmonary responses induced by NGO. LDH and ALP activities were elevated at 24 h and then decreased, suggesting that NGO induces early severe cell damage. The peaks of BAL fluid total protein, lung wet/dry weight ratio and BAL fluid differential cell counts occurred at 48 h, suggesting that this is the time point of the most severe disruption of the alveolar–capillary interface, lung edema and neutrophil
infiltration.
https://www.nature.com/articles/am20137#Fig3
Manufacturers have been using nanotechnology-derived graphene in face masks — now there are safety concerns
Warnings of potential “early pulmonary toxicity” associated with graphene-containing face masks raise serious questions over safety checks and balances.
How toxic is graphene?
Early concerns around graphene were sparked by previous research on another form of carbon — carbon nanotubes. It turns out that some forms of these fiber-like materials can cause serious harm if inhaled. And following on from research here, a natural next-question to ask is whether carbon nanotubes’ close cousin graphene comes with similar concerns.
Because graphene lacks many of the physical and chemical aspects of carbon nanotubes that make them harmful (such as being long, thin, and hard for the body to get rid of), the indications are that the material is safer than its nanotube cousins. But safer doesn’t mean safe. And current research indicates that this is not a material that should be used where it could potentially be inhaled, without a good amount of safety testing first.
https://medium.com/edge-of-innovation/how-safe-are-graphene-based-face-masks-b88740547e8c
In a study of Dash and coworkers, Swiss male mice of 2–3 months were intravenously (iv.) administered
with GO or RGO at the dose of 0.25 mg/kg for the study of GO-induced pulmonary thromboembolism. The authors found a large number of platelet rich thrombi in lung vessels; also, they conducted several in vitro assays to probe the mechanism of GO induced thrombus formation. According to the measurements of PAC-1 binding, F-actin content, LDH leakage, calcium and ROS generation, GO activating platelets was attributed to the release of intracellular free calcium from cytosolic stores and activation of nonreceptor protein tyrosine kinases of the Src family in platelets.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Xiaolong-Tu/publication/266151786_Assessing_in_vivo_toxicity_of_graphene_materials_Current_methods_and_future_outlook/links/54ed849f0cf28f3e65358d15/Assessing-in-vivo-toxicity-of-graphene-materials-Current-methods-and-future-outlook.pdf
Etc...
https://outraged.substack.com/p/graphene-based-fraud
https://outraged.substack.com/p/causes-of-injuries-and-deaths-from
https://outraged.substack.com/p/can-toxic-substances-be-mandated
Please stop copying-pasting your comment to each post.
I'm not saying that there isn't other toxic crap in these injections, such as PEG. However, in the so-called Covid, PEG wasn't used, and carbon-based materials, especially CTNs (carbon nano tubes) were used (for example, in so-called PCR tests or masks). It can be concluded that these carbon compounds are the cause of free radicals in organisms, especially in people who already struggle with oxidative stress. It's all very simple (also, why certain treatment works), but for some reason the so-called academy doesn't talk about applied nanotechnology at all, even though billions have been spent in recent years on research by scientists related to nanotechnology - we're talking about more than $70 billion, so why should it be a taboo subject?
Each of my comments is different, there is no copy-paste. I am simply explaining the source of the adverse effects you write about. The reason is the toxicity of the nanotechnology used - in the masks, tests and these injections (etc.) - and the links are references to scientific studies that address this.
When you understand the mechanisms of toxicity of nanotechnology, you will understand that Covid is caused precisely by the oxidative stress caused by the toxicity of these substances. You will also recognize the cause of these adverse effects after these injections, including the time bomb factor of nanotechnology.
There is nothing new about these products, it is a cancer therapy nanotechnology that has been known for a long time, and it has exactly the same adverse reactions that we see from these injections.