Graphene Toxicity Reports & Scientific Publications

IN Graphene

Wow, I wish I’d looked at this earlier… for those who also studied COVID-19/SARS-COV-2, Spike Protein damage, and Vaccine Injury publications these past 2 years, your jaw will hit the floor when you look through the Graphene Oxide Toxicity studies.

Living Document First Published: April 9, 2022

Will continue to add and categorize whenever I’m on-topic (there are thousands of publications)

I’ve tried to “semi-categorize them“, but there is a lot of cross-overs being that the papers tend to locate toxicity across the board (e.g. a study may of originally tried to test just “lungs” for example, but may of found a “cancer” or “DNA damage” link etc. in the same study)

Note: Difference in 'types' of studies

Note: As we learnt in the big Toxicology study I published a few days ago, that unlike most substances, graphene oxide cytotoxicity measured in vitro is closely related to incubation conditions, including exposure dose, culture time, incubation temperature, and cell type.

Nutshell: this means we don’t need to wait for double-blind placebo trials to evaluate it’s likely effects on us (except for excretion/elimination). But we still need to be conscious of the difference between in vitro (like a cell in a petri dish) vs in vivo (living organisms) when reading the studies to keep in mind what they were testing.

Note: 'Science' has been hijacked by industry - beware of bias

Also, because “science” has been hijacked by industry, you have to look at bias – if a study is promoting graphene in water or masks, etc as a “good” thing (that it eliminates germs and is cheaper, lighter, more economical, etc.), you might also find a patent-connection to some method or product that they profit from.

Or they may benefit from it in some other way (university grants, career opportunities, etc.), in any case, dishonest, biased, scientific studies have become a marketing tool for big industry, especially because it’s been embedded into society as the only thing people will trust, and anyone benefiting from a positive study are less likely to mention or even test for toxicity.

Industry use “scientific journals” as a way to “promote” their product – so their sales people can go around and say “look it’s published in this journal”… and use the article/study in their marketing material, ads, news pieces, etc.

Sometimes you can connect the dots in the conflicts of interest sections (like vaccine companies writing articles to promote mandating vaccines), sometimes they don’t disclose the conflict (like the PCR-test scandal), and sometimes you can just ‘tell’ by the fact that they promote only the benefits, or their toxicity outcome differs dramatically from other studies without the bias.

Also, sometimes the “abstract” concludes something different (using careful copywriting) than what the actual data suggests (wherever possible, download the “Supplementary material” that is sometimes made available).

Sometimes it’s very difficult to tell if there is bias, bare in mind, they’ve been at this a long time, there’s a lot of money (to the moon and back) involved, and they have become quite masterful in outsourcing their data to other people to do the scientific write-up, and those are much harder to discern.

In any case, when reading studies, keep your eyes peeled for any sign of an underlying ‘reason’ for the study, the things they ‘omit’ may be the biggest clue, and the fact that greed has overtaken “science, media, industry, internet – you name it”, and be mindful of any potential bias (as you would with anything these days).

Toxicity Reports & Scientific Publications

Blood-Brain Barrier & Neural

Blood-Brain Barrier & Neural

  1. PEGylation of Reduced Graphene Oxide Induces Toxicity in Cells of the Blood–Brain Barrier: An in Vitro and in Vivo Study (rGO with PEG coating induced deleterious effects to Blood-Brain Barrier, Central Nervous System) (10)
  2. Cytotoxicity Effects of Graphene and Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes in Neural Phaeochromocytoma-Derived PC12 Cells (11)
  3. Graphene Oxide can cause Alzheimer’s disease (murine microglia inflammation) (12) Alzheimer’s disease Companion Study: (13)

Cancer, DNA Damage, DNA Repair Gene Expressions

Cancer, DNA Damage, DNA Repair Gene Expressions

  1. Graphene Oxide Negatively Regulates Cell Cycle in Embryonic Fibroblast Cells
    • “The results of this study showed that GO disturbed the cell cycle and nGO impaired cell viability by inducing cell apoptosis. Interestingly, both nGO and mGO blocked the cell cycle in the S phase, which is a critical phase of the cell cycle. Upregulation of TP53-gene transcripts was also detected in both nGO- and mGO-treated cells compared to the control, especially at 200 μg/mL. DNA content of the treated cells increased; however, because of DNA degradation, its quality was decreased.” “In conclusion, graphene oxide at both nano- and micro-scale damages cell physiology and increases cell population in the S phase of the cell cycle.” (14) S-Phase – Companion studies (15) (16)
  2. DNA Melting and Genotoxicity Induced by Silver Nanoparticles and Graphene
    • “We have revealed a connection between DNA-nanoparticle (NP) binding and in vitro DNA damage induced by citrate- and branched polyethylenimine-coated silver nanoparticles (c-AgNPs and b-AgNPs) as well as graphene oxide (GO) nanosheets. All three types of nanostructures triggered an early onset of DNA melting…” (17)
  3. Hydroxylated-Graphene Quantum Dots Induce DNA Damage and Disrupt Microtubule Structure in Human Esophageal Epithelial Cells (18)
  4. Graphene oxide nanosheets induce DNA damage and activate the base excision repair (BER) signaling pathway both in vitro and in vivo
    • Graphene oxide (GO) has widespread concerns in the fields of biological sciences and medical applications. Currently, studies have reported that excessive GO exposure can cause cellular DNA damage through reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation. The exposure to elevated GO concentration could cause DNA damage to HEK293T cells and zebrafish embryos; BER pathway could be proposed as the possible inner response mechanism.” (19)
  5. Genotoxic response and damage recovery of macrophages to graphene quantum dots
    • “The potential adverse effects of graphene quantum dots (GQDs) have increasingly attracted attention. AG-QDs could induce genotoxicity in cells. Differently expressed genes related to the cell cycle arrest and uptake pathway. Cell cycle arrest could recover after removing AG-QDs. Cellular excretion and DNA damage repair were the mechanisms for cellular recovery.” (20)
  6. Graphene oxide nanosheets induce DNA damage and activate the base excision repair (BER) signaling pathway both in vitro and in vivo
    • “GO as a potential emerging pollutant is first investigated using atomic force microscopy (AFM). GO exposure is first confirmed to cause DNA damage when the concentration is higher than 25 μg/mL in HEK293T cells. BER pathway could be a possible inner response mechanism for GO exposure both in vitro and in vivo.” (21)
  7. Can graphene quantum dots cause DNA damage in cells?
    •  “We report the first study on cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of GQDs to fibroblast cell lines (NIH-3T3 cells). The NIH-3T3 cells treated with GQDs at dosages over 50 μg mL−1 showed no significant cytotoxicity. However, the GQD-treated NIH-3T3 cells exhibited an increased expression of proteins (p53, Rad 51, and OGG1) related to DNA damage compared with untreated cells, indicating the DNA damage caused by GQDs. The GQD-induced release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) was demonstrated to be responsible for the observed DNA damage.” (22)
  8. Cellular and molecular mechanistic insight into the DNA-damaging potential of few-layer graphene in human primary endothelial cells
    • “Mechanistic toxicity studies using a battery of cell based assays revealed an organized oxidative stress paradigm involving cytosolic reactive oxygen stress, mitochondrial superoxide generation, lipid peroxidation, glutathione oxidation, mitochondrial membrane depolarization, enhanced calcium efflux, all leading to cell death by apoptosis/necrosis. We further investigated the effect of graphene interactions using cDNA microarray analysis and identified potential adverse effects by down regulating key genes involved in DNA damage response and repair mechanisms. Single cell gel electrophoresis assay/Comet assay confirmed the DNA damaging potential of graphene towards human primary cells.” (23)
  9. Oxygen content-related DNA damage of graphene oxide on human retinal pigment epithelium cells
    • “The genotoxicity (e.g., DNA damage) of GBMs has been considered the greatest risk to healthy cells. We present our recent studies on the genotoxicity of most widely used GBMs such as graphene oxide (GO) and the chemically reduced graphene oxide (RGO) toward human retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells. Our results suggested that both GO and RGOs induced ROS-dependent DNA damage.” (24)
  10. Cellular and molecular mechanistic insight into the DNA-damaging potential of few-layer graphene in human primary endothelial cells
    • “Despite graphene being proposed for a multitude of biomedical applications, there is a dearth in the fundamental cellular and molecular level understanding of how few-layer graphene (FLG) interacts with human primary cells. Identified potential adverse effects by down regulating key genes involved in DNA damage response and repair mechanisms & confirmed the DNA damaging potential of graphene towards human primary cells.” (25)
  11. Differential genotoxic and epigenotoxic effects of graphene family nanomaterials (GFNs) in human bronchial epithelial cells
    • “The effects of GFNs on cellular genome were evaluated with single and double stranded DNA damage and DNA repair gene expressions. The decrements of DNA methyltransferase (DNMT3B gene) and methyl-CpG binding domain protein (MBD1) genes were probably the cause of global hypomethylation induced by GNPs. In general, the GFNs induced genotoxicity and alterations of global DNA methylation exhibited compounds type specificity with differential physico-chemical properties. Taken together, our study suggests that the GFNs could cause more subtle changes in gene expression programming by modulating DNA methylation status.” (26)
    • Hypomethylation Companion studies:
    • DNA hypomethylation and human diseases (Cancer genome, multiple sclerosis, lupus, other conditions such as atherosclerosis and autoimmune diseases) (27)
    • DNA hypomethylation in cancer cells (28)
  12. Graphene oxide can induce cancer (29)
  13. Graphene nanosheets damage the lysosomal and mitochondrial membranes and induce the apoptosis of RBL-2H3 cells.
    • “The lysosomal and mitochondrial dysfunction, and the oxidative stress further induced cell apoptosis. Specially, the exposure to 25 mg/L GNSs caused severest cell mortality, plasma membrane damage, ROS generation, MMP depolarization and apoptosis. The research findings provide more comprehensive information on the graphene-induced plasma and organelle membrane damage, which is important to understand and predict the cytotoxicity of carbon-based nanomaterials.” (30)
      • Plasma and organelle membrane damage Companion study: Plasma membrane integrity: implications for health and diseasePlasma membrane integrity is essential for cellular homeostasis. To avoid lethal consequences, cells are equipped with repair pathways to restore membrane integrity. Confinement of a cell from its surrounding environment is a universal trait of microscopic life. The plasma membrane fulfills this role whereby its integrity is vital for cell function and survival. Defects in plasma membrane resistance and repair can cause human disease beyond muscular dystrophies” (31) (32) (33)
      • (immune suppression, wound repair, inflammation, membrane repair is critical to prevent the onset of heart pathologies such as cardiac arrest and ventricular injuries, improper muscle regeneration, kidney damage, neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease / prion), multiple sclerosis and autoimmune encephalomyelitis, nervous system repair, pancreas / diabetes / β cells, liver homeostasis, bone formation, circulation / vascular / endothelial cells, skin, intestines, stomach, upper digestive tract, lungs…& more)

General Toxicity & Genotoxicity

General Toxicity & Genotoxicity

  1. The dangers of graphene and its side effects on human biology (Spanish) (34)
  2. Graphene nanomaterials: synthesis, biocompatibility and cytotoxicity (35)
  3. Safety assessment of graphene based materials: Focus on human health and the environment (36)
  4. Graphene oxide is detected in the body by specialized cells of the immune system showing ‘human immune system handles graphene oxide in a manner similar to pathogens(37)
  5. Genotoxicity of graphene nanoribbons in human mesenchymal stem cells (38)
  6. Toxicity of graphene oxide and multi-walled carbon nanotubes against human cells and zebrafish (39)
  7. A closer look at the genotoxicity of graphene based materials (Summarizes a lot of different studies up to Dec 2019 )
    • “We would like to underline that there are not enough reports on the GBMs’ genotoxicity effects on immune cells, which are the primary cell types that interact with foreign particles introduced to human body.” (40)
  8. Nanotoxicity of Graphene and Graphene Oxide (41)
  9. Graphene toxicity as a double-edged sword of risks and exploitable opportunities: a critical analysis of the most recent trends and developments (42)
  10. A review of toxicity studies on graphene-based nanomaterials in laboratory animals (43)
  11. A concise review of carbon nanotube’s toxicology (44)
  12. Toxicological Aspects of Carbon Nanotubes, Fullerenes and Graphenes (45)
  13. Ranking Carbon-based Nanomaterials using Cytotoxicity to Minimize Public Health Risks (PDF) (46)
  14. Toxicity studies of fullerenes and derivatives (47)
  15. Toxicology of carbon nanotubes and fullerenes ‘Toxicologia de los fullereno’ (48) (an Argentinian site in Spanish that is like the equivalent of “Drugs.com” for wiki-like medical/drug & related information)
  16. The Puzzling Potential of Carbon Nanomaterials: General Properties, Application, and Toxicity (49)
  17. Synthesis and Toxicity of Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles: A Literature Review of In Vitro and In Vivo Studies(50)
  18. Dose ranging, expanded acute toxicity and safety pharmacology studies for intravenously administered functionalized graphene nanoparticle formulations (51)
  19. Toxicity of graphene-family nanoparticles: a general review of the origins and mechanisms (52)

Lungs & Respiratory

Lungs & Respiratory

  1. Nanotoxicology: Breathing carbon nanotubes causes pulmonary fibrosis, a cause of lung cancer (Spanish) (58)
  2. Toxicity of graphene in normal human lung cells (59)
  3. Repeated exposure to aerosolized graphene oxide mediates autophagy / human airways (60)
  4. Single exposure to aerosolized graphene oxide and graphene nanoplatelets did not initiate an acute biological response in a 3D human lung model (61) (62)
  5. Repeated exposure to aerosolized graphene oxide mediates autophagy inhibition and inflammation in a three-dimensional human airway model (63)
  6. Physico-chemical properties based differential toxicity of graphene oxide/reduced graphene oxide in human lung cells mediated through oxidative stress (64)
  7. Case Report: Lung Disease in World Trade Center Responders Exposed to Dust and Smoke: Carbon Nanotubes Found in the Lungs of World Trade Center Patients and Dust Samples (I just found this interesting and don’t know where else to post it)
    • “These findings confirm the previously reported association between WTC dust exposure and bronchiolar and interstitial lung disease. Long-term monitoring of responders will be needed to elucidate the full extent of this problem. The finding of CNT in both WTC dust and lung tissues is unexpected and requires further study.” (65)
  8. The Toxicology of Carbon Nanotubes
    • “Carbon nanotubes represent novel structural platforms for engineering, electronics, and drug delivery. The potential risks of inhaled CNTs will have to be more carefully considered during the manufacturing process and in the design of products that contain CNTs. Because of the infancy of the field of nanotechnology, there are few epidemiologic data to assess health hazards for the majority of nanomaterials. Some CNTs contain nanosized metals (e.g. nickel, cobalt, iron) that are present as residual catalysts and should clearly represent risk factors for lung diseases, as many of these metals in their native form are known to have fibrogenic or carcinogenic effects in humans. (Potential to cause fibrosis and possible cancer). The nanoscale properties of CNTs make it difficult to predict how these structures will interact with intracellular structures such as DNA, cell membranes, and cytoskeletal proteins.” (66)
  9. Physico-chemical properties based differential toxicity of graphene oxide/reduced graphene oxide in human lung cells mediated through oxidative stress. (67)
  10. An assessment of the cytotoxic effects of graphene nanoparticles on the epithelial cells of the human lung (68)
  11. Role of surface charge and oxidative stress in cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of graphene oxide towards human lung fibroblast cells (69)
  12. An in vitro cytotoxicity assessment of graphene nanosheets on alveolar cells
    • The toxicity of three distinct GFNs; GO, hydrazine reduced GO (H.rGO) and AA.rGO were studied. All GFNs induced high levels of alveolar cell toxicity. Interaction of AA.rGO with the A549 human lung epithelial carcinoma cell line resulted in increased leakage of lactate dehydrogenase, indicative of diminished cell membrane integrity.” (70)
  13. Biodistribution and pulmonary toxicity of intratracheally instilled graphene oxide in mice. (71)

Biomedical, Hydrogels, Implantable Sensors, Vaccines
Remote Control - Brain, Heart & Neurons

Remote Control – Brain, Heart & Neurons

  1. Fuzzy graphene for neuron control (remote, graphene-based method to make contact with brain cells)
    • Neurons interact via electrical signals known as action potentials, and modulating the electrophysiology of targeted neurons is a key to understanding the brain on a cellular level. Most current methods require genetic modifications to make cells sensitive to light so they can be optically controlled or are imprecise and require high energies that can damage cells. Writing in PNAS, Sahil Rastogi and colleagues present a remote, non-genetic method to optically modulate neuronal activity by using nanowires of ‘fuzzy graphene’ to make precise contact with brain cells. (89)
  2. Remote control of the cardiac activity of a living being using graphene (Control heart cells grown in the laboratory by remote control using Graphene) (90)
    • “When we first got this working in our lab, suddenly we had something like 20 people gathering around, shouting things like ‘Impossible!’ and accusing me of pranking them. We’d never seen anything like this before,” said first author Alex Savchenko, Ph.D., a research scientist in the Department of Pediatrics at UC San Diego School of Medicine and Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine.
    • Researchers at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine and their collaborators have developed a technique that allows them to speed up or slow down human heart cells growing in a dish at will, simply by lighting them and varying their intensity.
    • “You want them to beat twice as fast? No problem—you just increase the light intensity. Three times faster? No problem—increase the light or graphene density.”
    • “You can squeeze half a year of animal experiments into a day of experiments with this graphene-based system”  (91) (92)
    • See also: Heart patches set for human trials, June 2019 – Imperial College London (93)
  3. A Remote Control for Neurons / Remote Optical Control for Neural Cells (communicate with neural cells using light using synthesized 3d fuzzy graphene nanotechnology)
    • (CMU.EDU Video) Tzahi Cohen-Karni describes his work to record electrical signals in three dimensions. The assistant professor of biomedical engineering and materials science and engineering discusses this work, which could help advance human disease research. (94)
    • (CMU.EDU News) Cohen-Karni Wins Young Innovator Award for Research on Heart Cells. “2018 Young Innovator by the Biomedical Engineering Society’s journal Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering for his work on capturing heart cell data through tiny graphene sensors. The work sets the stage for deeper investigations into heart arrhythmias and disease such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. The tiny, clear graphene electrode sensors are so sensitive that they can measure electrical signals on a cellular level. Because they are transparent, the researchers can use a microscope to see the cell’s changing fluorescence as it beats by viewing the pulsing electrical rhythm of specific chemicals, such as calcium, in the heart cells. Each sensor, which is part of an array of several sensors, takes readings from a single cardiomyocyte as the cell beats and its electrical signals change.” (95)
    • (CMU.EDU News) “Graphene is nearly 200 times stronger than steel, flexible, nearly transparent and highly conductive. Since graphene is a single layer of carbon atoms connected in a hexagonal pattern, it is thin and lightweight, making it attractive for nanotechnology applications such as building nanodevices for biomedical applications. Graphene’s ability to store electric charges is attracting the attention of technologies. This feature is largely derived from graphene’s high amount of surface area relative to its volume. (96)

Sound Control - virus delivered via gene-therapy - funded by NIH/DARPA

Ok this doesn’t mention Graphene but I think I yelled out “OH MY GOD” about 10 times just now as I read through this… (sorry neighbours!)

  1. Remote control for brain cells: scientists use ultrasound waves to activate neurons (non-surgery pacemaker implants, control blood sugar levels, mitigate onset of seizures, using “Sound Control” – sound waves beyond the range of human hearing – using virus delivered via gene-therapy, can remotely turn on/off brain cells)
    • “Our technology works in two stages. First we introduce new genetic material into malfunctioning brain cells using a virus as a delivery device. This provides the instructions for these cells to make the ultrasound-responsive proteins. The next step is emitting ultrasound pulses from a device outside the animal’s body targeting the cells with the sound-sensitive proteins. The ultrasound pulse remotely activates the cells. Sonogenetics could enable doctors to turn on or turn off brain cells at a specific location or time and treat these movement disorders without brain surgery. Gene therapy is getting better and more precise” (100) (101)
    • My Next “Oh My God!” cries… “Sreekanth Chalasani receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, Kavli Institute of Brain and Mind, and the Defense Advanced Research Agency (DARPA)‘s ElectRx program.”
      • Salk Neuroscientist Granted $1 Million To Harness Sound To Control Brain Cells (NIH grants this researcher $1 million in 2015 for developing a way to selectively activate  brain, heart, muscle and other cells – that’s his first year payout) (102)
      • Salk scientists advance ultrasound technology for neurological therapy (DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) grants this scientist another $750,000 in new funding in 2018). (103)
      • DARPA creates bioweapons, amongst everything else, like being behind this whole Human 2.0 Artificial Intelligence movement & ‘hooking us up to the cloud’, let alone behind pretty much all our technological advances like Quantum computing, biochips, remote-controlled warfare, & digital surveillance of the world… and the WW III mind-control war that we’re experiencing right now, and have their hands and funds all over anything they can weaponize. (104)

DARPA & the BRAIN Initiative (105)

  1. In 2013, DARPA launched the BRAIN Initiative; BRAIN is an acronym for Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies®. This program involves the development of brain-computer interface technologies for the military, particularly non-invasive, injectable systems that cause minimal damage to brain tissue when removed. (106)
    • Supposedly, this technology would be used for healing wounded soldiers with traumatic brain injuries, the direct brain control of prosthetic limbs, and even new abilities such as controlling drones with one’s mind. Various methods have been proposed for achieving this, including optogenetics, magnetogenetics, ultrasound, implanted electrodes, and transcranial electromagnetic stimulation. The goal is to obtain read or read-write capability over neurons, either by stimulating and probing them, or by rendering them especially sensitive to stimulation and probing. (107)
    • A Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) that is capable of altering the contents of one’s mind for innocuous purposes, such as projecting a heads-up display onto their brain’s visual center or sending audio into one’s auditory cortex, would also theoretically be capable of altering mood and personality, or perhaps even subjugating someone’s very will, rendering them utterly obedient to authority. (108) (109)

Magnetic mind control - genetically-engineered adenovirus - Rockefeller.edu

Special mention to a past post I did about the Rockefeller studies (which also doesn’t mention graphene, but please read this, because when I read these studies, I was mortified!)

The first study in 2016 can turn neurons on and off remotely. It couples ferritin with a fluorescent tag, which can be affected by forces such as radio waves and magnetic fields.

The second study in 2017 ‘Flipping a Switch Inside the Head‘ can also turn neurons on & off with radio waves & magnetic fields, but get this >>> to “achieve this” they use…

  • “Genetically-engineered adenovirus(like AZ and J&J C19 Adenovirus shots?)
  • “Green fluorescent protein borrowed from jellyfish” (same protein used in all the Luciferase studies?)
  • “a peculiar antibody derived from camels” (camelid, a.k.a nanobodies?)
  • Iron Particles” (iron oxide nanoparticles? known for their superparamagnetic properties?)

With this, they can exert wireless control over brain cells.

Biologists can turn neurons on or off in a live animal at will—quickly, repeatedly, and without implants—by engineering the cells to make them receptive to radio waves or a magnetic field.

The ferritin protein is a neuron that can serve as an “antenna” to detect incoming radio signals or magnetic fields. “Each ferritin particle carries within it thousands of grains of iron that wiggle around in response to a radio signal, and shift and align when immersed in a magnetic field.”

“We use a genetically engineered virus to create doorways into a neuron’s outer membrane“.

The paper was published in Nature, and includes a Nature Podcast (under “related audio”) that talks about “brain activity could be controlled using magnets” (110)

I should put them in their own posts because they are shocking on their own, but read the history of the Rockefellers on my post about these studies, and you start to get a little more “holy crap” about what is playing out in the world. Especially when you know all the other advances in nano-mind-control & biowarfare.

Journal Collections of Latest Research & Reviews

Journal Collections

Latest Research & Reviews

  1. Nature – Carbon nanotubes and fullerenes (111)

  2. Taylor & Francis – Fullerenes, Nanotubes and Carbon Nanostructures (112)

Analysis of Graphene-Focused Scientific Articles

Tip about Analysis on Spanish website

Most of these analysis are from a Spanish researcher Mik Anderson (Corona2inspect.net). When you click the links, they will be in Spanish, but currently, on the right-hand side of the site, you can choose “English” in the translate box to read it in English.

Analysis of Graphene-focused Scientific Articles

  1. Graphene oxide disrupts mitochondrial homeostasis – Analysis (113) (114)
  2. Graphene oxide quantum dot-based memristors – Analysis (115) (116)
  3. Graphene oxide can adsorb and absorb CO2
    • “Graphene oxide can be used to adsorb CO2 from the atmosphere to achieve greenhouse gas reduction. In this sense, it would not be strange if it was already being used for these purposes, since according to (Pöschl, U. 2005) graphene oxide is found in the analysis of aerosols in the atmosphere…”  (117)
  4. The spintronics of graphene Has Pandora’s box been uncovered here? 
    • Graphene spintronics shows that circuits and transistors can be created on a nanometric scale that could perfectly be inoculated through a vaccine. It is also shown that to obtain transistors and other spintronic components, magnetic electrodes are required. This would explain, the magnetic phenomenon. In addition to this, it is also shown that ferromagnetic electrodes can be Fe3O4 magnetite, which coincides with the typical combinations of graphene oxide and its multitude of applications, for example, the injection of aerosols into the atmosphere, aerogels, hydrogels, therapy of nanoparticles against cancer, gene therapies, delivery of drugs, biocides, fertilizers, pesticides and their special properties of overcoming the blood-brain barrier, creating magnetic fields, among others…” (118) (119)

Analysis of Graphene Mind-Control (Studies)

Graphene & Mind Control

  1. Graphene oxide and brain stimulation by electromagnetic waves EM capable of inferring in the human mind – Analysisa person inoculated with graphene oxide would have nanotransducers that they could penetrate the BBB blood-brain barrier and act according to the signals emitted by electromagnetic waves, to infer the mechanisms of conditional behavior, similar to those described in Pavlov’s experiment.” “non-genetic remote optical modulation of neuronal activity, by means of diffuse graphene nanostructures.” “RF radiofrequency waves “activate the ferritin -tagged channels through a biochemical pathway,” which increases free iron levels. This could explain the magnetic effects.” (139) (140) (141) (142) (143) (144) (145) (146) (147) (148) (149) (150) (151) (152)
  2. Graphene is a superconductive and highly integrative with neuron cells in the brain. Interfacing Graphene-Based Materials With Neural Cells – Frontiers Neuorsci, Apr 2018 (153)
  3. The molecules of Graphene can interact with neurons in the brain in a remote mode using different radio-frequencies (5G could be one of these), they can map the brain and transmit and receive INSTRUCTIONS remotely. Magnetogentics (154)

Possibly Related (no Graphene mentioned)

Graphene Nanostructures Absorb EMF Radiation (Studies)

See also:

Posts tagged “Graphene

References[+]

Penny... on Health
Penny... on Health

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is not medical science or medical advice. I do not have any medical training aside from my own research and interest in this area. The information I publish is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, disorder, pain, injury, deformity, or physical or mental condition. I just report my own results, understanding & research.