Graphene Toxicity Reports & Scientific Publications

🕒 71 min read  •  ✍️ 14053 words

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).