James P.M. Odell, OMD, ND, L.Ac.
Within a year of the WHO’s announced ‘pandemic’, the pharmaceutical industry developed several inoculations for Covid-19, quickly gaining FDA authorization for public emergency use. Recently, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to the CDC endorsed the FDA's full approval of the Pfizer and BioNTech COVID biological mRNA product called 'Comirnaty'. The full approval marks a regulatory switch for Pfizer's inoculation away from an experimental (EUA) therapy. The inoculation 'Comirnaty' is officially approved for Americans over the age of 16, while the EUA remains in effect for patients between 12 and 15. Moderna and Johnson and Johnson are still under EAU. Pfizer-BioNTech is now planning to quickly ask the FDA to approve the third dose as a booster shot after the first two-shot series has been found to stop neither infection nor virus transmission in a growing percentage of recipients. The FDA said the pfizer-BioNTech shot under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used "interchangeably" with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.
According to the FDA: "The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness." However, according to the information Pfizer presented to the ACIP on the safety and efficacy of its Comirnaty vaccine, the company provided the advisory group with efficacy and sequencing data only through March 13 - before the Delta variant became the predominant strain in the U.S., and before studies suggested vaccine effectiveness against the Delta variant could be as low as 42%. In other words, 5.5 months' worth of data was missing from the data Pfizer presented to the ACIP. Previous EUA's for both Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J were greeted with customary public hearings held by the FDA to review the science, allow for public comment before decisions were made, and operate in full transparency. With Pfizer's shot moving to market at record speed with boosters already announced, the lack of promised transparency by the FDA has some worried that the decision was politically driven and may lower standards for future biologics license application approvals.
These are now being administered to millions of people worldwide and even mandated by some countries and institutions. However, due to hundreds of thousands of adverse reactions and tens of thousands of deaths reported to the CDC, VAERS, and other European agencies, not only has the motivation and value for these Covid inoculations come into question, but the ingredients also contained in these experimental jabs have as well. The FDA has not fully evaluated the data and still has not decided if the potential risks outweigh the benefits of receiving it. Human trial data is not complete and published yet, and this is partly why it is considered ‘experimental’ and still unlicensed by the FDA as a biological drug.
Let us be clear, the mRNA inoculations (Pfizer and Moderna) are a synthetic, chimeric pathogenic gene therapy. These have been sequenced from a computer simulation, not an isolated purified model. All the current marketed inoculations: the mRNA, DNA, viral vectored, recombinant protein, viral-like particles, and peptide-based vaccines, use the pathogenic coronavirus’s spike protein in some way or another. (Note: The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is made up of two portions, which are S1 and S2. The S1 binds to the ACE2 receptor on the human cell surface, and S2 initiates membrane fusion to complete cell infection.)
Aside from the pathogenic spike protein, recently it has been reported by two Spanish researchers that nanoparticles of graphene oxide (GO) are a component in some analyzed vials of the Pfizer mRNA inoculation. On June 25, the Spanish television show El Gato al Agua, a current affair show hosted by José Javier Esparza, broke the news that “toxic nanoparticulates of graphene oxide have been found in massive quantities in the mRNA Covid 19 vials analyzed by Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid and other biochemists and academics at the University of Almeria”. This was followed up with the initiative of La Quinta Columna, a small group of Spanish researchers headed by Dr. Ricardo Delgado Martin and Dr. José Luis Sevillano, who have been conducting more research on other Pfizer mRNA vials. The Andalusian biostatistician Ricardo Delgado, and his partner Dr. Jose Luis Sevillano (a family doctor,) were intrigued with the observed magnetic phenomenon present in many inoculated with the mRNA fragments. According to these researchers, the graphene oxide nanoparticles when injected into the arm become magnetically influenced as the compound reaches body temperature. Contained at under zero degrees they remain un-magnetic. Allegedly, this is partly why the industry freezes the biological product for storage. They conclude that the magnetic phenomena observed at the inoculation site are due to the graphene oxide nanoparticles included in the Pfizer inoculation.
To be noted in response to La Quinta Columna’s bulletin, Pfizer released a denial that any of its “vaccines” contain graphene oxide. Pharmaceutical-employed ‘Fact Checkers’ quickly followed claiming this assertion was ‘false’. They noted that graphene oxide is not among the ingredients originally listed in Pfizer’s COVID-19 inoculation. The following are the inoculation ingredients Pfizer originally listed with the FDA:
mRNA, lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N, N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3- phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose.
Allegedly, these Spanish researchers’ analyses included microscopy, spectroscopy, and other laboratory techniques. They continue to analyze other Covid 19 inoculation vials and intend to make public their findings. (See the video Graphene Oxide: A way to kill and control under References.) Again, graphene oxide nanoparticles were not originally disclosed as an ingredient in any of the patents of the mRNA biological agents submitted to the FDA. Thus, these graphene oxide nanoparticles are to date an undisclosed additive and maybe a ‘proprietary ingredient’. Another explanation is that they may not have originally included these graphene nanoparticles, but reportedly now do in some of the lots.
Following this bombshell disclosure, Karen Kingston, a former Pfizer employee and current analyst for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, has also publicly stated that graphene oxide is present in the Covid inoculations. “It’s extremely difficult to find this information,” she said on the Stew Peters Show. https://stewpeters.podbean.com/) When asked by Peters if graphene oxide was present in the corona vaccines, she replied unequivocally: “100 percent, that’s irrefutable.” Kingston suspects that graphene oxide is not listed in the patent applications because a), it is poisonous to humans and b), because it is the main ingredient in the hydrogel which can be used to create a brain-computer interface and as a drug delivery system. Kingston notes that brain-computer interface is not possible “with this round [of vaccines]” because “they rushed this thing out” and “they’re just seeing how much they can put into people before they… die”
The former Pfizer employee further explained that the graphene oxide in the inoculations is neutrally charged (inactive), however, if/when it becomes positively charged, such as by electromagnetic radiation (radio frequency, such as wireless devices, wireless networks such as 5G, etc.), it can cause neurological damage and death depending on how much of it exists in the body and where it is located. Therefore, according to Kingston, multiple COVID-19 inoculations and booster shots are needed to gradually increase the amount of graphene oxide in the body to make the body receptive to electromagnetic radiation.
All these claims have raised serious concerns, particularly in the world of toxicology. We simply do not know the whole story yet, nor if other COVID inoculations may contain graphene oxide. What we do know is in 2020 two Chinese Covid vaccine patents were filed that list graphene as an ingredient. The first Chinese patented listed a ‘nano coronavirus recombinant vaccine using graphene oxide as a carrier’.1 The second listed the ‘preparation and application of pachyman nano adjuvant based on graphene oxide and adjuvant/antigen co-delivery vaccine’.2 Thus, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that Pfizer has included GO in some of its lots of Covid inoculations.
This article is primarily intended to clarify some of the toxicology concerns associated with graphene oxide used as an injectable as well as illuminate some of the potential reasons for its alleged employment in inoculations and other medical applications. Many questions have arisen around this potentially toxic substance being injected into millions of people worldwide. Firstly, for what reason is this toxic substance included in the experimental Pfizer Covid 19 mRNA formula? One above-the-rabbit hole explanation is that it is an antimicrobial additive. It has been reported in numerous studies that carbon-based technologies such as carbon nanotubes, graphene, graphene oxide, and quantum dots are antimicrobial and can inactivate viruses.3, 4, 5, 6
Graphene’s antimicrobial properties were initially published in 2014 by Sametband et al. who used graphene oxide (GO) derivatives to inhibit HSV-1 via viral attachment blocking. The GO blocked HSV-1 infections at relatively low concentrations and the charge density was the major factor affecting the inhibition of the virus.7 According to subsequent research these carbon-based materials are candidates for anti-viral applications that can inhibit viruses by a variety of mechanisms, including photothermal or reactive oxygen species production.
Recently, GO has also been used commercially in ‘antimicrobial’ coatings on face masks and even as ‘immunosensors’ in diagnostic kits. Surgical masks produced by Shandong Shenquan New Materials were taken off the market in Spain by the national health authority, Sanidad last April, due to the discovery of graphene oxide. Thus, it has also been disclosed that graphene particles are currently employed in various medical devices and equipment such as diagnostic kits, anti-viral coatings, face masks, and shields for alleged protection of microorganisms and disinfection. Even more disturbing, there have been reports of food being contaminated with graphene particles. Some have even claimed that the chemicals being sprayed through climate geoengineering also include graphene.
Hence, it is not a surprise that researchers have claimed to have found graphene oxide nanoparticles in the Pfizer COVID inoculation vials. The official explanation, if there ever is one, will probably be that it is a “necessary antiviral component or delivery device”. Other explanations further down the rabbit hole have been forthcoming and involve more nefarious purposes. Before disclosing those concerns, let us discuss more details about graphene oxide and graphene-related nanomaterials (GFN). The background of its applications is necessary to understand why and how it can be used on humans.
After the first demonstration of graphene nanoparticles isolation by Geim and Novoselov, from bulk graphite in 2004, graphene and its derivatives have been widely used in different sectors of the industry and particularly the medical industry.8 Today, graphene oxide and graphene-related nanomaterials (GFN) are extensively used in biomedical applications, such as biosensors, antimicrobials, cell imaging, drug delivery, and tissue engineering.9, 10, 11
A second explanation is that it may be used as a biosensor and can potentially enhance human physiology to become more receptive to electromagnetic fields, particularly 5 G microwave radiation. GO is a fluorescent material and can be used for biosensing applications for early disease detection and detecting biologically relevant molecules. Graphene oxide mixes readily with many polymers, forming nanocomposites, while greatly enhancing the properties of the original polymer, including elastic modulus, tensile strength, electrical conductivity, and thermal stability.For biosensing applications, it can be easily complexed with biomolecules as graphene oxide is covered with different functionalities such as epoxy, hydroxyl, and carboxylic groups.
Thus, commercially, GO is already being used in fluorescent-based biosensors for the detection of DNA and proteins as well as in neuromodulation devices. For example, this is a news release by INBRAIN Neuroelectronics S.L about their intention to use graphene as a biosensor for neuromodulation:
“INBRAIN Neuroelectronics S.L. is a medical device company dedicated to the development and commercialization of graphene-based neural interfaces and intelligent neuromodulation systems. Founded in 2019, the company is a spin-off from Graphene Flagship partners, Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (ICN2) & ICREA in Barcelona. INBRAIN is developing the least invasive and most intelligent neural interface on the market that will be able to read and modulate brain activity with very high resolution to obtain optimal results in personalized neurological therapies. INNERVIA Bioelectronics, is a subsidiary of INBRAIN Neuroelectronics, is dedicated to the development and commercialization of intelligent graphene systems designed to modulate vagus nerve signals, decoding them into medical solutions.” (For more information, please visit inbrain-neuroelectronics.com.)
Graphene Oxide and Graphene-related Nanomaterials (GFN) Properties
Graphene is light, flexible, and transparent and both electrically and thermally highly conductive, which opens the possibility of using it in a broad spectrum of applications, including supercapacitors. Graphene-based materials usually have sizes ranging from several to hundreds of nanometers and are 1-10 nm thick, which also meets the definition of nanoparticles or nanomaterials.
What we commonly refer to as (permanent) magnetism is more properly called ferromagnetism. It is the property of a material such as iron (hence ‘ferro’), nickel, or cobalt to become magnetized in the presence of an external magnet or magnetic field with the magnetism persisting after the external field is removed.
Paramagnetism refers to the property of a material to become magnetic in the presence of an external magnet or magnetic field. This is an induced magnetism that persists only if the external magnetic field is applied. The strength of paramagnetism is proportional to the strength of the applied magnetic field. An additional type of magnetism exhibited by some synthetic materials is super-paramagnetism. It is a more complex property but is defined as having a net paramagnetic response yet displaying ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic ordering at the microscopic level.
The key point is that graphene oxide contains no ferromagnetic material such as iron, but due to its paramagnetic property can still be magnetized if an external magnet is in its presence. This may explain the numerous anecdotally observed effects of magnets sticking to the injection site of some individuals.
Graphene’s Use in Industry and Medicine
Since the discovery of graphene, applications within different scientific disciplines have exploded, with huge gains being made particularly in high-frequency electronics, biochemical and magnetic sensors, ultra-wide bandwidth photodetectors, and energy storage and generation.
Graphene oxide (GO) is the oxidized form of the graphene family of nanomaterials (GFN). Graphene oxide (GO) and reduced graphene oxide (rGO), as previously mentioned, are materials used in numerous applications and fields. The key difference between graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide is that the graphene oxide contains oxygen-containing functional groups whereas the reduced graphene oxide lacks the oxygen-containing functional groups.
Due to their extremely high surface area, these materials are considered excellent for usage as electrode materials in batteries, and double-layered capacitors, as well as fuel cells and solar cells. Thus, GFN is extensively used in energy storage, nano-electronic devices, batteries and for redox enzyme encapsulation to improve electron communication between enzymes and electrodes.12
The interest in using graphene-related nanomaterials (GFN) in medicine lies chiefly upon the extraordinary properties of graphene, including its mechanical properties, flexibility, transparency, and thermo-electrical conductivity.13 The holdup has been its biological toxicity. Despite its known toxicity, researchers have already started exploring the use of graphene on the central nervous system for cell labeling and real-time live-cell monitoring. This allows delivery to the brain of molecules (chimeric mRNA) that are usually rejected by the blood-brain barrier as GFN easily penetrates this and other membrane barriers. In addition, interfacing graphene with neural cells was also proposed to be extremely advantageous for exploring their electrical behavior or facilitating neuronal regeneration by promoting controlled elongation of neuronal processes. These applications open new applications in neuro-therapeutics or manipulation.
The large surface area available and the possibility of conjugating different molecules onto its surface, make graphene an excellent material for holding and carrying drugs, genes (including siRNA and mRNA), antibodies, and proteins (viral/microbial) into the body.
The functionalization of GO also reduces the agglomeration. So far, certain nucleic acids, peptides, and proteins have been used to ‘functionalize’ graphene oxide as a biosensor. In short, GO has potential for use in biosensors because of its unique characteristics such as facile surface modification, high mechanical strength, good water dispersibility, and photoluminescence.13, 14, 15, 16
Graphene can also be exploited as a substrate for tissue engineering. In this case, conductivity is probably the most relevant amongst the various properties of the different graphene materials, as it may allow to instruct and interrogate neural networks, as well as to drive neural growth and differentiation. An example of how this material may be used neurologically is front and center to the corporation Neuralink. The Neuralink Corporation is a neurotechnology company developing implantable brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) and was founded by Elon Musk and others. Musk defined the neural lace as a "digital layer (composed of graphene) above the cortex" that would not necessarily imply extensive surgical insertion but ideally an implant through a vein or artery (as from an inoculation jab). Musk explained that the long-term goal is to achieve "symbiosis with artificial intelligence".
Additionally, GO has been demonstrated commercially in different biosensing applications, for early disease detection, and detecting biologically relevant molecules. Thus, other researchers claim that because GO is an effective biosensor. Once injected, these particles can be utilized to monitor the biological environment, such as microorganisms and other specific blood elements.
Down and Up the Rabbit Hole
This now brings us back to the nefarious purposes for GO’s inclusion into inoculations. The researchers Ricardo Delgado Martin, and Dr. Jose Luis Sevillano, have speculated that these graphene oxide nanoparticles are “programmable and excitable through specific electromagnetic frequencies and create biochemical changes that can even induce behavioral changes in the inoculated”. Like any material, graphene oxide has an “electronic absorption band”. This means that it absorbs a certain frequency that excites and oxidizes this material very rapidly. According to their research, graphene nanoparticles find resonance in the frequency of 41,6 GHz microwaves of the 5G technology currently being employed in many major cities worldwide. Matching this line of thinking, the purpose of changing the body’s metal ionic balance with magnetized graphene oxide is to alter the electro-chemical makeup. On a cellular level, our bodies are transmitters and receivers of electromagnetic radiation, and this would enhance the electromagnetic receptivity. To alter this balance is to make us more susceptible to external electromagnetic energy inputs.
Because GO easily penetrates the central nervous system (through the blood-brain barrier) and can function as an antenna, they further claim that subjects inoculated with GO nanoparticles can be manipulated chemically /electromagnetically by exposing them to specific frequencies inside the 5G microwave ranges. Once inoculated and exposed to specific microwave frequencies, the exposed individuals can be manipulated to visualize feelings and think thoughts about things that do not actually exist. Thus, they could be programmed to develop false memories or delete real existing memories. Even without a fully enabled 5G network, people have reported they feel mentally altered in consciousness and more forgetful after taking the inoculation. So, is the purpose of including GO in the inoculations intended to act as a conduit for electromagnetic frequency-induced biochemical manipulation? It all sounds so science fiction, but if only half of this speculation is true, it is outright terrifying and sinister.
Back up topside the rabbit hole, research shows that GO can be used like aluminum as a vaccine adjuvant. Adjuvants are components that can enhance antigen-specific immune responses in vaccines. The mechanisms of vaccine adjuvants involve rapid induction of chemokines, inflammatory cytokines, recruiting multiple immune cells, uric acid, and even apoptosis (cell death) of certain innate immune cells. Of course, adjuvants are shown to be also immunologic and neurologically toxic and thus may result in adverse reactions, some serious or even fatal. Currently, aluminum (alum) compounds, MPL (monophosphoryl lipid A), and MF59 are the most extensively used commercial adjuvants. Several studies demonstrate GO when injected can mount an immune response. However, because GO being toxic induces strong oxidative stress and inflammatory reaction at the site of injection, it has not previously been employed as a biological adjuvant. 17, 18, 19, 20
So, is it being used as an antimicrobial, an immune adjuvant, or as an antenna or biomonitoring device for nefarious purposes? While it may seem like science fiction, it is important to remain open to these possibilities. Technology has rapidly advanced and what can be done often now is done, irrespective of moral or ethical consequences. The bottom line here is that despite these questionable explanations, graphene oxide is a known biological toxin and upon injection it accumulates in organs, glands, and tissue causing varying degrees of inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular damage. The rest of this article will discuss its toxicological profile concerning its interruption of biological regulation.
As interesting as all this conjecture is, what is immediately apparent and concerning is the toxicity of GO. The medicinal use of graphene-based materials in a biological context has been limited up to now due to its strong toxic potential. Never have graphene-based materials been used in biological inoculations, and if used on a massive scale the consequences could be catastrophic. Because of the potential risk factors associated with the manufacture and use of graphene-related materials, the number of nanotoxicological studies of these compounds has increased rapidly over the past decade. Numerous toxicological studies have uncovered the effects of the nanostructural/biological interactions on different organizational levels of biological systems, from biomolecules to animals.21, 22, 23 In general, it has been demonstrated that GO with its abundant oxygen groups (carboxyl, hydroxyl, epoxy groups) can form complexes with organic pollutants and metal ions through electrostatic interaction, hydrogen bonding, and coordination. In biological systems, like the body, it has a profound potential to accumulate toxins and become an even more potent toxin.24
Depending on the graphite source (starting material), the synthesis method, the use of chemicals, and the dispersion form (solution or powder) of the final product, graphene can present different sizes, thickness, chemical surface, and aggregation state, which all affect to a various extent its interaction with the biological systems. It is clear, however, that GFNs when injected or breathed may cause severe adverse health effects.
Due to their nano-size, GFNs can reach all organs and penetrate the central nervous system. It can induce acute and chronic injuries in tissues by passing through the normal physiological barriers, such as the blood-air barrier, blood-testis barrier, blood-brain barrier (BBB), and blood-placental barrier.
The BBB is one of the most important physiological barriers in the body, forming a dynamic interface that separates the brain from the circulatory system. The barrier is formed by cerebrovascular endothelial cells, surrounded by basal lamina and astrocyte perivascular end-feet that link the barrier system to the neurons. Together with pericytes and microglial cells, endothelial cells support the barrier function and regulate its intercellular signaling to control the flow and trafficking to the brain. The BBB, together with arachnoid and choroid plexus epithelium, restricts the passage of various chemical substances and foreign materials between the bloodstream and the neuronal tissue, while still allowing the passage of substances and nutrients essential to metabolic functions, from oxygen to various proteins, such as insulin and apolipoprotein E.
The complex network of transport systems described above gives the BBB a vital neuroprotective function. Pharmaceutical companies have invested significant effort and sums in trying to design drugs that can cross the BBB, with limited success. The nanoparticle graphene surface can now be functionalized with specific biomolecules that enable selected material to cross the BBB. Thus, with injections of GO and GFN molecules (drugs, proteins, etc.) through the BBB.
Studies have shown that intravenously administered GO entered the body through blood circulation and was highly retained in the lung, liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Additionally, inflammatory cell infiltration, granuloma formation, and pulmonary edema were observed in the lungs of mice after intravenous injection of 10 mg kg/body weight GO.25, 26, 27, 28
Similarly, a high accumulation of PEGylated GO derivatives (polyethylene glycol) was observed in the reticuloendothelial system including liver and spleen after intraperitoneal injection. In contrast, GO-PEG and FLG did not show detectable gastrointestinal tract absorption or tissue uptake via oral administration.29
Both mRNA synthetic chimeric pathogenic protein inoculations are coated with PEGylated lipid nanoparticles (polyethylene glycol). This coating hides the mRNA from our immune system which ordinarily would attack and destroy any foreign material injected into the body. PEGylated lipid nanoparticles have been used in several different drugs for years. Unfortunately, PEGylated lipid nanoparticles have been shown to imbalance certain immune responses and can induce allergies and even autoimmune diseases.
In short, GO can result in DNA damage, acute inflammation responses, mitochondrial damage, and chronic injury by interfering with the normal physiological functions of important organs, glands, and tissues.30, 31
Due to its small size, high surface area, and surface charge, GO may possess significant genotoxic properties and cause severe DNA damage, for example, chromosomal fragmentation, DNA strand breakages, point mutations, and oxidative DNA adducts and alterations. 32, 33, 34, 35 Mutagenesis was observed in mice after intravenous injection of GO at a dose of 20 mg/kg compared with cyclophosphamide (50 mg/kg), a classic mutagen.36 Even if GO cannot enter the nucleus of a cell, it may still interact with DNA during mitosis when the nuclear membrane breaks down, which increases the opportunity for DNA aberrations.37
GFNs can cause a significant inflammatory response including inflammatory cell infiltration, pulmonary edema, and granuloma formation at high doses via intratracheal instillation or intravenous administration.38, 39 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.40, 41,42 In fact, many now claim the thrombosis, microthrombi, and vascular injury that is adversely associated with the COVID inoculation not only is due to the creation of spike proteins throughout the capillary endothelium but may also be due the GO contained in the formulation. Physicians are starting to monitor the occurrence of capillary microthrombi post-inoculation using a laboratory D-dimer test.
Oxygen-derived radicals (oxidative free radicals) are generated constantly as part of normal aerobic life. They are formed in mitochondria as oxygen is reduced along the electron transport chain. These reactive oxygen species are also formed as necessary intermediates in a variety of enzyme reactions. Mitochondria are energy production centers involved in various signaling pathways in cells and are also a key point of apoptotic (cell death) regulation.
In one study, after exposure to GO and carboxyl graphene (GXYG), the mitochondrial membrane was depolarized, and the number of mitochondria decreased in HepG2 cells.43
In another study, exposure to GFNs resulted in significantly increased coupled and uncoupled mitochondrial oxygen consumption, dissipation of the mitochondrial membrane potential, and eventual triggering of apoptosis by activating the mitochondrial pathway44. For instance, GO increased the activity of mitochondrial electron transport complexes I/III and the supply of electrons to site I/II of the electron transport chain, accelerating the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) during mitochondrial respiration in murine alveolar macrophage (MH-S) cells.45
Thus, the formation of excess oxidative free radicals mediated by GO could enhance oxidative and thermal stress to impair the mitochondrial respiration system and eventually result in dramatic toxicity.46 In another study it was concluded that the oxygen moieties on GO might accept electrons from cellular redox proteins, supporting the redox cycling of cytochrome c and electron transport proteins, and cytochromes MtrA, MtrB, and MtrC/OmcA might be involved in transferring electrons to GO. This creates a net loss of electrons critically needed for mitochondrial function.47 Moreover, in addition to plasma membrane damage and oxidative stress induction, GFNs can cause apoptosis (cell death) and/or cell necrosis by direct influencing cell mitochondrial activity. 48, 49
Apart from its cellular and metabolic toxicity, the other major concern is its accumulation in the body. It is an inorganic rather than an organic chemical and the body may have no enzymes or immune system components such as macrophages that can break it down or eliminate it.
The initial claim by the Spanish research team that GO exists in the Pfizer inoculation is certainly more than plausible given that 2020 Chinese Covid vaccine patents included graphene and that Karen Kingston, a former Pfizer consultant, also gives a credible description of its presence in the Pfizer product. Kingston gives the reason for GO’s inclusion to be its electric and magnetic properties. This is different from the Chinese vaccine patents that identified it as an adjuvant and delivery system. The general literature on GO identifies it as a viable delivery system for drug components. Therefore, it could also be assumed that Pfizer or Moderna included GO as an ingredient in their ‘proprietary mRNA formulations’ as one of its delivery components. For whatever purposes, any inclusion of graphene oxide in the Covid inoculations has questionable and potentially nefarious purposes. Should this be proven true, the bodies of those vaccinated will become superconductive, much like a cell phone.
Due to its extensive use in industry, graphene is everywhere!
In the past few years, GFNs and GO have been studied and used in a wide range of technological fields, including biomedical applications, particularly to develop strategies for efficient delivery of drugs or biomolecules or even genes into the brain, bypassing the BBB. Once inside the brain, GFNs may be used to monitor the neuronal environment and even enhance the reception of electromagnetic signals (microwave -5G).
Most importantly, GFNs are a known and proven toxic material to human biological regulatory systems. Common mechanisms of cytotoxicity of GFNs have been reported in the literature on different cell types and include: the physical interaction with cell membranes, disruption of cell cytoskeleton, oxidative stress due to production of reactive oxygen species, mitochondrial damage, DNA damage, such as chromosomal fragmentation, DNA strand breakages, point mutations and oxidative DNA alterations, autophagy, and apoptosis and/or necrosis. Graphene oxide shows stress-induced toxicity properties in vivo under different pathophysiological conditions. A dual-path chemical mechanism, involving the overproduction of hydroxyl radicals and the formation of oxidizing cytochrome c intermediates, is partly responsible for the toxicity properties. Regardless of the intent behind the use of graphine oxide, its use in vaccines is deleterious to human biology. All this stresses the need for urgent and further long-term biocompatibility assessment of this material within the body, particularly nerve tissues.
Mallakpour, Shadpour, Elham Azadi, and Chaudhery Mustansar Hussain. "Fight against COVID-19 pandemic with the help of carbon-based nanomaterials." New Journal of Chemistry (2021).
Innocenzi, Plinio, and Luigi Stagi. "Carbon-based antiviral nanomaterials: graphene, C-dots, and fullerenes. A perspective." Chemical science 11, no. 26 (2020): 6606-6622.
Mallakpour, Shadpour, Elham Azadi, and Chaudhery Mustansar Hussain. "Protection, disinfection, and immunization for healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic: Role of natural and synthetic macromolecules." Science of The Total Environment (2021): 145989.
Sengupta, Joydip, and Chaudhery Mustansar Hussain. "Carbon nanomaterials to combat virus: A perspective in view of COVID-19." Carbon Trends (2020): 100019.
Sametband, Matias, Inna Kalt, Aharon Gedanken, and Ronit Sarid. "Herpes simplex virus type-1 attachment inhibition by functionalized graphene oxide." ACS applied materials & interfaces 6, no. 2 (2014): 1228-1235.
Novoselov, Kostya S., Andre K. Geim, Sergei V. Morozov, De-eng Jiang, Yanshui Zhang, Sergey V. Dubonos, Irina V. Grigorieva, and Alexandr A. Firsov. "Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films." science 306, no. 5696 (2004): 666-669.
Zheng, Xin Ting, Arundithi Ananthanarayanan, Kathy Qian Luo, and Peng Chen. "Glowing graphene quantum dots and carbon dots: properties, syntheses, and biological applications." small 11, no. 14 (2015): 1620-1636.
Caffo, Maria, Lucia Merlo, Daniele Marino, and Gerardo Caruso. "Graphene in neurosurgery: the beginning of a new era." Nanomedicine 10, no. 4 (2015): 615-625.
Wu, Si-Ying, Seong Soo A. An, and John Hulme. "Current applications of graphene oxide in nanomedicine." International journal of nanomedicine 10, no. Spec Iss (2015): 9.
Geim AK, Novoselov KS. The rise of graphene. Nat Mater. 2007;6(3):183–191.
Kumar, Challa Vijaya. Enzyme Nanoarchitectures: Enzymes Armored with Graphene. Academic Press, 2018.
Morales-Narváez and A. Morkoci, “Graphene oxide as an optical biosensing platform: A Progress report”, Advanced materials (2018) 1805043.
Ueno, et.al., “On-chip graphene oxide aptasensor for multiple protein detection”, Analytical Chimica Acta 866 (2012) 1.
Sharma, et.al., “Insight into the biosensing of graphene oxide: Present and future prospects”, Arabian Journal of Chemistry 9 (2016) 238.
Xu L, Xiang J, Liu Y, Xu J, Luo Y, Feng L, Liu Z, Peng R. Functionalized graphene oxide serves as a novel vaccine nano-adjuvant for robust stimulation of cellular immunity. Nanoscale. 2016 Feb 14;8(6):3785-95. doi: 10.1039/c5nr09208f. Epub 2016 Jan 27. PMID: 26814441.
Meng, Chunchun, Xiao Zhi, Chao Li, Chuanfeng Li, Zongyan Chen, Xusheng Qiu, Chan Ding et al. "Graphene oxides decorated with carnosine as an adjuvant to modulate innate immune and improve adaptive immunity in vivo." ACS nano 10, no. 2 (2016): 2203-2213.
Cao, Yuhua, Yufei Ma, Mengxin Zhang, Haiming Wang, Xiaolong Tu, He Shen, Jianwu Dai, Huichen Guo, and Zhijun Zhang. "Ultrasmall graphene oxide supported gold nanoparticles as adjuvants improve humoral and cellular immunity in mice." Advanced Functional Materials 24, no. 44 (2014): 6963-6971.
Orecchioni, Marco, Cécilia Ménard-Moyon, Lucia Gemma Delogu, and Alberto Bianco. "Graphene and the immune system: challenges and potentiality." Advanced drug delivery reviews 105 (2016): 163-175.
Dudek, Ilona, Marta Skoda, Anna Jarosz, and Dariusz Szukiewicz. "The molecular influence of graphene and graphene oxide on the immune system under in vitro and in vivo conditions." Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis 64, no. 3 (2016): 195-215.
Chng, Elaine Lay Khim, and Martin Pumera. "Toxicity of graphene related materials and transition metal dichalcogenides." Rsc Advances 5, no. 4 (2015): 3074-3080.
Seabra, Amedea B., Amauri J. Paula, Renata de Lima, Oswaldo L. Alves, and Nelson Durán. "Nanotoxicity of graphene and graphene oxide." Chemical research in toxicology 27, no. 2 (2014): 159-168.
Nezakati, Toktam, Brian G. Cousins, and Alexander M. Seifalian. "Toxicology of chemically modified graphene-based materials for medical application." Archives of Toxicology 88, no. 11 (2014): 1987-2012.
Zhang, Xiaoyong, Jilei Yin, Cheng Peng, Weiqing Hu, Zhiyong Zhu, Wenxin Li, Chunhai Fan, and Qing Huang. "Distribution and biocompatibility studies of graphene oxide in mice after intravenous administration." carbon 49, no. 3 (2011): 986-995.
Kurantowicz, Natalia, Barbara Strojny, Ewa Sawosz, Sławomir Jaworski, Marta Kutwin, Marta Grodzik, Mateusz Wierzbicki, Ludwika Lipińska, Katarzyna Mitura, and André Chwalibog. "Biodistribution of a high dose of diamond, graphite, and graphene oxide nanoparticles after multiple intraperitoneal injections in rats." Nanoscale research letters 10, no. 1 (2015): 1-14.
Yang, Kai, Hua Gong, Xiaoze Shi, Jianmei Wan, Youjiu Zhang, and Zhuang Liu. "In vivo biodistribution and toxicology of functionalized nano-graphene oxide in mice after oral and intraperitoneal administration." Biomaterials 34, no. 11 (2013): 2787-2795.
Wen, Kai‐Ping, Ying‐Chieh Chen, Chia‐Hui Chuang, Hwan‐You Chang, Chi‐Young Lee, and Nyan‐Hwa Tai. "Accumulation and toxicity of intravenously‐injected functionalized graphene oxide in mice." Journal of Applied Toxicology 35, no. 10 (2015): 1211-1218.
Li, Bo, Xiao-Yong Zhang, Jian-Zhong Yang, Yu-Jie Zhang, Wen-Xin Li, Chun-Hai Fan, and Qing Huang. "Influence of polyethylene glycol coating on biodistribution and toxicity of nanoscale graphene oxide in mice after intravenous injection." International journal of nanomedicine 9 (2014): 4697.
Wang, Dan, Lin Zhu, Jian-Feng Chen, and Liming Dai. "Can graphene quantum dots cause DNA damage in cells?." Nanoscale 7, no. 21 (2015): 9894-9901.
De Marzi, L., L. Ottaviano, F. Perrozzi, M. Nardone, S. Santucci, J. De Lapuente, M. Borras, E. Treossi, V. Palermo, and A. Poma. "Flake size-dependent cyto and genotoxic evaluation of graphene oxide on in vitro A549, CaCo2 and vero cell lines." Journal of biological regulators and homeostatic agents 28, no. 2 (2014): 281-289.
Chatterjee, Nivedita, JiSu Yang, and Jinhee Choi. "Differential genotoxic and epigenotoxic effects of graphene family nanomaterials (GFNs) in human bronchial epithelial cells." Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis 798 (2016): 1-10.
Ivask, Angela, Nicolas H. Voelcker, Shane A. Seabrook, Maryam Hor, Jason K. Kirby, Michael Fenech, Thomas P. Davis, and Pu Chun Ke. "DNA melting and genotoxicity induced by silver nanoparticles and graphene." Chemical Research in Toxicology 28, no. 5 (2015): 1023-1035.
Wang, Dan, Lin Zhu, Jian-Feng Chen, and Liming Dai. "Can graphene quantum dots cause DNA damage in cells?." Nanoscale 7, no. 21 (2015): 9894-9901.
Ren, Hongliu, Chong Wang, Jiali Zhang, Xuejiao Zhou, Dafeng Xu, Jing Zheng, Shouwu Guo, and Jingyan Zhang. "DNA cleavage system of nanosized graphene oxide sheets and copper ions." ACS nano 4, no. 12 (2010): 7169-7174.
Liu, Yuanyuan, Yi Luo, Jing Wu, Yinsong Wang, Xiaoying Yang, Rui Yang, Baiqi Wang, Jinrong Yang, and Ning Zhang. "Graphene oxide can induce in vitro and in vivo mutagenesis." Scientific reports 3, no. 1 (2013): 1-8.
Golbamaki, Nazanin, Bakhtiyor Rasulev, Antonio Cassano, Richard L. Marchese Robinson, Emilio Benfenati, Jerzy Leszczynski, and Mark TD Cronin. "Genotoxicity of metal oxide nanomaterials: review of recent data and discussion of possible mechanisms." Nanoscale 7, no. 6 (2015): 2154-2198.
Li, Bo, Jianzhong Yang, Qing Huang, Yi Zhang, Cheng Peng, Yujie Zhang, Yao He et al. "Biodistribution and pulmonary toxicity of intratracheally instilled graphene oxide in mice." NPG Asia Materials 5, no. 4 (2013): e44-e44.
Zhang, Xiaoyong, Jilei Yin, Cheng Peng, Weiqing Hu, Zhiyong Zhu, Wenxin Li, Chunhai Fan, and Qing Huang. "Distribution and biocompatibility studies of graphene oxide in mice after intravenous administration." carbon 49, no. 3 (2011): 986-995.
Singh, Sunil K., Manoj K. Singh, Paresh P. Kulkarni, Vijay K. Sonkar, José JA Grácio, and Debabrata Dash. "Amine-modified graphene: thrombo-protective safer alternative to graphene oxide for biomedical applications." ACS nano 6, no. 3 (2012): 2731-2740.
Fujimi, Satoshi, Malcolm P. MacConmara, Adrian A. Maung, Yan Zang, John A. Mannick, James A. Lederer, and Peter H. Lapchak. "Platelet depletion in mice increases mortality after thermal injury." Blood 107, no. 11 (2006): 4399-4406.
Lammel, Tobias, Paul Boisseaux, Maria-Luisa Fernández-Cruz, and José M. Navas. "Internalization and cytotoxicity of graphene oxide and carboxyl graphene nanoplatelets in the human hepatocellular carcinoma cell line Hep G2." Particle and fibre toxicology 10, no. 1 (2013): 1-21.
Ou, Lingling, Bin Song, Huimin Liang, Jia Liu, Xiaoli Feng, Bin Deng, Ting Sun, and Longquan Shao. "Toxicity of graphene-family nanoparticles: a general review of the origins and mechanisms." Particle and fibre toxicology 13, no. 1 (2016): 1-24.
Gurunathan, Sangiliyandi, Jae Woong Han, Vasuki Eppakayala, and Jin-Hoi Kim. "Green synthesis of graphene and its cytotoxic effects in human breast cancer cells." International journal of nanomedicine 8 (2013): 1015.
Duch, Matthew C., GR Scott Budinger, Yu Teng Liang, Saul Soberanes, Daniela Urich, Sergio E. Chiarella, Laura A. Campochiaro et al. "Minimizing oxidation and stable nanoscale dispersion improves the biocompatibility of graphene in the lung." Nano letters 11, no. 12 (2011): 5201-5207.
Zhang, Wendi, Chi Wang, Zhongjun Li, Zhenzhen Lu, Yiye Li, Jun‐Jie Yin, Yu‐Ting Zhou et al. "Unraveling stress‐induced toxicity properties of graphene oxide and the underlying mechanism." Advanced Materials 24, no. 39 (2012): 5391-5397.
Salas, Everett C., Zhengzong Sun, Andreas Lüttge, and James M. Tour. "Reduction of graphene oxide via bacterial respiration." ACS nano 4, no. 8 (2010): 4852-4856.
Park, Eun-Jung, Gwang-Hee Lee, Beom Seok Han, Byoung-Seok Lee, Somin Lee, Myung-Haing Cho, Jae-Ho Kim, and Dong-Wan Kim. "Toxic response of graphene nanoplatelets in vivo and in vitro." Archives of toxicology 89, no. 9 (2015): 1557-1568.
Shekaramiz, Elaheh. Immobilization of mitochondria on graphene. University of California, Irvine, 2012.
Videos About Graphene
Graphene Oxide: A way to kill and control
David Icke – What is Graphene Oxide?