26 Comments

the public should be outraged that this carcinogen is impossible to avoid. doesn’t look good for kids’ future health.

in chemtrails too?

Expand full comment

They've been pumping carbon nanotubes into the environment/life, adding it to detergents and all manner of unlikely things, for ages.

I recall back in the day - back when searches worked and all sorts of White Papers and the like used to be easy to find on the internet - coming across an EPA study on carbon nanotubes.

The study began with a statement that they had little funding but would do their best to repeat the studies that industry was doing, in an effort to keep up with them, as best they could. As I began to read the method, it seemed obvious that they were setting up for testing for meso, previously known as only an asbestos signature disease, the evidence of causation shown in the study meaning that the carbon nanotubes caused literally everything that asbestos did and that had long been frantically attributed too Anything But Asbestos.

Business as usual.

Expand full comment
author

The cancer rate was 98% in the high-dose MWCNT A-treated groups, and 40% (low-dose) in the MWCNT D-treated groups (in the least toxic group).

All in all, out of all 500 rats, 320 of the 329 MWCNT-related malignant mesotheliomas had invaded the diaphragm, and 174 of these tumors showed invasion of the thoracic cavity.

In the amosite asbestos group, which displayed 33 (66%) mesotheliomas, 29 mesotheliomas had invaded the diaphragm, and 5 of these tumors showed invasion of the thoracic cavity.

Rats in the medium control group developed one mesothelioma (2%) during the final sections.

Also, the manner in which these tumors occurred clearly proved that they were induced by MWCNT.

Absolutely agreed, either way these materials MUST NOT be used on humans.

Expand full comment

They are intent upon 'vaccinating' all Earth Life with such as this - if we do not somehow stop this now, there will be nothing to salvage. Everything - not just humanity - will miserably perish...

Expand full comment

Creepy, I know.

Luc

Expand full comment

Indeed. I guess one must know both sides of an issue, even if it is a very unpleasant task.

I do it all the time for my Ph.D research.

Luc

Expand full comment
author

In this study we look at 1 injection.

People are forced to inhale these CNTs (masks). They have had them inserted by so-called PCR, injected (even those behind it hide this fact), and used in chemtrails, filters, drugs, food, etc.

Expand full comment

Interesting that the Opposite Day presentation of a reality that exists despite the warped perceptions they seek to impose is continued in that they want to 'decarbonize' us and are loading us up with this in every possible way...

Expand full comment

You nailed it when you talk about the problem of censorship in science! We are all in trouble. Triclosan is in a lot of personal care products and was a much touted ingredient for toothpaste. As a nano technology product it is based on phenol and ethanol, forming ethoxybenzene. Benzene IS carcinogenic the last time I looked, but the FDA doesn’t care.

Expand full comment
Jan 25, 2023·edited Jan 25, 2023Liked by OUTRAGED HUMAN

You are doing a wonderful job; I'm so happy you listened to my encouragement and started your page here! You can do a lot of things by filling the details that I am not interested in or not even suitable for doing. Well, you and I might still disagree on what "viruses" are, but it's unlikely that two thinking persons can agree on all accounts. Eventually, considering the outcome, our differences in opinion are inconsequential, because you and I are looking at the end product that, as such, must be addressed.

As you know, while I look at the big picture (which hardly anyone else around does or dares to do in public), I am dedicated to focus on prevention, preparation, and possible protection.

You and I are engaged in the most important part of the story: giving people some room to expand their cognitive spaces in order to enable them to make their own more-or-less informed decisions:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-most-important-thing-anyone-can

Expand full comment
Jan 26, 2023Liked by OUTRAGED HUMAN

Dallas Morning News had a big spread about nanotechnology many many years ago. I wish I had saved it. I’ll never forget sitting in my kitchen and reading every word. It scared the holy crap out of me. I remember they were talking about buckyballs??? And they were a nano form of carbon.

Expand full comment

People need to stop using the PCR test with nano particles in them being distributed as the Q-tipped end is swabbed across the cribriform plate allowing nano particles to pass through into the brain. The PCR test is inaccurate and besides that, it is dangerous.

Expand full comment

All of the graphene and nano-carbon stuff is toxic, in any form. I even wrote an article about it, with links to studies.

How graphene in some vaccines can make you sick. Graphene is toxic in all forms. https://sciencenews22.substack.com/p/how-graphene-in-some-vaccines-can

Expand full comment

Rats, except the naked mole, are genetically predisposed to developing tumors and cancers. One can show almost anything causes these by using them as test subjects. This is how the world was duped into believing the sun is responsible for skin melanoma.

A major function of the immune system is to locate and kill abnormal cells. Cancer only appears and spreads when natural killer cells become dysfunctional or overwhelmed. The primary issue per se isn't about carbon nanotubes or whatever creating the damage which can lead to this problem, but instead why the body's built-in defense doesn't stop the progression very early on.

At one time in the US, cancer wasn't much of an issue and looked drastically different than now. The changes seem to coincide with the population being pressured and forced into receiving vaccines starting in the 1800s. Graphene and nanotech didn't exist back then.

Expand full comment

Thank you so much for bringing this up!

Expand full comment

Self-Assembly of DNA Crystals. Mik Andersen

http://xochipelli.fr/2022/12/self-assembly-of-dna-crystals-mik-andersen/

Five More Essays, or videos, from Mik Andersen

https://xochipelli.substack.com/p/more-essays-from-mik-andersen

Mik Andersen’s 39 articles in English: Graphene injections and intra-corporeal nano-communications network

https://xochipelli.substack.com/p/mik-andersens-39-articles-in-english

Expand full comment

59 more studies and articles on graphene. This is a great resource. https://wordsalad.info/tag-graphene.html

Expand full comment
Jan 25, 2023Liked by OUTRAGED HUMAN

Lol, just went to book-mark it for later, realized that I already had it bookmarked, 'for later' and had cleverly completely managed to lose it in the mental mountain of things that I HAVE to read/view...

So, additional thanks for the reminder and I think I'll maybe leave it up where I can see it when I find time to start digging through the links, lol.

Expand full comment

WOW - and THANKS! Looks like killer material, in both senses.

Expand full comment
Feb 5, 2023·edited Feb 5, 2023

James - Much more detailed evidence of the cellular pathological efx of CNTs. It is very bad news, on top of bad news..

See here:

https://jnanobiotechnology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12951-020-00742-y

Excerpt:

Most studies that investigate the biological consequences of CNTs demonstrate very significant phenotypic effects. These nanofilaments have been reported to trigger the production of reactive oxygen species [18,19,20,21,22], DNA breakage [23,24,25,26], chromosomal mal-segregation [27,28,29,30], anti-proliferative [31,32,33] and anti-migratory [18, 34,35,36] effects, etc. Unfortunately, some early toxicity studies were carried out using aggregated or poorly purified CNTs -containing traces of contaminating metals-, or were produced using unrealistic amounts of the nanotubes. This all resulted in poorly reproducible and unpredictable deleterious biological behaviours, leaving a blurry picture of CNTs toxicity that has not been resolved until recently.

We now know that individualized CNTs (non aggregated) can interfere with many cellular processes, and to what extent the nature, surface properties, and size of the nanotubes are important in this process. One of the greatest cellular effects caused CNTs results from their interaction with intracellular filaments, principally with the DNA, actin, and, above all, with the microtubule cytoskeleton. CNT interactions with these biological polymers have been reported to trigger clastogenic effects (DNA breakage), mitotic aberrations, chromosome missegregation, and migratory defects, all leading to a general cellular malfunction that eventually leads to apoptosis.

Interestingly, the cellular phenotype produced by different CNTs is not identical. For instance, single-walled CNTs (SWCNTs) have been mostly reported to cause DNA damage [18, 23, 27, 37], while MWCNTs, appear to preferentially interfere with actin [38,39,40] and tubulin, hindering cellular biomechanics (Fig. 1) [31, 36, 41]. These cellular phenotypes suggest the thickness of the nanotubes could be a significant issue in their interaction with intracellular filaments and, more particularly, with the interaction of the nanotubes with the dynamic polymeric cytoskeletal filaments, such as microtubules or actin microfilaments.

*

Ironically, in this article, CNTs are suggested for cancer 'treatment', in combination with current chemotherapies that destroy microtubule biomechanics. Apparently the authors selectively and conveniently disregard the cytotoxic effects of of CNTs in normal, healthy cells.

So what the hell... let's use standard chemo AND CNTs to really blast those cancer cells... never mind that we are not only destroying billions of healthy cells too... but we also lay the foundation for ever more pockets of cancerous lesions in the future.

Brilliant, I say! Brilliant!

/sarc

Well... maybe not so sarcastic. Being that medicine is a for=profit cartel...

Expand full comment

Going out on a limb here, but I'd bet the FDA has classified these GRAS (generally regarded as safe).

Expand full comment