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:
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.
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.
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.
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...
the public should be outraged that this carcinogen is impossible to avoid. doesn’t look good for kids’ future health.
in chemtrails too?
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
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.
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.
yup.
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
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.
Thank you so much for bringing this up!
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
59 more studies and articles on graphene. This is a great resource. https://wordsalad.info/tag-graphene.html
Have you seen this?
https://stopworldcontrol.com/unevent/?inf_contact_key=26af5239fa98dfd8b5057bb1ddf54771d18a532c4142cb79caf2b269de1401fa
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...
Going out on a limb here, but I'd bet the FDA has classified these GRAS (generally regarded as safe).