GRAPHENE/NANOTECHNOLOGY IN MASKS AND PCR TESTS
GRAPHENE/NANOTECHNOLOGY IN MASKS AND PCR TESTS
CALL FOR INVESTIGATION AND PUNISHMENT OF THOSE BEHIND THE CRIME
This nanotechnology unleashed on innocent ignorant people IS NOT only contained in vaccines. Please type into google: “masks graphene” and click images.... THIS IS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO HUMANITY.
Nose-to-Brain Translocation and Cerebral Biodegradation of Thin Graphene Oxide Nanosheets - ScienceDirect https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666386420301879
The nasal route represents a means by which nanomaterials can gain access to the brain in exposed individuals.
Highlights
Thin graphene oxide sheets can translocate from the nasal cavity to the brain
Translocation is size dependent, with ultrasmall nanometric sheets translocating the most
Kinetics of graphene oxide accumulation are time dependent and brain-region-specific
Brain-accumulated graphene oxide undergoes changes consistent with biodegradation
After 24 h, besides being present in the olfactory bulbs, trace quantities of us-GO translocated to more distant structures, such as the cortex, striatum, hippocampus, midbrain, cerebellum, and the pons and medulla.
In this previous study, splenic macrophages sequestered GO sheets and mediated their structural degradation over a 9-month period.
In conclusion, our results suggest that following the intranasal administration of aqueously dispersed GO sheets, the materials underwent size-dependent translocation to the brain. The smallest sheet size category (us-GO, 10–550 nm) experienced the greatest translocation and was present in every examined brain region, notably in the olfactory bulb.
Toxicity of graphene family nanoparticles: a general overview of origins and mechanisms https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-016-0168-y
GFNs (graphene-family nanomaterials) can be delivered into bodies by intratracheal instillation, oral administration, intravenous injection, intraperitoneal injection and subcutaneous injection. GFNs can induce acute and chronic injuries in tissues by penetrating through the blood-air barrier, blood-testis barrier, blood-brain barrier, and blood-placenta barrier etc. and accumulating in the lung, liver, and spleen etc.
For example, some graphene nanomaterials aerosols can be inhaled and substantial deposition in the respiratory tract, and they can easily penetrate through the tracheobronchial airways and then transit down to the lower lung airways, resulting in the subsequent formation of granulomas, lung fibrosis and adverse health effects to exposed persons.
The toxicological mechanisms of GFNs demonstrated in recent studies mainly contain inflammatory response, DNA damage, apoptosis, autophagy and necrosis etc., and those mechanisms can be collected to further explore the complex signalling pathways network regulating the toxicity of GFNs.
GFNs (graphene-family nanomaterials) penetrate through the physiological barriers or cellular structures by different exposure ways or administration routes and entry the body or cells, eventually resulting in toxicity in vivo and in vitro. The varying administration routes and entry paths, different tissue distribution and excretion, even the various cell uptake patterns and locations, may determine the degree of the toxicity of GFNs.
Blood-air barrier
The lungs are a potential entrance for graphene nanoparticles into the human body through airway. The inhaled GO nanosheets can destroy the ultrastructure and biophysical properties of pulmonary surfactant (PS) film, which is the first line of host defense, and emerge their potential toxicity. The agglomerated or dispersed particles deposit on the inner alveolar surface within the alveoli and then be engulfed by alveolar macrophages (AMs). Clearance in the lungs is facilitated by the mucociliary escalator, AMs, or epithelial layer. However, some small, inhaled nanoparticles infiltrate the intact lung epithelial barrier and can then transiently enter the alveolar epithelium or the interstitium. Intratracheally instilled graphene can redistribute to the liver and spleen by passing through the air-blood barrier. The study of blood-air barrier may draw an intensive attention, since the researchers and workers occupational exposure of GFNs usually through inhalation. To make clear how the blood-air barrier plays a role in the toxicity of GFNs may become a research hot topic.
GFNs were investigated to deposit in the lungs and accumulate to a high level, which retained for more than 3 months in the lungs with slow clearing after intratracheal instillation. Intravenous injection is also widely used to assess the toxicity of graphene nanomaterials, and graphene circulates through the body of mice in 30 min, accumulating at a working concentration in the liver and bladder.
The inhaled GO nanosheets can destroy the ultrastructure and biophysical properties of pulmonary surfactant (PS) film, which is the first line of host defense, and emerge their potential toxicity. The agglomerated or dispersed particles deposit on the inner alveolar surface within the alveoli and then be engulfed by alveolar macrophages.
The different administration routes influence the distribution of GFNs, for example, intratracheally instilled FLG passing through the air-blood barrier mainly accumulated and was retained in the lungs, with 47 % remaining after 4 weeks.
Toxicity of GFNs in organs (focus on the lungs):
Result in acute lung injury (ALI) and chronic pulmonary fibrosis.
Intratracheally instilled FLG resulted in acute lung injury and pulmonary edema.
GP (graphene particles) caused acute inflammation in lung at 1 day, and alleviated inflammation in lung after 6 weeks.
Large GP were inflammogenic in both the lung and the pleural space.
Accumulated mainly in the liver and lungs.
Led to high accumulation, longtime retention, pulmonary edema and granuloma formation.
NGO-PEG alleviated acute tissue injuries.
GO (graphene oxide) appeared toxic and caused death.
The micro-size of GO induced much stronger inflammation responses than the nanosized GO.
RGO affected general locomotor activity, balance, and neuromuscular coordination.
A high dose of GO that forms aggregations can block pulmonary blood vessels and result in dyspnea, and platelet thrombi were observed at high concentrations of 1 and 2 mg/kg body weight via intravenous injection.
GO reportedly disrupted the alveolar-capillary barrier, allowing inflammatory cells to infiltrate into the lungs and stimulate the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Fibrosis and inflammation could be verified by the increased levels of the protein markers collagen1, Gr1, CD68 and CD11b in the lungs.
In conclusion, the lung injury induced by GFNs has been studied in several studies, the results of which have demonstrated inflammatory cell infiltration, pulmonary edema and granuloma formation in the lungs.
Concentration: Numerous results have shown that graphene materials cause dose dependent toxicity in animals and cells, such as liver and kidney injury, lung granuloma formation, decreased cell viability and cell apoptosis (cell death).
http://web.archive.org/web/20200804113846/https://www.sqnewmaterials.com/
Product Description Good Reputation disposable Biomass Graphene 3 ply nonwoven Graphene Face Mask ear loop.
Why graphene may be linked to lung injury
Researchers have been studying the potential negative impacts of inhaling microscopic graphene on mammals. In one 2016 experiment, mice with graphene placed in their lungs experienced localized lung tissue damage, inflammation, formation of granulomas (where the body tries to wall off the graphene), and persistent lung injury, similar to what occurs when humans inhale asbestos. A different study from 2013 found that when human cells were bound to graphene, the cells were damaged.
No obvious benefit but theoretical risk
Graphene is an intriguing scientific advance that may speed up the demise of COVID-19 virus particles on a face mask. In exchange for this unknown level of added protection, there is a theoretical risk that breathing through a graphene-coated mask will liberate graphene particles that make it through the other filter layers on the mask and penetrate into the lung. If inhaled, the body may not remove these particles rapidly enough to prevent lung damage.
https://www.hsmsearch.com/Graphene-enhanced-face-masks
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2016/py/c6py00639f/unauth
Filomicelles and nanoworms are an emerging subclass of nanomaterials with a special elongated shape. The physical properties of a filomicelle are distinct from a traditional spherical micelle, and as such have attracted tremendous interest in a variety of research areas. In this review, we highlight the substantial progress in the synthesis and application of polymeric nanoworms over the past two decades. Synthetic techniques summarized in this review are particle replication in nonwetting templates (PRINT), film stretching, self-assembly (SA), crystallization-driven self-assembly (CDSA), polymerization-induced self-assembly (PISA), and temperature-induced morphological transformation (TIMT). The applications of filomicelles as (i) templates for inorganic nanoparticles, (ii) building blocks for superstructures, (iii) synthetic dendritic cells for immunotherapy, (iv) constituents of thermoresponsive gels for biomedical applications, and (v) nanocarriers for cancer drug delivery are subsequently discussed. In the conclusion, we describe the current trajectory of research in the field and identify areas where further developments are of urgent need.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021979719313797
Dopamine-assisted one-pot synthesis of gold nanoworms and their application as photothermal agents
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.1c05075
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/graphene-slips-deeper-into-lungs-than-predicted/3001864.article
Researchers discover that once graphene enters the lungs the immune system has trouble getting rid of it
Graphene nanoplatelets can penetrate deeper into the lungs than their size would suggest, say UK researchers. And once there, the body’s natural defences cannot deal with them effectively. Chronic exposure could therefore lead to inflammation and disease in a similar way to asbestos fibres.
For Graphene-based materials (GBMs) Occupational exposure to graphene-based nanomaterials: risk assessment, DOI: 10.1039/C8NR04950E (Review Article) Nanoscale, 2018, 10, 15894-15903 Summary of the existing knowledge on GBM (Graphene-based materials) toxicity in animal models. As signs of toxicity, data of inflammation, granuloma formation, fibrosis and necrosis reported in the revised literature were considered.
The most significant occupational exposure routes are inhalation, oral, cutaneous and ocular, inhalation being the majorly involved and most studied one. This manuscript presents a critical up-to-date review of the available in vivo toxicity data of the most significant GBMs, after using these exposure routes. The few in vivo inhalation toxicity studies (limited to 5-days of repeated exposure and only one to 5 days per week for 4 weeks) indicate inflammatory/fibrotic effects at the pulmonary level, not always reversible after 14/90 days. More limited in vivo data are available for the oral and ocular exposure routes, whereas the studies on cutaneous toxicity are at the initial stage. A long persistence of GBMs in rodents is recorded, while contradictory genotoxic data are reported. Data gap identification is also provided.
Respiratory exposure
The majority of in vivo toxicity studies were carried out to assess the effects at the respiratory level after exposure to GBMs by inhalation, intratracheal instillation or pharyngeal aspiration. Studies in rodents after acute exposure to GBMs by intratracheal instillation or pharyngeal aspiration revealed relatively severe lung inflammation, as reported in a recent review.10 Among the investigated GBMs, on evaluating inflammatory cells and/or inflammatory markers in the broncho-alveolar lavage fluid as indices of lung inflammation, GO appeared to be the most toxic one compared to rGO, GNP or FLG, which appeared to be the least toxic GBM at the pulmonary level.
Different pieces of evidence of lung inflammation and fibrosis were observed both after acute exposure and after one exposure per week for 7 consecutive weeks.
Australia develops nanoworms-based anti-viral coating for face masks https://www.biospectrumasia.com/news/47/19049/australia-develops-nanoworms-based-anti-viral-coating-for-face-masks.html
“When surgical masks were sprayed with these ‘nanoworms’, it resulted in complete inactivation of the Alpha variant of Sars-CoV-2 and influenza A,” Professor Monteiro said.
The coating has been developed with Boeing as a joint research project, and was tested at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity at The University of Melbourne.
“These polymer ‘nanoworms’ rupture the membrane of virus droplets transmitted through coughing, sneezing or saliva and damage their RNA,” Professor Monteiro said.
https://www.tacc.utexas.edu/-/targeting-tumors-with-nanoworms
"We found that the transport of these nanoworms is dominated by red blood cells," which make up 40% to 50% of the flow, Li explained. "It's like driving on the highway — construction slows down traffic. Drugs are getting carried by individual red blood cells and dragged into narrow regions and getting stuck."
He determined that nanoworms can travel more efficiently through the bloodstream, passing through blockages where spherical or flat shapes get stuck.
"The nanoworm moves like a snake. It can swim between red blood cells making it easier to escape tight spots," Li said.
"Advanced cyberinfrastructure resources, such as Frontera, enable researchers to experiment with novel frameworks and build innovative models that, in this example, help us understand the human circulatory system in a new way," said Manish Parashar, Director of the NSF Office for Advanced Cyberinfrastructure. "NSF supports Frontera as part of a broader ecosystem of cyberinfrastructure investments, including software and data analytics, that push the boundaries of science to yield insights with immediate application in our lives."
Frontera allows Li not only to run computational experiments, but also to develop a new computational framework that combines fluid dynamics and molecular dynamics.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/04/health/nano-swarm-robots-intl/index.html
Most significantly, the complex transformations of these nano-robots could be completed within the systems of living human and animal bodies.
It is hoped surgeons could manipulate the nano-robots to pass through highly compact spaces within organs and blood vessels, allowing the nano-robots to resolve blood clots and assist with targeted drug delivery to cells.
For all their potential medical applications, nano-robots are largely in the research and development stage of production, as clinical trials of nano-robots in humans have yet to be approved due to issues with strict regulations on human testing.
Well, they were used according to the idea of "Never let a good crisis go to waste".
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2018.00012/full - Interfacing Graphene-Based Materials With Neural Cells
How to Reach the Brain: G-Based Nanocarriers and the Blood-Brain Barrier
Graphene Nanosheet Interaction With Neural Cells
Common mechanisms of cytotoxicity of G (graphene) nanosheets have been reported in literature on different cell types, and include the physical interaction with cell membranes (Seabra et al., 2014); disruption of cell cytoskeleton (Tian et al., 2017); oxidative stress due to production of reactive oxygen species (ROS; Chen M. et al., 2016; Mittal et al., 2016); mitochondrial damage (Pelin et al., 2017); DNA damage, such as chromosomal fragmentation, DNA strand breakages, point mutations and oxidative DNA alterations (Akhavan et al., 2012; Fahmi et al., 2017); autophagy (Chen et al., 2014); and apoptosis and/or necrosis (Lim et al., 2016). Furthermore, published data suggest that GO is less toxic than G, rGO and hydrogenated-G; smaller nanosheets are less toxic than large flakes and highly dispersible G solutions are safer than aggregating ones (Donaldson et al., 2006; Akhavan et al., 2012; Bianco, 2013; Kurapati et al., 2016; Ou et al., 2016).
Few studies have been carried out in neuronal-like cell lines, showing some toxic effects of G at high doses. In particular, both G and carbon nanotubes induced toxic responses in PC12 cells in a concentration- and shape-dependent manner (Zhang et al., 2010). Upon G exposure, ROS were generated and evidences of apoptosis were noticed at a concentration of 10 μg/ml. In agreement with this study, GO nanosheets induced no obvious cytotoxicity at low concentration, but dose- and time-dependent cell death was observed in the human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cell line (Lv et al., 2012). For what concerns primary cultures, no changes in neuronal and glial cell viability were detected upon G exposure, both in vivo and in vitro (Bramini et al., 2016; Mendonça et al., 2016b; Rauti et al., 2016). However, primary neuronal cultures exposed to GO nanosheets displayed clear alterations in a number of physiological pathways, such as calcium and lipid homeostasis, synaptic connectivity and plasticity (Bramini et al., 2016; Rauti et al., 2016). Once internalized in cells, G nanosheets were seen to preferentially accumulate in lysosomes, as well as to physically damage mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum and, in some cases, nuclei (John et al., 2015). Another study suggested that the irregular protrusions and sharp edges of the nanosheets could damage the plasma membrane, thus letting G entering the cell by piercing the phospholipid-bilayer (Li Y. et al., 2013). These features raise additional safety concerns, as free GRMs in the cytoplasm may lead to disruption of the cytoskeleton, impaired cell motility and blockade of the cell-cycle, similar to carbon nanotube-induced cytotoxicity.
The few in vivo inhalation toxicity studies (limited to 5-days of repeated exposure and only one to 5 days per week for 4 weeks) indicate inflammatory/fibrotic effects at the pulmonary level, not always reversible after 14/90 days.
Inhalation toxicity data in laboratory animals, especially those obtained from toxicological studies, partially following OECD guidelines, suggest that acute, 5-day and/or 4-week repeated inhalation exposures to the tested GBMs (FLG, GO and GNP) can induce inflammatory/fibrotic reactions in the lungs.
It is clear, however, that G nanosheets may cause adverse environmental and health effects, leaving open the debate about their use as biomedical platform.
All these studies are relatively new. Without proper data, these toxic materials have been unleashed on all of humanity!
Graphene based PCR test:
https://www.nsmedicaldevices.com/news/graphene-sensor-covid-19-test/
https://www.medgadget.com/2021/06/graphene-sensor-for-rapid-covid-19-detection.html
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-graphene-oxide-based-rapid-infections.html
https://www.grapheneuses.org/graphene-sensor/
https://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=37676
Various regulatory agencies know well the dangers of nanotechnology, yet they allow it. There is no ignorance on their side.
Nanotechnologies: 6. What are potential harmful effects of nanoparticles? (europa.eu) https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/en/nanotechnologies/l-2/6-health-effects-nanoparticles.htm
https://www.allthescience.org/what-are-the-possible-dangers-of-nanotechnology.htm
Sometimes, the physical, as opposed to chemical, properties of particles may alone make them hazardous in unexpected ways. Asbestos is one example. Since it is chemically quite inert, it was initially thought to be harmless and was widely used, but when it is cut or broken, this material produces tiny, airborne fibers that can be inhaled. It has now been established that these fibers can cause cancer when they lodge in the lungs, and it seems that the effect is due to their size and shape, and the way they interact mechanically with lung cells.
One scientific study found that some types of carbon nanotubes closely resemble asbestos fibers in their dimensions and shape, and tests on animals showed that the nanotubes cause inflammation and lesions in tissue exposed to them. No link to cancer has yet been proven, but in the case of asbestos, the disease may only develop several decades after exposure. Today, 3,000 deaths per year are still attributed to asbestos from decades-old use.
In March 2004, tests conducted by environmental toxicologist Eva Oberdörster, Ph.D., of Southern Methodist University in Texas, found extensive brain damage to fish exposed to fullerenes for a period of just 48 hours at a relatively moderate dose of 0.5 parts per million — comparable with levels of other pollutants found in similar environments. The fish also exhibited changed gene markers in their livers, indicating their entire physiology was affected. In a concurrent test, the fullerenes killed water fleas, an important link in the marine food chain.
Oberdörster could not say whether fullerenes would also cause brain damage in humans, but she cautioned that more studies are necessary and that the accumulation of fullerenes over time could be a concern, particularly if they were allowed to enter the food chain. Earlier studies in 2002 by the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) indicated nanoparticles accumulated in the bodies of lab animals, and still other studies showed fullerenes travel freely through soil and could be absorbed by earthworms. This is a potential link up the food chain to humans and presents one of the possible dangers of nanotechnology.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/nanotech_the_unknown_risks
An animal study from the United Kingdom found that certain carbon nanotubes can cause the same kind of lung damage as asbestos. Carbon nanotubes are among the most widely used nanomaterials.
A coalition of consumer groups petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban the sale of products that contain germ-killing nanosilver particles, from stuffed animals to clothing, arguing that the silver could harm human health, poison aquatic life, and contribute to the rise of antibiotic resistance.
Researchers in Singapore reported that nanosilver caused severe developmental problems in zebrafish embryos — bolstering worries about what happens when those antimicrobial products, like soap and clothing, leak silver into the waste stream.
The U.S. Department of Defense, in an internal memo, acknowledged that nanomaterials may “present”¦ risks that are different than those for comparable material at a larger scale.” That’s an overarching risk with nanomaterials: Their tiny size and high surface area make them more chemically reactive and cause them to behave in unpredictable ways. So a substance that’s safe at a normal size can become toxic at the nanoscale.
Australian farmers proposed new standards that would exclude nanotechnology from organic products.
The European Union announced that it will require full health and safety testing for carbon and graphite under its strict new chemicals law, known as REACH (for Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemical Substances). Carbon and graphite were previously exempt, because they’re considered safe in their normal forms. But the U.K. study comparing carbon nanotubes to asbestos, along with a similar report from Japan, raised new alarms about these seemingly harmless substances.
Old Materials, New Risks
The EU’s move is a critical step toward recognizing nanomaterials as a potential new hazard that requires new rules and new information.
The raw materials of nanotechnology are familiar. Carbon, silver, and metals like iron and titanium are among the most common. But at the nanoscale, these well-known substances take on new and unpredictable properties. That’s what makes them so versatile and valuable. It also makes them potentially dangerous in ways that their larger-scale counterparts are not.
Danger Signs
What is known about nanohazards counsels caution.
Nanomaterials are so small that they travel easily, both in the body and in the environment. Their tiny size and high surface area give them unusual characteristics: insoluble materials become soluble; nonconductive ones start conducting electricity; harmless substances can become toxic.
Nanoparticles are easily inhaled. They can pass from the lungs into the bloodstream and other organs. They can even slip through the olfactory nerve into the brain, evading the protective blood-brain barrier. It’s not clear whether they penetrate the skin. Once they’re inside the body, it’s not clear how long they remain or what they do. What’s more, current science has no way of testing for nano-waste in the air or water, and no way of cleaning up such pollution.
The tiny cylinders known as carbon nanotubes, or CNTs, are among the most widely used nanomaterials. These tubes, which come in different sizes and shapes, lend extraordinary strength and lightness to bicycle frames and tennis rackets; researchers are also investigating uses in medicine, electronics and other fields. The recent UK study found that long, straight CNTs, when injected into lab mice, cause scarring even faster than asbestos. One of the investigators predicts the scarring will lead to cancer; other experts are less sure. The study doesn’t prove whether it’s possible to inhale enough CNTs to cause the same results as the injections. But which workers want to serve as the test cases?
http://www.thenewecologist.com/2016/11/disadvantages-nanotechnology/
Another major disadvantage of nanotechnology is the possible mass poisoning of material which is processed at a Nano scale.
https://www.nature.com/articles/am20137
Biodistribution and pulmonary toxicity of intratracheally instilled graphene oxide in mice
Graphene and its derivatives (for example, nanoscale graphene oxide (NGO) have emerged as extremely attractive nanomaterials for a wide range of applications, including diagnostics and therapeutics. In this work, we present a systematic study on the in vivo distribution and pulmonary toxicity of NGO for up to 3 months after exposure. Radioisotope tracing and morphological observation demonstrated that intratracheally instilled NGO was mainly retained in the lung. NGO could result in acute lung injury (ALI) and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Such NGO-induced ALI was related to oxidative stress and could effectively be relieved with dexamethasone treatment. In addition, we found that the biodistribution of 125I-NGO varied greatly from that of 125I ions, hence it is possible that nanoparticulates could deliver radioactive isotopes deep into the lung, which might settle in numerous ‘hot spots’ that could result in mutations and cancers
The lung is the primary organ invaded by nanomaterials because of the communication of this organ with the outside atmosphere through the respiratory tract. In addition, nanoparticles (<100 nm) have previously been found to deposit mainly in the lungs.
Biodistribution of NGO after intratracheal instillation. (a) SPECT images of mice at several time points after intratracheal instillation with 125I-NGO or Na125I. (b) Distribution of 125I-NGO in the blood and major organs of mice at five different time points. N=5 in each group. Values are presented as the mean±s.e.m. (c) Comparison of Na125I and 125I-NGO distribution in mice at 1 and 6 h after intratracheal instillation. N=5 in each group. Values are presented as the mean±s.e.m. (d) The morphological observation of the lungs from mice instilled with Milli-Q water or 10 mg kg−1 NGO. The dorsal view shows the distribution of NGO (black region).
CELL INJURY IN THE LUNG IS OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH LUNG EDEMA, WHICH IS THE RESULT OF THE LEAKAGE OF FLUID FROM THE CAPILLARIES INTO THE INTERSTITIAL AND ALVEOLAR SPACES AND THE LOSS OF THE LUNG’S ABILITY TO PUMP FLUID OUT OF THE AIRSPACE. INDEED, WE FOUND THAT NGO LED TO AN INCREASE IN THE LUNG WET/DRY WEIGHT RATIO IN A DOSAGE-DEPENDENT MANNER (FIGURE 2D); THIS RATIO IS AN INDICATOR OF THE SEVERITY OF THE LUNG EDEMA.
Given that NGO caused ALI at 24 h post exposure, we examined the time-dependent pulmonary responses induced by NGO. LDH and ALP activities were elevated at 24 h and then decreased (Figures 3a and b), suggesting that NGO induces early severe cell damage. The peaks of BAL fluid total protein, lung wet/dry weight ratio and BAL fluid differential cell counts occurred at 48 h, suggesting that this is the time point of the most severe disruption of the alveolar–capillary interface, lung edema and neutrophil infiltration (Figures 3c–e).
Moreover, the diffuse lung edema with protein-rich fluid, extensive hemorrhage and significant changes in alveolar architecture were clearly observed 48 h after instillation.
…
COULD THIS BE COVID???
Thank you...I found a link to some of the articles posted in your article that did not open for me:
https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-016-0168-y
https://www.biospectrumasia.com/news/47/19049/australia-develops-nanoworms-based-anti-viral-coating-for-face-masks.html
I bought a package of masks the other day and found - i swear to God - talcum powder inside of them! Can you believe it? What a preposterous thing to put into a mask! Especially considering the class action lawsuit brought against the makers of Talcum powder recently. Good golly.